#we can be critical/dislike the canon but why the fuck are you still coping about it

[lucifers-sinnamon]

Plain text.

I'm really sick of the toxic Charlastors making an embarrassment out of the rest of us lol. Stop tagging things chaggie or even anti chaggie — tumblr's tagging system is deranged and it will just appear in the tag, making you look like a jealous hater. Stop giving attention to people like StellaGoetiaFan on twitter. They're not Charlastor lovers, they're Vivziepop haters who use the ship to spread their dislike for things out of their control. Nobody of sound mind is running a hate account over cartoons.

End plain text. The word “Chaggie” is censored and the letter A is replaced with double slashes. The word “Vivziepop” is censored and the first letter I and O are replaced with double slashes.

I'm really sick of the toxic Charlastors making an embarrassment out of the rest of us lol. Stop tagging things ch//ggie or even anti ch//ggie -- tumblr's tagging system is deranged and it will just appear in the tag, making you look like a jealous hater. Stop giving attention to people like StellaGoetiaFan on twitter. They're not Charlastor lovers, they're V//vziep//p haters who use the ship to spread their dislike for things out of their control. Nobody of sound mind is running a hate account over cartoons.

[sk1fanfiction]

the many faces of tom riddle, part 4

-attachment, orphanages, and yet more child psych: time to add yet another voice to the void-

FULL DISCLAIMER THAT THIS IS JUST MY OPINION OF A CHARACTER WHO DOESN’T HAVE THE STRONGEST CANON CHARACTERIZATION, AND THUS ALL THIS IS BASED ON MY CONCEPTUALIZATION.

I'm going to be super biased, because my favorite portrayal of Tom Riddle is actually Hero Fiennes-Tiffin as eleven-year-old Tom Riddle, in HBP and I get to chat about child psych in this one, sooo here we go.

First of all, I’m just so impressed that a kid could bring that much depth to such a complex character.

This is the portrayal, I feel, that brings us closest to Tom’s character. Yes, Coulson’s brought us pretty close, but by fifth year, the mask was on.

We don't really get to see Tom looking afraid very often, but it's fear that rules his life, so it's really poignant in our first (chronologically) introduction, he looks absolutely terrified.

The void being the fandom's loud opinions on a certain headmaster. I wouldn't call myself pro-Dumbledore, but I'm certainly not anti-Dumbledore, either. (Agnostic-Dumbledore??)

Since I'm not of the anti-Dumbledore persuasion, I decided to poke around in the tags and see what the arguments were, so I don't make comments out of ignorance.

Most of the tag seems to be more directed towards his treatment of Harry and Sirius, but a few people mentioned that Dumbledore should have treated Tom with ‘exceptional kindness’ and tried to ‘rehabilitate’ him.

As I said in Parts 2 and 3, I am 100% in favor of helping a traumatized kid learn to cope, and I don’t think Tom Riddle was solidly on the Path to Evil (TM) at birth, or even at eleven. Not even at fifteen.

Could unconditional love and kindness have helped Tom Riddle enough for the rise of Lord Voldemort to never happen? Possibly, but...

Yes, I'm about to drag up that Carl Jung quote, again.

“I am not what happened to me, I am what I choose to become.”

The problem with this is that if you’re going to blame Dumbledore for this, you also have to blame every other adult in Tom’s life: his headmaster, Dippet, his Head of House, Slughorn, his ‘caretakers’ at the orphanage, Mrs. Cole and Martha, and possibly more. In fact, if we're going to blame any adult, let's blame Merope for r*ping and abusing Tom Riddle Senior, and having a kid she wasn't intending to take care of.

Furthermore, you cannot possibly hold anyone but Tom accountable for the murders he committed. (I should not have to sit here and explain why cold-blooded murder is wrong.) And if you like Tom Riddle's character, insinuating that his actions are completely at the whim of others is just a bit condescending towards him. He's not an automaton or a marionette, he's a very intelligent human being with a functioning brain, and at sixteen is fully capable of moral reasoning and critical analysis.

I've heard the theories about Dumbledore setting the Potters up to die, and I'm not going to discuss their validity right now; but he didn't put a wand in Tom's hand and force him to kill anyone. Tom did it all of his own accord.

And while yes, I have enormous sympathy for what happened to Tom as a child, at some point, he decided to murder Myrtle Warren, and that is where I lose my sympathy. Experiencing trauma does not give you the right to inflict harm on others. Yes, Tom was failed, but then, he spectacularly failed himself.

We also have no idea how Dumbledore treated Tom as a student.

In the movies, it’s Dumbledore who tells Tom he has to go back to the orphanage, but in the books, it’s Dippet. We know that Slughorn spent a lot of time around Tom at Slug Club and such, yet I don’t really see people clamoring for his head.

I regard the sentiment that Dumbledore turned Tom Riddle into Lord Voldemort with a lot of skepticism.

But let's hear from the character himself -- his impression of eleven-year-old Tom Riddle.

“Did I know that I had just met the most dangerous Dark wizard of all time?” said Dumbledore. “No, I had no idea that he was to grow up to be what he is. However, I was certainly intrigued by him. I returned to Hogwarts intending to keep an eye upon him, something I should have done in any case, given that he was alone and friendless, but which, already, I felt I ought to do for others’ sake as much as his."

Now, assuming that Dumbledore's telling the truth, I'm not seeing something glaringly wrong with this. No, he hasn't pigeonholed Tom as evil, yes, I'd be intrigued, too, and it's a very good idea to keep an eye on Tom, for his own sake.

“At Hogwarts,” Dumbledore went on, “we teach you not only to use magic, but to control it. You have — inadvertently, I am sure — been using your powers in a way that is neither taught nor tolerated at our school."

Again, it seems like he's at least somewhat sympathetic towards Tom, and is willing to at least give him a chance.

More evidence (again, assuming Dumbledore is a reliable narrator):

Harry: “Didn’t you tell them [the other professors], sir, what he’d been like when you met him at the orphanage?” Dumbledore: “No, I did not. Though he had shown no hint of remorse, it was possible that he felt sorry for how he had behaved before and was resolved to turn over a fresh leaf. I chose to give him that chance.”

Now, I think Dumbledore is pretty awful with kids, but I don't think that's malicious. Yeah, it's a flaw, but perfect people don't exist, and perfect characters are dead boring. I am not saying that he definitely handled Tom's case well, I'm just saying that there's little evidence that Dumbledore, however shaken and scandalized, wrote him off as 'evil snake boy.'

It's also worth taking into account that it's 1938, and the attitudes towards mental health back then.

Why is Tom looking at Dumbledore like that, anyway? Why is he so scared? What has he possibly been threatened with or heard whispers of?

"'Professor'?" repeated Riddle. He looked wary. "Is that like 'doctor'? What are you here for? Did she get you in to have a look at me?"

"I don't believe you," said Riddle. "She wants me looked at, doesn't she? Tell the truth!"

"You can't kid me! The asylum, that's where you're from, isn't it? 'Professor,' yes, of course -- well, I'm not going, see? That old cat's the one who should be in the asylum. I never did anything to little Amy Benson or Dennis Bishop, and you can ask them, they'll tell you!

Tom keeps insisting he's not mad until Dumbledore finally manages to calm him down.

I'm really upset this wasn't in the movie, because it's important context. Instead we got these throwaway cutscenes of some knick-knacks relating to the Cave he's got lying around, but I just would have preferred to see him freaking out like he does in the book.

There was extreme stigma and prejudice towards mental illness.

'Lunatic asylums,' as they were called in Tom's time, were terrible places. In the 1930s and 40s, he could look forward to being 'treated' with induced convulsions, via metrazol, insulin, electroshock, and malaria injections. And if he stuck around long enough, he could even look forward to a lobotomy!

So, if you think Dumbledore was judgmental towards Tom, imagine how flat-out prejudiced whatever doctors or 'experts' Mrs. Cole might have gotten in to 'look at him' must have been!

Moving on to the next few shots, he is sitting down and hunched over as if expecting punishment or at least some kind of bad news, Dumbledore is mostly out of the frame. He’s trapped visually, by Dumbledore on one side, and a wall on the other, because he’s still very much afraid. uncomfortable, as he tells Dumbledore a secret that he fears could get him committed to an asylum (which were fucking horrible places, as I said).

It brings to the scene that miserable sense of isolation and loneliness to that has defined Tom’s entire life up to that point (and, partially due to his own bad choices, continues to define it).

And, when Dumbledore accepts it, his posture changes. he becomes more confident and more at ease, as he describes the... utilities of his magical abilities. 

"All sorts," breathed Riddle. A flush of excitement was rising up his neck into his hollow cheeks; he looked fevered. "I can make things move without touching them. I can make animals do what I want them to do, without training them. I can make bad things happen to people who annoy me. I can make them hurt if I want to."

Riddle lifted his head. His face was transfigured: There was a wild happiness upon it, yet for some reason it did not make him better looking; on the contrary, his finely carved features seemed somehow rougher, his expression almost bestial.

I do think Harry, our narrator, is being a tad bit judgmental here. Magic is probably the only thing that brings Tom happiness in his grey, lonely world, and when I was Tom's age and being bullied, if I had magic powers, you'd better believe that I'd (a) be bloody ecstatic about it (b) use them. And, like Tom, I can't honestly say that I can't imagine getting a bit carried-away with it. Unfortunately, we can't all be as inherently good and kindhearted as Harry.

Reading HBP again, as a 'mature' person, it almost seems like the reader is being prompted to see Tom as evil just because he's got 'weird' facial expressions.

So... uh...

Nope, let's judge Tom on his actions, not looks of 'wild happiness.'

To his great surprise, however, Dumbledore drew his wand from an inside pocket of his suit jacket, pointed it at the shabby wardrobe in the corner, and gave the wand a casual flick. The wardrobe burst into flames. Riddle jumped to his feet; Harry could hardly blame him for howling in shock and rage; all his worldly possessions must be in there. But even as Riddle rounded on Dumbledore, the flames vanished, leaving the wardrobe completely undamaged.

Okay, one thing I dislike is Tom's lack of emotional affect when Dumbledore burned the wardrobe, in the books, he jumped up and started screaming, instead of looking passively (in shock, perhaps?) at the fire. Incidentally, I can't really tell if he's impressed or in shock, to be honest. I think they really tried to make Tom 'creepier' in the movie.

This is one of the incidents where Dumbledore's inability to deal with children crops up.

I think he was trying to teach Tom that magic can be dangerous, and he wouldn't like it to be used against him, but burning the wardrobe that contains everything he owns was a terrible move on Dumbledore's part. Tom already has very limited trust in other people, and now, he's not going to trust Dumbledore at all -- now, he's put Tom on the defensive/offensive for the rest of their interaction, and perhaps for the rest of their teacher-student relationship.

Riddle stared from the wardrobe to Dumbledore; then, his expression greedy, he pointed at the wand. "Where can I get one of them?"

"Where do you buy spellbooks?" interrupted Riddle, who had taken the heavy money bag without thanking Dumbledore, and was now examining a fat gold Galleon.

But I'm not surprised Tom is 'greedy.' He's grown up in an environment where if he wants something, whether that's affection, food, money, toys, he's got to take it. There's no one looking after his needs specifically. I'm not surprised that he's a thief and a hoarder, and I don't think that counts as a moral failing necessarily, and more of a maladaptive way of seeking comfort. It would be bizarre if he came out of Wool's Orphanage a complete saint.

Additionally, I think given that the Gaunt family has a history of 'mental instability,' Tom is a sensitive child, and the trauma of growing up institutionalized and possibly being treated badly due to his magical abilities or personality disorder deeply affected him.

And there are points where it seems that Dumbledore is quick to judge Tom.

"He was already using magic against other people, to frighten, to punish, to control."

"Yes, indeed; a rare ability, and one supposedly connected with the Dark Arts, although as we know, there are Parselmouths among the great and the good too. In fact, his ability to speak to serpents did not make me nearly as uneasy as his obvious instincts for cruelty, secrecy, and domination."

"I trust that you also noticed that Tom Riddle was already highly self-sufficient, secretive, and, apparently, friendless?..."

And while this is all empirically true, these are (a) a product of Tom's harsh environment, and (b) do not necessarily make him evil. But the point remains that child psych didn't exist as a field of its own, and psychology as a proper science was in its infancy, so I'd be shocked if Dumbledore was insightful about Tom's situation.

But I've gone a ton of paragraphs without citing anything, so I've got to rectify that.

Let's talk about Harry Harlow's monkey experiments in the 1950-70s.

If you're not a fan of animal research, since I know some people are uncomfortable with it, feel free to scroll past.

Here's the TL;DR: Children need to be hugged and shown affection too, not just fed and clothed, please don't leave babies to 'cry out' and ignore their needs because it's backwards and fucking inhumane. HUG AND COMFORT AND CODDLE CHILDREN AND SPOIL THEM WITH AFFECTION!

I will put more red writing when the section is over.

This is still an interesting experiment to have in mind while we explore the whole 'no one taught Tom Riddle how to love' thing and whether or not it's actually a good argument.

Andddd let's go all the way back to the initial 1958 experiment, featured in Harlow's paper, the Nature of Love. (If you're familiar with Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs, him and Harlow actually collaborated for a time).

To give you an idea of our starting point, until Harlow's experiment, which happened twenty years after Dumbledore meets Tom for the first time, no one in science had really been interested in studying love and affection.

"Psychologists, at least psychologists who write textbooks, not only show no interest in the origin and development of love or affection, but they seem to be unaware of its very existence."

I'm going to link some videos of Harry Harlow showing the actual experiment, which animal rights activists would probably consider 'horrifying.' It's nothing gory or anything, but if you are particularly soft-hearted (and I do not mean that as an insult), be warned. It's mostly just baby monkeys being very upset and Harlow discussing it in a callous manner. Yes, today it would be considered unethical, but it's still incredibly important work and if you think you can handle it, I would recommend watching at least the first one to get an idea of how dramatic this effect is.

Dependency when frightened

The full experiment

The TL;DW:

This experiment was conducted with rhesus macaques; they're still used in psychology/neuroscience research when you want very human-like subjects, because they are very intelligent (unnervingly so, actually). I'd say that adult ones remind me of a three-year old child.

Harlow separated newborn monkeys from their mothers, and cared for their physical needs. They had ample nutrition, bedding, warmth, et cetera. However, the researchers noticed that the monkeys:

(a) were absolutely miserable. And not just that, but although all their physical needs were taken care of, they weren't surviving well past the first few days of life. (This has also been documented in human babies, and it's called failure to thrive and I'll talk about it a bit later).

(b) showed a strong attachment to the gauze pads used to cover the floor, and decided to investigate.

So, they decided to provide a surrogate 'mother.' Two, actually. Mother #1 was basically a heated fuzzy doll that was nice for the monkeys to cuddle with. Mother #2 was the same, but not fuzzy and made of wire. Both provided milk. The result? The monkeys spent all their time cuddling and feeding from the fuzzy 'mother.' Perhaps not surprising.

What Harlow decided next, is that one of the hallmarks being attached to your caregiver is seeking hugs and reassurance from them when frightened. So, when the monkeys were presented with something scary, they'd go straight to the cloth mother and ignore the wire one. Not only that, but when placed in an unfamiliar environment, if the cloth mother was present, the monkeys would be much calmer.

In a follow-up experiment, Harlow decided to see if there was some sort of sensitive period by introducing both 'mothers' to monkeys who had been raised in isolation for 250 days. Guess what?

The initial reaction of the monkeys to the alterations was one of extreme disturbance. All the infants screamed violently and made repeated attempts to escape the cage whenever the door was opened. They kept a maximum distance from the mother surrogates and exhibited a considerable amount of rocking and crouching behavior, indicative of emotionality.

Yikes. So, at first Harlow thought that they'd passed some kind of sensitive period for socialization. But after a day or two they calmed down and started chilling out with the cloth mother like the other monkeys did. But here's a weird thing:

That the control monkeys develop affection or love for the cloth mother when she is introduced into the cage at 250 days of age cannot be questioned. There is every reason to believe, however, that this interval of delay depresses the intensity of the affectional response below that of the infant monkeys that were surrogate-mothered from birth onward

All these things... attachment, affection, love, seeking comfort ... are mostly learned behaviours.

Over.

Orphanages, institutionalized childcare, and why affection is a need, not an extra.

His face is lit the exact same was as Coulson’s was in COS (half-light, half-dark), and I said I was going to talk about this in Part 3. I think perhaps it's intended to make Fiennes-Tiffin look more evil or menacing, but I'm going to quite deliberately misinterpret it.

Now, for some context, Dumbledore has just (kind of) burned his wardrobe, ratted out his stealing habit, and (in the books only, they really took a pair of scissors to this scene) told him he needs to go apologize and return everything and Dumbledore will know if he doesn't, and, well, Tom's not exactly a happy bugger about it.

But interestingly, in the books, this is when we start to see Tom's 'persona,' aka his mask, start to come into play. Whereas before, he was screaming, howling, and generally freaking out, here, he starts to hide his emotions -- in essence, obscure his true self under a shadow. So this scene is really the reverse of Coulson's in COS.

And perhaps I'm reading wayyy too much into this, but I can't help but notice that Coulson's hair is parted opposite to Fiennes-Tiffin's, and the opposite sides of their faces are shadowed, too.

Riddle threw Dumbledore a long, clear, calculating look. "Yes, I suppose so, sir," he said finally, in an expressionless voice.

Riddle did not look remotely abashed; he was still staring coldly and appraisingly at Dumbledore. At last he said in a colorless voice, "Yes, sir."

Here's an article from The Atlantic on Romanian orphanages in the 1980s, when the dictator, Ceausescu, basically forced people to have as many children as possible and funnel them into institutionalized 'childcare', and it's absolutely heartbreaking.

There's not a whole lot of information out there on British orphanages in the 30s' and 40s', but given that people back then thought you just had to keep children on a strict schedule and feed them, it wouldn't have a whole lot better.

The only thing I've found is this, and it's not super promising.

The most important study informing the criteria for contemporary nosologies, was a study by Barbara Tizard and her colleagues of young children being raised in residential nurseries in London (Tizard, 1977). These nurseries had lower child to caregiver ratios than many previous studies of institutionalized children. Also, the children were raised in mixed aged groups and had adequate books and toys available. Nevertheless, caregivers were explicitly discouraged from forming attachments to the children in their care.

Here's a fairly recent paper that I think gives a good summary: Link

Here, they describe the responses to the Strange Situation test (which tests a child's attachment to their caregiver).

We found that 100% of the community sample received a score of “5,” indicating fully formed attachments, whereas only 3% of the infants living in institutions demonstrated fully formed attachments. The remaining 97% showed absent, incomplete, or odd and abnormal attachment behaviors.

Bowlby and Ainsworth, who did the initial study, thought that children would always attach to their caregivers, regardless of neglect or abuse. But some infants don't attach (discussed along with RAD in Part 2).

Here's a really good review paper on attachment disorders in currently or formerly institutionalized children : Link

Core features of RAD in young children include the absence of focused attachment behaviors directed towards a preferred caregiver, failure to seek and respond to comforting when distressed, reduced social and emotional reciprocity, and disturbances of emotion regulation, including reduced positive affect and unexplained fearfulness or irritability.

Which all sounds a lot like Tom in this scene. The paper also discusses neurological effects, like atypical EEG power distribution (aka brain waves), which can correlate with 'indiscriminate' behavior and poor inhibitory control; which makes sense for a kid who, oh, I don't know, hung another kid's rabbit because they were angry.

Furthermore...

...those children with more prolonged institutional rearing showed reduced amygdala discrimination and more indiscriminate behavior.

This again, makes a ton of sense for Tom's psychological profile, because the amygdala (which is part of the limbic system, which regulates emotions) plays a major role in fear, anger, anxiety, and aggression, especially with respect to learning, motivation and memory.

So, I agree completely that Tom needed a lot of help, especially given the fact that he spent eleven years in an orphanage (longer than the Bucharest study I was referring to), and Dumbledore wasn't exactly understanding of his situation, and probably didn't realise what a dramatic effect the orphanage had on Tom, and given the way he talks to Tom, probably treated him as if he were a kid who grew up in a healthy environment.

In case you are still unconvinced that hugging is that important, there's a famous 1944 study conducted on 40 newborn human infants to see what would happen if their physical needs (fed, bathed, diapers changed) were provided for with no affection. The study had to be stopped because half the babies died after four months. Affection leads to the production of hormones and boosts the immune system, which increases survival, and that is why we hug children and babies should not be in orphanages. They are supposed to be hugged, all the time. I can't find the citation right now, I'll add it later if I find it.

But I think it's vastly unrealistic to say that Dumbledore, who grew up during the Victorian Era, would have any grasp of this and I don't think he was actively malicious towards Tom.

Was Tom Riddle failed by institutional childcare? Absolutely.

Were the adults in his life oblivious to his situation? Probably.

Do the shitty things that happened to Tom excuse the murders he committed, and are they anyone's fault but his own? No. At the end of the day, Tom made all the wrong choices.

And, for what it's worth, I think (film) Dumbledore (although he expresses the same sentiment in more words in the books) wishes he could go back in time and have helped Tom.

"Draco. Years ago, I knew a boy, who made all the wrong choices. Please, let me help you."

[iluxia]

Unsolicited writing advice???

A ton of you have commented with such kind and complimentary words about my Naruto fic Hiding in the Leaves and its characterization through the shifting POVs. Thank you all! I’m gratified to hear that you’re enjoying it. Some are asking how I shift perspectives and still manage to keep the characters in line. Actually, a fair number of readers have asked for actual advice, so here we go. This is a lot of writing babble, I hope it makes sense but feel free to drop me an ask if anything is unclear! 

(1) I read a lot. I read all the time. Easily a book a day, maybe two days. And when I do, I practice critical reading—or as they say, reading like an editor, so I can pick at techniques other writers use. Writing is an art you learn largely by example. A lot of what I read influences what and how I write, so when I need to change my tone or voice to fit a different character, I usually read something that matches what I want my prose to sound like, on top of using techniques like changing tenses and playing with vocabulary choices. 

I recently had the chance to flex these writing muscles because I went from writing two very distinct human voices (Tony Stark & Stephen Strange) to writing an alien voice (Loki). It was fucking hard; those in the Marvel fandom might know what I mean. Tony and Stephen are both human, born and raised in America, with specific life experiences that inform their daily decisions and personalities. Loki, on the other hand, is an alien: raised in Asgard, stolen from Jotunheim, well-traveled throughout the Nine Realms, and moreover raised as a prince. Just stop and think about that. When your characters do not have the same experiences that you do, they’re bound to not have the same earthbound concerns that you do. Anthropomorphizing non-human (or even non-living) beings is an age-old practice, but to be faithful to his character, I tried my best to twist my writing voice into a different shape—a shape that more befits the prince of a realm that is somewhat humanoid but very different from what we know on Earth. And in order to do that, I did four things: 

I changed my prose from past to present tense; it sounds more immediate and assertive

I read three books, written in present tense, where the prose mimics what I imagine Loki would sound like in his own head

I made a huge spread of everything about Loki (both canon and my own orginal additions) that would inform his motivations, internal concerns, emotional responses, and decision-making processes

I drowned myself in Loki fanwork

Immersion is key! If you saturate your brain in a specific type of rhetoric or style, that’s what’s likeliest to come out of your productive process at the end. So controlling what you read/watch/listen to will help control your writing style too.

 (2) This further breaks down what I just said in the third bullet point above. Before I start writing from a specific character’s perspective, I’ll take the time to brainstorm and build that character from the ground up. This might take a day or two and includes a staggering amount of detail—just as much detail as mine or your life might comprise. Silly little things like favorite colors and foods, hobbies, dislikes. Oftentimes, if you’re a fic writer, this is easier because canon gives it to you. Those amazing wiki-pages exist to make your life easier in this regard. (Bless.) What canon doesn’t give you is where you can dig in. Go deeper. Pin your character down. Think about more serious considerations like emotional triggers, conscious motivations, subconscious motivations, coping and defense mechanisms. When hurt or under stress, are they the type to lash out or curl in? Are they the type to hold on to a grudge, or do they prefer to forgive and forget? Do they get hurt easily or do they have a thick skin? I imagine the character’s relationships in life, I rank them and network them in my head. Who do they run to when they need advice? Who do they like hanging out with when they’re happy? Who annoys them, who inspires them, who scares them, who do they want to be like? Even if these questions aren’t necessarily things you might discuss in your fic, it helps inform this person you’re writing about, so it helps you keep a clearer and more consistent mental picture of them as you go.

But most critical of all, I sit and imagine myself in their shoes and think of how they perceive themselves. That is a major factor when writing, because that’s what their head-voice will sound like. And if the story is written from their perspective, then that means you, writer, are writing in that head-voice!

Here’s a more HITL-specific example (I’ll try not to spoil too much lol):

Sasuke

How he sees himself:

Ordinary; not very impressive as a shinobi, but not absolutely terrible either – just ordinary

Average looking

A slow, impatient learner

Awkward with people, but polite and with good intentions

Emotionally stable

A good reader and listener

How he actually is from someone else’s POV:

Incredibly skilled for his age and level as a shinobi

Actually quite handsome

An intuitive learner, very tenacious and will keep at a task forever until he gets it just right; perfectionist much

Quiet, polite, notices a lot about how others act

Absolutely does not handle emotions well

Selective listener; sometimes only hears what he wants to hear

Rationales:

He’s surrounded by a clan of perfectionists and overachievers who constantly laud his aniki for being a genius while paying him no attention. Of course he thinks he’s ordinary.

No one ever compliments him for his looks in the clan compound, and what he sees in the mirror looks just like a younger version of everyone around him. Of course he thinks he’s average, even though he actually has looks.

Because he’s largely self-taught (except for when Obaa-sama teaches him), he thinks he’s slow. (Ever learned a new skill or maybe even a new language by yourself? I have. I can tell you that my perception of how much time I spent learning ‘basics’ was skewed.) He also holds himself to a higher than normal standard because that’s what gets him positive attention (or attention at all) within his family. Add the fact that Itachi was there blazing through everything before him, and it’s suddenly easy to understand why Sasuke thinks the worst of himself as a student. But he (and Naruto) are actually fast learners—we see this even in canon—and both of them boast high levels of natural intuition, or as I (the neuroscientist) likes to call it, pattern recognition. Some people are naturally better at this than others; there have been extensive tests done to show it. But we also know intuition can be trained, so the more Sasuke works at something, the better he gets, and the faster he learns the next skill—as long as the learning is patterned. Which is why Orochimaru, who has picked up on this trait, walks them through learning each jutsu in a stepwise manner every time.

Sasuke doesn’t have a lot of social interaction outside of his family. The Uchiha clan in this fic is very segregated from the rest of the village, so if you’re not active as a shinobi, you probably don’t get out of the compound much. Interacting with people probably intimidates Sasuke a lot so he feels awkward about it and reverts back to habits of politeness and silence that he was taught from childhood. That doesn’t mean that he’s not paying attention, however; Sasuke is naturally observant and remembers a lot about how people act (and not so much what they say). I have a theory about this related to the Sharingan but I won’t go into too much here because it would be a straight-up spoiler, sorry. :D

He thinks he’s emotionally stable because he doesn’t remember many incidents of severe emotional upheaval in his life. That’s because he hasn’t had them; apart from the whole thing with Itachi, he’s been fairly sheltered his whole life. But he actually doesn’t handle emotions well—something he’s about to find out soon enough—and for the same reason! He hasn’t been exposed to an extensive range of it.

Because he’s largely self-taught, he has confidence in his reading skills. He also remembers all of Obaa-sama’s stories so he thinks he’s a good listener. Well, he is—to an extent. If he wants to listen, he will. If he doesn’t, he’s just as proficient as Naruto at pigheadedness. (I think it’s an Uchiha trait too lmao.)

That was a lot, right? But you can see that if I’m writing from Sasuke’s POV, I have to keep a different set of pointers than if I’m writing from Naruto’s POV about Sasuke. The way I think of it is like changing lenses or shades depending on the light outside.

A few more techniques/guidelines I use:

Stay consistent with vocabulary. Orochimaru is far more verbose than the rest of them, Shikamaru right behind him, and Naruto uses shorter, simpler words. You can even assign particular words to a character, a word only they would use when referring to something. This applies to how your character addresses other people too, i.e. Orochimaru calls them ‘little ones’; Shikamaru calls his dad ‘oyaji’ in front of his peers but ‘otou-san’ in front of his sensei; Naruto is quick to give people nicknames and most of the time it sticks.

Watch the adjectives; different people describe things differently. Orochimaru uses more nuanced words that can mean different things depending on the situation and mood; Naruto thinks in terms of emotions, a lot of how does this make me feel; Sasuke is very visual and notices a lot of colors.

Use speech habits wisely; how your character talks should reflect their life. Just like accents, speech habits can tell a lot about a person. Sasuke always speaks politely because it’s how he’s supposed to talk at home, otherwise there’d be trouble. Naruto grew up in a poorer district and had no one to really teach him how to talk politely, so he’s very casual. Shikamaru cusses at age eleven because his parents and family are incredibly laissez-faire and honest around him, so he thinks it’s acceptable and normal (and he was never reprimanded for it).

Play with your tenses. Writing in past tense sounds and feels very different from writing in present tense. Depending on your character, one or the other might sound more appropriate. There are some expressions and figures of speech that sound fine when written in past tense but awkward when written in present tense, so that will end up inadvertently changing your prose a bit, which can be useful.

Read your work out loud. Cardinal rule of prose-writing. What looks good on paper doesn’t always sound good when read out loud. If you read it and it doesn’t sound like how your character talks, time for a vibe check. You might need to change a few words and move sentences around, or you might need a complete overhaul… an editor (and I mean an editor, not just a beta-reader) can usually help you out.

��A note about editors vs beta-readers:

There is a cardinal difference! A beta-reader is usually not professionally trained but should be experienced enough to point out things that aren’t right. In fandom, I’ve found that beta-readers mostly focus on a story’s general feel, flow and readability, sometimes character consistency, sometimes they point out typos and mistakes. An editor goes further than that. I’m fortunate to have Tria (aventria) who has edited my work for, gosh, 14 years now, fuck, we’re old! I call her my editor because when she goes through a piece, she will fix everything and make my draft bleed and I love it. (I actually get a little upset when she doesn’t fix anything, even if that means everything was good.) As an editor, she does a vibe check and looks for typos/errors, yes, but she also critiques the prose extensively. She can rearrange phrases or entire paragraphs for better flow. She will cut out entire scenes or make me rewrite them if they’re that bad. Like a copy editor, she looks at stylistic inconsistencies, grammar errors, and iffy word use. She’ll usually suggest or replace the offending word altogether. She has a lot of freedom with the work and can actually kick a piece to the curb if it’s really that shitty. She also questions plot progression, character development, and the relevance of a scene. (She’s made me cut out many, many scenes.) – That all being said, it’s not easy finding an editor, much less a good one. It also has to be someone you trust to have this much power over your work. It’s worth it, however, and my writing has gotten so much better because of the help.

If you’ve read this far, wow, thanks! You’re also probably thinking, “Shit, she takes this too seriously. It’s just a fic.”

I have… gotten into fights in the past before because of this. I feel strongly about the stuff I write. Just because it’s fanfiction doesn’t mean it isn’t a labor of love. I’m a perfectionist by nature, so that’s why I put so much time and effort into what amounts to ‘just a fic.’ And you know what? At the end of the day, writing it gives me satisfaction and happiness, so I will keep pouring into it as much as I can. It’s just a bonus to hear that other people are enjoying it too. (Yes, I’m one of those weirdos who intensely enjoy reading my own work…)

 Aaand the final point:

(3) I double-majored in psychology for undergrad and have by now accumulated thousands of hours of clinical hours spent using the theories and techniques I learned from those classes on real people. I’m also specializing in neuroscience, so a portion of my time is spent in psychiatry. Characterization was actually not one of my writing strengths at first, but I definitely noticed leaps in improvement after my clinical rotation started. People skills are just that: skills which are honed with practice. It’s amazing how much you learn about how people think and what make them tick when you interact with a whole spectrum of examples: from your neurotypical everyday well-adjusted person, to high-functioning neurotics and obsessives, to patients who have suffered complex stroke syndromes, to encephalitic brains burning under septic fevers, to druggies stoned so high they’ve breached the atmosphere, to patients whose brains are growing insidious tumors, to schizophrenics and catatonics and the depressed. My job also allows me the rare opportunity to interact with people from all walks of life. All I need to do if I wanted insight about how life is for soldiers who served in an active warzone, for example, is to hit up Bill at the ICU and ask for stories about Korea and the Gulf and Vietnam. Or if I wanted to know about how to survive the Rwandan genocide, I could sit down with Amida, who survived it as a barely-teenager with her brother and sister in tow while only “losing my innocence and an eye.” Or I could talk to Heather, who is building a life with her husband and two rambunctious children, for a perspective on the daily concerns and delights of a ‘perfectly normal and ordinary’ working mother. (Her words, not mine; Heather is amazing even if she eats the doctor’s lounge out of Tita Annabel’s cookies.) Anyway, you get my point. When I write, I almost always write about people, so it makes sense that a lot of my inspiration comes from people too. A lot of my original characters—and even some that are not—often speak with the voices and inflections of people I know in real life. You probably have people with interesting stories to tell in your life; you just have to work up the courage to ask and take the time to listen. You’d be surprised at what you learn!

A few helpful writing resources: (most of these are classics)

The Elements of Style by Strunk & White

The First Five Pages by Noah Lukeman

How to Read a Book by Mortimer Adler and Charles van Doren

And more books that helped me get into people’s heads:

Hallucinations by Dr. Oliver Sacks

The Noonday Demon by Andrew Solomon

Far From the Tree by Andrew Solomon

The Lucifer Effect by Philip Zimbardo

Admirable Evasions by Theodore Dalrymple

I hope you got something out of that. Again, feel free to drop me an ask if you have any questions or want to chat!

[destroy-trash-boys]

subjective opinion, but i really don’t like the take that joker x akechi is superior if it’s a corruption romance and joker starts murdering, for several reasons

1. it comes from people seeing joker might have feelings for another boy and going straight into corruption romance, because we really don’t have enough stories where m/f love is healing and good but sga is corruptive and bad. we have more of these stories than we ever had of redemptive romance, which people act like is so played out for mlm ships even though it isn’t

2. the second joker showed anything that could be seen as traumatized, really reacting to all he went through, people who ship him with akechi, and only this ship, want him to be yandere, or to be creepily possessive, or to start murdering because of akechi. the relationship with akechi makes him want to kill. 

3. the argument that akechi is sympathetic because he didn’t want to kill and was manipulated by shido completely looses power when people also admit he wants to kill and would have joker do so. people talk so much about shido’s abuse but then want joker to join akechi with that, as if akechi wouldn’t be an abusive piece of shit if he manipulated joker to kill with him? i respected the game a lot for denying an accomplice ending because that’s not who joker is, and it was pointed out to me that akechi could not want joker to kill, or to pick the false reality. so even the one thing in their relationship that gets cited as a reason why it’s not abusive -akechi rejecting joker’s offer to throw away his friends- is completely erased. how is this ship “healthy” if people see this happening?

i get it, i see people who like the ship just mindlessly say it’s sexy and horny, and it’s because of who these characters are. i don’t agree with the binary that characters must be feral corrupt and evil or else i want uwu soft vanilla babies, and i don’t respect any argument that says my criticism of this means i’m saying lgbt characters can’t have any conflicts at all. there’s a huge different between conflicts and the same trope of same gender attraction leading to a corruption of morals, the loss of one’s friends and making joker a worse person. is this a trend because akechi fans agree he can’t ever become a better person, or they don’t want him to be? yet the same akechi fans say he doesn’t need redemption, he needs rehab, but you still want him to murder people under his own will, and take joker along. makes no sense, but okay.

it’s the type of characters they are that makes people feel less bad about writing weird shit, it’s okay to say a character deserves to be r*ped if they’re like akechi, there’s no guilt, because he’s feral, so it’s the exact type of character in fiction where fans can just use the background to have a character be abused without any guilt, because their type of personality makes it “horny” for them. i’ve been called a victim blamer for bad takes in the past, but i’m not the one saying a character being abused is horny and hot just because they act a certain way. that’s the fans. the fans are the ones saying he’s a good character now because they want him to be evil, they like a character being permanently messed up so they can just be crazy and do any depraved thing to joker that the fans want, because recovery is “uwu” and we still can’t comprehend that for difficult characters because it’s rarely done well. i really dislike what this character represents and how people just want corruptive gay romances and using language of coping to make this sound deep. i’m  not arguing for redemption here but it’s obvious why people don’t want it or see it as possible, and it has definitely led to this ship being the most fucked up because the canon has given people enough to want that.

it’s shit the ship people talk about being a hint at crumbs is this way, and people do not need to be dismissed as wanting uwu soft victims for saying this other end of the spectrum is bad. it’s not even unpopular on tumblr to like remorseless male villains and fucked up mlm ships. let people hate these themes and be critical of them if they want to.

edit: and if people think i’m reaching by saying the personality is why people feel justified in writing all the abuse, i saw some “pro ship” tweet saying “if a character acts like a feral animal they should be fucked like one” and the op was referring to akechi. so this character is also an animal, and therefore it’s fine to write as much noncon and abuse as possible because of their personality. people call “antis” the puritans but they’re the ones who also think that only characters should be in those situations and that’s literally a warped attitude towards sexuality right there. 

[azuremist]

So, this post will dip its toes into some of The Discourse™, because today, I will be talking about something I found in the Professor Layton fandom that made me want a Burger King pissy meal. This may not be entirely coherent, as I am a very emotional person, but then again, neither are any of my posts, really. In case any of you are wondering, this is 100% okay to reblog, but if you aren’t an abuse survivor or have PTSD, don’t clown around on this fucking post. This is under a ‘read more’ because, believe me, you do not want this to be clogging up your dash. As many of you know, I’m autistic, so when I’m passionate about something, I tend to infodump, so this may be quite long.

 This post will also be covering possibly triggering topics, so please read at your own risk.

 Now, this post will be about a blog entirely irrelevant to this, except for the fact that it is where this whole thing is happening. I will not be tagging that blog, because I do not think the moderator of the blog is at fault or anything, they just happen to be a confession blog where people put their opinions on; opinions which I will be talking about today. But for anyone interested in seeing the posts, they’re @/professorlaytonconfessions. Obviously, don’t witchhunt, but I’d hope you all would know that by now.

 So lately, as anyone following that blog may know, the hot topic of discussion is how Luke’s parents are portrayed as abusive in the Professor Layton fandom so that Luke can be portrayed as having PTSD/being adopted by Hershel, and how that is apparently a bad thing. Which, allow me to clarify: if you do not portray Clark and Brenda that way, that is totally fine. What is not fine is the way that these people react to an abuse survivor saying that they portray Luke’s parents that way to cope.

So, here is the original post in question:

 (“Luke’s parents are not abusive. Clark and Brenda Triton ARE NOT ABUSIVE. You can say Luke was adopted by Hershel or whatever but the Tritons aren’t and never were abusive.”)

 This, from what I can tell, appears to be the first post on this matter. And, while it isn’t as bad as some of the stuff we’ll be seeing later, there is some stuff to unpack. Mainly, their language in saying that people can do one thing (say Luke was adopted by Hershel), but can’t do another (portray them as abusive). Can it be frustrating if a fandom misrepresents your favorite characters consistently? Of course it is!! I’m not saying it’s not! But what I am saying is that you can’t tell people how they can and cannot portray characters. It’s their choice. If you do not like it, then look for content of the Tritons elsewhere. Or, make it yourself! Everyone has the power to make the exact kind of content they want to see, if they just make it themselves. And if you don’t think of yourself as talented, commission somebody to write or draw it! Freelance artists need the money, you want the content… It’s a win-win.

 However, a different anon replies with this confession:

“You guys can say that Clark wasn’t abusive in canon, and I guess I’ll agree. But fictional characters can be whatever we want, and some people want to project onto Luke and his relationship with his parents. Don’t make abuse victims feel bad for projecting themselves onto fictional characters.”

 And this? This is a perfectly reasonable statement. It is true that abuse survivors can project onto Luke’s relationship with his parents, and it is understandable that, as such, they may get upset when seeing a post that (as we just covered) tells people what they can and cannot do with these characters. People, especially people with trauma, project onto characters so much that it has become practically a meme, of sorts, especially in the artist/writing community. I would know, as I do this a lot, as well. So, while the tone of this post reads to me as slightly more frustrated than I initially was upon reading the original post, it’s honestly not a good feeling when somebody criticisms your healthy coping mechanisms just because they don’t like how you portray a character; especially if, like me, you struggled for a long time with unhealthy coping mechanisms before finding this one.

 And while I wish this was the end, and this could just be a nice post about how traumatized people cope, someone decided to send in the coldest, most brain-dead take here today, in my opinion:

“my good dude, a fictional character may be a fictional character but they are still a… character. that’s literally the meaning of the word. they’re not blank slates. as someone who really adores luke’s parents, this is just really awful and pretty dismissive, please just move your projections elsewhere.”

 Now, this is so much to unpack that I feel tempted to throw away the whole damn suitcase. But okay, sure, let’s take a crack at it. Someone replied, to an abuse survivor, saying that projecting onto these fictional characters to cope with their literal trauma, by saying that their healthy coping mechanism is ‘just really awful’. Why? Because they really adore the characters, of course! That’s more important than an abuse survivor learning to heal from what horrible thing traumatized them! Of course! Yes, perfectly reasonable. (For those of you who have trouble reading it, that was sarcasm.) And then, immediately followed that insensitive remark with an almost doubly insensitive remark: ‘Just move your projections elsewhere.’ This truly shows how much this particular person cares about how two characters are portrayed over how a trauma survivor feels. The utter lack of respect to say, ‘Just move your projections elsewhere,’ to a real person with PTSD trying to cope, just because they dislike seeing fictional people get portrayed as bad people, is lacking empathy in every sense.

 For those who do not understand, allow me to make a comparison. Imagine a soldier with PTSD, who has a service dog to stop them from having a panic attack in public. Their service dog helps them cope with their trauma, and makes them feel safe. Now imagine that they took their service dog to their favorite public place. Perhaps a diner they went to when they were younger, someplace that comforts them… And someone in the restaurant came up to them and said, ‘As someone who hates dogs, this is awful and pretty dismissive. Please just take your canine elsewhere.’

 Now this may seem like an extreme comparison, but let me tell you, as someone who has both PTSD and a service dog: it’s not, really. Either way, you’re calling the way someone copes with their trauma awful for wanting to exist in a place (the diner, the Professor Layton fandom) where they can feel safe.

 Now, let’s just move on from that bordering-on-ableist post, because there are still more things to go. Here is the next post:

“This isn’t aimed at abuse survivors… it’s more that there are so many artists in the fandom (a lot of popular ones) who push for this headcanon that the Tritons were horrible parents and Luke should stay with Layton instead. (Some artists outright refuse to draw the Tritons??? What?) As a fan of the Triton family, it makes me feel bad… no one ever projects these kind of headcanons onto a character who deserves it, like Descole (the one who ACTUALLY tried to hurt Luke) or Randall ect.”

 Okay, so first. ‘This isn’t aimed at abuse survivors, it’s more… so artists’. Implying that artists can’t be abuse survivors? Yes, this even includes ‘a lot of the popular ones’. Just because someone doesn’t say they have PTSD does not mean that they do not have it. You are not, and never will be, entitled to personal information, and that includes diagnosis. The exact artists you are making this vent about may very well be an abuse survivor, but you just don’t know. You shouldn’t have to know to decide whether or not someone is ‘valid enough’ to portray a certain character a certain way. Same goes for people who refuse to draw the Tritons all together. I’m going to say it again: you are not entitled to personal information, and that includes why someone may not want to draw a certain character.

 And, you feel bad? How bad do you think the traumatized people who are drawing this stuff feel? This is just like the autism moms who say stuff like, “But their autism is so hard on me!”

And, as for why they don’t project these headcanons onto Descole and Randall… Maybe it’s because they were abused by their parents specifically, and want to make Luke go through the exact same thing they did. Maybe they just like Descole and Randall more than the Tritons. But then again, as I’ve said: you are NOT! Entitled! To personal! Information!!

“people’s headcanons, preferences and interpretations are not a personal attack. people like and dislike the same things and that’s okay. don’t take someone disliking something you like personally bc I can guarantee it’s not personal.”

 This one is easily the most tolerable of everything we’ve seen, but there are still certain things I’d like to point out. Particularly, ‘Don’t take someone disliking something you like personally.’ Because, for abuse survivors, it isn’t as simple as a matter as ‘liking’ or ‘disliking’. It’s how you cope. It’s how you feel safe. Fictional characters mean so much to people with mental illnesses and/or disabilities, so of course we may take it personally if you decide to tell us how we can enjoy them. And calling coping mechanisms ‘liking something’ seems to be infantilizing the issue quite a bit. But with that being said, again, this isn’t too terribly bad. Unlike this next one, which is, yet again, just a god-awful, brain-dead take.

“i feel like an issue in this fandom is that often artists who get popular have these awful headcanons (like luke’s parents being abusive.) and because those artists are popular it feels like their hcs are EVERYWHERE and people copy them just to get in their good books. when in truth they’re probably just a vocal minority’

 And here we have, again, the return of the assumption that artists (even these ‘popular artists’ that you are trying so desperately to blame) do not have PTSD. Just, assumptions everywhere. We also see the return of the descriptor ‘awful’ to describe how abuse victims cope, which is just… Well, you know. And this particular post leaves me with so many questions! Most of them of the ‘how do you know who and who isn’t traumatized’ variety. “How do you know that artists, even popular artists, aren’t abuse victims?” “So, is what you’re proposing that abuse victims just don’t ever make vent art involving these characters? Or, at least, not post them anywhere?” “How do you know that the people presumably ‘copying the popular artists’ aren’t abuse survivors, either?” There are quite a large amount of assumptions being made here, and it’s just frustrating to see. Anybody can be traumatized, anybody can be trauma victims trying to cope. But, also, say it with me now: YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO PERSONAL INFORMATION, TO SEE WHO AND WHO ISN’T ‘VALID ENOUGH’ TO PORTRAY A CHARACTER A CERTAIN WAY.

 And, with that final post, we are up to date with all of the current posts on the matter. Now, allow me to remind you that ALL OF THOSE POSTS WERE IN RESPONSE TO AN ABUSE SURVIVOR SAYING THAT THEY USED LUKE AND THE TRITONS TO COPE WITH THEIR TRAUMA. Every time someone insinuated that no artists had trauma, called the headcanon ‘awful’, all of that, was in response to a literal, real-life traumatized person. Because… What? They portrayed a character in a bad way? So they should just find a whole new coping mechanism, and ditch this one that works, just because you, a stranger on the internet, told them to?

 So you may be asking yourself, “Azure, I have read 2,000 words of your ragetyping. What is the point of all of this?’ Well, my friend, besides just getting all of this out of my system, I think the point of this can be summarized quite concisely by a post made by @/your-fave-has-ptsd: “It is far more important for us (people with trauma) to see ourselves in the media than it is for us to stay true to canon.”

 So, if you put how a fictional character is portrayed over abuse survivors’ feelings (and, again, I must reiterate: you don’t know who does and doesn’t have PTSD), then maybe you should really reevaluate your priorities. If you don’t like how someone portrays Luke’s relationship with his parents, maybe just make the content that you want to see yourself, and block those who make the content you do not want to see. Thank you for coming to my TED talk.

[bichhebetalkin]

I’d like to talk about Nathan Drake and how I think he’s gay (and other things)

I will preface this with the fact that I have not yet played Lost legacy (and I’m not likely to play golden abyss...), and I also have not interacted much with interviews/fan theories/fan analyzations or anything like that. I’m kinda just typing my opinions out. I’ve just played the four games and thought about it a lot. 

I would love it for people to interact and respond-- I’d love some second opinions on anything I post. This post won’t get graphic, but it will mention inner turmoil and canon-typical violence. (and like, I’m talking about the marriage a bit too)

1823 words 

“I learned the past is not the past, a lump of time you can quarantine and forget about, but a reel of film in your brain that keeps rolling, spooling and unspooling itself regardless of whether or not you are watching it.”

--Nick White How to Survive a Summer

First of all

This is just my homely opinion, but in the first Uncharted game, Nathan Drake is some kind of a douche. Uncharted 2 is such an upgrade in several ways, and that includes an upgrade in Nathan’s character. I won’t rant too long, but I am certainly glad they fixed all that. Drake was an asshole who only cared for treasure, and he barely even flinched at Sully’s death and was ready to “beat sully’s ass” upon rescuing him. But whatevs, I won’t criticize too much since it was the first game and they might not have had the characters pinned down yet. A rough start to one of my favorite game series, and one that I will pretty much disregard in this post. If this seems harsh... I’m sorry. 

The Marriage between Elena and Nathan

We should all rename Uncharted Everyone is a dick to Nathan and Nathan is sometimes a dick to Elena

If you’re into mystic messenger and you read my only other post on this blog, you’ll know that I have... a couple thoughts on love and what it all means anyway. I want to start this off by saying I love both Nathan and Elena very much! They are truly great characters that I admire and adore. Despite this, their relationship just isn’t something I can believe in. A lot of their relationship progress is done in between games, which kinda makes the audience a little unable to gauge like, what the fuck is going on. 

somewhere between Game one and two, the pair is dating. By the time we get to Uncharted 2, though, it’s clearly and on-again-off-again kinda thing. We also meet Chloe, Nathan’s.... pal from the past (?). He risks a lot to save her, but I get the impression that the feelings he had for her were not as serious as the ones he has for Elena. I know it was supposed to be presented as a love triangle, but it just didn’t feel like it. Nathan and Chloe both kinda seemed like they weren’t at all interested in pursuing each other seriously. I honestly kind of appreciated this; Instead of the cliche fight between the women, Elena and Chloe seemed to get along in the end, despite some tension. 

Between the second game and the third game Elena and Nathan got married (1)(wait what?) and split up again. I don’t know if they were actually divorced or just separated, but the point is that they aren’t together by the time the third game begins. Finally, between the third game and the fourth game, They are living the domestic lifestyle. They both have legal jobs where they don’t have to kill anyone and they can make it home for dinner. Seems perfect.

Or at least, it would seem perfect if I thought it would last at all. Nathan hasn’t really had a significant relationship with any woman like. ever? (2). On-again-off-again means that they have to go off again at some point. If you pay some attention to dialogue it’s obvious that it’s Nate that breaks it off each time, or he at least he initiates it. When he lies to Elena in the fourth game, she admits that she almost didn’t come to save him. I have a shit ton of empathy and let me tell you that dynamic drove me buckwild I almost couldn't stand it. When Elena confronts Nathan in the hotel room and Nathan sent both Elena and sully away, I wanted to scream. (3) (what are you doing Nate these people love you)

It is also in this scene that we are reminded that Elena doesn’t know about Sam-- at all. That is... an insanely huge part of Nathan’s past, and he just never brought it up? Do they talk about anything at all? For many of Nathan’s formative years, he had to lie about his identity (and likely other things), so I get why Lying would be a tough-to-break habit for him, but Elena is his wife. Just how well do they know each other?

The on-again-off-again dynamic is not stable enough for a serious relationship, and certainly not a marriage (4). And like I said earlier, Nathan is the initiator in the break offs each time. What is he running from? A very supportive wife? I think it’s more than that.  From an outside viewpoint, Elena seems like... the perfect wife for Nate. She is supportive and she’s pretty much ready for action. But for some reason, Nate wants to leave her out of his adventures (5). I don’t think Nathan dislikes Elena; I think Nathan just isn’t romantically interested in her. Trying to force himself into a marriage because he knows that’s what charming guys such as himself are supposed to do, right? (6) Him forcing himself into a relationship he doesn’t want would make sense for him to feel a lot of disconnect. He spends a lot of time trying to get away, not because he truly dislikes Elena as a person, but because he doesn’t understand why he doesn’t feel as into her as he thinks he should (that sentence was a mouthful). 

I will say that, as a story, uncharted has been pretty mean to Elena. It is a story so thats not problematic or anything, but I do hope she can find what she needs. She needs someone to support her as much as she will support them, and she needs someone who will offer some stability. She likes Nathan, but he isn’t very suited to the life she wants/ 

Nathan Drake a Psychopath?

Yeah, I get it. Nathan kills hundreds or thousands of people and he doesn’t even feel bad about it, which might make him a psychopath which might explain his  behavior. I have some groundbreaking information to explain how he kills so many people without the guilt crushing him and that is that... this is a bideo game. bidya games be like “kill people” and you just do it. Nathan Drake could certainly have some mental health issues, but I don’t think the combat portion of the games should be considered when evaluating his health. His character as it is written has empathy, even going as far as attempting to save Marlowe in the third game. Combat is just expected in games. Although it might have been neato dorito if the game got into how Nate was coping with all that killing, I think we can just say “its bidya games” and move on. 

Dad? Papa? Father??

I already hate this section of the post, but If I was (shitty bitch) Freud I would point out the fact that Nathan uh Defo has some mom/dad issues, and suddenly the Beautiful, capable, caring, morally gray Victor Sullivan swoops in to be Nate’s New Dad ™ and it would be normal for Nathan to have some weird feelings for Sully. But whatever that’s just Freud's take on the matter (although I won’t deny that the Drake’s prolly got parent issues). moving on. 

Internal Turmoil

Nathan Drake throws himself in fatal danger and puts himself in incredibly difficult situations that have a tendency to just get worse. And he keeps doing this. This alone looks like a man just wracked with internal conflict. It would make sense for him to go on these physically taxing expeditions for treasure if he was insecure in his sexuality. Why would Nathan Drake be insecure though?  He’s charming, smart, strong, handsome, and funny. It’s not like he has to beg to get laid. He has no reason to feel this insecurity-- unless it was men he was interested in, not women. 

I don’t think It would be a stretch to suggest that Nathan “I never had any parents, really” Drake would have some troubles with learning how to navigate his own emotions. By the time he meets Dad Replacement 6000 (aka Sully), Nathan is already like, 15. That boy needed a parent years ago. 

When Uncharted introduces Chloe to us in the second game, Nathan really just doesn’t seem to be into her. The scene in the hotel-- he was just kinda going along with it. He “kinda goes along with” a lot of stuff. To me, he seems like someone insecure, not only in his sexuality but also his ability to make choices for himself. When a woman makes a move on him, he just kinda... goes with it. Elena comes back for him even though he breaks it off repeatedly. I’m sure to him this is the support he desperately needs. So logically he should reward her with uhhhhhh marriage? 

Harry Flynn

yeah he’s a bastard but don't even act like this scene didn’t have some gay subtext  “buy me a drink, sailor!” that's flirting babes. Nathan was so happy to see Flynn. 

Cassie Drake

whether Nathan is gay or not-- I still don’t believe in his marriage to Elena. I really love that Naughty Dog stuffed uncharted 4 with as many ladies as possible-- all the way down to Nathan’s sweet daughter. But seriously I hope Cassie’s upbringing is as cushy as it seems. Like I hope her parents are stable enough. 

But also like I have so many mixed feelings about her existence. Kids aren’t relationship bandaids (... or at least they shouldn’t be). 

I still have a lot I want to say about Nathan Drake (esp when thinking about Sam). The Uncharted Series has really done a lot to subvert some tropes in the adventure-type genre (imo anyway). And I’m not gonna scream and yell. I just think there's a lot of evidence to support Gay Nathan Drake. Of course, This could legitimately all be projecting. I love Nathan’s Character a ton!  

I wrote this all in one setting, so if it’s badly written or repetitive or.... whatever, please forgive me. I’d love some interaction! tell me what you’re thinking! 

1) are they married or engaged? I can’t remember....

2)that we know of blah blah

3) I might be being a bit too impassioned 

4) I’ve been rewatching Bojack so I am reminded of the bojack/pc dynamic (although its not a perfect parallel by any means), and in the show it’s clear to anyone that while bj and pc depend on each other, the game they are playing isn’t good for either of them (esp not for pc). Elena and Nathan can harbor affection for each other all they want-- but Elena can’t do this anymore. 

5) “wuh wuh he’s protecting her” im sorry but that’s bullshit-- she can hold her own, and he’s pretty quick to come to terms with her tagging along when she pops up each game. 

6)IT’S POSSIBLE that i’m just projecting and i just wish he was gay, but like, seriousliy? sersreoopsily? I have at least SOME support for my claims.

[righteousgirl]

Alright since I'm being plagued with nightmares and not ready to go back to bed let's go into a thing about Tenko's backstory and her feelings about men (1,300 words+)

If you aren't sure why Tenko hates men in canon, the answer is quite simple: her Master told her to. As a child, when sent to the shrine due to her hyperactive nature (see: ADHD), she was basically taught all of the principles she holds so dearly to her as well as, well, Neo Aikido by the head monk. The thing is, these principles weren't supposed to be taken seriously; beyond anything, they're what you tell to a child to keep them in line, which makes sense seeing as she was sent as a young girl (Even Neo Aikido itself was developed for her to specifically curb her hyperactive self into something more productive). These rules boil down to: don't eat too much candy in a day, keep your room clean, and notably, don't touch boys. You might be wondering how the last one falls in line with the others, but it's pretty simple. Tenko was sent as a child during the age where, well, you're going to be curious of the other sex. Not sexually, of course, but childish curiousity. Generally it's around the time that "I show you mine and you show me yours" starts occurring among other things. (This may also align with the Buddhist practice monks participate in where they aren't allowed to touch women because it might tempt them out of celibacy, meaning that her Master teaching her not to touch boys follows the same general idea that doing so will only cause sexual feelings and, again, she's a child. You don't want that.) Unfortunately, her Master didn't expect her to follow his teachings to the dime, and he didn't expect she would 1) not grow out of Neo Aikido 2) never be critical of what she was taught as she grew, or at least realize that she won't actually grow weaker (see: overtrusting nature). All the cruelty she feels towards men, her hatred for them? That was all self made. By not being able to touch men in order to master Neo Aikido, she begins to see men as an enemy in her way and only an enemy, basically thinking that their goal is to get in her way, therefore falling into all those awful categories (interestingly enough, the traits she calls out and hates the most are those that fall in line with hypermasculinity, and seeing men participate in 'feminine' traits (see: crying), actually surprises and confuses her). This is all basically confirmed by Saihara, and it's evident in her FTEs that he supposed to be seen as a reliable narrator.

Unfortunately, how this was dealt with in game was... Very poorly written. First, it assumes that Tenko never once saw her Master as male in all the years she worked with him, but that's the least silly thing as Tenko really does begin to see him as an image as opposed to a person. Next is... Beyond Saihara, no one has ever confronted Tenko about this, even though she so openly despises men and so openly speaks of her Master. Third is that when Saihara points this out, how it is dealt with is that... Tenko has a mental blue screen of death and then comes back the next day going "yep, men aren't awful." Since this was the climax of her FTEs, it made her last two rather unsatisfying (personally, if they were so focused on making Tenko's FTEs revolve around her hate of men, I wish it would have ended similarly to her best option in kokoronpa, in which she realizes that men can become "allies of women" when Saihara basically puts himself out there by saying he wants to help Tenko get through everything she's struggling with). Now, in a solely canon perspective, this is how it ends for her. But also fuck Kodaka, my Tenko is canon divergent with her backstory. While all of the previous remains true, my Tenko has particular reason to believe so strongly in her Master's words: her father (in game, Tenko's relationship with her father is contradictory. She implies before trial 2 that he is an abusive alcoholic, but in her FTEs says she loves her parents dearly. While this actually does relate to how abuse survivors see their abuser, especially if they're a family member, AKA feeling as if they are unable to actually dislike them because it would be ungrateful among other things, I doubt that was intentional. Here's where canon divergency begins: Tenko was abused by her alcoholic father as a child (I don't feel the need to detail how, but it was multiple forms of physical abuse). When her Master began to speak to her about how men couldn't be touched, the reason she believed it so wholeheartedly is because it justified why her father was so awful to his own child; men are no different then demons, all of them are trying to hurt Tenko. In her mind, this clicks perfectly, and it becomes a coping mechanism as to escape the truth of her abuse.

This coming mechanism, unsurprisingly, is not only like putting a bandaid over a festering wound, but also is a weak protective layer over her soft insides. She clings to it with all her heart, and when she begins to see Saihara as a good person in her FTEs (and realizes that she has feelings for him, as implied in her romance ending), she constantly begins to make justifications about how he can still be not a menace without her belief of men dissolving. She doesn't want to lose it, because under all that hatred is a layer of fear. When a man grabs her arm, below all that rage is a feeling of terror. If a man begins to touch her and continues despite her violent protests, she'll end up becoming docile and meek, reverting back into the state of a scared child. Tenko knows that if the shield of hers is removed, nothing will hide her true nature; nothing will stop her from being weak. Furthermore, her hatred of men causes her chances of, well, being loved to go down significantly. Tenko in her core desires love more than anything else- and not just romantic love, but any kind of unconditional attachment and kindness. We see in her Love Hotel how deeply important this is to her: beyond anything, what Tenko wanted was for her ideal lover to love her to the point where she immediately offers her body in hopes that it would make them return her feelings (see: hypersexual) and also to be respected and validated in the thing most important to her, Neo Aikido. It's why she clings so quickly to Himiko, it's why she desperately tries to protect and help the other girls, it's why she put all of her time and faith into her Master (who she uses to replace the role of her father): it's all love. Now, what would happen if a man made her believed that she would receive that same love while also still holding her hate of men? Of course this would be extremely difficult to achieve, and it would be 1000x more easy to have a relationship with Tenko as a man after convincing her that no, not all men are out to hurt her, but if convinced that you are the exception to her rule, then... She's basically like putty. Extremely manipulatable, and since she's going to desperately try to find another coping mechanism, she's someone who can be fed lies and easily embrace them as the whole hearted truth because of the fragile state she's in. It sucks and that's the meta and I love Tenko so much.

[ripplestitchskein]

1/ So one of the thoughts I'm having after that amazing chapter is how excited I am to see what killian is like, how he grows. Thus is kinda incoherent but like, he finally fir the first time has his base Maslow hierarchy of needs met. He's warm, he has a safe place to sleep, he has enough food, and he's not afraid of physical or emotional violence. For the first time. And he's learning to trust someone. Learning that it's safe to have feelings and share himself instead of just being sweet/

2/ and cowering because that’s the only way he got any food and fewer beatings. But now, he can actually have a safe place to explore more if his personality, things he likes and dislikes. And I think they’ll both be surprised by that development… she cares about him and she is attracted to him and she wants to take care of him… and mold him, with his consent, into her tool and companion and toy (in a nice way). But still using him, not presently respecting his boundaries (see re /3/ dream catcher and ps fuck you very much on that front it felt like I was there)… but she sort of… respects what he’s been through but doesn’t quite think of him having his own opinions yet. Because he doesn’t because he’s never had the luxury or safety of having opinions. She doesn’t want to hurt him or embarrass him, she wants to care for him… but she doesn’t see him as ever disagreeing with her. She likes that he never had disagreed. And part of that is that he’s agreeable and /4/grateful for his rescue from torture and servitude but also because his opinion never was relevant to anyone before, most especially to himself. So I am really, really eager to see how this plays out… him finding out about the dream catcher invasion of privacy, him developing his own opinions and feeling safe enough to disagree or get mad or frustrated with her, and him eventually realizing that the sub is actually the one in control, that he can say no and trust that she will respect it/5/ which she sure as hell didn’t when he said no about his memories. It will be really interesting to see how she reacts to her toy/companion finding a bit of a spine and how the darkness reacts to that weakness in her regard for him. She clearly cares but also clearly is having a hard time remembering how to show care, hence the apology for him hearing people tortured via bj (beautifully done, btw). So I’m expecting some drama in C4 as killian finds his way back to himself with his basic/6/ needs finally met and him finally safe and watching how he reacts and she reacts when he learns about what those circle things are for and sees his feather and shells in one. This is just such a great fic with so much depth and complexity and yet also has hot smut. I am enjoying it immensely. Thank you!

Okay. Let me first start by saying. I love you. This is gonna get long and I’ll try not to be spoilery but I absolutely love this discussion.

There is nothing more gratifying to me than someone picking up EXACTLY what I’m putting down, be that the underlying themes, little snippets of detail, or just general symbols and everything you’ve described here is exactly what I was trying to convey and why I structured the story in this manner AND why I had to extend it.

I had a lot of scenes for developing both of them that I thought could be quick and dirty (not like sex dirty but you know, well not ONLY like sex dirty…) but then when I wrote them all out in a list I realized I needed a lot more room.

I wanted to see how Deckhand Hook would be in an environment where he basically has everything he wanted. Where Dark Swan has a person who didn’t want her to be anything but herself and who didn’t want to use her, and how they individually adjust to those vastly different environments. At the same time the reason it’s lite sub/dom is that there is an aspect of needed control that DS has, and a life of regimented order and being controlled that DH Hook has that taking them out of those dynamics would be pretty ruinous for them, but that worked perfectly for the characters together.

I also wanted to explore anxiety in its different manifestations. That’s something that is incredibly important and central to my life, and this fic kind of let’s me highlight the different coping mechanisms that come into play, and the different ways that they don’t necessarily help, and that just reassurance alone doesn’t even help, it’s a deeper issue than that. Emma manages hers with emotional unavailability, unhealthy outlets, and control of her environment and the people in it. Killian in contrast pretends these problems don’t exist, fills his world with mindless activity, and requires someone else to help him make decisions to prevent himself from spiraling and really focusing on what he wants. So seeing if they can work back to center will be fun.

I also really love the sexual healing aspect on both sides. Emma learning to respect someone else’s needs, work around her own desires to just take and get it out of her system, having to slow down by necessity, and healing some of Killian’s insecurities through an outlet that had been out of reach to him in the environments he had been in before but how that in turn, as is the nature of anxiety, brings up totally new fears he didn’t have to deal with before this was a part of his life.

I also wanted to kind of bring the CS dynamic from the show into it. Killian and Emma developed emotionally in regards to relationships at vastly different rates due to their underlying personalities and it took some drastic things for them to come together as a unit. I still think the show fails on allowing us to see Killian’s side of things, and that Emma doesn’t necessarily respect his emotions/boundaries/needs to the degree she should even 6 seasons in, but from a character aspect that works really well for DS. And of course this Dark Swan is based a lot of what we saw in S5, she was still very vulnerable and sweet and gentle in her interactions especially with Henry and Hook, but could be cold and terrifying like with the dwarves/Rumple/Regina when she wanted something.

And of course there is the self preservation aspect of the darkness, since it is its own cognitive being in a sense, to work with as well that colors some of Emma’s interactions. Even DH Hook’s moral ambiguity is pretty central just because of how he was brought up, and his struggles with that and learning how he wants to feel about it now that he has a choice in how he feels.

And to a degree, the audience’s own inherent moral compass, the fact that you don’t really sympathize with the “villains” at all, or feel sorry for them, and can kind of feel free to root for Emma despite how ehhh her actions are.

And those things are A LOT of fun to explore.

I hope the pacing is okay with the remaining two chapters, I didn’t want to rush their development, that was really critical to me since this is a character driven rather than a plot driven adventure story, but I also didn’t want to drag on with little interactions that weren’t necessarily meaningful (as fun as little head canon scenes can be) so I chose scenes that were both critical for them and for the plot overall. Ch4 is furthering them and their relationship and how they react to actually being in one, and Ch5 kind of brings everything together if that makes sense.

Ch3 and Ch4 are really one central theme split into two parts because holy chapter length batman. So I hope people aren’t put off by the lack of adventurey plotty plot, that has been my fear from the beginning, since this is more subtle emotional and relationship development through interactions type story and any drama is based more on their character flaws and internal darknesses rather than outside events.

I just really love that you and others have kind of just gotten what I wanted to say immediately. It’s a really different fic for me to write in that they aren’t going off on some adventure and learning each other through external strife, and I love it and I’m so happy it seems to be working like I intended and will always hope it doesn’t come across as boring or dragging.

Your support it for has seriously just made me so very happy, and the recent weeks have been some of the best I’ve had in fandom.