#what a Narrative can change; what it can't....

[miwiheroes]

Mike Wheeler and his Promise

"It means something that you can't break. Ever."

A huge part of Mike Wheeler's hidden character arc is set up in season 1, episode 2 with this scene right here. It's pretty much the motivation behind many of his actions towards El and Will, can be a partial explanation for his internalised homophobia and explains why he seems like to have a saviour complex.

Narratively, promises are made to be broken. When writers decide to make a promise 'important' and emphasise that this promise cannot be broken, ever, it will always come back to bite that character in the ass. Promises are either made to be broken in stories like these, or they are made to make a character feel trapped. Promises are rarely ever used in a romantic fashion unless the character cannot keep their promise or they feel like they are forced to.

What makes it really seem like Mike and El are a doomed couple to me is that the writers chose Mike to say: Ever.

No word is misplaced in writing a script. There is no such thing as an unintentional line in Stranger Things tbh, and this word in particular means two things:

Mike will always keep his promises throughout time.

Mike will keep his promises no matter if circumstances change, no matter if his feelings change.

There is no reason for this line to be in there other than to foreshadow the fact that Mike will eventually have to eat the words from his naive 12-year-old self. He will eventually regret promising something, but he'll feel like he can't go back. Ever.

The domino effect Promise begins:

*Smiling* "And we can go to the Snow Ball."

*Smiling* "Promise?"

*No longer smiling* "Promise."

This promise was made in order to foreshadow that it doesn't come true right? Because that is often what happens to promises narratively, and of course, it can't come to be because they get separated and Mike thinks she's died.

But.... the promise does come true.

So instead, this promise was made, narratively, to trap Mike. While this seems harsh of course, this young Mike has no idea that what he has just promised to himself is not only to go to the Snow Ball with El (which was a promise made to comfort her here, to make her feel like she will survive). He doesn't necessarily seem happy about making this promise. He seems more... indifferent. Knowing that this is something he just has to do.

Yeah, because this is definitely the actors' expressions and lighting and scenery you want for a first kiss, right?

So not only has Mike promised to go to the Snow Ball with her, he has also promised to save her, he has promised to be with her. And he can't break this promise, ever.

Even when his feelings change:

The writers separated Mike and El and put Mike with Will in season 2 for a reason. They used it to build up a good development of Mike and Will's dynamic of course, but it was also to change Mike's feelings.

It eventually becomes apparent to the viewer that Mike has resigned himself to not finding El. In season 2 episode 2, the last time we see Mike on the walkie, he walks away. Music swells and El looks onwards. Instead of looking happy, she seems disappointed that her bond with Mike is not as strong as she thought.

Mike, after his talk with Will in the same room, has begun to give up.

And over time, he figures out that maybe... maybe finding and choosing to Will's friend is the best thing he's ever done instead. Once he figures this out, he cries, he's not loud, he's not angry. But it's at least the thing to bring Will's message forward.

Then El comes back, and Mike feels like a liar.

I've never really figured out why Mike shouts 'LIAR!' many times towards Hopper when he's clearly projecting as he starts to cry. Until now. It's the guilt that he didn't keep his promise. The promise he had made back when El had almost died, back when El had clearly thought promises could never be broken. EVER. Even when feelings change.

Of course he'd felt pissed at Hopper. Hopper was the one to keep El safe, not Mike, which is not the thing he had promised.

When El returns, Mike says:

"I never stopped looking for you."

Woops, Michael, that's a bald-faced lie, and you know it. But he also knows what a promise is, something that can't ever be broken.

Mike is now committed into this relationship. He's ready to keep El as his girlfriend for many reasons, but the next commitments he makes (i.e. saying 'I love you') are not intentional.

In season 3:

Saying 'I love her' happens on accident, she's never meant to hear. The next time he's asked about it, he fumbles and wants to deny ever saying it. But when El says it back, he realises... oh shit. I really am in this now. I can't escape, even though I know my feelings are different.

In the famous words of Hopper. "I don't want things to change." "[I want] to go back to how [we] were."

Throughout summer, before the Mindflayer, his relationship with El was easy, it was fine. He could deal with this because he can still go to movie theatres with Will and his friends and El can't go out in public. His relationship isn't real, and the fights they have are just 'silly, stupid fights'.

But then she says she loves him too and now what? He realises this is real, he can't go back on what he's said again. Because no matter what, a promise can't be broken.

Now:

He has to reject childish things and pretend to be 'normal' (but only around El).

He has to keep away from Will, who has the potential to break his promise to El forever.

He still can't say 'I love you' because of this great big commitment, this potential for change, and El clocks him, despite his best efforts to keep up the same relationship he was trying to have in season 3.

When he no longer has the threat of this great big PROMISE looming over him, when he feels that El has no broken up with him through that note signed 'From, El', he now suddenly has the ability to act close to Will. When he's confident that El's safe and that they just need to get back to Hawkins, he's able to express how he really feels.

He can finally, finally work with Will without feeling guilty.

That is, until El's in danger again. Until Argyle reminds him of the ramifications of his girlfriend being missing, reminding him of the promise that he's always made.

That's when this intimacy with Will suddenly feels taboo again:

The next time he needs to make a commitment towards her, it's through pressure. The bottom line is, Mike likes being a hero, he wants to be a saviour, but he was never ready for it to feel like this.

When Will reminds him that he's the heart of the Party in Surfer Boy Pizza, he believes that it could never be Will that needs him, but that Will's telling him that it really is El that still needs him. And that she always will.

So he holds her hand, exactly like he did back in season one, and makes his Promise again, this time, knowing that he's trapping himself.

Now, instead of a naive kid, he's a teenager, he's changed, despite not wanting to. He's resigning himself to a life without truly being able to express his feelings. He's not just some kid going to the Snow Ball with a girl that he cares about, he's promising to love her, knowing he's trapped himself in this promise again.

After all, he's already promised to save her, and if he thinks saying 'I love you' will save her, he's gotta do it no matter his true feelings right?

In season 5, someone, someone needs to tell this poor boy that he does not need to keep his promise. El needs to tell him about her growth, what she has learned from her time at the lab---that is, that she does not need Mike to love her, which she seems to have understood. She has already accepted that her lover won't arrive at the train station.

And Mike should realise that saying 'I love you' did not in fact save El. It was the reminder to fight, that Max is in trouble, that there are more important things, bigger than their relationship, that allowed her to escape the vines.

So when Mike hears that he no needs to keep up this promise, that he no longer has to hate himself for being a 'liar' to someone he cares so much about, that he can open himself up to happiness and understanding again, he'll probably feel pretty complete.

What do you think?

[lonestardust]

re your tags on the names of Marjan's family. So Marjan's name is not a Lebanese name?

Also I'm curious to your takes on her getting engaged/introducing Joe to her parents 👀

nope. and neither is Marwani actually. Marjan is persian Iranian and Marwani (and it's actually often Almarwani) is Algerian and Saudi Arabian.

i'm curious actually but there aren't certain positive expectations I'm waiting for here with this storyline. the inaccuracy of the name thing alone was something i immediately rolled my eyes at lol. I mean lucky the pilot was so good in every way I was hooked from the jump because otherwise if i had to think twice about Marjan's disastrous praying I'd have been turned off.

It's clear that Natacha did not get the assistance she needed to give Marjan what she needs. not as simple as guiding her on how to properly pray. But are we surprised that the american TV's portrayal of Arabs falls short in many ways due to lack of cultural competence in writers' rooms/ lack of research and guidance from diaspora Arab Muslim creatives? I mean their first thought about Marjan was like hmm how can we introduce this veiled woman in a storyline that portrays her well without trying to objectify her? oh let's take that veil off and see her hair! I don't hate this storyline but it just doesn't fully sit right with me either. especially as an intro.

so I don't know how they're going to go about this whole thing with Joe but I for one really hated the arranged marriage storyline. Yes it's so normal here for family & friends to try to set up adults. but i just can't stand watching the portrayal of I've-been-engaged-since-I-was-12 and playing it into "love is something you grow into" as a commonplace in muslim Arab culture and not something so questionable and rather a fucked up constraint on people (that has been fought against for decades). not even considering the class, ethnic and national difference that plays into it, given how underage arranged marriage or forced marriage is an actual piled up generational struggle rooted in gender inequality and exacerbated by colonial violence and wars. being cut off from the access to education, the creation of extreme poverty that makes families (especially displaced ones) struggle to provide for their kids and fear for their safety and future and so some come to the conclusion that marriage somehow could protect their kids from harm while providing them with a level of financial stability or facilitating moving in and out of besieged areas/cities and crossing boards etc.

And so it's clear that no one of Marjan's class/background in diaspora or back home would consider this to be the norm. so it's weird to me that this was welcomed normally. The writers just took a bunch of stereotypes about Muslims at large with no regard to national/ethnic or class background differences and turned them on their head.

another inconsistency is the chaperone/Mehrem (family member) thing. because first, actually once you're in public you don't need that during a date. second, someone like Marjan with her lifestyle, background, worldview/character and being a diaspora lebanese muslim in her 20s, would not follow an old Mehrem fatwa (the Islamic laws that change according time, place, people, and other prevailing conditions) unless she actually wants that out of having company.

I just don't think the writers engage with Marjan's background in a consistent realistic or authentic way. I didn't really see anything especially Lebanese about Marjan. beside what the mention of cuisines?

anyway i hate the idea of 'representation' in American media either way. It feels like an oxymoron. and the idea of seeing representation as an ultimate goal is even more dangerous. I find it counterproductive more often than not. this is an industry that perpetuates and financially aid violence and defamation narratives against said people that they pat themselves on the back for including and so it's naive to consider that they'll ever get it right. they tiptoe around certain people and tokenize them more than anything. Literally for every one good bare minimum representation there are dozens of American entertainment-military complex propaganda movies/tv shows/video games doing the exact opposite and taking it to extremes. I just always end up asking myself 'how is this exactly helpful? Yes it's entertaining i love watching it, i love this show but the things that plays into the bigger picture are still parts of the objective reality, what should I do about it?'

[mono-blogs-art]

Pluto episode 10 is excellent and thank fucking god, the truth is finally out. May and Ai can finally see eye to eye (literally) and I loved the way the confession happened - May didn't orchestrate some weird plan to get to Ai again, no, Ai came back by herself because she can't let go. Because she's trying to bear all the burden and renounce all that was given to her but still, she can't help but want to leave a mark. Know that May is loved by her, and find some quiet comfort in knowing that in turn, maybe, Ai can be loved too. And so then, running into May was mere bad luck, or karma.

I wasn't a big fan of how the show had May regain her vision and deliberately choose not to tell Ai - for reasons beyond me, it's not like that would change anything about her original plan anyway. It's unnecessary and feels shitty in a way that takes me out of the immersion a bit, but I can also somehow see how it's in character for May, who needs to mastermind and control the narrative and thus, Ai's reactions. Well, she didn't calculate that Ai would just, not react at all and run away and leave her. Her plan failed. So she had no choice but to finally tell the truth. I wish just a tiny bit that May would have been more direct and just outright said everything to her face, but I also really liked the detail of her pulling the motorcycle keys out and just looking Ai straight in the eyes for that reveal. Very fun way to do that. The emotional breakdown afterwards was very raw and cathartic - May has already forgiven herself for what she did, but can Ai forgive her? And can Ai forgive herself? I love that we see those questions asked and answered explicitly because fuck yes, that guilt is exactly what's keeping this whole net of lies intact.

Now May and Aioon can meet for real, and start anew. And I'm very excited to see how they do it!

In the meantime, Oom - I owe you an apology. I said in the beginning of watching the show that you are the worse twin but I may have given you an unfair treatment. You are a bit of an ass, yeah, but you care. There's still 2 more episodes to go and the only mystery yet to be solved is the original question of "Who is behind Oom's accident?" so I know that the next two episodes will feature Oom heavily, and so my opinion is subject to change, but I'm once again in awe of how much this show let's its characters breathe and live, and I think I like Oom. In her own way, she's trying her best to do right by her grandma, her love, herself, and of course, her big sis.

[comet-soda-lite]

While I did really love season 2 of Arcane (especially episode 7 and the subsequent follow-through of its plot threads, no notes there), I do feel like it dropped the ball compared to season 1 overall.

Season 1's narrative was complex, nuanced, and above all, highly political. The exploration of police brutality, the state's monopoly on "justified" violence, the difference (or lack thereof) between direct violence and violence by way of systemic neglect/oppression, and the role of discrimination/vilification (both intentional & subconscious) in maintaining control over a socioeconomic underclass, were all core to Arcane's identity.

For instance, what's the difference between the council's neglectful, stagnant, and often actively oppressive approach to governing the Under City—which allowed thousands to suffer and starve and be exploited in every way imaginable—versus Jinx (the "monster")'s direct acts of violence against relatively only a handful of people? This question is posed to the audience a lot in season 1, this idea that maybe the councillors (including Mel, Heimerdinger, and Jayce) should be under the same amount or even more scrutiny than a character like Jinx. But in season 2, the show suddenly seems completely uninterested in scrutinizing them in that way or to that extent.

Season 2 actually pulled back on all the aforementioned core themes, both in scope and depth. The political stuff was nearly absent in comparison. And when it was present, the complexity and teeth with which it was willing to tackle its subject matter (especially in terms of the enforcers) was toned way down.

Of course, the relevant political commentary was always destined to fall by the wayside the moment the show pivoted to Viktor as the main antagonizing force. His cult arc refocused the show around a more philosophical theme, that being "human emotion and imperfection may be the cause of all conflict and pain, but they're also the reason life is worth living." Which is a theme a really like, don't get me wrong, but it's a pretty broad idea and a pretty common theme across a shitton of media, and Arcane really does not explore it in any especially unique or meaningful way. Viktor only seems to even believe in his cause—not because of a long built-up character arc that makes the audience question whether he might actually have a point—but because he's being influenced by the Hexcore.

Episode 7 is fantastic though, like I said. One invention, one moment, one turn of fate, can change history forever (i.e. Vi's death got Jayce properly exiled and his research actually destroyed, preventing Hextech and allowing real social change to happen in its place, calling into question both Jayce & Viktor's and the irl endless chase for "progress"). Yes the choices we make are in-part responsible for defining us, but we could be anyone, driven to do anything, if life played out a different way. Look to that better world that hypothetically could've been if only the past went a little differently, and instead of being paralyzed by the injustice of it, move forward fighting for the future that could be. I can't put into words my emotions around that episode, but it really felt meaningful and even radical, compared to a lot of the rest of the season.

[ilikekidsshows]

I see what you're getting at, like, everything is nuanced, let's not generalize everyone who uses a specific approach to discussing stories, and so on, but, while I can't be sure of the anon's intentions, my intention with the post was to specifically talk about the refusal to engage with what is going on in the story, what has always been going on, and shutting down emotional reactions to it because they aren't analytical enough.

"Dismissing these kinds of fandom reactions only when they veer into the negative direction showcases the real motivation of the “it’s all just the writing” crowd. I need to dissociate from the show’s story in order to discuss why Marinette is still so beloved by the fandom, because I just can’t feel that way about her anymore. Similarly, the people dissociating from the story in order to explain why fans are disappointed and outraged by the story, can’t see anything worth getting upset about in the show."

I am talking about people who completely disengage from the idea that the show and its protagonist could be in the wrong. Of course there are people who still enjoy the show while feeling it needs some changes in its very makeup. But there are also people who refuse to see the problems as anything other "temporary bad writing", who think we just have to watch longer and the show will be good again.

I'm a writer myself. I have a master's degree in English literature. I know how to engage with writing in an analytical way, and have, in fact, done so over several of the things I also complain about. However, I'm also a member of the audience, and I watch and read stories to experience feelings. If a story fails to invoke specific feelings in me, it's failed as a story, same thing if I'd eaten food I didn't enjoy. I don't need to say "use this specific amount of these seasonings" to get that across, I can just say "there was too much ginger". Like, yeah, the former is more useful to the cook, but I'm not saying this stuff to the cook/writers, or even to the fans who say stuff like "Marinette is just a victim of bad writing and not wanting to see her own screen is wrong because of that". I'm saying this to the people reading my blog, who are also annoyed at seeing this stuff and want to vent.

Simply put, I am done with constantly excusing this show. New followers who are here only for my salt phase don't know this, but I used to defend this show so hard before the retool. I granted Marinette's character so much grace and good faith because I could see what the show was going for, only for the writers to increase those aspects of Marinette's character that I had to excuse in order to enjoy her on screen. This hasn't happened with any other character to this degree, except Chloé, who I was never that attached to, so I don't think it's hypocritical when I claim Marinette specifically has been made unenjoyable as a character, because I can't even watch past episodes with her, without seeing those character flaws that would later be glorified after the retool, because, as I said in the beginning, Marinette's character hasn't changed, the narrative around her character has.

Sure, I could write a hundred essays on how I think Miraculous' story could be more engaging, how it could more easily invoke the feelings I don't feel while watching it. But, at this point, what is the point? I don't feel like jumping through Marinette-shielding hoops again in order to engage in discussions with the fandom proper. I'm done with that. I feel like it doesn't matter how kindly or analytically anyone picks apart this show, because nothing is going to change. It's so hard to care about that kind of stuff anymore. I'm just tired, disappointed and angry and I'm dealing with it by ranting angrily. I'm pretty sure the same applies to my anons. There's a reason I call this blog a support group. It's tongue-in-cheek, but accurate. We're all just trying to cope in our own ways.

I get that alot of people go with the approach of "every Miraculous character is deeply screwed by the writers, so it's a writing problem" but at this point this feels like deflecting from the real problem

No shit stories and their characters are written by writers, but so many blogs I see now that go with that approach imo keep on dismissing the point of the problems people are pissed about because "well the characters aren't real, so I'm superior for saying it's the writers fault"

Guys, we KNOW they are fictional characters, you're not unique. But what is happening is that I get less and less out of the analysis posts from these blogs because they're beating around the damn bush especially when it comes to Marinette.

Yes, every character is screwed by the writing but Marinette has been retooled into the self-serving center of the universe who gets by though damn technicalities. This writing pattern is 2 disastrous seasons in, SHE IS THE PROBLEM.

You can try and sugarcoat that however you like by saying that Marinette is a fictional character so its the writers fault, but that doesn't change that Marinette's CHARACTER & WRITING is still the source of all the problems and that stories are being told to get emotional reactions. That's the entire purpose of a story.

No, I don't think people are doing it right by approaching all of Miraculous on a mere meta level. That's not how a story is supposed to be read. The meta level is an additional one on top of the emotional one, not the "rational way" to consume media.

And imo the analysis blogs I see around so much deliver less and less analysis posts I can do anything with. They are so caught up in explaining that the characters aren't to blame but the writers that they sideline why people are feeling the way they do.

There is this persistent dissonance in their posts about how apparently no amount of bad writing can change a character when that's just... objectively incorrect. Marinette for example is SUPPOSED to be compassionate and a thoughtful hero and partner/ leader to Cat Noir. Marinette in Canon though by this point is straight up NOT anymore.

But in their posts it's basically said that if people say that, then that makes them irrational because on a meta level the execution and effect of the writing is apparently irrelevant. Distant meta is king and the only rational way to engage with this story.

And I just don't see the point in that.

The outcome and the emotional effect of the writing is what actually matters. Not the intention behind it (no wonder people are using that excuse to defend Marinette's character. It's another variant of "but she MEANT well"). If Marinette is by now a toxic and even abusive partner and leader to be suck with, then that's the fucking damage the writing did. And said damage is DONE. That's her character NOW. Talk about the theory behind it however you like, the character CONCEPT is not Canon compliant anymore, and nothing is gonna change that besides facing the deeply rooted damage that has been done, analysing those on an EMOTIONAL level so you can then course correct the CANON character through the necessary development into becoming what the character was initially supposed to be.

Call me a dick, but just saying "the characters aren't real" is not a productive way of going about this dumpster fire anymore.

---

Another thing to take into account about the “it’s just bad writing” approach is that, like, it’s not like the way Marinette herself is being written has changed that much. What changed is how the narrative and other characters react to her and her behavior. Marinette has always been self-important, self-serving and self-obsessed, but these used to be treated as character flaws, signs of her immaturity and naivete she’d need to grow out of. Now we’re being told she’s flawless, actually, and has never done anything wrong ever and none of her mistakes were her fault. 

Like, I’ve recently been familiarizing myself more with the “my dear diary” teen drama genre, and it really is more of a dramedy genre if anything. Most of these series will have a self-important, self-serving and self-obsessed protagonist and the entire narrative is filtered through their self-centered world-view, because we’re basically reading their diary where they vent about things that annoy or excite them. Now comes the kicker: the “comedy” of the dramedy comes from how comically over the top these protagonists are when they clearly and obviously misrepresent their lives and themselves to the audience. Miraculous is leaning very heavily into this downright selfish protagonist archetype, but actually wants you to agree with the protagonist when you can see, with your own eyes, because this is a different medium, that the world isn’t nearly as unfair to our protagonist as she claims.

Here’s another kicker: if you aren’t laughing at the joke or projecting yourself onto the protagonist, you’re most likely gonna hate the protagonist of most “my dear diary” books. They tend to be the most opinion-splitting characters in their own fandoms, with readers either loving them or outright despising them.

Dismissing these kinds of fandom reactions only when they veer into the negative direction showcases the real motivation of the “it’s all just the writing” crowd. I need to dissociate from the show’s story in order to discuss why Marinette is still so beloved by the fandom, because I just can’t feel that way about her anymore. Similarly, the people dissociating from the story in order to explain why fans are disappointed and outraged by the story, can’t see anything worth getting upset about in the show. They think it’s all okay. They’re not approaching the show purely logically, they are still emotionally invested, they still like the show. Of course the seemingly logical approach to fandom unrest seems to just be defending Marinette and the show, because it is.

It’s basically a way to retreat from the criticism. Like, the accusations of Marinette being a stalker used to be easily sidelined with “it’s just a joke you don’t like” until they made it a sign of canonical mental instability. It was a way to say: "this is a silly thing to be upset about". Now we’re sidelining the abuse apologia with “it’s just bad writing, that’s not what Marinette’s character is”. What these people are actually saying is: “she’s made up, so my made up version of Marinette in my head didn’t do that.” Like, when you have to deny canon exists, your analysis isn’t analysis anymore; it’s headcanons at the very least, completely made up at most.

[unproduciblesmackdown]

also to go "wow this is just like in pentiment" about absolutely anything and/or "wow this is just like iphigenia crash land falls on the neon shell that was once her heart (a rave fable)" about absolutely anything further:

the Narratives within crash land falls where like, in the end iphigenia being Given the story of both "this is going to happen anyways" and "so why don't you see it as a noble sacrifice to accept." the situation happening to Create a story that she was killed, so her father must be tragic, and sympathetic. that iphigenia does take on that Narrative of taking on the Noble Willing Sacrifice, and it kills her, but she also would have been killed anyways, as everyone also knows. that we even get a bit of pentimentesque [other characters observe & assess things] like, the fresa girls as a chorus, and one at the end like yeah She Was No Saint, i saw everything, but being cut off by The News that's like yeah looks like iphigenia was killed, that seguing into her father saying yeah she was killed, god's will was done, She's A Saint now. seguing to the emcee who introduced the play, but that superceded by achilles, and that superceded with iphigenia's extasis monologue as the end of the play. that whether iphigenia's a saint or not, she dies. that [the whole play] tells us as much, like, this isn't a What If kind of retelling where she escapes her fate, this is a retelling examining itself like, she Will die because the story's preset, so what to do with this as the story that has to take her there, what to do with this as iphigenia who has to go there

that iphigenia takes on another narrative in addition to the one offered by like, violeta as guide and oracle telling her she has to die (As A Noble Sacrifice), that again (as per iphigenia in aulis being like uh hey daughter. let's go to aulis so you can uh marry achilles (it is to be sacrificed)) achilles is this bait, but it's only in the ending that there's any Story about being with achilles, and when iphigenia goes to the mercenary soldier who she knows will kill her, she's the one telling him what to tell her about where she's going and why, i want you to tell me achilles is waiting for me....and she still dies, because This Is The Story. as also applied to the reality, iphigenia as another dead and missing girl following & preceding many; any disappeared deaths when consumed as disposable & replaceable, not given part of any narrative about it. while also iphigenia only gets a chorus of fresa girls from there being crosses put on the factory wall with their names, with one girl even remarking like hey they spelled my name right for once. but at the same time they're also like, both mere Apparitions but also like standins for people who are simply alive. real [shades]esque kind of, i suppose, but like they're not Sanctified for dying either, they'll comment on iphigenia but not with any like, divine knowledge, just as this out of place rich girl. whether iphigenia's A Saint or Not A Saint, she's still dead either way. she wants to be a fresa girl, they maybe want to be her, but everyone's doomed anyways thanks to way larger forces and the Stories that have been told and will be told again

but there's also the moment right before the final section wherein, before she's having to say what she wants within the bounds of [she has to die], there's achilles asking "you still want me" and iphigenia answering with "i want everything" and her vision for, like, getting to be alive actually, i'm on the gulf where the sea is gray, and no one wants a piece of me....the whole inciting event here where iphigenia wants to evade her fate however she can, exiting the bounds of her life, the physical bounds and the family unit and walking away from the rank of status / class / wealth, trying for [have her body for herself] and what the body wants, the sensuous indulgences of (a rave fable), let's hear some more about the roman state like "we don't like the examination and challenge and upending of class and convention in a bacchanalia, so only do the official versions we permit;" the Threat of people's desires for themselves, when that's going to be counter to those in power who'd want these people to be resources at their disposal; the burden on the disempowered to suffer [the only way out is through] with the Additional pain & loss that has to be taken on in pursuit of their autonomy, while also of course suffering for the autonomy they lack, that restricted and controlled and mitigated versions of what you might want are deigned to be provided or permitted so that you have Something, but that everyone's actual undeniable personhood will always be spilling past those bounds, the potential power of transgressive pleasure when one's wellbeing and autonomous choices are counter to the power structures that have to constantly try to suppress and preclude this. achilles just as bait, doomed to die like iphigenia is also still doomed, sex was never going to save everyone and the [recognizing connection as these two parallel people / We're The Same] with your lover here is not going to save everyone but it still makes more things possible for them both; iphigenia does know what she wants, and gets some of it because she wants it, same with achilles in turn, while it can't save anyone from their fates still. but it can mean something even if it doesn't transcend, like even a fleeting night of insignificant dancing that doesn't change anything can mean something, and we all die, but that doesn't mean it's Nothing to be killed any more than it's Nothing to have your desires or choices one way or another to be wrung out of your life before you are

anyways, the stories. the Looking and Presenting here. achilles and iphigenia first encountering each other as images put together and presented by someone else for their own purposes. the presence of what's seen through film/camera/recording versus in person; the potential power relations and even violence in framing, presenting, and the intended looking and assessing. repeated language about eyes/looks that burn, while also that connection between iphigenia and achilles, and their finding the least room in what they do have of their lives for more of their own wants and selves and something genuine and not predetermined, is also connected to eyes and looking and being seen and light and burning. while they're also connected to the protection and possibility of night and darkness, getting to exist and be Without being lit up or seen; that with the power that's still in play, it's never like, well then you should have nothing / no reason to hide; the penultimate moment in the play with achilles being one that's in person and fades into darkness, rather than coming in from the light of a projection / video onscreen as the introduction....iphigenia needing to be guided through a crossroads to even get to achilles in person; violeta giving the Advice and Story and Tradition to pray to eleggua, as iphigenia does before getting to encounter achilles for real, who also doesn't get to break out of a role or a fate in full in any way, but their tragedies are like, pointing towards [autonomy, imagine it] in both the ways they manage to find a little bit of it for themselves, in no small part for simply recognizing each other as in the same boat here, and in the ways they still don't have it and still can't get it

and anyways it's also inevitably saying like, telling a story?? this Play is a told story!! looking? assessing? interpreting? you're doing that in the course of experiencing it! and it's really so fucking true.

[juniemunie]

[Abandoned by the Lightners, his heart became cracked with hatred.]

Hitting a lil' too close to home?

[sskk-manifesto]

Bungou Stray Dogs: Dead Apple and how “ability users” (opposite to “normal people”) learning to accept themselves through the acceptance of their own abilities is a queer metaphor of acceptance of own's sexual orientation and gender: an essay by me

[moongothic]

You know I realize I forgot to mention this before in the Crocodile Power Level Speculation Post/Ask (btw I did go back to edit it so it's actually legible and has a point now lmao)

I really wanna know if Croc has any new tricks with his hook

Like in Alabasta the dude had a poison hook under his regular hook, which was also hiding a tiny blade beneath it as well. This is all fine and dandy, absolutely iconic etc etc

And then we never see him reuse either feature again.

Now to be fair, the only other time we could've seen Crocodile use them would've been in Marineford, but the dude just escaped from prison. Although people are quick to meme about the Marines being 'kind enough' to let Crocodile keep his gigantic fucking hook in prison-- If we're being realistic here, they probably let him keep the base of the hook simply because without a hand any shackle would just slide off his wrist and fall off. Of course he wouldn't still be able to escape or anything since he'd still have the Seastone cuff on his right, but if they wanted to keep him properly shackled then letting him keep even just the hook base would just be the easiest option for the Marines.

It's the fact that the Marines went out of their way to retrieve his missing hook attachment and gave it back to him that's a bit wild

But let's keep in mind that Luffy did break the poison hook back in Alabasta. Even if the Marines let Croc keep the hook attachment, I find it extremely unlikely they would've gone out of their way to fix/replaced the poison hook when the guy's going to jail anyways. If anything it'd make far more sense if they got rid of whatever poison might've still been left in the base and confiscated the blade. Like there's an argument to be made for the Marines letting Crocodile keep his hook due to disability reasons, but the poison and the purely stabby weapon? Not so much

So really, it's very likely the reason Crocodile never used his other weapons in Marineford might've just been that he literally didn't have them on him at the time, just the basic hook

But hey, it's been two whole whooping years. That would be plenty of time for him to replace the broken hook and blade and get some new poison into the hook base too while he's at it

Or

Are there any new weapons Crocodile could've gotten inserted into his hook base that he could whip out

Like just because he could get a new poison hook it doesn't mean he has to get a poison hook, same for the blade as well, right

To be fair, dude feels very old fashioned so I'm not expecting any Inspector Gadget kinda tech from him. Like I don't think Crocodile's knowledgeable about stuff like that himself, at least not enough to install any technically advanced weaponry into the hook on his own, and IDK if he'd trust his hook with anyone to "upgrade it" either for an extended period of time either

But could you imagine if Croc had gotten access to a busted ass Pacifista and stole a laser and had it built into his hook base. He just pulls of the hook and starts blasting people with the laser. How fucking funny would that be. Franky eat your heart out

[lgbtlunaverse]

I've talked before about how I think Jgy's specific attitude to defending his actions comes less from a genuine conviction that he's in the right or holds no responsibility and more from a knowledge that any punishment he'd be given would be more because of who his mother was than anything he actually did, and a person with more power of a "cleaner" background wouldn't be punished the same way. Why accept "consequences" for his actions when that's just a smokescreen for what people really want to punish him for. Daring to stand before them instead of knowing his place.

And if I do envision a socratic dialogue with an imaginary nie mingjue in my head, a counterpoint might be that, well yeah at first, sure. But there's a point where punishment doesn't get worse than, y'know, death. And surely at some point in canon jgy passes the threshold where, even if he wasn't the son of a sex worker, he would... "deserve to die" isn't right here because I personally don't believe in the death penalty but basically that, within the moral framework of the world of mdzs where the death penalty is universally accepted, characters would, regadless of his background, rationally agree that the just punishment was death. The moment jgy crosses this threshold, then- and I have no interest in debating when this would be- it wouldn't matter that in reality his punishment was really for something else, because it'd be virtually the same as the "just" consequences of his actions.

And what I like is that the story FORCES you to ask that question, to entertain that argument, and perhaps see the flaws in it. Because it expicitly kills jgy for something he didn't do. Huaisang couldn't have said anything, and jgy would still have been taken prisoner, and the cultivation world would still have demanded his head. He'd have been tried for his crimes and executed. The story could have done that, and everything i said above would still have been true, but you could very easily wash your hands of it and say that justice was served.

Instead Huaisang lies, and Jin Guangyao is killed for something he never did. And the story asks: does that change things? Does it matter, that he died for something he didn't do when all of his actual actions were already enough to doom him? And if it does, what else does that change? Because that has always been the case. That was always going to be the case.

[bonebabbles]

im curious, do you think there is any good way to portray a redemption by death? like, can a character truly be made a better person by dying? or is it just an all-around bad trope? i vaguely saw what the authors were trying to do with tom and sandgorse's situations, but they just sucked too bad and gave it the absolute wrong effect imo

I think there's a way to make anything work! So I won't say "NO NEVER." But personally, I have a big bone to pick with it so I avoid it

A redemption death doesn't give the character time to meaningfully change, imo, or truly make up for their actions. That all has to come before the death itself. And even the very idea of giving your life up to "redeem yourself" just... sits uncomfortably with me.

Dying never makes a person better. It just kills them. A person who's dead is not changing nor growing.

So Tom and Sandgorse... what their deaths are supposed to do is re-frame everything they did before that point. With no apology on Sandgorse's end for how badly he hurt his son or wasn't there for his mate, he was a good enough person to die for someone else and thus must be forgiven. Tom thrashes two women and they both die because of him, but he was still willing to heroically throw his life down for his child, and so he is 'worthy' of being avenged and honored.

No growth. No change. No acknowledgement. The death is supposed to add sympathy to them, while there's no actual reckoning of how they hurt their victims. Not even a real consequence. "Their intentions were good, and this is proven through the ultimate sacrifice." As if that changes anything. It doesn't.

I think if there's an decent example of a redemption death in warriors, it's Bluestar's. I still have problems with how it believes Stone and Misty have to "forgive her" for some reason, REALLY don't like the fact that this series has always equated redemption and forgiveness... but that aside? Just focusing on Firestar, ThunderClan, and Bluestar?

I think what makes the moment so strong is that it is a moment of clarity through her cruelty arc. We saw the heroic person she was at the start of TPB. We know that her actions are coming from anger, spite, and paranoia. That is never shown as a thing to be excused. But while she's wrapped up in her own misery, Fireheart is being the leader she isn't.

And her last life is a return to form, spending it the way she is supposed to, as a leader, and as his mentor.

Her arc could never be about 'growth' because... she WAS a great leader. She WAS selfless, long ago. Her redemption death is a return to that, and a plot necessity. Bluestar and Firestar cannot both exist.

But, anyway, it's generally a trope I'm not fond of. I think that nearly anything can work in the right context, but I think it's so situational that I personally avoid it when possible.

[tsuncda]

so am i right or am i right in my assertion that bridgerton doesn't actually do character work, it just rebrands it's main characters before their season begins and tries to recontextualize them as poor little meow meows.

[loveryoushouldvecomeover-mp3]

'can't get into poetry, it's like, jeez, just say it already, we're dying here.' '/ hey, romeo and juliet had warring families and they still managed to do a little damage.' / 'it's getting a little west side story here, and i gotta warn you, my dancing skills are not up to snuff.' ooooooh he wants to be a tortured poet soooo bad he wants to be romeo sooooo bad he wants to be doomed by narrative soooo sooo bad.... proceeds to fulfill the prophecy <3333

[fideidefenswhore]

things that make you go hmmm.

[gideonisms]

I saw your tags on that one post about starting your job and I'm not a dancer or a poet (by trade) but I feel the need to tell you that that metaphor resonated deeply within me and my own existential crises I'm always having. I feel like it belongs on one of those web weaving posts or something and I guess I'm just saying thank you for sharing??? I dunno human beings are always being made to feel so alone or despair for one reason or another but I always feel like it's JUST me doing all this freaking out and everyone else is hunky dory. To see it's not just me makes me feel less alone. so, thank you

Anon, this is so sweet! 🥺 I am not a dancer or a poet by trade either it's just existential crisis hours on here sometimes ♥️ I can relate to feeling like everyone else is doing fine and you're the only one freaking out. Sorry you're feeling that way, it sucks! But idk I think almost every human experience is shared by someone, at the same time as we're all struggling to understand each other. Hope you find people you can unwind around a bit, even if it takes a while. Wishing you the best!!

[abla-soso]

This is such an ugly, revolting post.

A perfect example of how pacifism morphed into a tool for maintaining the oppressive and unlivable status quo.

I knew the author is a white liberal with a poor understanding of revolutionary politics and endorsed a shitty "war is bad" message, but I was under the impression that she portrayed rebellion as necessary. That even if she stupidly believed that fighting ruthlessly against the oppressors makes the oppressed just as bad... she at least thought of it as a necessary "evil".

"Was the rebellion worth it?" is literally the motto of every fascist dictator who needs to kill any desire for people to even imagine a different reality. It's literally WHY the Hunger Games were created!

I'm halfway through the first novel, but if you're telling me that this is the ultimate message of the trilogy?

That the author basically validated the villain's worldview?

Then I might as well not bother to continue reading.

“The first two books are adventure stories, about getting people jazzed for revolution. But the third one changes genres and switches into misery porn. It’s about the consequences and the reality of that revolution. You wanted a war, dear reader? Here is war, up close and personal. Here is the boredom and the fear and the being locked in a “safe” place with no control. Here is Prim dying pointlessly. Here is PTSD. Here is a brainwashed, weaponized version of your beautiful lover who went off to battle and came back a killer. Here are people, fatuous people but people who cared about you and who just happened to be on the wrong side at the wrong time, people who are beaten and kept in chains by your allies. Here are your friends and peers dying screaming in the stinking dark, literally torn to pieces and devoured alive. Here is the man you thought would be your confidante for life and maybe something more, the blood of your fucking family all over his hands. Here is beaten down exhaustion and despair and confusion. Here is everything you wanted, dear reader. Eat it up. Choke it down. Does any of it seem so necessary now? And for all that price paid, what changes? The old man is dying anyway, he chokes to death on his own blood laughing at you. The old lady just brings the games back. Everything you fought for, perverted by power-hungry politicians. All that changed was the color of the boot and the neck it pressed down on. Even after righting THAT final wrong, the only happy ending Katniss gets is that she can tell her kids why mommy wakes up screaming at night. Yeah, the prose isn’t the best. But damn do I love where Collins took the series. It’s not an adventure series about justified vengeance. It’s about the consequences of violence, and the personal and social toll it takes on everybody. She fashioned an intense anti-war story and suckered the audience into it with her thrilling dystopia tales. What a great trick.”

— reddit user mr_chip saying it how it is [please don’t delete the quote credit] (via allinablur)