#ultimately it doesn’t matter what i think because there's no single instance or person in the history of the fandom who's to blame

[katsigian]

Part of me wanted to leave the cp/77 fandom permanently for Obvious Reasons but then I realized something 🌚

If some of the most toxic, manipulative people can still be active in the fandom (i mean as a whole, not just tumblr) then so can I <3 and everyone else who feels like they've been left out or feel like they don't belong, you've been tricked. You do belong. Anyone who's here to create because they love their OCs and the game, belong here far more than anyone else who's hurt others or created division

So I'll still be here. I'm returning with all of my silly little pretty boys hope you missed them because I'm about to be so unhinged about them stay safe out there

Peace and love on planet earth <3

[fallout-drabbles-n-stuff]

It's pride month! You know what that means!

What's your LGBTQ+ HCs for the companions?

I personally think they're all bisexual/pansexual save for X6-88 being aromantic asexual(+ gay).

Here we go-

Starting off I acknowledge in canon they are all very much so bisexual but we’re gonna push that aside for a moment-

Cait:

100% into girlies. I feel like she tried some experimentation but ultimately figured out she exclusively likes women. Mean lesbian.

Curie:

Definitely demisexual, once she makes a connection though she is locked in and it doesn’t matter the partners gender identity. May have a slight preference for women though…

Danse:

I think he starts out claiming to be heterosexual with a few instances of repressed homoromantic tendencies but eventually realizes that he’s just bisexual.

Deacon:

Down to his core, Deacon is pansexual but he has a tendency to be influenced by whatever identity he has to portray so I guess he’s more fluid??

Gage:

Pansexual on the basis of not giving a single shit- he sees something good and he goes for it, kinda the vibe of being a raider, ain’t it?

Hancock:

Yeah…pansexual with a preference for men.

Macready:

Heterosexual but secretly bi-curious.

Maxson:

A BIG closeted bisexual, closeted only because he’s afraid of backlash from even higher ups for not continuing his line traditionally.

Nick:

Demisexual with a preference for anyone wearing snazzy attire 😉 seriously though, it’s doesn’t matter the gender or identity, he just has to have a solid connection first.

Piper:

A tried and true bisexual lady™️

Preston:

He’s bisexual but definitely prefers men.

X6-88:

On point- he is aromantic.

[the1975attheirverybest]

hi! longtime lurker, first time commenter and i need your help with something. i made a tiktok video about a recent 1975 show i went to and someone left a comment saying “he’s a racist but sure” referring to matty and i feel conflicted about their comment because while i don’t believe that’s true, i also don’t know if my love for the band and for matty has made me quick to dismiss some of his more problematic behavior. i know you’ve talked a bit on here about wrestling with this and i was curious if you would mind sharing how that process has been for you and where you’ve landed with it. thanks in advance :)

Hiii 💗 thank you for reaching out.

Yeah, this is something that came up a lot for me last year and earlier this year with the whole podcast drama. I’ve spoken about it in great detail before but since the tags STILL 😡 don’t work on here I can’t find the posts.

I think it’s ultimately a personal choice that you have to make for yourself. I won’t tell you what to think or do, but I can tell you how *I* think about it.

It’s normal to question yourself, I think. I mean, none of us really know Matty on a personal level, right? I think o wondered if, like, my love for his work and attraction to him had blinded me to some bitter truths about who he is. And I tend to pride myself on critical thinking and always talk about nuance on here, so what kind of person would I be if I didn’t practice what I preach, right? I took a step back and examined it all.

I went back through interviews, stage “speeches,” tweets, jokes, etc. saw them IN CONTEXT (cuz we all know how the internet loves to take stuff out of context and twist its meaning), thought about each instance and whether I perceived it to be harmful, bigoted, etc. or not, and kinda decided from there. I went through each and every single accusation, looking at it in context, thought about it, heard the arguments, and made my decision.

The conclusion that I came to after this examination, looking at actual evidence and the actual words that he used and the situations that he’s used them in, is that he’s not racist. Not at all.

A racist person wouldn’t write songs like Loving Someone, LIIWMI, etc. mind you this all happened in 2018, NOT the summer of 2020 when it was suddenly hip and cool and profitable for celebrities to be “woke.” I think he has a career-long record of showing exactly who he is. Whether it was in his best interest to do so or not.

I also found, through this digging and thinking about it, that he has his blind spots (as every human being does). He’s insanely privileged and doesn’t always seem to realize how his privilege has molded his experience of the world. The nepo-baby argument that he always makes is a great example of this. His stance on gender is also another example. So, as a result of his privilege, he will sometimes do or say things and assume that everyone will understand them the way that he does, and that’s not always the case.

To be clear, I’m not saying he’s naive. He’s not. But sometimes he assumes that the things that are common sense to him are common sense to everyone else. Maybe to some people those blind spots of his are too much. That’s fine.

In the end, what matters to me is that he be someone that I can stand behind. I can have faith in. I can believe is a good human being. Even if he does make mistakes sometimes. And I believe that to be true. He’s not bigoted, he’s not racist, he’s not a bad person. He speaks his mind. He stands up for what’s right even when it gets him into trouble. He’s smart, he’s self-reflective, he’s kind. BUT he’s a human being. He’s flawed. He says things too quickly without considering the consequences sometimes, he gets caught up in situations and feelings. He’s not perfect. And that’s okay. To me it is anyway.

It’s possible to disagree with someone and still love and support them. As long as the thing we disagree on isn’t “should black people have rights?” “Are women inherently inferior to men?” “Do queer folks deserve human rights?” Then it’s perfectly okay for him to sometimes do or say things that I wouldn’t. I have no expectation of him to be like 1000% flawless every single moment or every single day. Nor do I expect him to be in complete agreement with me all the time.

To be clear, supporting him doesn’t mean making excuses for him or looking the other way when he does do something “wrong.” I have called him out on stuff before and I will continue to do so. I guess I just don’t think that the occasional mistake makes him a bad person. And maybe that’s not right. But I know I’ve made mistakes before. And if it weren’t for the kindness of others who took the time to show me that I was wrong and to teach me, I wouldn’t have learned to grow.

Maybe that’s not for everyone. That’s okay. There are other artists who strive for that kind of flawless image. Perhaps those are better suited for people who dislike Matty’s way of doing things.

Ultimately it’s really down to what you believe him to be and whether or not you think you can, in good faith, support him. So, above all else, I would say tune out what the world thinks for a bit and find out what YOU think. Everything else will fall into place after that.

[giftfromblythe]

Time and Space

In some other place

In some other time

There is a me

That knew you

When you still remembered

How to be kind

In some other world

In some other era

There was a me

That never knew you

When you only remembered

How to be cruel

In some other dimension

In some other epoch

There will be a me

That forgives you

When you finally remember

How to be gentle

One of the most difficult things to endure in mental illness is the role our relationships with others play in how, when, and why it expresses itself the way it does.  These are the people who should be the support we fall back on when we can’t do it on our own; and oftentimes, they step up to be that helping hand.  Sometimes, however, they don’t.  Sometimes their lack of understanding, their panic, their own extremes of emotion, simply cause more pain.  Sometimes they may even be the source of the pain in the first place.  That latter group is what this poem is about.

I’ve written before about boundaries and why setting them in a measured, healthy way has been important in my recovery.  Today I’m going to talk about how I knew what boundaries to set and why.

I’m going to come out and say it: I had some relationships in my life that were toxic up to and including being abusive towards me.  Emotional and verbal, primarily.  Note that I did not say the people involved in them were abusers.  It’s a distinction I’ve learned to make—abusers exist, but not everyone who behaves in a toxic or abusive manner is, themselves, an abuser.

It’s taken a very long time for me to be able to make that distinction.  This is a poem I wrote within the last six months; I turn thirty this year and I’ve spent most of my life believing myself a victim…which in some instances was true, but it wasn’t helping me to think about it that way.

So here’s the distinction, so maybe you can learn it earlier than I did: people do things out of their own fears, angst, and feelings of helplessness, and we often see others as the source of those feelings and the sometimes cruel things we do when overwhelmed by them, when ultimately it’s our own responsibility how we act.  Anyone can behave toxically towards anyone else; frequently we do.   Sometimes it’s just us lashing out on rare occasions, sometimes it’s a pattern, sometimes it’s an attempt to undermine or control others so we can feel better about ourselves, causing them harm in the process—that last one is what we call abuse.

That’s the behavior.  It’s a pattern, and a lot of the time the person who’s doing it either doesn’t realize it’s abusive or knows it’s wrong but doesn’t know how to stop.  In those cases, it’s the behavior that’s the problem, not the person.  That’s a pattern that can be broken, if the person is willing to put in the time and effort to make the change and you are willing to point it out to them when they don’t see it themselves—in a calm, rational, gentle manner, which is the hard part when it hurts that damn much.  

When they do know it’s wrong, and actively continue it, maybe try to convince you that’s not what it really is and you’re overreacting every single time…that’s when it goes beyond behavior and into some major warning signs.  That’s when you get the hell out.

So in my case, I had a number of people in my life who behaved toxically or abusively but didn’t recognize the behavior for what it was.  Fair enough, it can be hard to identify.  As I’ve mentioned before, cutting everyone who ever behaved that way out of my life entirely would have left me very, very alone.  I had to set boundaries for what I was willing to give, but also what I was willing to accept.

I can accept an occasional snappish comment when someone is stressed.  It doesn’t bother me because I know it isn’t about me.

I can accept someone dropping off my radar for a bit and then coming back.  That’s really just about them needing time and space to deal with what’s in their own heads; believe me, I’ve done the same.

I can accept disagreement on matters both large and small.  I don’t expect everyone to have the same opinions and beliefs as I do, that’d be unrealistic.  I simply say, “I see we don’t agree about this, and that’s fine.  Let’s talk about something we both enjoy,” and move on.

I can accept comments made out of ignorance.  I know that I have information about the situation they do not—often they don’t have it because I haven’t told them.  Probably because they’ve made similar comments before and previous attempts just resulted in disagreement.  So I let myself think only of what I know to be true and let the rest slide away.  I choose what to trust people with, and what I will not trust them with.

What I can’t accept is when personal information or old wounds are used to hurt me or someone else, deliberately.  That is the line I draw.  That is when I say: “That was out of line.  I think we need to give each other space and then try to reconnect when we’re all calmer.”  If it’s part of a pattern, that is when I remind someone of why that particular thing they said or did is hurtful and ask them to think about what they want out of a relationship with me, because harming each other is not something I’m willing to preserve in a relationship.  In the most extreme cases of it continuing despite that question, that is when I would cut someone out of my life.

It is hard.  It is so freaking hard.

But I don’t want to live my life fearing the people around me.  So I do what I have to, to make a life without that fear possible.

This poem is a reflection of the evolution of thought that led me to this approach.  It is born from my yearning for a time when a particularly painful family relationship wasn’t complicated by the other person’s fear, helplessness, and misery being expressed in harmful ways.  It is also, at the end, something I’m beginning to see in my current life: a chance for a better relationship, no dimensional travel required.

I hope talking about this with y’all has given you a bit of perspective on what boundaries you might set.  As always, thanks for reading.  Take care, listen well, and share your stories.

—Blythe

[thebibliosphere]

So I'm currently unemployed because I got fired for taking too much sick leave (it was legally sketchy blah blah blah but in the end I just can't work and take care of myself and investigate my mystery health problems at the same time). So I've been spending more time writing!

I really admire your writing and loved Hunger Pangs. I'm looking forward to the poly elements developing and I'm wondering if you have any advice for writing about poly. I've made one of my projects a snarky take on "write what you know" ... Apparently what I know is southern gothic meets Pacific northwest gothic, chronic illness pandemic surrealism, and falling back-asswards into threesomes.

I know this is a very open-ended question and I don't expect an answer, I'm just curious about it if you have the energy. As a writer, trying to write honestly / realistically about polyamory/enm, I'm curious if you have any thoughts on what's different about portraying monogamy or nonmonogamy in books, romance or erotica or otherwise.

I'm trying to read examples but it's hard to find examples that fit the niche I'm looking at. Excuse me if this question is nonsense, it's the cluster headaches.

I'm sorry to hear you've been dealing with all that and solidarity on the cluster headaches. But I'm glad you're finding an outlet through writing! And I hope you're happy with an open-ended ramble in response because oh boy, there's a lot I could talk about and I could probably do a better job of answering this sort of thing with more specific questions, but let's see where we end up.

There's definitely a big difference between writing polyamory/ENM (ethical non-monogamy) and what people often expect from monogamous love stories.

Just even from a purely sales and marketing standpoint, the moment you write anything polyamorous (or even just straight up LGBTQIA+ without the ENM) you're going to get considered closer to being erotica/obscene than hetero romances. It's an unfair bias, but it's one that exists in our society. But also the Amazon algorithm and their shitty, shitty human censors. Especially the ones that work the weekends. (Talking to you, Carlos 🖕.)

So not only do you start out hyper-aware that you're writing something that is highly stigmatized or fetishized (at least I'm hyper-aware) but that you are also writing for a niche market that is starving for positive content because the content that exists is either limited, not what they want, or is problematic in some fashion i.e. highly stigmatized or fetishy. And even then, the wants, desires, and expectations of the community you're writing for are complex and wildly varied and hard to fit into an easy formula.

When writing monogamous love stories, there is a set expectation that’s really hard to fuck up once you know it. X person meets Y. Attraction happens, followed by some sort of minor conflict/resolution. Other plot may happen. A greater catalyst involving personal growth for both parties (hopefully) happens. Follow the equation to its ultimate resolution and achieve Happily Ever After. 

But writing ENM is... a lot more difficult, if only because of the pure scope of possibilities. You could try to follow the same equation and shove three (or more) people into it, but it rarely works well. Usually because if you’re doing it right, you won’t have enough room in a single character arc to allow for enough growth, and if ENM requires anything in abundance, it’s room to grow.

And this post is huge so I’m going to put the rest under a cut :)

There's also a common refrain in certain online polyam/ENM circles that triads and throuples are overrepresented in media and they may be right to some extent. Personally, I believe the issue isn't that triads and throuples are overrepresented, but that there is such minuscule positive rep of ethical non-monogamy in general, that the few tiny instances we have of triads in media make it seem like it's "everywhere" when in actuality, it's still quite rare and the media we do have often veers into Unicorn Hunter fetish porn. Which is its own problematic thing. And just to be clear, I’m not including this part to dissuade you from writing "falling back-asswards into threesomes." If anything, I need more of it and would hook it directly into my brain if I could. I'm just throwing it out there into the void in the hope that someone will take the thought and run with it, lol.

I’d love to see more polyfidelitous rep in fiction, just as much as I’d like to see more relationship anarchy too. More diversity in fiction is always good.

Another thing that differs in writing ENM romance vs conventional monogamy is the feeling like you need to justify yourself. There's a lot of pressure to be as healthy and non-problematic as possible because you are being held to a higher standard of criticism. Both from people from without the ENM communities, and from the people within. Granted, some people don't give a shit and just want to read some fantastic porn (valid) but there are those who will cheerfully read Fifty Shades of Bullshit and call it "spicy" and "romantic," then turn around and call the most tooth-rottingly-sweet-fluff about a queer platonic polycule heresy. That's just the way the world works.

(Pro-tip for author life in general: never read your own reviews; that way madness lies. I glimpsed one the other day that tagged Hunger Pangs as “ethical cheating” and just about had an aneurism.)

And while that feeling of needing to justify yourself comes from a valid place of being excluded from the table of socially accepted norms, it can also be to the detriment of both the story and the subject matter at hand. I've seen some authors bend so far over backward to avoid being problematic in their portrayal of ENM, they end up being problematic for entirely different reasons. Usually because they give such a skewed, rose-tinted perspective of how things work, it ends up coming off as well... a bit culty and obnoxious tbh.

“Look how enlightened we are, freed from the trappings of monogamy and jealousy! We’re all so honest and perfect and happy!”

Yeah, uhu, sure Jan. Except here’s the thing, not all jealousy is bad. How you act on it can be, but jealousy itself is an important tool in the junk drawer that is the range of human emotion. It can clue us in to when we’re feeling sad or neglected, which in turn means we should figure out why we’re feeling those things. Sometimes it’s because brains are just like that and anxiety is a thing. Other times it’s because our needs are actually being neglected and we are in an unhealthy situation we need to remedy. You gotta put the work in to figure it out. Which is the same as any style of relationship, whether it’s mono, polyam or whatever flavor of ENM you subscribe to* And sometimes you just gotta be messy, because that’s how humans are. Being afraid to show that mess makes it a dishonest portrayal, and it also robs you of some great cannon fodder for character development.

Which brings me in a roundabout way to my current pet peeve in how certain writers take monogamous ideals and apply them to ENM, sometimes without even realizing it. The “Find the Right Person and Settle Down” trope.

Often, in this case, ENM or polyamory is treated as a phase. Something you mature out of with age or until you meet “The One(tm).” This is, of course, an attempt to follow the mono style formula expected in most romances. And while it might appeal to many readers, it’s uh, actually quite insulting. 

To give an example, I am currently seeing this a lot in the Witcher fandom. 

Fanon Netflix!Jaskier is everyone's favorite ethical slut until he meets Geralt then woops, wouldn’t you know, he just needed to find The One(tm). Suddenly, all his other sexual and romantic exploits or attractions mean nothing to him. Let's watch as he throws away a core aspect of his personality in favor of a man. 

Yeah... that sure showed those societal norms... 

If I were being generous, I’d say it’s a poor attempt at showing New Relationship Euphoria and how wrapped up people can become in new relationships. But honestly, it’s monogamous bias eking its way in to validate how special and unique the relationship is. Because sometimes people really can’t think of any other way to show how important and valid a relationship is without defining it in terms of exclusivity. Which is a fundamental misunderstanding of how ENM works for a lot of people and invalidates a lot of loving, serious and long-term relationships.

This is not to say that some polyam/poly-leaning people can't be happy in monogamous relationships! I am! (I consider myself ambiamorous. I'm happy with either monogamy or polyamory, it really just depends on the relationship(s) I’m in.) But I also don't regard my relationship with a mono partner as "settling down" or "growing up." It's just a choice I made to be with a person I love, and it's a valid one. Just like choosing to never close yourself off to multiple relationships is valid. And I wish more people realized that, or rather, I wish the people writing these things knew that :P

Anyway, I think I’ve rambled enough. I hope this collection of incoherent thoughts actually makes some sense and might be useful. 

----

*A good resource book that doesn't pull any punches in this regard is Polysecure by Jessica Fern. It's a wonderfully insightful read that explores the messier side of consensual non-monogamy, especially with how it can be affected by trauma or inter-relationship conflicts. But it also shows how to take better steps toward healthy, ethical non-monogamy (a far better job than More Than Two**) and conflict resolution, making it a valuable resource both for someone who is a part of this relationship style***, but also for writers on the outside looking in who might have a very simple or misguided idea of what conflict within polyam/ENM relationships might look like, vs traditional monogamous ones.

** The author of More Than Two has been accused of multiple accounts of abuse within the polyamorous community, with many of his coauthors having spoken out about the gaslighting and emotional and psychological damage they experienced while in a relationship with him. A lot of their stories are documented here: https://www.itrippedonthepolystair.com/ (warning: it is not light material and deals with issues of abuse, gaslighting, and a whole other plethora of Yikes.) While some people still find More Than Two helpful reading, there are now, thankfully, much, much better resources out there.

*** Some people consider polyam/ENM to be part of their identity or orientation, while others view it as a relationship style.It largely depends on the individual. 

[raifenlf]

Why Loki’s Sylvie Is A Mary Sue

So I am firmly in the camp that Sylvie on the Loki series was/is a Mary Sue.  The last episode made me feel better and like maybe the show was doing a thing where they were faking you out that she was a Mary Sue only to show she was actually sort of a bad guy and I liked that.  But all the recent interviews make me think the show wants to go back to her being a Mary Sue.

But I feel like when I call her out for being a Mary Sue people tell me what are you talking about, she’s not a Mary Sue, bad things happen to her, etc.  But that doesn’t actually make her not a Mary Sue.  

Also, before we start, I know some people find Mary Sue sexist.  But I personally use the term for guys and girls. I don’t use the term to belittle women.  I use the term to criticize a poorly written character.

And I know Mary Sue is often used to describe fanfic characters.  But to me, this series is kind of like a fanfic because the writers took a character who had been in canon MCU material for ten years and then created characters around that character.  So, I kind of review it like I would a fanfic.  It’s very different than if the writers had created a brand new show with all of their own new characters.

Anyway, if you are not totally familiar with the Mary Sue term, then check this out:

I know the term Mary Sue probably means different things to different people.  But I have always used these guidelines when I write my own fanfic to make sure my characters never come off as a Mary Sue.

This article really gives you a full scale of what a Mary Sue is.  If you start reading it, you’ll immediately see why Sylvie is.  But I’m going to take out the parts that most fit Sylvie just to highlight why I believe she is a Mary Sue.  I apologize for this being so long.

Mary Sue Character Traits

Personality

Erm... what personality? The typical Mary Sue doesn't have one per se, because she isn't meant to be a character; rather, she's an entity by which the author makes cool stuff happen.

I feel like that is Sylvie in a nutshell.  She doesn’t have a personality.  I feel like even though she ate screentime, I still don’t really know her at all.  The writers love to say she’s badass.  That’s not a personality.  

Sometimes when I am writing stories for fun and creating new characters, I like to take surveys as my fictional characters.  Like the kind of surveys you’d see in a magazine, like personality types, what’s your dating style, etc.  I figure if I don’t know what my character would do in any of those situations, then I need to keep working on my character.  And if I was trying to fill out a survey pretending I was Sylvie I would have no idea what to answer because she doesn’t have a personality.  She’s just “cool”.

What little personality a Mary Sue has isn't as important as how other characters react to it. No matter how shy or socially awkward Mary Sue is supposed to be, other characters will be inexplicably drawn to her

This is so Sylvie.  Loki falls in love with her...why, exactly?  He falls in love with her in the big Nexus event moment...why?  Because she had a tough childhood?  Mobius spends like two seconds with her in a car and goes from hating her to saying she’s his favorite Loki.  For. No. Particular. Reason.

She's extremely persuasive; everyone finds her opinions to be better than their own

She enchants Hunter B-15 and then immediately Hunter B-15 makes it her whole entire life mission to back Sylvie up.  

And occasionally she'll be a complete asshole...This can manifest itself in several ways...The author wants to write a badass but doesn't know how. This leads to a character who mistreats everyone around her and is never called out on her abrasive, casually abusive behavior.

Sylvie talked down to Loki and treated him like garbage for all of episode three, but it was never portrayed as a bad thing and we never got any impression Sylvie later felt bad for the way she treated Loki

The author doesn't know how to hold back the character, meaning that she will succeed at practically everything. This means that when she encounters rules or authority figures who would otherwise prevent her from doing what she wants to do, she rolls right through them (and they praise her for her "boldness" in defying regulations). If a bad guy is violent and aggressive, she can beat him by being more violent and aggressive (with all that entails). It's impossible for her to go overboard because she's protected by Protagonist-Centered Morality.

Sylvie is shown as a kid to immediately be able to grab a Tempad and run away.  And she can kick ass way better than Loki, for no known reason.  She is always able to fight back against the TVA when they attack her.  And she can kill lots of innocent TVA agents but it’s okay because TVA bad, Sylvie good.

Skills

She will always be superior to the canon characters, regardless of what canon has established they can do or whether it makes any sense.

Whose skill was needed to defeat Alioth?  Sylvie’s.  Of course.  Sylvie needed to teach Loki her skills in order for him to succeed (!).  And again, she is literally called the superior Loki.

Relatedly, there's no effort to her skills. She never actually trains or learns anything to become more powerful; she just wins the Super Power Lottery, or is a freakish natural learner, or is just Inexplicably Awesome

We’re told Sylvie literally taught herself magic.  She literally taught herself to enchant people.  That. Makes. No. Sense.  Like, I have so many questions.  Like, why would it even occur to her to teach herself that?  And how????????????  This is really lazy writing.

Canon Character Relationships

Mary Sue is often designed to hook up with another character, often as a form of Wish Fulfillment. This isn't that bad in and of itself (okay, it is kinda weird), but Mary Sue accomplishes this without any sense of realism. She just grabs her lover's attention straight away, and their relationship will never face any obstacles or tension; it's true love from the start and nothing else. The biggest giveaway is if the love interest is explicitly the author's favorite character, and she essentially "cures" him of all the angst that ails him (at the expense of his characterization).

Yeah, so...this one should be pretty obvious to anyone who watched the show.  Loki literally falls in love with Sylvie immediately, and then he suddenly turns from “villain” to “hero” just because of loving her.  And this was definitely at the expense of his characterization.  And Loki just knows he falls in love with her.  There’s not even any moments of hmm what do I feel for this person?  It’s just true love, immediately.

She will be related to a canon character in some way. This (marginally) helps explain such phenomena as her being a Copy Cat Sue and other characters accepting her so easily.

Sylvie is a Loki variant.  They use this to help explain why Loki is drawn to her and why their falling in love immediately “makes sense”.

Most characters give her more heed than they normally would. The good guys never stop praising her

Seriously, it was so over the top and OOC for Loki to gush over her.  He literally tells her she’s amazing.  They don’t even make it subtle.

Characters' previously established personalities change in reaction to her. Proud, arrogant gimps suddenly acknowledge her superiority in everything. Reckless youths will listen to all her advice. Responsible leaders will defer to her instead. Villains will obsess with her to the detriment of all else. Extremely competent characters will become stumbling buffoons who require her help to do anything. Sweet, mild-mannered characters whom the author doesn't like turn evil and insult her. They all become unnaturally focused on her in some way.

Again, Loki’s whole personality changed in reaction to her.  He became a buffoon who needed her help to enchant the Alioth because of course he couldn’t do anything without her!  Hunter B-15 goes from doing whatever the TVA said to fighting the TVA just because of Sylvie.

Story Elements

Mary Sue is without exception a single-person Spotlight-Stealing Squad. The entire story hinges on her existence; if you removed her, there would be no story. 

Sylvie undoubtedly drove the whole story this season.  It all became about HER meeting the TVA heads because of HER trauma.  Loki’s life was only saved at the beginning because the TVA was trying to capture HER.  And SHE was the one who started the whole multiverse (!).

Mary Sue is The Chosen One, even if the setting already has one. There are many ways she can accomplish this: she can be a Sailor Earth type who "shares" the position with the canon hero; she may be vaguely "destined to help the destined one fulfill their destiny" (i.e. do all the work except the final blow so that the prophecy is still technically correct); or the canon hero may be revealed to be a Fake Ultimate Hero all along. Being the Chosen One doesn't necessarily involve her being a God-Mode Sue, especially as authors become aware of the phenomenon and try to avoid it, but it does make her critically important to the world and allows her to continue stealing the spotlight without the "god mode" label.

HWR wanted Sylvie to come with Loki in the end, like she was chosen all along right alongside Loki.  Like one of the most important characters in the entire MCU is now this character who we only met a few episodes ago.

Most Sues have an unusually Dark and Troubled Past. It's often used to create a Sympathetic Sue, but any type of Sue can have one

They tell us, over and over, how hard Sylvie’s life was because she was kidnapped by the TVA in order to create sympathy for her.

She almost never does anything wrong. In the rare instance that she does, it's usually; (a) a way for the author to disclaim her being a Mary Sue by introducing a single imperfection (that has no bearing on anything anyway), and (b) designed to show her smarts by making her feel instant remorse, and she'll be Easily Forgiven anyway:

So this one hopefully will not come true, as a lot can change between now and when the show is taped. But if the show goes on the way the behind the scenes team is talking, Sylvie immediately felt remorse for betraying Loki, and Loki has already forgiven her and is desperately looking for her.  Ugh.

Alternatively, she is more than capable of doing something wrong, be it in general moral terms or something that goes against whatever code she abides by, and she maybe even frequently does so, but don't expect the other characters or the narrative to ever acknowledge or comment on it in any real capacity. If the other characters do call her out, expect them to be treated like they're the problem for daring to criticize her at all.

Mobius calls her out for killing people, but Sylvie immediately says he’s a bad person and then Mobius agrees, because, of course.

She will often suffer from Special Snowflake Syndrome; i.e., she has a trait or backstory that sets her apart from her group or race.

She is the only female Loki, thus making her the special one among all the Lokis in episode five.

Presentation

In visual media, the camera just can't stop staring at her.

The camera would follow her in fight scenes rather than Loki.

Mary Sue Tropes

Okay, so there are specific Mary Sue tropes that Sylvie is.  One of those is Copy Cat Sue, which I think was referenced before.

Copy Cat Sue

A lot of fanfic writers...start to write something because of their passion for this character, but they find something about the character that doesn't mesh well. Maybe they're the wrong gender or are otherwise not close enough to the author's expectations...In any case, rather than put them through the Possession Sue process, they just get a Clone-O-Matic™ and out pops a Copy Cat Sue...the character might be intended as a replacement for the canon character, but without whatever icky traits the author hates. They'll then rob the spotlight, prove the canon character to be unworthy of his/her position, and either relegate the character to obsolescence or, perhaps, even remove them entirely.

Sylvie is basically a clone of Loki, she is a variant.  But she absolutely robbed the spotlight of Loki’s, and they literally call her the superior Loki.  I mean, they are literally not even being subtle about this.  And there was a feeling by myself (and a lot of other viewers) that Sylvie might ultimately replace Loki in the MCU. 

Black Hole Sue

Much like a black hole, this is a Mary Sue who "sucks in" the plot and characters to her. Characters will behave outside their personalities, logic will be defied, and rules will be broken for her sake.

Sylvie really does suck up all the plot and Loki definitely behaves outside of his personality just to fit the Sylvie show.

Jerk Sue

A Mary Sue who is mean or maybe even cruel, but are still treated as an ideal person.

Once again, Sylvie is basically a jerk all of episode three, but you’ve got Loki falling over himself to call her amazing in just the next episode.

Relationship Sue

A Mary Sue who exists to be the perfect mate for a specific character...this character has everything in the plot conspiring to enforce this One True Pairing...in Fanfiction, they are the perfect beloved of a canon character.

They literally have Mobius speculate that Loki falling in love with Sylvie is so extraordinary that it causes an entire Nexus event, that’s how huge this One True Pairing is (!).  And Sylvie is the love interest of Loki, the only character who had been around before the beginning of the series

TLDR: Sylvie has all the tropes of a classic Mary Sue character.  So calling Sylvie a Mary Sue isn’t being sexist or just randomly hating on the character.  If you use common Mary Sue characteristics to examine the character, she just has too many of these characteristics to ignore.

[smhalltheurlsaretaken]

do you think the jedi prohibit 'frivolous uses of the force'?? because i see it a lot in fic but i swear i distinctly remember obi-wan using the force to pull a literal chair over lmfao

Yoooo, I've been wanting to write a post about that for like a week xD Okay, so here's the thing: I started answering this one, confident that I knew where the use of the word 'frivolous' came from - but it turned out that I was wrong, so I'm actually a bit baffled about its origin. But here goes:

(@cacodaemonia I know you were interested in this topic?)

No, I don't think the Jedi prohibit that. I don't think the Jedi even have 'frivolous' use of the Force as a concept. The idea that they prohibit it, or at least frown upon it, is very likely rooted in the AotC scene of Anakin levitating a piece of fruit.

Wookieepedia cites that scene and that scene only on the topic of frivolousness in the page on Telekinesis.

But the word frivolous isn't used in that scene! Who came up with it? Obi-Wan being grumpy about Anakin levitating the fruit could mean just about anything. Maybe Jedi frown upon showing off in front of a diplomat you're meant to be protecting in a professional way. Maybe Obi-Wan and only Obi-Wan disapproves of Anakin levitating stuff because he kept doing it around the apartment as a kid, just to be a little shit. Maybe Jedi frown upon playing with your food with the Force, which wouldn't necessarily be linked with it being 'frivolous' but just with 'don't be gross.'

Now I thought it came from the novelization using that specific word, but it doesn't! The novelization is based on the original script as opposed to the dialogue in the movie (it actually came out before the movie, so that's why) and the scene is longer in them both and seems to confirm what I said about how it could mean a lot of other things (because he isn't just levitating it originally, he's playing with it):

(novelization)

PADME: You did that? [ANAKIN looks up - wide-eyed innocence.] ANAKIN: What? [PADME scowls at him. PADME jabs at the fruit - ANAKIN subtly moves his hand and it lifts up from the plate and hovers in front of her.] PADME: That! Now stop it! [PADME laughs. ANAKIN laughs. She reaches out for the fruit - it loops.] PADME (continuing): Anakin!! [ANAKIN moves his fingers. The fruit flies into his hand.] ANAKIN: I'm not really supposed to do that... for fun, I mean. If Master Obi-Wan were here, he'd be very grumpy. [ANAKIN is pleased. He cuts the fruint (sic) into several pieces and sends one back to PADME. She bites it out of the air and laughs.]

(script)

Even taking Anakin at face value, this does not say there is an Order-wide ban on 'frivolous' uses of the Force. Again, maybe Force-assisted food shenanigans are frowned upon. Maybe Anakin isn't supposed to mess with people with the Force for fun. Maybe it's just Anakin assuming, as he sometimes does.

I think 'frivolous' might come from one of the EU books - it's not from No Prisoners (the Karen Travis TCW book) though, so I have no idea who might have used it in that context first??

Anyway, the issue in fic is that 'frivolous' is often confused with 'casual.' Hence the Obi-Wan thing imo.

One, 'frivolous' is judgy - it gives it a sense of sin, something that the Jedi... don't seem to have that much of a concept of? Dressing 'immodestly' isn't condemned, for example. I don't see the Order as a whole (there are sticks in the mud everywhere) having a thing against a concept as vague as 'frivolousness.' I mean... Yoda? His whole idea of fun is to mess with people and cackle, and his teaching methods include massive trolling, teasing the grown-up Masters with his gaggle of kiddos and whatnot. You cannot tell me Yoda never tugged on somebody's cloak to make them trip.

Two, frivolous and casual aren't the same thing. Obi-Wan pulling the chair falls into the casual use category imo - and yes, we do see him and others do this kind of casual stuff many times! (Off the top of my head: Obi-Wan grabs the map-ball thingy from the map-reader in AotC - in front of younglings, so there's no fear of a bad example being set - Yoda calls his stick to his hand in AotC, Obi-Wan pulls a chair in TCW s2, Jedi call their lightsabers to them all the time - though it's usually in combat settings, so it doesn't necessarily count, Obi-Wan closes a door in AotC - I think Ewan was the one who thought it'd be neat to do it? Idk...)

And I don't agree that "it goes to show their hypocrisy" or whatever. What, because we assume that's what Anakin meant in the AotC scene and because we assume it's 100% an Order-wide thing, and we assume that the Jedi would view using the Force for daily tasks as frivolous, then every single instance of Jedi using the Force for simple every day stuff is hypocritical?! Even though floating freaking fruit around somebody's head and pulling up a chair are absolutely not the same thing? The latter is something you would do no matter whether you use the Force or not - pulling a chair is a normal thing to do. Playing with fruit around someone is a rude thing to do. There's a difference whether or not 'frivolous' stuff is frowned upon.

And also, using the Force is a natural thing. The Jedi do it like they breathe - it's all around them and they're aware of it constantly, and it's not always something they can turn on or off. It's natural that they would use it for daily stuff, and the level of respect that comes attached with using it would necessarily vary from one Jedi to the other. Just look at Quinlan. What, jumping out of a gunship to make an entrance isn't frivolous? Well, Quinlan is a Master, so his views on it are just as valid - just as Jedi - as anybody else's. (Plus Obi-Wan - the Council Member - gives him grief for being late, not for just for being ridiculous, so again - rudeness.)

I can see some Masters being against using the Force with carelessness - and yeah, I can also see some Masters being against using it in a 'fun' way - because you have to be careful with that stuff, but it probably would generate debate. There wouldn't be a definite consensus on what is too much and what isn't.

If "the Jedi all frown upon casually using the Force" is something that Lucas intended to convey in the movie, please correct me and give me a source.

Though it is also entirely possible that Obi-Wan was meant to be a bit hypocritical about it - because he and Anakin have their tensions, and as somewhat of a parental figure it's only natural that he would scold Anakin for stuff that isn't that big of deal, or that he himself has done, because that's what every person who's ever been in charge of a younger person has done at some point. So sure, maybe Obi-Wan scolded Anakin for being too casual with the Force? But I still don't see it as a Big Rule that is in the Jedi Code That Must Not Be Violated and that get you Shamed and Shunned if you dare to have fun with the Force.

(Honestly, it reminds me of 'your Lightsaber is your Life' thing, and Ahsoka and Anakin both separately whining that their Master was going to kill them for losing/breaking theirs. There's a certain level or respect and care expected, the Masters (or... only Obi-Wan and Anakin, lol) nag a bit, aren't always careful enough themselves, the kids make a big deal out of it in front of other people, but ultimately there are zero repercussion whatsoever for actually failing to follow the Master's nagging. Like, Jocasta tells Ahsoka Anakin would totally understand, and it's Ahsoka who insists he wouldn't and makes it into a big thing.)

Again, having Masters tell their students to be respectful of the Force and not to treat it like a joke? Sure. Showing off with the Force in a rude manner being called 'frivolous,' and it being a bad thing? I could see it. Having Masters get pissy about pulling chairs, closing doors or whatever - about doing things you can do with your hands with the Force instead? Maybe, but it wouldn't be an Order-wide thing.

One thing's for certain, we never see a Master directly scolding a student for using the Force casually in the Prequels, the OT or TCW, much less calling it 'frivolous.'

So yeah, gimme Jedi levitating stuff to clean up under the furniture xD

[ailuronymy]

Thoughts on the new discourse? Warrior cats naming conventions and rank names being straight up stolen from native American people? So many people seem to be... Straight up leaving the Fandom or changing all of their fan content and it feels very performative and, people not actually thinking critically and just being scared of getting "cancelled"? I feel like your opinions on these matters are very informed and well written so I wanted to ask given that this blog main theme is, well, warrior cat naming system and that seems to be the main issue of the new discourse.

This is probably going to get long, since there's sort of a lot to say about it in order to talk about this whole thing fairly and constructively, because from what I’ve seen there’s a lot of hyperbole happening, and panicking, and disavowing this series and fandom, and so on, like you say, and also some people genuinely trying to have complex meaningful conversations about racism in xenofiction, and also probably some bad faith actors in the mix--as well as some just... stupid actors. Kind of inevitably what happens when two equally bad platforms for having nuanced discussions--i.e., twitter and tumblr--run headlong into each other, in a fandom space with a majority demographic of basically kids and highly anxious, pretty online teens. I don’t mean that as a criticism of fans or their desire to be liked by peers and “correct” about opinions, it’s just the social landscape of Warriors and I think it’s worth pointing out from the start.  

If I’m totally honest with you, if not for this ask, I wouldn’t actually be commenting on it at all, because none of this is going to impact this blog or change how I run it in any way. But since you’ve asked and frankly I do feel some responsibility to try to disentangle things a little for everyone stressed and confused at the moment, because I know a lot of people look to this blog for guidance of all sorts, I’m going to talk about what I think has happened here, and how to navigate the situation in a reasonable way. 

Quick recap for anyone blissfully unaware: from what I understand, this post (migrated over from a presumably bigger twitter thread) has got a lot of people very worried about Warriors being a racist and appropriative series, and now are trying to figure out what ethically to do about this revelation. The thing I found most interesting about this screenshotted conversation is that it makes a lot of bold claims, but misses some pretty surprising details (in my opinion). If you do look critically at what is being said, here’s a few things to notice--crucially, there are two people talking. 

Person 1 says that a lot of animal fantasy fiction + xenofiction (fiction about non-human/”other” beings, such as animals) is frequently built upon stereotypes of First Nations and Indigenous people, and/or appropriates elements of Indigenous culture and tradition as basically set dressing for “strange” and “alien” races/species etc., and this is a racist, deeply othering, and inappropriate practice. This person is right. 

I’ve spent years researching in this field specifically, so I feel pretty confident in vouching (for whatever that’s worth) that this person is absolutely right in making this point. Not only is it frequently in animal fiction/xenofiction, but it’s insidious, which means often it’s hard to notice when it’s happening--unless you know what you’re looking for, or you are personally familiar with the details or tropes that are being appropriated. Because of the nature of racism, white and other non-First Nations people don’t always recognise this trend within texts--even texts they’re creating--but it’s important for us all, and especially white people, to be more aware, because it’s not actually First Nations’ people’s responsibility to be the sole critics of this tradition of theft and misuse. Appropriation by non-Indigenous people is in fact the problem, which means non-Indigenous people learning and changing is the solution. 

Person 1 offers Warriors as a popular example of a work that has this problem. Notably, this person hasn’t given an example of how Warriors is culpable (at least in this screenshot and I haven’t found the thread itself, because the screenshot is what’s causing this conversation), only that it’s an example of a work that has these problems. And once again, this person is correct. We’ll look at that more in a moment.

Person 2 (three tweets below the first) offers, by comparison, several more specious insights. Firstly, it’s really, really not the only time anyone’s ever talked about this, academically + creatively or in the Warriors fandom specifically, and so that reveals somewhat this person’s previous engagement in the space they’re talking into re: this topic. In other words, this person doesn’t know what has already been said or what is being talked about. Secondly, this person explicitly states that they “[don’t know] much about warrior cats specifically but from what I see it just screams appropriation,” which as a statement I think says something crucial re: the critical lens this person has applied + the amount of forethought and depth of analysis of their criticism of this particular series. 

I’m not saying that using twitter to talk about your personal feelings requires you to research everything you talk about before you shoot your mouth off. However, I personally don’t go into a conversation about a topic I don’t know anything about except a cursory glance to offer bold and scathing criticisms based on what it “just screams” to me. By their own admission, this person isn’t really offering good faith, thoughtful criticism of the series, in line with Person 1′s tweet. Instead, Person 2 is talking pretty condescendingly and emphatically about--as the kids say--the vibes they get from the series, and I’m afraid that just doesn’t hold up well in this court. 

So now that there’s Person 1 (i.e., very reasonable, important, interesting criticism) and Person 2 (i.e., impassioned but completely vibes-based opinion from someone who hasn’t read the books) separated, we can see there’s actually several things happening in this brief snapshot, and some of them aren’t super congruent with each other. 

Person 1 didn’t say “don’t read bad books,” or that you’re a bad person for being a fan of stories that are guilty of this. They suggested people should recognise the ways xenofiction uses Indigenous people and their culture inappropriately and often for profit. My understanding of this tweet is someone offering an insight that might not have occurred to many people, but that is valuable and important to consider going forward in how they view, engage with, and create xenofiction media.

Person 2 uses high modality, evocative language that appeals to the emotions. That’s not a criticism of this person: they’re allowed to talk in whatever tone they want, and to express their personal feelings and opinions. However, rhetorically, this person is using this specific language--consciously or subconsciously--to incense their audience--i.e., you. Are you feeling called to action? What action do you feel called to when you rea their words, despite the fact their claims are not based in their own actual analysis of or engagement with the text? It’s, by their own admission, not analysis at all. Everything they evoke is purely in the name of “not good” vibes. 

Earlier I mentioned that Person 1 is correct that Warriors is absolutely guilty of appropriation of First Nations and Indigenous people and culture. I also mentioned that they didn’t specify how. That’s because I think the most egregious example is in fact the tribe, which in many ways plays into the exact kind of stereotyping and appropriation of First Nations Americans that Person 1 mentions, and not the clans, contrary to Person 2′s suggestion. For instance, in addition to the very loaded name of “tribe”, there’s a lot of racist tropes present in how that group of cats is introduced and how the clan cats interact with them, as well as the more North American-inspired scenery of their home. It’s very blatant as far as racism in this series. 

When it comes to the clans themselves, though, I think it’s muddier and harder to draw clear distinctions of what is directly appropriative, what is coincidentally and superficially reminiscent, and what is not related at all. Part of this difficulty in drawing hard lines comes from the fact that, on a personal level, it actually doesn’t matter: if a First Nations person reads a story and feel it is appropriative or inappropriate, it’s not actually anyone’s place to “correct” them on their reading of the text. Our experiences are unique and informed by our perspectives and values, and no group of people are a monolith, which means within community, there will always be disagreement and differenting points of view. There is no one single truth or opinion, which means that First Nations people even in the same family might have very different feelings about the same text and very different perspectives on how respectful, or not, it might be. 

I’m saying this because something that gets said very often when conversations of racism and similar oppressive systems present/perpetuated in texts comes up, people frequently say: “listen to x voices.” It is excellent advice. However, the less pithy but equally valuable follow-up advice is: “listen to the voices of many people of x group, gather information and perspective, and then ultimately use your own judgement to make an informed opinion for yourself.” It means that you are responsible for you. The insight you can gain by listening to people who know topics and experiences far better than you do is truly invaluable, but if your approach to the world is simply to parrot the first voice, or loudest voice, or angriest voice you come across, you will not really learn anything or be able to develop your own understanding and you certainly won’t be making well-informed judgements. 

In other words, one incomplete tweet thread from two people who are each bringing quite different topics and modes of conversation (or perhaps gripes, in Person 2′s case) to the table is not really enough to go off re: making a decision to leave a fandom, in my opinion. In fact, I think in responding to anything difficult, complex, or problematic (which doesn’t mean what popular adage bandies it about to mean) by trying to distance yourself, or cleanse of it, will ultimately harm you and will not do you any good as a person. It is better, in my opinion, to enter into complex relationships with the world and media and other people in an informed, aware way and with a willingness to learn and sometimes to make mistakes and be wrong, rather than shy away from potential conflict or fear that interacting with a text will somehow taint you or define your morality in absolutes. 

So. Does Warriors have racist and appropriative elements, tropes, and issues in the series? Yes, of course it does, it’s a book-packaged series produced by corporation HarperCollins and written by a handful of white British women and their myriad ghostwriters. Racism is just one part of the picture. The books are frequently also ableist, sexist, and homophobic (or heteronormative, depending how you want to slice it, I guess), just to name some of the most evident problems. 

But does the presence of these issues mean it’s contaminated and shouldn’t be touched? Personally, I don’t think so. Given the nature of existing the world, it’s not possible to find perfect media that is free of any kind of bias, prejudice, or even just ideas or topics or concepts that are challenging or uncomfortable. I think it’s more meaningful to choose to engage with these elements, discuss them, criticise them, learn from them, and acknowledge also that imperfection is the ultimate destiny of all of us, especially creators.

I’m not saying that as a pass, like, “oh enjoy your media willy-nilly, nothing matters, do what you want, think about no-one else ever because we’re all flawed beings,” but rather that it’s important not to look away from the problems in the things we enjoy, rather than cut off all contact and enjoyment when we realise the problems. That doesn’t mean you have to only criticise and always be talking about how bad a thing you like is either, publicly admonishing yourself or the text, because that’s also not a constructive way to engage with media. 

As I said, there’s a lot to say here, and believe it or not, this is honestly the shortest version I could manage. There’s always more to say and plenty I haven’t talked about, but pretty much tl;dr: 

I don’t find Person 2′s commentary particularly compelling, personally, because I think it’s a little broad and a little specious in its conclusions and evidence, and I also suspect that this person is speaking more from their feelings than from a genuine desire to educate or meaningfully criticise, unlike Person 1. That’s not to say Warriors isn’t frequently racist and guilty of the issues Person 1 is discussing, because it is, but I don’t think this tweet thread is a great source of insight into the ongoing history of this problem in xenofiction, or Warriors specifically, on its own. I would recommend exploring further afield to learn more from a variety of sources and form your own opinions. I hope this helps. 

[letstalkabouttvshows]

The long overdue Malex reunion , here some of my thoughts (it might get a bit long, but well, what can you do?🤷🏻‍♀️)

Was I surprised with the amount of progress we got in 3x08? Yes. Did I think the writers would deliver this Malex perfection? Not at all. At least not right now.

Did it make sense though? YES 👏🏻 A 👏🏻THOUSAND👏🏻 TIMES 👏🏻 YES 👏🏻

Here's the main reason: Roswell NM uses A LOT the off screen, fill in the blanks trick.

It has been that way since season 1. So much so that when I started binging the show, one of my first thoughts was: "They sure like to make the audience assume a lot instead of showing it"

Is this a bad thing? Overall, no. Especially when done it right.

Do I believe RNM should ease a bit on let the viewers fill the blank spaces thing? Yes. I think they should.

We are seeing right now how can it go wrong with the lack of mentioning Kyle, for instance. 💔

It just would be better for us, viewers, if there was a nod or something, and not just "ah ok, I'm assuming they all know already where's Kyle". Because people can assume right or wrong and that's where trouble lives.

Again, season 3 is so much better than the previous two when it comes to storytelling. They are fixing the mistakes of season 2 and they are delivering a main arc story that gets us hooked. Bravo! 🌟 To me, they are finally living up to the potential of the show!

But again, fill in the blanks is a thing with them.

So, when it comes to Malex being back, we have to see their story as a whole, since season 1 and not just the events of season 3.

It's everything that happened between them until now.

Luckily for us, the fill in the blanks exercise is much easier to do and to be convinced by it because:

Vlamis and Tyler understood the assignment

Props, props to them. The chemistry between these two is absurd. It's organic, they play off each other so very well and it shows ever since 1x01. Chef's chef's kiss 😘

Michael and Tyler clearly love these characters and love the story they carry. They are invested in telling it right and they do it effortlessly.

Malex doesn't need to have a single line of dialogue and we still can sense their deep love for each other.

To have this kinda of dynamic in a show it's gold. A story can be well written but can reach another level depending who is portraying it. It can be so much more, for the best.

RNM was perfect on the cast of the cosmic not-so-idiots-anymore love story.

If Malex is the fan favorite duo it is, it's because Vlamis and Tyler delivered and keep delivering on each episode.

So everything about 3x08 was a culmination of fill in the blanks, the narrative of 3 and a half seasons and everything in between.

>>>Malex wasn't rushed<<<

These two characters have been in love for 12-13 years.

They genuinely, sincerely, with all they have love each other despite all the chaos surrounding them.

They've tried to run away from it, tried to move on from it, and they still ended up heading towards the other.

Michael is in love with Alex. Always has been, always will. Alex is in love with Michael. Always has been, always will.

That's just the way it is in this little alien story. 👽

Alex poured his heart into a song because he has never been able to say the words. "Wish I found the words when we were 17".

Michael heard the lyrics but walked away because he still was a few steps behind Alex. Not in terms of love, but in terms of moving on from trauma. "Alex is past that. He's past you. He's past me" 💔💔💔

So season 3 begins.

A year has gone by and Michael was hopeful to see Alex again. He didn't walk away in 2x13 because he didn't want to be with Alex, but because he did. Alex, on the other hand, was trying to move forward since Michael left.

For these two cosmic idiots with no communication skills whatsoever, Malex was officially just friends. With tons of baggage, but just that.

The sadness in Michael's eyes when he saw Alex at the bus station with somebody else. 💔

Then, Forrest presented two options for Alex. Walk away from crazy discoveries or stay and go deep into DS. The minute Alex said "aliens?" We knew Alex reasoning behind the question.

He definetely would choose finding out more about the aliens his family was obsessed with. And he did make that choice. Because that choice ultimately meant and revealed he was not ready to walk away from Michael.

Michael, in the chaos of clones and family lineage, went to see Alex in 3x03 and harsh truths were delivered by Alex but, again, it was everything Michael needed to hear.

Even though we could see Alex was trying to hold his own when it came to Michael, in the end of harsh sincerity, he could not resist to say: "wait". And then, he gave Michael the push to progress.

They stayed apart, figuring their own things out. 6 and 3/4 episodes apart.

After a few days in Roswell time, their paths crossed again. Turned out they were working the same case, kinda.

And then 3x08 hit 🔥

They have been apart for most of the first half of the season and with two interactions full of tension. But the story that led up to 3x08 put things in perspective.

And Alex was the one to see it.

If 3x08 taught us something, it's that Alex Manes can put his emotions aside and see things with analytical skills.

With a psycho alien dictator on the loose and with an emotional connection to his cosmic cowboy idiot, Alex needed to step up to handle hot headed Michael and make sure he was safe.

He saw that if he kept defensive, Michael would too.

So, he let his guard down and told the truth. About DS and about why he joined. He knew Michael would listen if he was sincere.

"I did it for you. A world where you feel safe is not gonna built itself. So I had to try. For us".

Here is two people that know they love each other but they just don't talk about it.

He then used some words again when he had to make sure Michael wasn't going to let his emotions get the best of him.

You could see in Alex's face when he looked at Michael right before sharing the story of how he injured his leg that he had to share that one to make sure Michael would listen.

"I lost a piece of me in many ways [...] Guerin, you are the one piece I can't go through life without".

For somebody who could not find the words for so long, Alex finally found them 🙌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻

And then, he continued to do so when they were at the Pony, being open and honest about the machine and DS.

>>>1/2 cosmic idiot full circle complete<<

Now onto Michael.

We've seen Michael take huge steps to become better at living and not just being a pit of anger and trauma issues.

It started with "breaking old patterns", for a second went to self loathing again, and then took a whole force with "You decide who you are. If you give up, it's on you".

Michael listened to Alex and decided to be better for "the people that matter". It's not a head scratch to assume along the list of important people that Alex was on the top of it.

We saw Michael on a mission.

Apologizing to Rosa "I didn't think I should have a life if Rosa ortecho didn't". "Maybe there's hope for me too". Protecting Kyle. Working to keep everyone safe.

Michael grew.

And then, he found out Alex hadn't give up on them. He got to see Alex be vulnerable. He got to hear how Alex loves him still.

For a full day there, he didn't have to be defensive because Alex wasn't being it. Michael followed Alex's lead and didn't let his emotions take over him. He followed the plan. He trusted.

Thoroughout 3x08 we saw Michael be better for the person on top of his list.

With defensiveness aside, all Malex moments were gold and everything it should be.

But their last scene, at the Pony, was the culmination of it all. Of the weight of their story, of their growing and their time apart.

At the table, both Alex and Michael found common ground by being clear, honest and by compromising for each other out of their feelings for one another.

Alex by then had brought all his walls downs. His smiles and lightness said it all. Michael saw it. And Michael, well Michael, finally chose talking instead of assuming, accept help instead of rejecting it, work together instead of doing alone.

"Maybe it is". "I completely get it". "One mission at a time". "I'm looking forward to it".

But the last scene though, was them coming together and turning the page with a kiss that was as intense as it was soft, sweet, tender and full of longing.

They went cosmic ... again!

With "I'm confused, though. What mission are you working in right now?", Michael made his move.

He stood up, took his hat off and kissed the love of his life to make it clear that he was fighting for them too. With no room to question who has his heart.

>>> 1/2 of cosmic idiot full circle complete<<<

With sighs of wonder and smiles of relief, Malex turned a chapter in their cosmic story. 💜🌌👽🌟

And it made an universe of sense.

[shihalyfie]

The paradox of the relationship between Takeru and Hikari

The issue of the relationship between Takeru and Hikari has been a question of interest since the series first aired, and especially after 02, which prominently depicted them constantly hanging out together and clearly having some kind of relation to each other...and yet, strangely, very rarely having a real heart-to-heart or even talking to each other much at all. The constant juxtapositions of them standing next to each other all of the time in both the series and in external media, combined with the fact they’re so associated with each other in terms of being Adventure returnees and with Digimon partners with similar evolutions, makes one almost mentally geared to associate them with each other, and yet we never really get to hear what they think about each other in the entirety of Adventure or 02′s running.

Part of this is because Takeru and Hikari are the two most “difficult to read” characters in the 02 team -- Hikari because she compulsively suppresses any selfish or negative feeling she has, and Takeru because he covers up his problems with a smile and pretends everything is okay, until it’s not. And, as it turns out, that “gap in communication” exists between the two of them as well; in the web of 02′s relationships, it’s a strange mix between being “comfortable around” each other, and yet not truly knowing each other...

Disclaimer before we continue: With some exceptions related to unambiguous canon depictions, I try to write my meta about relationships between characters in such a way that both shipping readings and non-shipping readings are possible in most cases, and my main reason for this is that I very strongly believe that even if you do ship the pair in question, it’s rather reductive (and not very fun) to stop an analysis at “anyway it’s because they’re in love” or something and not go any further. If you don’t care for Takeru/Hikari as a ship, I hope you can take this analysis as-is, and if you do happen to ship it, I hope you can take my analysis of the gaps in their relationship as “things they would have to consider and overcome for such a relationship to be possible” (i.e. a possible fanfic prompt?) and not me trying to dismiss the ship as inherently possible or impossible.

A second disclaimer: A lot of the important key points below are heavily dependent on how they were presented in the Japanese version of 02, especially in regards to the key 02 episode 13. The American English dub took a very large number of liberties with a lot of the below aspects, so if you are reading this with only that version as a reference, please be aware that there may be significant differences for the sake of avoiding confusion.

Hikari didn’t get to spend much of the series with the rest of the Adventure group, having been a “latecomer”, but once she enters, it’s rather interesting how much Takeru doesn’t socialize much with her. Granted, part of this was because of the circumstances -- there was a lot to be done, and Hikari had a cold relapse not long after they’d entered the Digital World -- but you’d really think Takeru would be interested in at least socializing with someone who’s actually his age, and yet we don’t get any real depiction of doing so outside of discussing important matters. It’s not to say that they never had any kind of conversation offscreen, but by the time we get to the end of Adventure, we have zero scope of what they actually think of each other.

By the time we get to 02, it turns out that this is probably by design.

First of all, we very quickly learn that the two of them did not keep up between Adventure and 02 -- they’re meeting each other again for the first time in a long time, and the last time they did meet was when they were much younger (probably their last meeting being the one depicted in the flashback in 02 episode 27). This is understandable considering that, up until the beginning of 02, Takeru lived in Sangenjaya and not Odaiba, meaning that it wasn’t like they’d have opportunities to meet up much in real life either, but the point is that this is how little contact and how little involvement they’d had in each other’s lives up until this point.

So, once the plot of 02 kicks off and the two of them become active as Chosen Children again, the two of them end up hanging out a lot. So much that Daisuke starts accusing them of having something between them. And the two of them never say anything to really firmly deny him, which of course only makes him more confused and upset, until 02 episode 17, when the concrete connection between them is established to the rest of the 02 team, and it’s properly disclosed that they were part of a whole adventure back in 1999 together.

Takeru knew Hikari before, and she’s still the one he knows the best out of this team, and on Hikari’s part, Takeru understands the nature of “being a Chosen Child” in ways the others don’t, and both of them had that formative experience that the others don’t understand. But 02 is a series that’s not only about relationships, but also about the differing nature of relationships -- it’s true that, having known each other well beforehand and also being all-around decent people, the two of them would certainly have an extra level of investment in each other’s welfare, but...

In 02 episode 13, we learn that as much as Takeru knows Hikari, he doesn’t really know her, and on Hikari’s part, she’s still incapable of communicating the extent of her thoughts so that he can.

The conversation between Takeru and Hikari behind the school in this episode is the first time we get to really see an opportunity for the two of them to bare their actual emotions, but nothing that can be called a "conversation" is had between them. Hikari is still plagued by a compulsive desire to not be a burden to others, including the idea of “burdening” her brother, and, when Takeru finally prompts her on what’s going on, she says nothing that properly clarifies what she’s going through, nothing but a cryptic mention of the “sea”, a statement that she "might be going away”, and a reference to her brother having always protected her beforehand. Takeru takes it as a sign that Hikari’s become overly dependent on Taichi, and snaps at her angrily -- a persistent symptom of him being unable to regulate his emotions properly -- and, unable to handle it, runs off awkwardly, leaving her alone to eventually be taken away. Later in the episode, Takeru reflects that he’d basically just doomed Hikari by his own actions, and with his last words to her having been something awful.

Ultimately, some degree of progress is made in that Hikari realizes that Takeru reaching out to her earlier makes him someone she should be reaching out to for help -- in the end, nobody in the 02 group had yet been able to reach out to her emotionally because of how closed-in she was, and the only people she truly trusted with her feelings up until that point were Taichi and Tailmon. So in other words, Takeru is another person she can finally “trust” with her feelings and welfare. But while Takeru is finally able to connect to her in some sense with this, when the two finally close off the episode and return to the real world, everything ends in complete silence. They do not say a single word to each other. They’re getting by with a sense of “inherent trust”, and their disconnect was resolved with that alone this time, but this problem hasn’t been fully solved yet and will be rearing its ugly head again by the time we get around to the Jogress arcs.

And so the two of them return back to their “comfortable with each other” status quo -- but, again, 02 is a series that portrays relationships in a very multi-layered and multifaceted form, and being comfortable around someone still doesn’t necessarily merit emotional closeness (for instance, Ken was pretty clearly indicated as being “comfortable” and straightforward in terms of working with Miyako in 02 episodes 25 and 33, but there’s no doubt that Daisuke’s the one who was more properly addressing the things he emotionally needed most at the time, which could arguably be said to be exactly why Ken was having a hard time adjusting to him at first). We see them “go off together” to do...completely mundane and practical things, like discussing why they’re still able to come to the Digital World in 02 episode 22, or trying to have their Digimon partners evolve on their own in 02 episode 24 -- they’re not having any kind of emotional heart-to-heart, they’re just there.

When you look at the wider picture, you can see that Hikari and Takeru’s relative comfort around each other at this point is largely because they’re still not comfortable being alone with anyone else yet. So far, they kind of had a bonding (not really bonding) session back in 02 episode 13, and they hadn’t had anything of the sort with anyone else, and they’re still the only people who understand certain things relevant to the adventure in 1999 that the others don’t. They’re both still ridiculously closed-in and guarded, and not trusting anyone with their feelings -- they can’t even trust each other with their feelings -- so they’re getting by on hanging out with each other because it’s either that or go off to be completely alone. As the two most “emotionally isolated” people in this group, there’s a wall between them and the others, and that wall is only slightly thinner between each other -- and you can even imagine that they’re willing to hang out with each other because they won’t be bothering that wall and causing intimidation.

And by the time we roll around to 02 episode 31, we learn that, this whole time, nothing has improved. Takeru sees that something is going on with Hikari, but does and says nothing -- perhaps because he’s not sure what to say, perhaps because he’s afraid of lashing out at her again, whatever it is -- but he can’t and won’t speak to her nor address her feelings.

In the end, the person who does establish that ability to “communicate” with Hikari is not Takeru but Miyako -- an aggressive, in-your-face, overly honest person who gets straight to the point and refuses to hold back, whose messy personality causes Hikari to become assertive in handling her and allows Hikari to finally vocalize one of her truly sensitive feelings, and who’s able to use her immense emotional sensitivity to identify what Hikari needs and break through to her.

But just because Miyako ended up being the person Hikari needs to move on past this issue does not mean Takeru’s role wasn’t important, nor that Miyako coming into Hikari’s life means that all of her relationships are inferior or pointless -- rather, a recurring element of 02′s portrayal of relationships is that everything has a ripple effect, and that “opening up” one person’s heart allows them to open up to others as well (see how Daisuke reaching out to Ken eventually helped him reach out to the others in the group, how even in this very same episode Miyako expresses that this experience helped her understand Ken better as well, how Daisuke’s experiences end up giving him a healthier relationship with the rest of the group, how Iori and Takeru’s Jogress ordeal helps them both become better at reaching out to Ken...). Unlike how they’d both closed off 02 episode 13, Hikari and Takeru end this one by talking -- with Hikari’s newfound confidence from her dealings with Miyako allowing her to more openly speak what she’s thinking with Takeru.

One thing you might notice is that after 02 episode 31, Takeru and Hikari are never seen going off on their own together for the rest of the series -- because, again, their “latching” onto hanging out with each other at the exclusion of anyone else was because they were that isolated from everyone else, but not anymore! Hikari starts to hang out more with Miyako as the two of them become more comfortable hanging out after the events of said episode; after all, Miyako had come to understand the real reason why Hikari “keeps so much inside” and that she needs to actively reach out to her, and Hikari is able to properly trust Miyako with her feelings, meaning that now that Hikari is starting to open up, she doesn’t need to fall back on her “truce” with Takeru to get by. Which ends up leaving Takeru rather alone for the following set of episodes. Well, seemingly alone, but...

...he’s not truly alone, because this is also where Iori realizes that there’s a lot more going on with Takeru and that he needs to make a proactive effort to understand him, and it doesn’t take long for Takeru to realize what Iori’s doing (especially when Yamato tips him off that Iori asked about him in 02 episode 35). Once again, very much unlike Hikari, Iori is straightforward and to-the-point, and is much better at cutting through all of the complicated layers Takeru puts up in an attempt to cover up his emotions.

The rest of the series has them in significantly more emotionally tense situations than before, and while the fact they end up spending the rest of the series with their respective Jogress partners instead of each other is partially sheer pragmatics, it’s also how the two of them start taking a more active role in actually checking on the others’ emotions and communicating with them in regards to their feelings. This is a huge deal -- compare this to back in 02 episode 13 when they were practically the only people willing to have this kind of serious, emotional conversation with each other -- and said attempt at a serious conversation exploded in their faces. (The other time one of them had made an attempt at something vaguely resembling a heart-to-heart during that time was 02 episode 11, which also resulted in Takeru blowing up explosively.) But here they’re capable of communicating clearly and openly and making their positions known in a way that gets through to their respective Jogress partners’ issues, without being stifled by anything.

But, again: just because they don’t “go off together” anymore doesn’t mean they stopped being important people to each other or comfortable around each other -- it’s just that now they’ve stopped wandering off together for the sake of blocking themselves away from others, and no longer trapped in this strange, paradoxical relationship of knowing-but-not-truly-knowing each other they had all the way back in 02 episode 13. The relationship they had back then was something built off of coping mechanisms, and not something you could truly say was healthy, not when their communication was stilted and Takeru had snapped at her so badly -- but both of them learning to open up more and be more honest with their feelings means that they may well have an actual healthy dynamic going forward.

And for all it’s worth, we learn that they’re still on very good terms by the time of Kizuna, getting breakfast together in the opening -- but it’s left ambiguous if their reason for doing so like this was because they still have a penchant for particularly hanging out together, or whether it was just circumstance because they were free to get breakfast after the Digimon incident (they act independently for the rest of the movie). Moreover, their relationships with the others in the 02 group are still going strong, because as per the drama CD, Takeru’s happy to hang out with Daisuke like it’s nothing and actively join in to reach out to Iori (it’s said Daisuke was approaching Iori “first” despite Takeru being there, so both of them were hanging out independently and decided to pick up Iori together), and Hikari comes in with Miyako, expressing a very firm intent to hang out with her for their trip, and ultimately it’s established that them not being with the rest of the group at the time of the movie was sheer scheduling circumstance and not necessarily them going out of their way to operate away from them.

So in other words, whatever relation you can say they have at this point, or their ability to get along, is not based on them falling back on each other as an unhealthy coping mechanism of silence, but one carried out in a more genuine manner.

[incorrect-ikevamp-quotes]

i saw your post about Charles and what his personality past and part in the story line so i was wondering if u could do the same for vlad? :)

Ah, well, I can at least let you know what I’ve seen so far? I haven’t delved too far into Vlad, and some of his general impressions can be confusing, so I’ll do my best to make it sensible and unbiased! Here you go lovely <33333

Fair warning, there will be mentions of a lot of JPN app content since Vlad and his boys aren’t around much in the ENG app yet.

My general sense of Vlad is basically discount vampire Sasuke Uchiha.

What I mean by this is to say–according to what I’ve read so far–his clan/family were murdered by vampire hunters in cold blood when he was just a young boy. Presumably as a result of that traumatic event, he harbors a sizable enmity towards humanity and kind of lashes out on them in weirdly specific moments of violence. Another aspect of his motivation is something that’s mentioned within Comte’s route; which is that Vlad went through the timespace door on his own one day and allegedly saw a devastated future, where nothing remains of life on earth more or less.

I guess the reason I find him to be so perplexing is that he speaks about his actions in terms of efficiency, while most of the things he does just feel like unhappy outbursts (v often a product of unresolved trauma symptoms, I’d wager.) I also say this because he appears to have no larger pattern to his fury beyond the original event of his loss. Most of the human beings he attacks aren’t much of a threat to him and hurting them really doesn’t bring him any dividends beyond revenge.

For instance, he insists his disdain for humanity and insistence on controlling them is for the sake of ensuring they do not destroy the future–the horrifying wasteland he witnessed when he traveled through the timespace door. However, I’m not really sure how his current movements really speak to that goal? I mean sure, maybe he’s relying on Faust to create an immortal human so that humans will be forced to care because it will be their future too, but he doesn’t allow Faust to draw his pureblood blood for experimenting. (One can most certainly argue this was more about a lack of trust, and perhaps for plenty reason: Faust is vindictive enough to try to turn the tables and exert control over Vlad, or act on his own whims with his findings.) But if that’s the solution he’s waiting on, turning the rivals of the men in the mansion doesn’t really bring him any closer to that vision either? I mean, what good does it do to bring back Gilles de Rais–a prominent French serial killer? How would unleashing him on the populace help humanity “realize the error of it’s short-sighted and wasteful ways” and move to a brighter future?

Can’t help it, I ask these questions as I read.

In Comte’s main story, Comte hammers home that Vlad is not somebody to be taken lightly. One day when MC goes out to buy flowers, Vlad poses as a human florist to sell them to her–which is how Comte finds out he’s in France, and that he’s made contact with MC. When prompted, Comte describes him in a very particular way; and I think people really overlook this when they talk about their relationship. He says that Vlad is frighteningly pure in terms of the way he thinks and acts. The way I understood his description (given what I’ve seen of Vlad) is that Comte really does mean it point blank: Vlad is very simple in terms of why and how he does things. The issue with this is that nuance and context are lost on Vlad as well–and that’s where the problems start to flood in. Vlad is angry at humanity for what they’ve done to him. Baseline? That’s fair, they killed his damn family. However, Vlad thinks that by extension he has the right to decimate the general public and attack people completely uninvolved in his hurt.

And that isn’t right either–it’s ignoring so many factors here. He’s ignoring how much vampires use and toy with humans as pawns, it’s ignoring the massive power imbalance between him and his victims (this really isn’t a case of self-defense most of the time, nobody but Comte/Leo is a sizable threat to him), and he’s ignoring whether or not a person even did anything to deserve his retributive violence. While murder is never okay, it is perhaps more understandable when we see Jeanne’s frenzied and violent belligerence in response to a man who murders a boy’s mother for the sake of his own amusement/convenience. Vlad literally sees almost every single one of the rivals he created begin to heal/improve and murders them in cold blood because they are no longer of any use to him. That’s uh……..that’s a little messed, not gonna lie to you chief.

While part of me understands the efficiency here–he doesn’t want to leave any traces of his involvement, he doesn’t want any loose ends–it’s also just kind of foolish and cruel ultimately. From my understanding of the narrative, all the people he turned had some visible sign that indicated their origin to Comte. So even if he claims it was for the sake of concealment, it was more likely about his personal convenience. Which…..also yikes.

[Comte clearly does not trust Vlad to be reasonable, and I think there’s plenty of good reason enumerated above, but I actually don’t sense quite so much hatred? I think he’s just given up on the idea of Vlad growing up, even if he doesn’t like giving up on people. And considering Vlad’s behavior, I think it’s overkill to say that Comte just abandons him because he doesn’t care lmao. Even when Comte expresses real anger at the end of his own route, it was more because Vlad was fine with endangering MC’s life just to get back at him. I think Comte’s unhappiness with Vlad has more to do with Vlad’s treatment of human life as meaningless and worthless. It’s fascinating but also kind of sad? Vlad’s traumatic experience results in behavior that is a direct exacerbation of Comte’s trauma, and as such--no matter their potentially fond history--they can’t stomach each other.]

In Comte’s route, Vlad also has Shakespeare abduct MC and take her to the cathedral. Later on in the castle, we see an immediate display of Vlad’s shocking powers: he has the ability to manipulate people’s desires/thoughts. I’m not exactly sure how this works, but he is able to give MC visions of the mansion and Comte coming on to her–which shocks her into realizing it’s all just a dream. It’s not reality; it’s all manufactured by Vlad.

After that...weird introductory note...Vlad gives MC the rundown on his life together with Comte, which as always is subject to a question of bias. My assumption is that he did not lie, only because he was trying to convince MC that he was “right.” Furthermore, he does not omit the most damning evidence of his erroneous judgement, which suggests a continued inability for him to see where he went wrong.

We get a series of three flashbacks. The first is them as young kids. I don’t know if Vlad had already experienced the horrors of his family being destroyed, but this particular flashback focuses on Comte. His parents, in an effort to teach him that vampires and humans have no ability to co-exist, send away all of his teachers/mentors/nannies/the servants--pretty much everyone and anyone he was closely bonded to. Think about it this way: we can see that Comte is very sociable and affectionate by nature. He was living in a house full of people, all of whom cared about him and looked after him in their own way. Now the house is entirely empty. Naturally Comte is very very upset, and Vlad appears to try to cheer him up with little success. 

[When I look back on this scene I don’t think I initially registered the sheer dissonance of Vlad’s reaction, versus Comte’s catatonic misery. There was a very solemn feeling to that memory, and the correct choice in terms of extending comfort is to hold his hand believe it or not. There is a sense that he feels very alone. When young boy Vlad enters one can argue that it was the proper thing to do; he was trying to cheer up his playmate and friend. But at the same time, I think I need to double check. Because I’m beginning to wonder if I was wrong. What if Vlad was happy to see someone as alone as him, and that joy is accordingly dissonant for that reason? He can’t see what Comte needs or how he’s hurting because he’s so glad he isn’t alone anymore in a way.]

The second flashback is the war nurse scene that I have spoken at length about. The important thing to focus on here is Vlad’s surprise that Comte would opt out of turning her out of respect for her wishes. The way Vlad frames the situation is starkly different from Comte’s. Comte sees himself as an outsider, somebody who invaded her life as a result of the timespace door and therefore has no right to suddenly change the course of her fate. He had no idea if she even wanted to live (considering the horrors she’d have to cope with and remember) or leave that time period at all, for that matter (considering the only thing keeping her going was helping the wounded/victims). Comte really was listening to everything she had to say, and he was taking her concerns and motivations seriously. 

Vlad simply says: if you want her, take her. It’s as simple as that for him. And in one way that’s not entirely wrong--assuming Comte would have every intention of looking after her and actually cares a lot about her. But what’s being ignored here is her agency and the fact that they really don’t know each other that well? Something like that could begin and be rocky, if it doesn’t end in complete disaster. Worse, I get the feeling Vlad is perfectly fine with the notion of turning her and if things don’t work out, just kill her or get rid of her. Again, the simplistic thinking comes into play here: it ultimately comes down to Vlad being self-centered. He’s thinking only in terms of satisfying his needs, he doesn’t seem to have any concept of a larger pair or group feeling. There’s an inability to bend/be flexible for the sake of maintaining a greater harmonious feeling. 

[For the record, I don’t think this makes him irredeemable? Only that it makes it very hard to live with him or love him, probably. There’s an inability to live at a joint pace? It’s always answering to what he wants without room for anything else most of the time, which to me is not living and it’s not love ;;;;]

Following their escape back to their own time, Vlad explains how he wants to use the door to turn geniuses and control humanity. He eventually wants to create a surveillance state, which would mean everyone is forced to move with his explicit approval, more or less. (He almost reminds me of Louis XIV, can’t tell if that’s what they were going for.) I have my doubts that his abilities could extend that far, but human history shows us that we are plenty susceptible to fascist and totalitarian rhetoric. In a shocking display of anger, Comte draws the line at controlling humanity and forcing them into a regime in which, and this is Vlad’s description not mine, “we (purebloods) would be like kings.” There’s definitely a concept of evolutionary superiority at play here, which echoes what I mentioned earlier; vampires seem to have this awareness that they’re apex predators in a sense, and enjoy the power that comes with that. Unfortunately, that probably makes for a fairly toxic/uncomfortable larger species culture, which is exactly what Comte and Leo hate lmao.

Vlad does not seem to find any issue with this sort of outlook, and asks MC to decide which of them--Vlad or Comte--is right. Who is more realistic, who best understands the future? As expected the MC replies that it's Comte, and Vlad goes from beseeching to big mad at record speed. He's p much that gif of the teddy bear that smacks its head down on the tables and then has the angry eyebrows.

This is where Comte intervenes, firing a warning shot that grazes Vlad's cheek and demanding he let MC go. In response, Vlad shoves MC into the turbulent timespace door--p much guaranteeing MC's death. (Essentially timespace is a void of sorts, a human being could never survive in that environment for long. Vlad fully knew this, and yeeted her anyway.)

So uh, yeah. Disagreement? Death. Moving on? Death. Nuanced approach to reality? Death. Beginning to think he doesn't really have a lot of patience or open-mindedness or any other kind of problem-solving approach. 

He raises flowers and gardens like a fiend, and he openly plucks any single flower with a blemished leaf. Even if a single petal is slightly damaged, it will be removed and destroyed. So one could argue his extremism reflects a kind of perfectionism as well. No room for errors or troublesome dissent. No ugliness of any kind. I mean in all of his interactions with Faust and Charles this is the overt undertone. Don't ask more of me than I'm willing to give. Behave like good children, mommy's busy. Is that insubordination? boss music begins

One thing I actually don't understand very well is his decision making in Dazai's route. Dazai finds out about what Vlad's doing in a nanosecond when he senses MC is in danger, and yet Vlad makes absolutely no move to eliminate Dazai? He just watches from the shadows. Even when Dazai grills Charles about his loyalty to Vlad, no retribution.

My best guess for this specific situation is that Vlad does derive some level of satisfaction thwarting the future of human beings/former humans. Dazai--being somebody with no great desire to live, no rivals to speak of as far as we can tell, and no larger aspirations--is a life that is easily extinguished. There's no satisfaction in it. When Vlad's clan was murdered and he saw the future decimated, it could be that he felt humans had invaded and eradicated every potentiality that was important to him. Where he might have lived happily with his family, that future was ripped from his grasp. Where he might enjoy his flowers and the creation of an immortal for the rest of conceivable time, that too was ripped from his grasp with a desolate future. 

So much about who Vlad is is about control, so it's very possible his lashing out is an extension of that. Dazai does not awaken any of the disdain he feels, and he does not succeed in overthrowing Vlad's control over Charles, so Vlad simply lurks in silence.

And last but not least, I've seen the preview to Vlad's newest birthday event story. The contents are incredibly revealing, in that MC wishing him a happy birthday and offering him a gift has him saying that it was "the best birthday ever." Granted idk if that’s sweet or just...beyond sad, but here we are. It’s only compounding my curiosity about the wound on his chest--I really do wonder if he was attacked and locked away by vampire hunters or hostile human beings or something. I say that only because that line speaks to a lot of isolation, and given how little he seems to care about turning people/subjecting them to his whims it feels odd. Why the isolation or lack of people who care about him? Is it a perceived lack where his actions alienated all the people who wanted to be close to him, or is it a more involuntary lack?

When she says let’s celebrate again next year, he seems a pleasantly shocked by the notion, and remarks “Ah yes, it’s a promise c:”. The preview was also mega horny: “You make me feel so loved, I don’t think I can be gentle with you tonight. If you enjoy it so much, then I won’t stop. I want to see you completely lost for me. I’ll teach your body what it means to be loved by a pureblood.” Aaaaaand pretty sure the CG was alluding to him licking the good stuff from her basement, though not entirely sure given it was only the preview. 

The brief POV they give us is also very revealing:

“You always keep your promises, and I think I underestimate all the time how much you saved me. You are good, only you are good in this world.”

“Will we continue to make promises to each other in the future? Well in that case--you will always, always be mine, my vampire.”

Tbh he’s...v sweet? In his own way? Honestly he feels like a crabapple that is just so sick of the world and wants softe wife to take comfort in. While granted that’s not really my thing, I know a fanbase appeal exists for these types--so if that’s your thing, have at it!

So now that we have reached the end of my ridiculously long analysis (when am I ever brief, I’m so sorry. If you made it all the way here you deserve a cookie at the very least, if not the right to chase me with a bat) perhaps it’s more clear why I said discount vampire Sasuke Uchiha? “My clan is gone, every other second I’m going to be in retraumatization insanity, when I’m not I’ll be seeking power/hobbies, planning the demise of people who wanted the best for me, building a team to my advantage and unquestioned control, and eventually settling for a lifelong love who sees the best in me despite my more difficult moments and perceived hollowing loneliness. Not the most ideal comparison, but I will say if Vlad was not already named the historical figure, would have pointed and yelled Uchiha.

That’s all from me folks, hopefully this was a fun way to get introduced to him? And again, hope I didn’t alienate--I fully respect what people do and don’t enjoy o7

[kirain]

Hazbin Hotel and VivziePop Drama

I've been hearing/seeing a lot of drama concerning Hazbin Hotel and it's creator VivziePop, and while I don't know her personally or really care what people think, I do hate slander and the spread of misinformation. Truly nothing in this world upsets me more than when people believe rumours while making no effort to fact check, and that's exactly what's happening right now. That said, I wanted to try and clear up some of the rumours going around about Vivzie and the show, because I think some of them are absolutely outrageous and need to be addressed.

1. Vivzie hired an abuser onto the show.

Now, I’m not here to burn anyone at the stake, especially since I don’t know anything about Chris Niosi (the alleged abuser), who I believe openly admitted to the allegations? Regardless, this is a moot point. He’s not credited anywhere at the end of the episode. So either he was booted before production wrapped up or he had nothing to do with the show in the first place.

2. Vivzie supports bestiality.

Admittedly I thought this one might be true, since she draws so many anthropomorphic animals. In the very least, I figured she was probably a furry, but I haven't seen any evidence supporting this accusation either. Near as I can tell, this rumour started for two reasons. One, because of her famous Zoophobia comic, which revolves around a therapist named Cameron who gets assigned to work with human-like animals. Ironically, poor Cameron suffers from crippling zoophobia, which makes for some pretty decent comedy. I didn't read the whole comic because, quite frankly, it’s not my cup of tea and I just don’t have the time. But from what I saw there are no examples of bestiality anywhere in its contents.

Two, this message, which blew up all over social media:

To me, this just proves that people are more interested in virtue signalling than checking to see if their claims are actually true. Everything about this message is 100% false, which I’ll touch on in my next point.

3. Vivzie is a pedophile and she’s drawn child porn.

This is hands down the worst allegation and holy shit, I really wish people would stop using it to defame someone when they don't have any proof. This is a life-ruining accusation and you're disgusting if you believe it based solely on hearsay. This rumour began to spread when Vivzie allegedly shipped the two underage characters in the above photo and drew them NSFW-style. At the time, one character was 19 while the other was 14, and the relationship was a very illegal student-teacher relationship.

This is WRONG! The characters were not 14 and 19, they were actually 18 and 19, the legal age of consent! Additionally, the relationship wasn't student-teacher. One character is a student and the other is Alumni (a student teacher). This one pisses me off the most because it’s obvious the person who sent that message didn’t even bother to conduct any research. They said, “He’s a teacher, she’s a child.” Both characters are MALE!

Since then, Vivzie has apologised for any NSFW art she drew in the past and stated that it's not a reflection of her art today, and I'm inclined to believe her. Almost every artist has drawn NSFW content at some point in their career, and hers wasn't even distasteful. Other than this one example, there is no evidence anywhere that suggests she’s drawn “child porn”. In fact, she’s never even drawn explicit NSFW.

Please stop spreading this rumour. It’s dangerous and completely incorrect.

4. Vivzie said the "N" word!

No, she didn’t. It was a fabricated tweet. That is all.

5. Vivzie is copyright striking every video that criticises her!

No she isn't. YouTube’s DMCA is automatically striking people who are using full clips without permission. Vivzie has gone public several times, telling people exactly how to avoid getting a copy strike from the algorithm, which is something she absolutely does not have to do. At this point, she doesn't owe you anything. In my opinion, she should just sit back and watch these channels burn.

6. Vivzie copies and traces other artists’ work.

This is another one I’ve seen going around, but I looked into it as thoroughly as I could and failed to find any concrete evidence to support the allegations. As of right now, there are only two examples of Vivzie “copying” or “tracing” other artists’ work, and both of them can be explained. The first is a gif she made with a character from her Zoophobia comic, which looked a lot like the girl from ME!ME!ME!:

Damn, that’s pretty incriminating. She obviously stole-- oh, wait. This gif was part of a ME!ME!ME! MEP (multi editor’s project) and Vivzie didn’t take full credit, despite the fact that it’s not even a direct trace. It’s supposed to look like the original, which she fully cited. The second example comes from a short dance sequence from her Timber video, which seems to have been inspired by several Disney movies. As Vivzie herself stated, that was an homage to the original animations. Lots of artists and shows do this, including the beloved Stephen Universe series.

Regardless, this doesn’t count as stealing character designs or plagiarising someone’s work. It’s meant to be respectful, an admiration of other projects. Other than these two instances, however, there is no evidence of her tracing or stealing other people’s art. From what I’ve discovered, all other designs she’s been accused of “stealing” are characters she bought and paid for. They’re quite literally HER characters.

7. Vivzie supports problematic creators.

I’m getting really tired of guilt by association. Vivzie follows and enjoys some controversial figures, but who cares? We can argue all day about whether or not the accusations against them are true, but it ultimately has nothing to do with the show or Vivzie as a person. I do the exact same thing, to be honest-- follow and listen to people on all sides so I can learn, understand, and form my own opinions. The fact that some people think this is bad, to me, is absolutely mesmerising. Vivzie doesn’t control what the people she follows post, and if they do something overly questionable she publicly criticises and denounces it.

From Vivzie:

Now that that’s been dealt with, I’d like to address some complaints/claims about the actual show.

8. Vaggie is an angry Latina stereotype and a lesbian stereotype. Vivzie is appropriating Hispanic culture and misrepresenting the gay for profit.

First off, I see a lot of people passing around yet more misinformation regarding Vivzie's race. So many people seem to think she's white? Well, I'm here to tell you they're wrong. Very incorrect. Vivzie is in fact Latina, and Vaggie is meant to mirror some of her own personality traits.

Second, who is Vaggie mad at? Context matters, and if we take a look at the episode, we see that Vaggie is literally only mad at two specific people: Angel Dust and Alastor. Why? Well, for starters, it's her girlfriend's dream to run a rehab hotel for sinners, and Angel Dust nearly demolishes that dream single-handedly. Vaggie has every right to be over-the-top vitriolic. Then there's Alastor, a known sadist, narcissist, and murderer who loves trapping people in his nefarious schemes. He invites himself in, effectively takes over the hotel, and pushes both her and Charlie aside. At one point he even sexually assaults her by slapping her butt during his musical number. So yeah, I think her seething ire is totally justified. Keep in mind, however, that when she's around Charlie she's calm, collected, and happy. I wouldn't call that a stereotype.

Thirdly, the lesbian stereotypes. I keep hearing this argument but I really don't see it. Both Vaggie and Charlie have so much personality and trust for each other. Maybe I'm wrong, but the stereotype I know always totes a more butch, tomboyish woman with a ditsy, innocent, naive woman. Charlie is optimistic, but she isn't stupid. She refuses to shake Alastor’s hand because she knows he’s likely trying to screw her over. She’s also not entirely innocent herself and uses words like “fuck” and “shit”. I also wouldn’t call Vaggie butch or tomboyish. She has a cute, girly presentation, complete with a pink ribbon in her hair, lace stockings, and a dress. She's protective of her girlfriend, as I think we all are with our partners, and there's nothing wrong with that. They're flawed characters, as every character is meant to be. This isn't a problem.

9. The show is racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, blah, blah, blah.

I’m amazed this is even an argument. The show is supposed to be a dark comedy that takes place in HELL. You know, the place the worst of the worst end up after they die? What were you expecting? Everyone gets a shot or two fired at them, but that doesn't make them bad characters nor does it make the show itself horrible. Take, for example, Katie Killjoy, the news reporter so many people are up in arms about. She says she doesn’t “touch the gays” because she has “standards”. Well, here’s a newsflash of my own: we’re not supposed to like her! She’s an antagonist. Not to mention ten seconds later Charlie insults her and isn’t the least bit slighted by her pretentious attitude. The characters are strong and don’t take shit from anyone, because to some degree they’re all terrible people who can throw down when it’s called for.

Obviously if you don’t like the show or think it’s offensive, I’m probably not going to change your mind. That’s perfectly fine. You’re entitled to your opinions and you don’t have to watch the show. Just stop lying and stop trying to take it away from everybody else. Stop attacking Vivzie and spreading misinformation without checking the facts. I realise a lot of people probably aren’t trying to be vindictive and only want to do something good, but just remember this: the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[mittensmorgul]

it’s been six days since i watched 15.19 and i will never be over this

for Chuck, the ultimate punishment, the worst thing they could do to him-- far worse than instant death-- was to render him utterly powerless. he’d cosplayed as a human for a very long time, superficially exploring his creation while retaining complete control over it. a snap of his fingers could still alter reality (he gave himself the ability to play music, he experimented with human relationships and still utterly failed to grasp the concepts of human joy and love and care). he did all of this while still fundamentally seeing his own creation as a playground for him to dominate, and the beings he’d created with with the ability to love and choose for themselves were merely his personal playthings. every instance of lucifer referring to humanity as chuck’s “toys” was spot on, all along.

and now that he is human himself, it’s irrelevant if he ever grows into this realization for himself. he’s been rendered entirely superfluous to the narrative he’d sought to control and eventually obliterate on a whim. sure, we can hope that he will grow to see the beauty and wonder and potential joy and love that humans are capable of, but it doesn’t matter. if he does, then good for him. if not, we are the bodily incarnation of the shrug emoji. that’s his problem now, basically. it’s the ending he deserved.

but for cas-- the ONE element of the story that he could never fully eliminate or bend to his will, the SINGLE incarnation of this character across all his universes to simply fail to do what he was told and bugger off back to heaven with the rest of the mindless angels-- cas is the SINGLE angel who actually fell in love with humanity. he’s the one who let humanity change him, because of the love he saw in dean winchester-- a man who spent the last 15 seasons believing he was broken, poison, nothing more than a weapon or a killer, who ruined everything he touched including this angel.

love never ruined anything, hon.

cas has been dipping his toes into humanity since his first season on the show. he’s been blowing apart the doorways to doubt, feeling more and more human emotions despite repeated attempts to program that humanity out of him and restore him to proper angelic obedience. and because of the love he began to understand only after he did fully fall and become human, when he had to give up his humanity because of necessity to save the world yet again, in an act he deemed “barbaric” and only chose because he felt he had no other choice, he’s never felt that was a viable option for him to choose again, for himself.

he’s needed to be “prepared” to go to war at every turn. there’s never been a time when he felt he could lay that magical armor and sense of duty to the universe of being an angel down. it’s... horrifying, actually. knowing that he carries so much love, and the one thing he wants he feels he can never have, because instead he would have to choose to sacrifice any chance of it to be ready at all times to pick up his arms again and fling himself in front of the cosmic bullets the universe kept firing at them. he held on to it all as a shield-- both for his own fear of his feelings not being reciprocated from dean because we have been told over and over for years that angels are like “marble statues” and are incapable of true human feelings (and even in more mundane ways like how cas mourned the flavor of pb&j once his grace was restored... nothing really hit the same, like the grace itself was a shield in the same way cas described dean’s demonhood as a shield that protected him from feeling his feelings), but in a very literal way cas used his grace to shield dean from danger, ready to stand between dean and death at every turn, regardless of the consequences, and regardless of how DEAN would react to losing him. Some sacrifices just aren’t worth surviving, you know? which dean proved out to us in early s13... and which cas has no IDEA about...

but back to the point...

in a post-chuck world, where TFW’s sacrifices of raising jack to believe in the beauty of creation and the power of human love and joy and wonder and beauty and balance have restored the natural order and changed the entire stakes of the game from saving the world to saving themselves and finally having total freedom to make their own choices in life without a risk-reward calculation on whether they can save the universe from the current round of existential threat imposed on them by a malicious god, is there any other logical choice that cas would make than to finally be able to lay his shield down? there’s nothing more to fight for, except themselves and the love they’d never felt was possible.

for chuck, humanity was the ultimate punishment. but for cas, the angel who broke the mold, it would be the ultimate reward.

and for all of us humans down here in the muck who chuck would’ve just as soon seen stomped back into the mud for the rest of eternity? i don’t think there could be any greater affirmation of OUR humanity and the validity and power of our own lives, our own love, and our own choices than demonstrating that humanity itself isn’t and should never be a punishment to anyone who truly loves.

this is my story, and i’m sticking with it.

[gffa]

I know I've brought this up before, but how much of the fandom reception of the prequels do you think stemmed from the genre dissonance? That the prequels, genre-wise, are closer to high fantasy, while the OT is more an adventure/space western/underdog triumph story.

The prequels also have elements more reminiscent of a romantic period/court drama/Shakespearean tragedy, while if you consider the underdog angle of the OT, the OT also seems kinda similar to some of those inspirational movies about sports teams or something, or a shonen anime with the "Power of Friendship".

I'm just saying, these are rather disparate genres that tend to attract different demographics of people.

And not many people tend to be... great about understanding why they don't like something, much less putting it into words, or understanding that they can dislike something without that something being actually bad. (For example, instead of "I just don't really like [thing]," the usual statement is something along the lines of "[thing] absolutely sucks.")

So the usual response is trying to find (and gather) solidarity while putting down or being condescending towards any dissent, and trying to justify their own dislike. (*gestures vaguely towards pineapple on pizza*)

And historically, it's not uncommon for people to... react strongly towards things they find... different or abnormal, which they judge based on themselves, their emotional response to something, and what they're used to.

Looking at kids, this behavior is... fairly normal. "You're weird," "ew, why do you like that, that's gross," "that's stupid," and so on. A lot of kids/teens/young adults also get defensive really easily. And let's face it--adults are basically just older, taller kids who've had to deal with more of life.

(To be honest, I also get defensive really easily. A lot of people do, and it's... it's normal. The defensive reaction can be lashing out, denial, or just being passive-aggressive or staying silent and tuning it out or mentally rolling your eyes at it. But I'm trying to work on it, because just because it's normal doesn't mean it's a good reaction.)

So, what I'm wondering is whether some fans dislike the prequels simply because it's a different genre...

...but instead of realizing that, they try to defend and justify their dislike by pointing fingers and criticizing whatever stood out or looked different from the OT or cherry-picking details/taking things out of context or making negative conflations (that can be refuted).

Because it's not about logic, it's about how they feel. And people want to feel justified and validated, and we want to feel like we're right and we enjoy staying in our comfort zones. So... yeah. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

LOL, okay, this response is going to be really disjointed because I went off in like a dozen different tangents and even then it's not enough to cover everything, so just kind of read this in a Scattered Thoughts Nerd kind of tone, where I'm staring off into the distance because Navel Gazing Gets Me Going Sometimes. 😂 In my experience, it's sort of a mix. I don't hang around a lot of people who dislike the prequels (in the sense of dismissing them/not being fannish about them) because, well, that's the heart of my interest in Star Wars, so our areas of interest basically don't really overlap that much, so I don't have a chance to talk to a lot of people and find out their reasons or even how they dislike the prequels, in the bigger trends of fandom. I do think there's an element of what you're talking about, that sometimes people can't just dislike things because it's not their genre of choice, that's absolutely a part of it. Mostly because that's how a lot of people react to anything they don't like (and it's something I and literally everyone else has to work on), there has to be a reason for it that it's objectively bad and, like, I have experienced a lot of people getting mad because I like something in a different way than they do. And I don't mean just in Star Wars fandom, but in almost any given fandom--if someone likes something in a way someone else doesn't, if they talk loudly about it (even within their own space), then there's always a contingent of people who have to find a reason why that person is objectively wrong (or even try to make them morally wrong), rather than just shrugging and going, "We see things differently, my view on things doesn't overwrite theirs and their view on things doesn't overwrite mine." It gets more complicated in instances where fandom attitudes genuinely can be hurtful, especially when they're overlapping into the way real people are treated, likes/dislikes don't 100% exist in a bubble, especially when it comes to queer fans, fans of color, disabled fans, mentally ill fans, etc. But that there are a lot of instances where fandom culture has always been--and is increasingly so--contentious and it's hard to chill out when someone is always screaming at you, when the atmosphere of the fandom is always so intense. Further, there's also an element of how fandom has always been--and also is increasingly so--about personal resonance, personal emotional investment, interpretation, and meaning. That sometimes we identify with something so deeply that we feel attacked when someone else likes or dislikes something we feel so strongly about, something that we feel is a reflection of ourselves, and I see a lot of that as well. And this, too, often crosses over into lines of how the context of how we treat characters can be reflections of how we treat real world people, but that there's no monolith here as well. For example: I make fun of Anakin, this angers some people, because how dare I not take this fictional victim 100% seriously, despite that I have repeatedly said that Anakin is the character I most identify with, that things I make fun of him for are ones that I resonate with personally. I'm not disrespecting mentally ill people, especially considering that Anakin is not bound to a single interpretation on this front--he is not canonically mentally ill, no matter how easy it is for us in fandom to map much of that onto his character or, in my case, feel that so much of what I see in him are things I struggle with myself. By and large, the majority of the people I see (at least on tumblr) who make fun of Anakin are doing so within the same vein, that they're being silly about him on things that they personally relate to. (My experiences on this are not universal, I cannot speak for the whole of even any one part of fandom, only my own sphere of experience, but this is what I've seen.) As always, it's fine if someone doesn't vibe with my style or they find that it's not their thing because they do take him more seriously, but that preference does not make my jokes

suddenly not have the context that I relate a lot to what I see in Anakin. In contrast, the way some of the fandom treats Mace or Finn isn't just personal all the time. Not liking their characters isn't inherently racist, but the way they're consistently, consistently treated sure as hell speaks to a larger pattern of racism in fandom and doesn't come without that context. It's the same with Rey--is there a huge vein of misogyny when it comes to her character? Abso-fucking-lutely there is. Things Luke and Anakin get a pass on, Rey is raked over the coals for. Is everyone who dislikes Rey a misogynist? Not even close. Some don't like her because Finn was used as a prop for her story. Some people don't like her because she got sucked into Kylo Ren's story too much. Some just don't care for the way she was written for other reasons. Some just don't vibe with her. It's fine. Nothing is a monolith. And to circle this back around to what you're talking about--it's hard to judge, both because no part of fandom is a monolith in their reactions, but also because we're only hearing from a selection of the fans. How do you know how many people who aren't fans of the prequels, who just don't care for them because it's not their genre, but just go about their day? You don't hear from a lot of them because they moved on to things they do like, so it seems like they must not exist--except, they do, and they're just out there doing things they like more. We only hear from the people who feel the need to tell others they dislike the prequels for this reason or that reason, some valid, some less valid, etc. Ultimately, I do think there's probably a fair amount of genre dissonance for why people dislike the prequels and channel that into "they're objectively bad" and get defensive when people like them and say they were great, but only because that's true of anything anywhere. But that it's only one small slice of the bigger picture (and there's a lot of stuff that I had to eschew in the writing of this response as well because it can be a pretty sprawling topic), where there are tons of reasons and reactions that people have, as well as they're perfectly free to dislike the prequels for whatever reason they do or don't have, it doesn't really affect my opinions, unless they're trying to shove it in my face or are being a dick to those who disagree with them.

[gakkubi]

Ame Trio's Personalities: Yahiko

I want to share some thoughts on the Ame Trio/Ame Orphans because I do think they have one of the most complex, interesting and beautiful arcs in the Narutoverse.

I will discuss their personalities and thoughts. This post is about Yahiko, there are also Nagato and Konan.

(1/3): I'll start with Yahiko because he's the one who dies first and influences the others' personalities.

YAHIKO:

Also available in Russian: ссылка на русский перевод

Although Yahiko is arguably the character who appears “less” among the Ame Trio - naturally, for dying first - he takes up significant part of the flashbacks he appears in. Jiraiya, Nagato, Konan; even in Obito’s memory of the Ame Trio - which serve the plot purpose of showing how Obito started manipulating Nagato - he spends most of the flashback interacting with Yahiko. Yahiko was extremely remarkable to all the people who met him, there is no doubt that Kishimoto took every opportunity he had to tell us he was a very important character.

Something I find very interesting about Yahiko is how easily he could be a villain; he has many of the personality traits of of classical villains. This is not accidental - in Chapter 372, when Jiraiya finds and confronts Konan, his memories of the Ame Orphans lead him to believe Yahiko was the one who first turned evil (in their conversation, Konan never clearly explains whose ideology they have embraced; it’s very implied Jiraiya was inclined to believe that was Yahiko).

This is built purposefully to confuse the audience regarding Pain’s identity as the one who possesses the rinnegan is Nagato; one has the “villainous” personality, the other has the power.

Of course, we all know Yahiko is not a villain, even though he could easily be. Yahiko’s most powerful personality trait is his ambition; this trait is the one that will always surpass the others.

Yahiko is a survivor; we are shown repeatedly that he would do just about anything to to keep alive (and Nagato and Konan with him). We are shown some of his big and most drastic actions like stealing, but minor details like cooking, gathering supplies and stabilising a house for him and Konan - taking from the story and Nagato’s conversation with Jiraiya, it’s safe to assume Yahiko was the mastermind behind all the actions that allowed them to survive as children. Yahiko knew they needed power to survive, and we’re shown in the anime their journey to find Jiraiya and how he quickly learned to navigate in the warzone by being able to put himself in the shoes of his “enemies” and think like they did. Yahiko always had an extremely clear sense of what he wants and how to get there.

He is also a natural leader; we can’t say for sure how much of his leadership is actually his nature and how much it comes from needing to step up as the leader of the trio, given how Nagato and Konan have more passive personalities. The fact is, by the time Yahiko dies, he has been acting as a leader for more than half os his life; giving orders and being in control is his comfort zone. He will have control and boss others even if they don’t agree with him, which is clearly stated when he tells Konan he believes Nagato is the one who will bring peace; he put Nagato in that position regardless of Nagato’s opinions - Konan will support Nagato and not him, regardless who she thinks is the “bridge to peace” (Chapter 509).

In that particular flashback of Jiraiya, there are two classically villainous traits shown: the first is anger; it’s implied that Yahiko is a kid full of anger and hate, but in fact, he is a very emotional and sensitive person - in that, he is very similar to Nagato - although unlike him, Yahiko will almost always express his feelings. He’s angry because he’s in pain and won’t conform to his fate as a victim of a poor country. The second one is both his ambition and megalomania: He will change the country, no matter the lenghts he has to go through.

Another strong trait of Yahiko’s thought process is that ends justify the means. This is proven by many of his actions; to survive, he will steal; to defend others, he will put his own life at risk - the ultimate proof of this is sacrificing his life to save Nagato and Konan from Hanzo. They are the ones who must survive no matter what; no matter if he dies. Although the famous “the end justify the means” sentence is usually associated with Machiavellianism, Yahiko doesn’t display the other traits needed such as manipulativeness and indifference to morality to classify him as a machiavellian person.

Yahiko could easily become a “villain”; he has unbreakable ambition and he’s willing to go to extreme lengths to get what he wants regardless of the opinion of those around him. I could easily say just about the very same about Obito, Madara and Orochimaru with a few changes here and there; I could even describe adult Nagato like that.

Seeing this particular scene in Jiraiya's memory, his ambition and anger and a "well-intentioned world-domination" goal are enough to convince the reader to believe Yahiko is Pain, even before seeing his appearance. It's notable that Nagato doesn't reply anything while Yahiko is screaming at him, highlighting his more passive personality.

You, reader, must be rather shocked at what I'm saying, because Yahiko is the only one who was never evil among the three of them; in fact, the others turned evil because of his absence. Yahiko is such a special character because he was all those classically villainous traits, the key to his character lies in why he never turns evil despite all of that.

Ambition is the trait that will rule above all; but his vision comes second in command. We are shown Yahiko is a very sensitive child, he cries a lot, he's easy to anger because he's overwhelmed by the situation he finds himself in. In the same flashback that gives the audience all the reason to believe Yahiko could be Pain, Yahiko himself admits inflicting pain on others wouldn't work as a solution.

The very fact that Yahiko wanted help from the very people who were destroying his country and were directly or indirectly responsible for him being an orphan (that is, foreigners) shows how the end goal was more important to him than the mean of how to get there; Nagato's initial distrust was the feeling most people would have in their situation, which shows another difference between their thought process; Nagato holds grudges (he could accept Jiraiya individually, but not Konoha, and he couldn't ever get over his parents or Yahiko's death) whereas Yahiko doesn't ever let any past event, situation or prejudice come between him and the goal he wants to achieve.

But ambition, vision and idealism (which I have not mentioned yet) are all traits he also shares with villains.

What makes Yahiko different from other villains, especially Nagato, is that he develops an amazing emotional intelligence to deal with the information his sensitivity gathers from the world.

Yahiko was extremely hopeful, positive and emotionally intelligent, all characteristics he shares with other heroes like Naruto. Throughout his life, the "classically villainous" characteristics of his childhood were outgrown by the "classically heroic" traits that gained strength overtime. Yahiko walked away from the evil path he could have easily taken by confronting his "villainous" traits.

It was through the use of emotional intelligence that Yahiko dismantled the initial megalomania and revengfullness he displays in both Jiraiya's and Nagato's childhood flashbacks. It's important to highlight that Yahiko's "Savior Complex" was something that stayed with Nagato long after Yahiko no longer believed only a single powerful person could force peace upon others. Yahiko "grew out" of his childish megalomania - Nagato did the very opposite when absorbing many of Yahiko's characteristics after his death.

His emotional intelligence can be clearly seen in Obito's memories of him in Chapter 607; in that same instance Yahiko was one of the few characters to rule out the idea of the masked man being Madara. Yahiko was not especially powerful or intelligent, so he rellied heavily in taking accurate conclusions from his observations of the world.

Another sign of Yahiko's emotional intelligence is his mirroring of Jiraiya's behavior - although it may be first seen as something done just for comedy, it shows how Yahiko was eager to understand other people - mirroring is a display of empathy. The natural inclination he had to understand other people led Yahiko to develop his peaceful philosophy, and was also used for him to gather allies (as shown in the anime).

It was both his emotional intelligence and his vision that kept him from becoming arrogant (and doing things like stealing Nagato's rinnegan to himself, as Jiraiya considered plausible). Whereas villains will usually harvest power for themselves, Yahiko knew that the key to the success of his plans didn't depend solely on him and his actions. He had to support others and believe in them. Understanding the value in community and extreme loyalty was a value Yahiko and Konan shared - a value Nagato also had, which was eventually displaced by other traits. It's important to note how Nagato and Konan perceive their memories of Yahiko differently; of course their flashbacks serve plot purposes, but they also show completely different aspects of his personality, and these differences in perception reflect the own values of Konan and Nagato.

Although his ambition, energy and protectiveness are displayed in both of their memories, other characteristics vary in intensity.

In Konan's memories, Yahiko is much more kind and calm, happy but also introspective. In her childhood memories, he appears more joyful and carefree - as an adult, it's shown how he is hurt by the war, how understanding has made him kind and and how he wants to protect his comrades both physically and mentally. In Nagato's memories, he appears much more angry and harsh in comparison - the anime even takes an effort to "soften" some of his actions; in the anime Yahiko gives back some of the stealing and also prays for Chibi in his death (instead of just scolding Nagato for crying and mourning as he does in the manga).

I don't know how manga to anime adaptations work but it's possible that, due to the difference in pace between manga and anime, Studio Pierrot realized Yahiko would come across much more "evil" if he wasn't softened - and I like the adaptations because it makes Nagato's memories less different than Konan's; all they did was add moments foreshadowing a much kinder personality Yahiko would display on the chapters later on.

(Edit: I added this image from chapter 509 to better illustrate Yahiko's emotional intelligence using an actual canon moment where Yahiko himself reflects on his past feelings and how they changed as he grew up. I really like this chapter, and I think it's nice how soft and caring Yahiko behaves towards Nagato in Konan's flashbacks, worrying about his injuries and telling that "it's ok" and encouraging him to rest, as opposed to Nagato's own flashbacks that show younger Yahiko screaming and scolding him for behaving like a "crybaby" and "victim" while they were all struggling to survive. I think it's important to consider the scenarios of those flashbacks; Nagato's flashbacks find the characters all recently traumatized, while Konan's find them in a much more stable and safe period of their lives).

Yahiko was the first among the three to understand that the pursuit of "justice" would only result in more conflict as one's noble justice could be seen as mere acts of vengeance by another. All the Ame Orphans knew in their lives was war, suffering and trauma, so the decision to pursue a different path away from violence could only come from a person who could look inside their own heart without the fear of seeing ugly things and confront their feelings.

Yahiko's unshakable hope on his dream of bringing peace was a result of his ambition, his vision and emotional intelligence. His sensitivity led him to become a kind, caring person, who avoided violence as much as he could. We know he was extremely loyal to his ideals, preferring to sacrifice himself and die instead of giving up the peaceful philosophy he had established for the Akatsuki to fight Hanzo. The extreme loyalty and the will to sacrifice anything for that was another trait he shared with Konan.

Although I consider Yahiko's vision to be one of the pillars in his personality, he was also extremely naïve. Yahiko's hopefulness and faith in his dreams and plans were not countered by opposite personality traits like being cynical or hesitant. The first time we see Yahiko being naïve was at the very idea of approaching the Sannin and begging for training, which could have easily ended with them all killed (or, more likely, just ignored). Unfortunately for Yahiko, his biggest flaw was not putting limits to how much he believed his ideals, leading him to fall in a trap he could have easily avoided - I left this trait for last because the anime makes Yahiko's willingness to believe Hanzo a key reason for falling on his trap, even though the manga never shows evidence for that and only implies Yahiko's innocence by Nagato's perception of them being "still children." However, I still think it's fitting for someone who displayed early signs of megalomania to have such naïvety.

Other traits that were not mentioned are less about his ideals and more about his nature; Yahiko is also naturally expansive, friendly and unafraid- these traits help him to become both the trio and Akatsuki's leader. In Chapter 509 Konan mentions he was adored by the rest of the Akatsuki, and it's very implied in the manga (and shown in anime fillers) he lead the Akatsuki with a egalitarian philosophy, not abusing his positon as leader through authority, which is another important trait of his personality; Yahiko may be bossy and unreceptive to challenges on his orders, but he is not comfortable with hierarchy and the idea of some people acting as if they were better than others.

I won't talk much about Yahiko and Konan's romance as I don't believe "being in love" can be a part of someones personality, and I don't believe his decision to kill himself to save her and Nagato was influenced by being in love. His decision to sacrifice himself comes directly from his “ends justifying the means” logic, even if in that particular case the survival of Nagato and Konan is the end which can be justified by the loss of his own life.

I do believe, though, that there are many reasons why they could be attracted to each other and I'll highlight specially their loyalty. Yahiko and Konan are both extremely loyal people; Yahiko is loyal to his ideals, Konan is loyal to what she considers "her own'' - her friends, her people. They are also people who are full of faith in the things they believe in; we are never shown Yahiko having doubts on his plans, as well as we never see Konan ever doubting the capability of the people she supports. People who share such characteristics of loyalty and faith will find great comfort in each other, creating a positive circle of both giving and receiving love and support.

Yahiko's expansive and dominant personality, as well as his positivity and hopefulness contrast immensely with Konan and Nagato's passiveness and melancholy. He is shown to be a person who could deal with his pain and his traumas, and was likely the biggest emotional support of the other two; as he himself said, he had hopes and dreams, his dreams became Nagato and Konan's dreams. His death left an immense void that could not be filled with positive, healthy thoughts and feelings, as Nagato and Konan always relied on his hopeful ideals.

The very traits that could have easily made him a villain are the same ones which lead him to achieve his and the trio's survival. Yahiko's personality exists in a delicate ballance between many "classically villainous" traits and the abundance of other solid "classically heroic" foundations.

By taking a complete look at his character it's easy to understand why his death was something really, near-impossible to recover from given the circumstances, and why the love and respect they felt endured so long after his death.

[raguna-blade]

Persona 5, Makoto, And Cops

So, like...We can all agree that it's weird that Makoto want's to be a cop in the game right? Aside from general cop bastardry irl, there's like precisely one police officer in the entirety of P5 who's at all a clear cut good guy and even he basically just says out and out, super explicitly that the cops are like...Not great.

At BEST, at BEST, they ensure the laws are followed, but that doesn't always equate to justice being served, and it is hilariously easy for them to be made into tools of opression, and to be made into stooges of people who want to do wrong.

Like Zenkichi out and out says “You really shouldn't be a cop.”

But Makoto still want's to be, despite knowing this, despite agreeing with this, and it's a weird gap right? Of perhaps everyone in the group, she should know best how following the rules and laws can lead to people doing pretty screwed up things if her little stint stalking and then blackmailing joker and company.

And she's just a student council president you know? It's not like she has anywhere near the same authority as a police officer, and unlike Chie who (for sake of argument here) has pretty objectively Upstanding Excellent Cops in her neighborhood except for you know the one who decidedly wasn't but P4 isn't really dealing with Laws and their problems, so them not leaning into law enforcement is a problem makes sense. Dojima is a just dude trying to do his best and even here the only other cop of note is uh...A straight up monster who abused his position of authority to get away with terrible things.

But back to P5, like...The game isn't subtle about it's feelings about law enforcement. Every Single Shadow is represented in the field by varying kinds of law enforcement operative types. Guards, knights, actual cops, prison wardens, etc etc. The Ultimate Big Bad basically posits that humans can't follow the rules and for that need to be severely punished and so laws and rules more or less end up being the big bad foe here.

The motivation to be a cop is well...Painted as whole heartedly misguided at best. We never get to know anything about Makoto's dad, and he's her inspiration for that goal, but at the same time, we get to see the other daughter who I think it's safe to say ALSO had him as something of a goal and...Sae also doesn't exactly come off as a perfect avatar of justice here either.

She very clearly WANTS to be, no doubt, and the massive shock of the games events does change her trajectory, but she's been deep down in the swamp of the system and she knows intimately that well...It's a shit show at best.

So i'm circling back to it as...Why? What's the deal here with what the game is going for theme wise? The idea of internal reform I suppose is being suggested, but the game's also make it remarkably clear that that actually won't work.

I'd say even textually, not even dipping into subtext, the game is out and out saying that you cannot reform a system from the inside like that when it's that far gone. Between P5 and P5S it's made abundantly clear that even what is functionally in a metaphysical sense a hard system check of things going out of whack law wise like the phantom thieves (what with their flipping of the table) they can't actually solve the problems of the system itself being super fucked. At best they can stop it from going full on malignant, but the cancer is still there. If the people don't actually band together to overturn things that are broken, especially when it is well within their hands to do, it's not going to improve, it's not going to get better. It's a delaying action at best.

Like the Phantom Thieves can't save everyone. Akira Konoe bluntly makes it clear when he asks them and the PT can only really go...No we can't. If we knew sure, but we don't possess the ability to do that. It's outside our ability entirely to do so for everyone.

So...Back to Makoto then. It's abundantly clear, I think, that she's very much of the mold of she want's to be a cop to protect people. That's what the job description is, even if that's not what it is in reality. And I think we can at least say that she's not so naive by this point to think that if she goes in she's going to be able to reform things, not by herself. It's worth noting that her intended goal is to become a Police Commisioner, and basically form her own police branch under her rules and regulations which...Fair. Fine. There's something to be said for being an apt demonstration but it doesn't actually fix the problem at it's core does it?

Which I think pushes this into the funky grey area of things because I don't think she's precisely...Wrong to want to do this. As stated, I think the games make it abundantly clear that one person on their own can't make radical and deep changes. You need people and momentum and everyone willing to work and all that.

Certainly, I think, it would be tremendously easier to reform an organization if someone in that organization is willing to make calls against what they're doing presently. But by the same token, it's also clear if you're entering an organization to try and change that organization it's uh...Not precisely a good bet. Now there's something to be said for being willing to try it I think. While the game doesn't exactly indicate how it'll go, we can imagine that following the events of the game that Makoto wouldn't be crushed under the weight of it all and change for the worse....Though the question of if she'd be able to make her goals a reality are a different question. She has allies in that fight for sure, between Zenkichi, Sae, and (from all indications) Kaburagi, there is at least some element of reform at play, but it's also well...

The big ass conspiracy didn't exactly come out of nowhere no? And the cops at every level more or less were compromised to some level or another, and this includes these prospective allies.

But then, I guess this goes back to the Phantom Thieves themselves. They're not able to actually fundamentally fix the problems at play. They stop the worst excesses certainly, the most terminal aspects of it, although in doing so they are very nearly destroyed outright and with barely a thought. In that spirit, Of doing what you can with what you can it changes the read on the decision at least somewhat.

The Daughter of a well decorated cop, sister of a particularly well known ex prosecuter now defense lawyer, in addition to being a top honor student type, certainly gives her a bit more leverage to attack the problem, especially in the sense of getting into a position to actually change things. To say nothing of Joanna.

Taking her awakening quote into consideration

"Have you decided to tread the path of strife...? Very well. Let us proceed with our contract at once. I am thou, thou art I... You have finally found your own justice... Please... Never lose sight of it again. This memorable day marks your graduation from your false self..."

and the general story the game presents of Joanna as one who rose to the top of the organization she was in and shook it to it's core (doesn't particularly matter how true that is in reality, merely what the game says for this instance) it's clear that indeed that's her gambit, if not the specific trickster archetype she's supposed to embody (as opposed to Joker's completely outside the law rogue, Anne's Femme Fatale, or Morganna's Layabout by Day Vigilante by Night as off the cuff examples), of someone who appeared to all eyes to be a harmless simple part of the system until it was simply too late for them to do anything about it.

There is a solid arc there, and a story to be told, and I think in that light makes the continued ambition make sense especially given what we're shown of well...Uh, everything to do with law enforcement in P5.

Now if they actually communicated that idea WELL is um...probably a different story. I think it's there to see, but I can easily see this being overlooked if this was the actual intent. Though, thinking about it, the way the various trickster archetypes are shown to function isn't quite as clear as it could be, though I think there's something to say for looking into that.

Later though.