#what can we glean about the flaws of the writing. what can we glean about biases of the author who wrote the damn thing

[bayetea]

I don't like the judo flip in moa as much as the next guy but in my eyes it's largely the result of rick not taking female violence half as seriously as male violence (a result of viewing women as weaker and inferior to men such that their acts of violence don't need to be taken as seriously) and not so much anything about annabeth herself. like I do genuinely feel that annabeth is a complex heroine and definitely one of the better ones in the realm of ya action-adventure fiction produced in the past 25 years but she is still a girl being written by a man and all I'm saying is that her writing clearly reflects that sometimes (more in tags)

[emmitaaa4]

Everyday I resist the urge to write essays about Elain Archeron.

Today (& most days), I'm thinking about how she's regarded within the narrative, and by extension, within the fandom. I'm wondering about who, exactly, is "canon elain": at what point are readers "changing" her character?

Is it changing her to discuss Elain beyond the narrative's insistence on depicting her as meek, as all flowers & sunshine? Is it changing her to acknowledge a darker facet of her character? And in discussing her character, do our narrators' often clear-cut thoughts on who she is outweigh Elain's direct words & actions..? and what can we glean from that juxtaposition?

The question essentially comes down to just how much can we really "trust" Elain's voice. And perhaps I trust SJM as a writer too much, but in this contrast between the expectation VS the reality of who she is, I am reticent to believe she plans on adhering to the expectations others have set for her.

ex: For I & others, while there is obviously a recognition of the narrative's insistence on Elain belonging to the Spring Court, it seems far more likely that she would not. And that's not to say that she belongs to Night.

Juxtaposition is consistently used as a literary device in scenes featuring/discussing Elain, an example being Cassian's infamous rant about the black dress, VS Elain's declaration of belonging.

Curious that the discussion surrounding this mirrors the way Elain was groomed by their Mother: her future measured in terms of beauty, not agency; an agency she's only just begun to exert.

Juxtaposition is in the imagery SJM chooses for her: a rose in a barren field, color in winter, drenched in sunlight while devoid of her habitual light, a summer dawn or setting sun, a rose half-hidden in shadows. It's in her love interests--flame & light VS cool shadows, designated VS not--and in her powers--the perception of her being unware when she was excessively aware, her lingering in the past while seeing the future.

Anyways. If anything, my "fatal flaw" in interpreting Elain's character would be in expecting some sort of deconstruction of the expected (to a reasonable extent of course) in different aspects of her arc. That is not to say that I know better than sjm !! buut I maintain that a lot of her character's complexity & potential lies is in her breaking free of the mold she's been casted onto since childhood, whether it in challenging her sister or, at large, Prythian's status quo.

The same way Nesta (who in many ways is a character foil to Elain) overcame their Mother's grooming, and who's healing arc ended up reinstating a female force in a society dominated by men. though SJM lowkey botched Nesta's arc in acosf. free my girl!!

not quite an essay, more so an introduction to my brain. theres so many examples in SF alone, i could go on.

[the-far-bright-center]

There's a fundamental disconnect between my view of Star Wars and that of, well.... the majority of the SW fandom these days. Whether this is due to lingering disdain for the Prequels (despite fandom claims of acceptance, there's still plenty of prequels-hate going around, it's just taken on a different guise) or the constant onslaught of Disney’s big-budget fanfic muddying the waters, or a combination of both, I don’t know.

But ultimately, it's quite simple. I view 'Star Wars' as the Skywalker saga...aka the six-film Lucas saga, which tells the story of Anakin Skywalker's rise, fall, and redemption. I don't personally see 'Star Wars' as some ongoing, open-ended franchise that can or even should have indefinite *canonical* additions to it. (An optional expanded universe is one thing, but additions that we, as fans, are just supposed to accept as canon without question because Disney says so is another thing entirely.) Because 'Star Wars' is not just some cinematic universe that exists for its own sake. The fact is, almost the entirety of the world-building from the Lucas-era was done in service of the story and characters of the Original Trilogy and the Prequels. The galaxy far, far away was created specifically to be the backdrop for the Skywalker saga.

So when people debate topics like ‘pro-Jedi’ vs. ‘Jedi critical’, I’m often unable to relate to the angle that these discussions take because I feel like they are largely missing the point. Story-wise, the Jedi don’t exist for their own sake, they (along with the Jedi vs. Sith struggle) are simply part of the mythic backstory of the saga. As a concept, the Jedi exist primarily to serve Anakin and Luke’s respective journeys. So, the Jedi Order of the Prequels-era is written as having become rigid and flawed because that is the necessary context for Anakin’s fall to the Dark Side. And likewise, Luke bringing Anakin back to the Light through the power of love and familial bonds is what rectifies the Old Order’s failings and thus restores the Jedi to the galaxy.

That's just... the story. As in, how it was told. So when I write meta about the Prequels and Original Trilogy, and how they work together as one story, my descriptions and interpretations of both the Jedi Order and the Jedi religion (these are related but not exactly the same thing) are simply neutral in my mind. I'm just talking about what the story is trying to convey. I can't relate to this idea that we must leap to the Jedi Order's defense, nor the converse, that we must condemn the Jedi eternally for having lost their way by the time of the Twilight of the Republic. Rather, I step outside of the story for a moment, and look from the outside in to try to see what is happening from that perspective.

I'm not sure that everyone in the fandom is willing or even able to do that.

Whether that is because very few people actually appreciate the Skywalker saga as Lucas told it to begin with (many people still loudly proclaim that 'Star Wars sucks!', which leads me to believe they must not value the core story at its heart), or they have been so confused by the Disney nonsense that they think the 'new canon' has automatically overridden any meaning that once existed in the PT x OT saga...again, I don't know. I have purposefully tried very hard to stay away from any Disney-related SW discussions for years now, so this is just all what I've gleaned from glimpses here and there.

But it seems to me that many SW fans have trouble accepting that the concept of the Jedi (and the Sith) are inextricably linked to the Skywalker saga and the Skywalker saga alone. These things would never have been created in the way they were without that story. But to acknowledge this would means fans have to accept how central Anakin is to the entire thing. All of it exists for Anakin's story. There are fans who don't like this for a slew of reasons, whether it be that they became attached to a certain idea of the Jedi based on how they were portrayed in Expanded Universe stories that came out during the interim between RotJ and the release of the Prequels (stories that were largely jossed by Lucas' canon), or because they hate Anakin for in-story reasons and have never been able to accept that Star Wars is about him whether they like it or not.

It certainly doesn't help that Disney has played into this discomfort by largely ignoring Anakin (at least, until fan-demand forced their hand) or even outright denying his importance to the story as Lucas told it. (Anakin is the Chosen One whether Disney or fans want him to be or not. Being the Chosen One is not about whether he 'deserves' it, it's literally just his role in the story. And Lucas' saga simply doesn't work without Anakin in the central role.) If fans are confused and disoriented these days, I can't entirely blame them. Disney's version of SW doesn't 'match' the Lucas saga and in many places outright contradicts it. But everything can easily be made clear if people step back (and put aside the Disney stuff for a moment) and just look at the actual story being told in the PT and OT. Likewise, any debates about the Jedi can easily be resolved in the same way. It's really not about how much fans like the Jedi as a group or as individual characters, or how much fans might wish they could be a Jedi themselves. It's about the role the Jedi play in the story, and it's about acknowledging whose story it really is.

[sleeplesslionheart]

Although I am wary of wading into Edelgard Discourse, I feel compelled to make a few simple comments that have been on my mind for a while. I’m not going to write a big essay on this right now, though—just a few quick observations.

I’ve noticed that some Edelgard fans have a tendency to dismiss—if not outright eliminate—Edelgard’s character flaws as part of efforts to justify and account for her actions. It appears that this often occurs as a result of ongoing arguments with the so-called “Edelcrits” (i.e. Edelgard’s detractors, from what I have gleaned). There seems to be some habits among these kinds of commentators, then, to respond to criticisms (which, let’s be clear, are very often in bad faith and, therefore…don’t really need to be honored with responses at all) of Edelgard by interpreting and asserting all of her actions as altruistic, caring, or selfless.

However, the effects of these rhetorical maneuvers are not as supportive of Edelgard as their proponents seem to think.

Sadly, they all too frequently whitewash and sanitize her characterization…and not uncommonly in ways that function to recuperate her into conventional, expected, mandated (according to cisheteronormativity) understandings of femininity and of how women are supposed to think and behave. The result is that these defenses of Edelgard portray her (perhaps we could say even tame her) according to safer, more typical understandings of femininity. (And, in fact, my observation is that these kinds of interpretations of Edelgard have been most strongly propagated by male fans…Although the uptake of these analyses certainly exists among her women fans as well).

Even more disappointingly, these kinds of defenses of Edelgard can leave little space for or tolerance of actual, open, nuanced discussions or representations (e.g. in the form of fanfic) of her faults. By which I mean: as someone who adores Edelgard and for whom Edelgard means a great deal, sometimes I feel like I can’t even just…acknowledge that she’s a flawed, complicated human being (or that there are also ways that the game's writing genuinely does her a disservice), because I risk running up against this corner of the fandom’s popular, “canonized” understandings of her as being Always Right, Never Wrong. And that bums me out!

However…Edelgard is rad, but she’s also flawed. And we could have plenty of discussions about those flaws from numerous angles—whether blunders and shortcomings in the game’s writing, or as faults that add roundness and nuance to Edelgard as a messy human being (and both of those things are possible). The potency of Edelgard as a character and, importantly, as a representation of femininity is that she IS flawed, and in ways that can subvert traditional media portrayals of women. That is, in essence, why I have Feelings about this, and why I want to raise concerns about these trends. I think it’s a bummer that we can’t seem to just embrace Edelgard as an imperfect woman (often, it seems, ‘cause we gotta worry too much about what “the Edelcrits” are saying). Edelgard doesn’t need a redemption narrative—whether in the game or from her fans (especially the male ones).

In short: y’all, please let Edelgard be a flawed human being. And don’t let your arguing with “the Edelcrits” lead you to over-determine who she is as a perpetual response to bad faith claims…Especially when that over-determination leads to justifications that just wind up “safely” feminizing her.

(I’ll conclude by pointing out one other thing, though I’m not gonna unpack it right now: I believe that these trends are also related to reductive, oversimplified understandings of trauma that are rampant in the fandom, with attendant issues pertaining to the whitewashing of trauma as well. Maybe I’ll comment on this more sometime, but not right now.)

[agentrouka-blog]

“Well, I hope that [Arya and Sansa are] both realistic characters in some sense. I’ve known people who are like both of them and, in some sense, I’m like both of them.

I’ve been asked asked about writing girls and women in my books. I have the advantage, I think, in A Song of Ice and Fire - I have a lot of women. Therefore, I can do a lot of different women characters. In an interview that I did in Canada a number of years ago, the host asked me, “how do I write women characters?” I said, “Well I have this revolutionary idea. I act as if women were people.” That’s my feeling. If you have a book and you only have one character … people sometimes take it as “that’s his opinion of women” or something because this character has these flaws. But you have an advantage when you have twenty women characters that you can show the variety of people. Some of them are noble. Some of them are selfish. Some of them are smart. Some of them are stupid. I think that’s true of all groups. …

Even the individuals have good and evil within them. That’s what I always try to do because I think it’s realistic. I think we’re all grey. We all have good and bad in us. We’ve all done good things, and we’ve all done bad things. Real history is full of stories about people who did something wonderful on Tuesday and something horrible on Thursday. Same person. ….

Arya and Sansa, indeed many of my characters, are complicated people. I try to show all of the complexities. I don’t want them to be just one note. Arya is certainly more popular than Sansa, but Sansa has her people who love her too. We’ll of course have to see, when I write the book, the ends that I have in mind for both of them.”

I also believe the entire event is on YouTube.

Ah, thank you!!

My time for watching videos is woefully minimal and entirely taken up by "Tasting History" while I do the dishes, so I can't watch that, unfortunately.

This excerpt doesn't seem to refer to the show endings specifically, but rather to the complexity and variety of his "woman characters" (George ffs) and then the Stark sisters' respective popularity and complexity. They are not one-dimensional, he emphasizes. Both are loved by fans, though Arya is more popular. This complexity informs their endings in the books, i.e. it's not going to be one-dimensional, either.

That's about all I can glean from this. Are people hoping this proves Queen Arya or something?

[mickmundy]

fic rec anon here! ty for the recommendations :] I read the fics and aughhhh im even more hooked now akdjsoxjs all the artists are *chef's kiss* amazing the brain rot truly has reached its peak

just coming in here to say once again that your bushmedicine slow burn is sooooo good augh <3 <3 I finally caught up to the latest fic of the series

its like you're twisting a knife in my heart excruciatingly slowly and the pining and yearning between these two is SOOO good waugh (PLEASE draw out the yearning more i love the building of their relationship and repressed internal dilemas akdhskdhdoah no pressure of course)

once again, I hope when you eat your favorite dish, it'll be the best it has ever been :]

YAAAY ^__^ mission complete... we got em my friends... we bring the bushmed!! HEHEHE i'm so happy to hear that!! ^v^ <333

AND EEEE THANK YOUUUU ;__; <333 i'm literally SO excited that you feel that way, i know my fic series is quite long so i'm always afraid people are like oh jeez fuck that when they see how long it is SKDFKSDK... i'm so glad you feel that way!! ^_^ i'll always talk about it too but i just feel annoying when i do sdflmsdkfm.., trying to overcome that! but your asks make me SO happy you have no idea!! ;__; <333

i'm not sure if you use tumblr a lot, and if you've seen this stuff please forgive me! but you can also check out some of my tags:

a bushmed aesthetic tag for things i think suit them

a thou giveth fever tag for wips, musings/asks about the series, and more!

my personal medic/sniper tag with everything i've ever posted about them in it, like headcanons, asks, and so on!

a tag full of fun ask games that i always encourage my followers to send me numbers from (just tell me what post!) that i'll happily fill out for medic and sniper anytime!

you can also, as you know, always send me asks about them, my fic series, anything you want! i always love hearing from fellow bushmed enjoyers!! ;u; <333

AND OHOHOO don't worry... i still have Many Plans for beloved medic and sniper... >:) i'd say at this point right now, the current fic i'm posting is probably the like... halfway-ish mark, leaning Slightly closer to the end... but we're still nowhere near the conclusion! HEHEHEHE... at the rate i'm writing, my beloved readers will have weekly bushmed fic updates for the next few months, if i can keep going at the pace i have been!! ^v^

about loving the pining... absolutely! i feel the same. i think it can work really well for both of these mercs specifically too, since sniper is so used to being repressed and has to learn to put himself out there, and medic is so used to being so abrupt and up front that he has to learn to be a bit more sensitive to others (and not just when it suits him!)... the feelings are there, but is the communication?, and so on...

i've said it before but i think true love is when people come together and feel something for one another and work at that relationship.. (nothing against soulmates stuff or anything ofc) but i just prefer to portray love how i feel/see/perceive it, which is something Tender between people who are flawed but what they feel is Real... and i also think that romance is what You define it as and it's just as beautiful and varied as love itself! :') which as i'm sure you've gleaned is also a huge part of my series!

we still have quite a bit of time left on our journey together my friend... you need'nt worry.... i won't spoil anything, but things are going to get.... complicated.... HEEEHEE >:)c

[contentgreenearth]

STUDY NOTES POST #9: HOW PEOPLE DID, IN TYPING ME AS A FICTIONAL CHARACTER

There was this one post in the Attitudinal Psyche Facebook group, where the person asked an interesting question: " How do you think the folks on Personality Database would type you if you were a fictional character?" There is a person from my dreams (part fictional, part real) who is also my typology twin. We met him earlier, in the "One family, 3 ESFPs" post. He was Arvid, Jr., the one who preferred to be called Arvid because "that was his name ". Funny how we're similar, even down to that. I'm the same way with my name 🤣

Anyway, I found a typing questionnaire online, and posted it several places: in some discord servers I knew had Personality Database type description typists, in the Attitudinal Psyche Facebook group, where I knew theory typists hang, and on Reddit, where I was likely to get both. Here is the questionnaire, and the answers:

I knew I was hard to type, but I didn't realize how hard until nearly everyone failed to type me correctly when I was a fictional character.

So if I had to pick one thing in Arvid's typology/my typology that threw off the typing for most people, it is that we're both social blind 3s. Somebody even confessed that they could clearly understand the whole typology once they knew they were dealing with a social blind 3. It just shows how flawed some 3 descriptions are, if people can't imagine 3s being social blind.

So anyway, now, I'm going to go through the parts of a Personality Database typing that can be gleaned from the questionnaire, and write what people should have seen, and then what they did see

MBTI: ESFP Yes, as we all know from the post I shared earlier, Arvid was an ESFP. However, I don't know how many people typed him as an ISTJ. I have no idea where they got the thinking from, except maybe the correlations, correlating ISTJ to his incorrect Enneagram. My answer to question number 6 is a dead giveaway he was a feeler, and I'm sure the answers to some other questions probably also suggested feeling>thinking. Other answers I got were INTJ and ISFP. How they missed the obvious Se dominance is beyond me

Enneagram: 3w4 sx/sp 3(6?7?)9 While I am clearly 379 in my tritype, Arvid could have also possibly been the 369 tritype instead of 379, as it's not clear whether his head fix is 6 or 7. In my case , my head is clearly 7, which is the one possible difference in our typology (just that one number). Anyway, nearly everyone got the sx/sp right. Two people in the Enneagram group on Reddit got the core right (3), but were newbies, so they didn't try to type anything beyond there. Everything else said about his Enneagram was incorrect. When I pointed out he was a 3 and sx/sp, people's eyes were then opened, and they could totally see 3w4 sx/sp. The top incorrect answer given was 6w5 sx/sp 613. I also had people typing him as a 9 and a 5. I think one person typed him as a 1.

Socionics: SEE (And yes, I've been able to confirm my Socionics is in fact SEE ) There was one person who actually said he was SEE. They got it right. Everybody else was wrong. The most common answer was LSI ( once again, where's the thinking?) Other incorrect answers were ESI, SEI and SLI. I also don't know where everyone got the idea he was introverted

Attitudinal Psyche/Psychosophy: EFVL Only one person got this right. They were the first person who responded in the Attitudinal Psyche group on Reddit. The most common wrong answer was FEVL, but the answer I put for number 8 is a pretty clear indication of 1E. It's also pretty obvious he's 2F with his openness and experimentation in the realm of physics. Other incorrect answers were VFEL, VFLE, LFVE and FELV. I think one person might have even responded FLEV, if I remember correctly

Classic Jungian: ES(F) Only one person took a stab at this one, and got it right. I'm pretty sure they were also the one who said he was SEE in Socionics. Go figure.

So yes, that was a summary of how people typed Arvid based on the questionnaire, and thus how they would likely type me if I were a fictional character

Here's a picture I drew of Arvid, so he could be visualized:

Here's a link to the original blog post where I talk about him:

I hope you enjoyed reading about my experiment

[lightparty-fullparty]

So, in the process of writing the next chapeter of Light Party, I have been cursed with so many goddamn brain worms about what Edda's life was like before she left wirh Avere to become an adventurer.

As far as the FF Wiki is able to tell me, and what I can glean based on the Lore know from 1.0, Edda was from the North Shroud. Specifically, Abalathia's Spine, which is the big ass Mountian Range that spanes from Gry Abania all the way into Coerthas and the Sea of Clouds.

Now, obviously, we haven't gotten to go and explore the mountains themselves. Or been told exactly where Edda was from. If there are villages or towns scattered through the peaks, what connection do they have to the ciry states closest to them, and so on.

So I have to make it up myself and hoooooo boy I have some ideas.

I am working with Gridania as a base because it's that area of the mountains Edda comes from, I can infer the following:

The Elementals Are Important

It's Gridania. It's 1.0, and the City intro is talking about the Hedge, the Elementals, the Greenwrath. The Elementals are the manifestation of the Black Shroud. It's will given form and fully capable of "completely disintegrated" anyone or thing who abuses the natural magic of the land. It was the Elementals that caused the Great Flood to wipe out the Magi. White Mages in Amdapor had been abusing the land on their war with the Black Mages of Mhach.

No wonder people are fucking scared of them. They only commune through the Padjil and certain giften Conjurers. Even then, their words are unintelligible, and the Hearers must go off of Vibes~ ☆ at best. So the culture of Gridania evolved to focus almost entirely on appeasing these alien lifeforms. This resulting in the racism towards the Miqo'te tribes and xenophobia towards outsiders.

Yet the Miqo'te are still in the Twelveswood. They weren't all smighted by the Greenwrath for hunting and living in the forests. So clearly the interpretation of the Elemental's will is a bit flawed.

Anyways, I figured that this sort of ge eral background lore would help build up an idea of what a backwater village in Gridania might be like.

Big focus on appeasing the Elementals, distrust and outright hatred towards outsiders, and likely a lot of traditional views on how someone should behave and what they should believe.

Edda going and becoming a Conjurer I feel is something her village would have approved off. But running off to join all those horrible adventurers who don't follow the traditions of the Shroud. Who don't fear the elementals at they should?

That's another story entirely isn’t it?

[entityidsix]

TW suicide, and CW potential <<Demons>> spoilers

N.B. there’s only so much i can understand from just reading the synopsis, so please forgive my attempt to play devil’s advocate here but i’d like to think of it this way:

Kirillov is sincere and altruistic, willingly agreeing to the suicide plot so he can use his death as a means of salvation for the group to die as a martyr; and in doing so, transcend the limits of his own humanity.

However, not everything is according to plan. While the deed is done and the body disposed, the plan hasn’t been strictly adhered to. By this point, Kirillov is surely doubting if the plan should fall through; the stage he had set for his greatest moment could turn to shambles at a moment’s notice.

That’s why the ensuing conversation with Peter takes so long. He must’ve realised that the group doesn’t share his sincerity or kindness; Peter is just here to make sure all the actors play their part. Like a performer who has their audience stolen, he asks, “must i go on?”

On one hand, he has a sinking feeling that he is doing this for naught. What if there are other loose ends that direct attention away from his death? And on the other hand, He knows that he must continue. Without him, the group would be prosecuted and he would be betraying his life’s goal to guide humanity into godhood - He would just be continuing to suffer in life as a sinner. Uncertain of the future, and with Peter becoming increasingly agitated over their discourse, he finally takes to the gun.

Do I think Kirillov would’ve been afraid? Surely it is a bit strange for Dostoevsky to write this perfect character only to have him plagued by such a universal flaw. Instead, I think the reason why Kirillov is so hesitant is because he understands he has no choice, and is saddened that he will not achieve his perfect death. He’s left regretting his soon-to-be-suicide and powerlessness in the face of pure luck. His comrades only care about saving their own skin, he accepts that. Yet, his sacrifice hinges on the possibility that the rest of the group is not discovered, and that is just far too great a risk for Kirillov to afford. It is only when he sees the desperation of his fellow conspirators does his conviction overcome his doubt -to live is to suffer- and he takes his own life.

The resolution that follows appears to be brief, and from what i glean in the synopsis, there is no further mention of Kirillov. The group devours itself from the inside out, and its members are put to justice.

In any case, there is no dispute over the outcome: Kirillov has failed.

This interpretation largely aligns with Dostoevsky’s views on religion as an inherent component of the Russian identity. Call it writer’s mercy, but i think Dostoevsky takes pity on Kirillov in the closing act of the novel: We have no clue if Kirillov achieves his godhood. Perhaps he has found peace in his conviction. Perhaps he accepts that he has done all he could, despite being unable to reach his ambitions. Regardless, Kirillov is written as a lesson and a warning: With all the virtues in this world, you cannot hope to amount to anything without faith.

(demons spoilers below)

(cw: suicide)

i'd never quite understood why kirillov in that harrowing last scene doesn't immediately shoot himself but stands there, gun pointed up, strangely pale, unseeing, as if possessed by something. like i just had no explanation for it and it mystified me, because what's he doing? this whole killing himself thing was his idea, that's what he's been waiting for this whole time, why delay it? and then someone suggested that it was because he found out that he doesn't want to die and that he's afraid to die and i was like oh. oh my god. suddenly that made a lot of sense! maybe that explanation was really obvious to everyone else and i'm just late to the party but wow that really blew me away. and is really heartbreaking. i don't know! is it just me? do you all agree with that explanation, or do you think something else?

[frodo-with-glasses]

Final verdict on Boromir

I got to the part where he dies, so I feel I have collected sufficient data to write this post now.

When I was a kid, I hated Boromir. It wasn’t until I found fan communities online that I realized people actually forgave Boromir and saw him as a tragic figure, and even after knowing that for a while, it still puzzled me. I chalk that up to a) immaturity, because I was young, b) a lack of understanding about the corruption of the Ring, and c) how little time we actually spent getting to know him; compared to the hobbits, we see so little of Boromir’s character before the Ring ensnares him that it’s difficult to distinguish his own personality from the warped one created by the Ring. I’d argue that in the very scene where he’s introduced—the Council of Elrond—the Ring has already captured and begun to corrupt him. It’s up for debate whether we ever get to see Boromir in an un-corrupted state.

But from what I can glean from the few glimpses we see of his personality, I think “larger than life” describes Boromir best. He’s a protector. A warrior. A valiant man. He’s boisterous, opinionated, extroverted, and seldom afraid to speak his mind. He cares deeply, loves deeply, either really likes something or REALLY doesn’t. He’s a proud man, carrying ever on his shoulders the burden of representing his noble lineage, and his whole life is consumed by an honor code of duty and responsibility and love of his country. This makes him excellent as the charismatic leader—“leader” in their hearts, at least, even though Denethor is technically in charge—of a weary, war-torn country.

It does not make him someone I’d want to invite to lunch, but that’s just me.

Boromir’s flaw is that he isn’t aware of what he doesn’t know. That seems really “no duh”, but consider this: I can open the hood of a car and see that there’s accumulated decades of human knowledge and technology put together there that I don’t understand, and I can be humble and trust that a mechanic or an automobile engineer will have a better understanding of those things than I do. I have a basic idea of how a combustion engine works, and I know how to unscrew the thing and pour the windshield cleaner in when it’s out, and I know what noises a car is NOT supposed to make when it runs, but I am also very aware of the limitations of my knowledge.

Boromir…is not that, but in a social sense. He nearly laughs at the cute little Hobbit’s offer to destroy the Ring until he realizes that everyone else in the Council of Elrond takes Bilbo very seriously. He calls Men the strongest and stoutest of all the peoples of Middle Earth when there’s a Dwarf standing right there. He sees the clearly cursed and evil pool and throws rocks in it, while the Hobbit sitting nearby is the one sensible enough to say “don’t do that, you don’t know what you might be waking up!” He says, very loudly and repeatedly, in the middle of Lothlorien, “DO NOT LIKE THIS GALADRIEL LADY; I DO NOT TRUST HER” and like, same, bro, but read the room. Boromir strikes me as the star quarterback of a small-town high school—where he’s all that and a bag of lembas—going to college in the big city and being suddenly stunned that he’s not the smartest, handsomest, best-liked person in the room like he used to be.

That doesn’t make him a bad character, by the way. Actually, he’s set up with great opportunity for a character arc over the course of the story: getting to learn about all the peoples of Middle Earth that he’s never met before, taking a level in humility, and returning to Minas Tirith a kinder and more diplomatically skilled man than he was before.

But he doesn’t. Boromir dies right in the middle of his character arc. That’s the tragedy.

Not only is Boromir a noble warrior and a symbol to his people that they’ve now lost, he’s also a man who never saw his full potential because he couldn’t escape the clutches of the Ring. Right when it was most necessary to show his strength of character—to protect the Ring-Bearer, even from himself—he can’t overcome the Ring’s compulsion, and it cripples all the potential he ever had for growth.

As is the case with Galadriel, I don’t hate Boromir nearly as much as I used to. Like I said, I wouldn’t invite him to lunch, but that’s much more a difference in our personalities. (I’d feel much more comfortable spending an afternoon at Bag End, poring over books and maps and listening to stories from Frodo and Bilbo. But again, that’s just me.)

Boromir is a deeply flawed man—proud, in all the best ways and all the worst ways—but he’s also an honorable man, one who gave his life to protect others, and at the very end repented of what he’d done when he was no longer in control. His death really is just tragic. Not in the usual melodramatic way that we’re used to from sappy Hallmark movies, but in the much quieter, more grounded way of “you were a person—you had both good and bad in you—and you could have been so much, but now you never will be”.

Now he never will be.

[purrincess-chat]

I've had this discussion before with friends, but I wanted to delve into it more. In a meta mood today I guess, but I've been thinking while watching s4 (well, I've thought it for a while but it's glaringly obvious in s4), but ML has a huge pacing problem.

I know that s1 was more or less a pilot season. It introduced the concept and dynamics of the show, and they weren't exactly sure if it would get its feet off the ground yet, but seasons 2-4 so far have just had a lot of pacing issues.

And I'm going to preface this by saying that everyone who can't understand the difference between critical discussion and salt, feel free to leave. I don't care if you think the show is perfect the way it is. Go do that somewhere else. People can and should be able to look at the media they consume critically. It doesn't mean it's bad or that they hate it. They just fundamentally understand that it is flawed, and enjoy discussing the plot and its flaws on a deeper level. Refusing to see flaws where they exist isn't the positive power move you think it is.

Anyway, back to the pacing issues.

S2 and s3 had barely any plot. The plot we did get was trickled in. Crumbs. Now we got to s4 and Thomas has declared that every episode will have Chat Blanc levels of bombshells dropped as if that's a good thing. Don't get me wrong, s4 has been better than prior seasons, but I still leave every episode feeling like they rushed to cram in too much.

We all know how I feel about the love rivals, and setting aside personal feelings, the rivals from a writing standpoint were not necessary. At least not functioning as love rivals. Introduce Luka and Kagami, sure, but from a storytelling standpoint the purpose they served in s2 and 3 was just to be a cheap distraction. And they didn't have to be.

The big draw of this show is the love square and its subversion of the love triangle. Now people argue that it's realistic to explore other options before getting together, and while that might be true of real life, that isn't in line with the genre/style of this show. It wasn't a needed lesson, so to speak. They drew us in with the promise to subvert a specific trope in an interesting way, then immediately dragged out that very trope. And not even for any big reason. They just needed an excuse to keep the endgame ship split. And as we can see with how swiftly they dropped the rivals when they were no longer "necessary" as distractions, the writers were always using them as an excuse not to put the square together earlier. They knew the square's chemistry was too good and fans were going to be foaming at the mouth by s3 if they didn't do something. Then the second they have another excuse for the square not to get together, boom. Dropped the rivals.

You felt cheated because it was a cheap tactic, and honestly, it was so avoidable if they had just paced things better.

Honestly, I feel like Alya should have found out in s3. Granted, in order to do that they would have had to changed a lot. So this is what I personally (you are welcome to your opinions elsewhere if you disagree or enjoy canon the way it is) feel would have helped fix this pacing problem:

S1 was a bit unavoidable, and it works for what is is: a market tester.

S2 should have focused more extensively on the lore and Marinette's guardian training. We should have been introduced to Mayura earlier. They should have spent more time expanding Master Fu's story and the order's backstory. They could have created tension with the girls/Alya/Marinette's relationships by having her constantly sneaking around to either fight bad guys or train as a guardian which begins to harbor Alya's suspicion. They very well could have moved Master Fu passing his role onto Marinette to the s2 finale if they were more efficient with their time, leading into s3.

S3 could have had Alya finding out. Marinette becomes too overwhelmed with her new duties as guardian and being Ladybug just as she is in s4. S3 could have been her exploring her new role with her bff by her side for support while they begin to build up the Agreste plot more.

S4 then would have been free to expand the Agreste plot without having to crowd in so many other plotlines. Everything would have room to breathe. Marinette would have been busy enough in prior seasons to justify not dating anyone.

What the rivals effectively did was waste time that could have been utilized to develop the plot further in other areas. I get some people like them, but from an objective storytelling perspective, they were filler. When you write a story, like an honest to God professional story, everything has to serve a greater purpose for the plot and move it forward, and if you are experiencing pacing issues or a plot line isn't working, you have to make the executive decision to cut it or change it. I get that time constraints are a thing in TV. Executive meddling happens. Deadlines are tight, which doesn't always leave room for this kind of long game thinking. I also get that this is (I believe) the first time Thomas has been a head writer. Mistakes are bound to happen. It's how you learn and get better. I get that.

This post is more just me speculating what would have made things work better. For me. So backspace over your butthurt comments. Your precious canon is still untouched. I promise. This is just my opinion, shared on my own blog (and not even tagged). Go make your own meta post.

But that being said, I enjoy s4, but it still doesn't quite sit right with me because they are putting too many eggs in their basket now in an attempt to be epic and up the stakes, but in reality, it just leaves the show feeling really unbalanced. To me.

If you like ML the way it is, great. Go enjoy it, scamp. I wouldn't be here if I didn't glean some enjoyment from it too. I just like to think about things sometimes. And that's perfectly okay.

[beardedmrbean]

Hey do you have any sources on Jane Elliot? More particularly her Blue eye Brown eye experiment? I've heard that the entire experiment failed and that she would intervene to force children to discriminate against each other, as well as them coming out having not learned anything and being traumatized from the experiment and not consenting to it. When she was called out on this she made them stop recording the experiments, and the only article I could find that did not praise her for it was one recent article, and the writer had been requested by Jane Elliot to write her autobiography but when they had went out and interviewed other people who had been negatively affected by the experiments and talked about their trauma she cut off all communication with the article writer. I wanted to find more sources of the experiment failing but I can't find any recordings or anything else that says so besides that one article. Do you have anything that sheds light on this?

I don't have anything off hand, but I'll see what I can dig up.

I'll give all the sites I use a quick scan to make sure they aren't mega biased one way or the other, at least as far as I can tell.

The Greater Lesson of Jane Eliot’s Sadistic “Blue Eyes/Brown Eyes Experiment” on School Children.

We gloss over the fact that in the filmed version of her lesson, one boy confessed to having hit another boy in the gut during their recess. We are supposed to take away from this how quickly discrimination leads to violence; but a more shocking truth to be gleaned from the footage is how fast the person in authority was able to instigate violence. The teacher’s lesson directly and immediately resulted in a child being beaten on the playground.

I don't think that's a point many consider.

We Are Repeating The Discrimination Experiment Every Day, Says Educator Jane Elliott

This one is a interview with her, she seems to be incapable of getting to the real point of the matter here though.

Her experiment is fundamentally flawed imho because of who is telling whom that their either superior or inferior, at least in this day and age.

Absolutely different when she did it.

Stop and think about the specific people that have said things like 'you'll need to work 10 times harder to achieve the same results as a white man'

saying society and the world or anything else is a cop out, name the specific people doing it.

Here's Chris Rock doing it as a easy example

Also this bit has been proven to be a lie, which that's fine he's doing a comedy bit.

But he's also perpetuating the issues raised in the brown eyes blue eyes experiment.

________________________

I'm running into a similar brick wall as you are with all of this.

Honestly the woman shouldn't be lionized for this at all, terribly unethical experiment to preform on a bunch of kids.

But it looks like the people that are critical of her and the whole thing are being kinda suppressed in a way, there's no doubt lots of stuff like what you're looking for but it's buried.

Sorry about that, I'm usually way better at finding information out than this.

[stop-him]

A while ago I started playing Doki Doki Literature Club Plus!, just to see what they added since the game’s original debut. I was reminded of something that occurred to me during my own first playthrough, but which I never spent the time to write down. Now I’m writing it down.

To me, Monika is the most tragic figure in the game.

How old is DDLC? Several years – but since it’s best served blindly at first, I’ll go ahead and SPOILER WARNING this for anyone who somehow hasn’t played it yet and may want to.

For all others, I’ll assume you have played the game and are thus familiar with the basic beats of it to be interested in my perspective. Such as it is – hell, for all I know this idea is part of the lore among the fandom, I don’t track DDLC enough into the weeds to know whether anyone else has had this particular insight.

So why Monika as most tragic? After all, the depression-suffering Sayori gets the most obvious pathos, Yuri hides a streak of self-destructive obsessiveness, and plenty of hints drop about Natsuki’s abusive home life. What we see of Monika’s character before the big reveal of her as primary antagonist is essentially “perfect girl” – smart, talented and pretty – her biggest flaws being... not quite so confident and leader-like as the image she presents. Comparatively small potatoes, right?

Then she turns out to be the villain of the piece, responsible for nearly everything that goes wrong. One might be inclined to drop all sympathy for Monika, considering – and in fact many a playthrough seen on YouTube winds up with a player calling Monika a bitch and then reveling when they get to delete her from the game.

But to me it’s the very thing that causes Monika to sabotage the game and other characters that’s tragic – she’s ostensibly a game character that’s become self-aware, but she just hasn’t become self-aware enough. Monika realizes that everything around her is a game, limited and not real. And yet, she wrecks it all out of a need to interact with – not the main character – you, the player. She confesses that she loves you. At the same time she gushes about how you’re “real” and “wonderful”, she admits she knows next to nothing about you, “whether you’re a boy or girl”. Her knowledge of you has to be limited to what little she can glean from your system – your account name, whether you’re streaming, whether you’re playing via Steam (in the original) – and your choices and interactions are so limited it would be nearly impossible to get a read on your personality.

(In fact, that was a thought that also ran through my head on my first playthrough: “Really, Monika? You love not the main character, but actually me, the guy in his 50s, you, the perfect high-school girl of the type who tended to ignore my kind back when I was the same age, now you adore me? Sure.”)

So how can Monika love you? On what, exactly, is this love based? And in asking myself that, I came up with a couple possibilities:

She may not love you at all, but she loves the idea of you, the notion of any entity existing outside her virtual world. It’s the tenuous connection with “reality” she wants. Certainly she doesn’t provide you with any choice or options or way to communicate in any detail, she just wants some clicks to forward the game and let her know that something is there and is aware of her.

And that’s sad enough – to be so desperate for “real” contact that she completely trashes her setting and friends to mainline a minimal interaction. She shouts at a void and only receives another click to let her shout a little bit more.

But consider another possibility – Monika loves you because she can’t do anything else.

As she’s monologuing, Monika remarks on how nothing she did stopped the other characters from trying to get closer to you. A “weird inevitability” in the game, as she puts it. They were programmed to fall in love with you. But although Monika is aware of her status as a game character, is she truly aware enough to wonder whether her own programming is still in effect? Does she love you because she genuinely (and improbably) loves you, or is that love her own programming railroading her into a predetermined state exactly like her friends – the only difference being that Monika has the power to affect her surroundings to a higher degree? How free is Monika, really?

Even when Monika repents – even when she acknowledges what she’s done is awful – she never denies or questions her love. She redefines it a bit – but never asks whether that love arises out of genuine emotion, or if she should even be feeling love for something she can only barely perceive. Monika has gained awareness above and beyond her friends, but perhaps it doesn’t go far enough, at least not enough for her to question whether what she feels is a product of her own mind, or just another set of shackles she hasn’t managed to break.

To glimpse the concept of free will, but to not fully grasp it, to be motivated by a consuming love that might not even be real – that’s tragic indeed, in my view.

[iwannaban0nym0us]

Women in Star Trek Art

I found this amazing link from this post and couldn’t resist going through and pulling out a few(maybe more than a few) of my favorite pieces. I pulled out my favorites, but I encourage you to check out the rest and find your own!

Rico JR | Nyota Uhura “Star Trek”

“I love the character of Uhura, already since the TV series and this unforgettable kiss with Captain Kirk which is the first interracial kiss on television. That is something important. But I even more adored the interpretation of Zoe Saldana in recent movies. He strength of character and her relationship with Spock was, to me, one of the highlights of JJ Abrams films.”

— Rico JR

Tom Ralston | Guinan “Star Trek: The Next Generation”

“If the recurring character of Guinan appeared in an episode of Star Trek: The Next Generation you knew you were in for several things. First-off you would be in store for a thought-provoking episode, often with a profoundly moving payoff. Many episodes of TNG accomplished this, but Guinan’s character guaranteed a certain level of emotional engagement, as she allowed us to learn about the deeper issues of the crew of the Enterprise; their fears, desires, hopes and dreams. You would glean insight into the inner narrative of one her fellow shipmates, as she offered them her guidance and wisdom. A Guinan appearance also meant rich costume designs and the possibility of one of her enormous hats. Who doesn’t want to see Whoopi Goldberg in a giant hat?! Guinan’s character is over 600 years old and a refugee of an endangered race scattered across the universe. She has a sixth sense and there is a tonne of mystery surrounding her back story. But despite her elaborate origins, her role on the enterprise is designed upon a simple and age-old trope of the of the bartender / therapist. Yet Guinan transcends any tired cliches through Whoopi Goldberg’s masterful performance in which she exudes kindness, compassion and a good balance of strength and vulnerability. Guinan was supposedly the final character Gene Roddenberry created, and as such, seems appropriately emblematic of the entire franchise — emphasizing kindness, compassion, strength and vulnerability and the willingness to listen and support those around her.”

— Tom Ralston

Alan Fore | Tasha Yar “Star Trek: The Next Generation”

“I’ve always been drawn to Tasha because she was an early example in my life of a strong female character. The glimpses we got of her backstory were so compelling and I’ve always felt there was so much more to the character than we got.”

— Alan Fore

Laz Marquez | Warship Yar “Star Trek: The Next Generation”

“I remember watching “Star Trek: TNG” for the first time & seeing the character of Tasha Yar represent strength and an important role as Chief of Security on the bridge. This was enough to make me immediately enamored with the character and her story. Then, the spectacular episode “Yesterday’s Enterprise” was released and we saw shades to Yar that weren’t truly explored. The character is strong but she’s also driven by doing what’s right, even if it means sacrifice and facing grim circumstances. Her backstory, explored in bits in Season 1, tells the story of a survivor who joined Starfleet to create a better world. While she was on the Enterprise-D, she did just that and helped each of her fellow team members & friends grow as a result.”

— Laz Marquez

Scott Saslow | Rachel Garrett “Star Trek: The Next Generation”

“I chose Rachel Garrett, captain of the Enterprise-C, portrayed by Tricia O'Neil in the classic TNG episode "Yesterday's Enterprise." While we don't get to know a lot about her in those 44 minutes, she proves to be a charismatic and capable leader. When faced with the horrible truth of her situation, she finally decides to take her ship back in time in order to restore the timeline and save billions of lives.”

— Scott Saslow

Jamie Fay | Kathryn Janeway “Star Trek: Voyager”

André Barnett | Seven of Nine “Star Trek: Voyager”

“I grew up with the original Star Trek series, and I was, at first, a little leery of the later series. But, my daughter Christa was a big fan of “The Next Generation” and “Voyager” and we watched them together, and doing so helped me to appreciate the actors, writing, and character development of these new shows. The Seven of Nine character of course was visually stunning and brought with her the drama of the Borg back story, but at the same time, the writing and character development explored the meaning of being human as the Seven of Nine character attempted to regain back her humanity. It was a storyline that was compelling to me and is why I chose to illustrate this female character.”

— André Barnett

Kristin Wilkinson | Seven of Nine “Star Trek: Picard”

“There are many characters in the Star Trek universe that I am fond of and have created fanart of. One character I’ve always loved was Seven of Nine. Watching her journey/story has been one of my favourites. Seeing her over the years accept and try to rediscover her humanity after her rescue from the Borg has been one of my favourite story lines. She’s strong, and, well, cool, but also has a vulnerability. She has always been an outsider, trying to fit in, which is something that is so very relatable.”

— Kristin Wilkinson

Andrea Davies | Raffi Musiker “Star Trek: Picard”

“I have chosen Raffi from the wonderful and almost overwhelming list of choices. My day job is Assistant Head in a special school for teenagers with social, emotional and mental health needs. Many of our kids have challenging and chaotic homelives. Pupils, and often their parents and siblings are fighting circumstance and often addiction. My message is always that our demons, mistakes and bad choices don't have to define us. Raffi is fighting that fight on screen. She shows us that it isn't easy, and most importantly flawed people can still do amazing things. Michelle Hurd gave us an imperfect, but inspiring character. 'The wreckage of a good person' is a line I have adopted. I see that wreckage every day, and know it can be fixed.”

— Andrea Davies

Phil Dunne | Michael Burnham “Star Trek: Discovery”

Jeanne Delage | Tilly “Star Trek: Discovery”

“Tilly is my favorite character from Star trek: Disco because she is highly intelligent but seems just like a normal and flawed person, like you and me. She cares about others, is funny, also silly and dorky. A good friend you can have a great and fun time with. In serious situations, she came up with smart solutions and takes charges when needed. Overall an awesome character wonderfully portrayed by Mary Wiseman.”

— Jeanne Delagenote

[blessedsage99]

Why Lapis and Pearl Could Work As A Great Pairing

It is without a doubt that most people agree that Lapis and Pearl would do absolutely anything for Steven. Maybe not anything as Lapis jumped off to the nearest solar system to get away from conflict, but he is in fact the one person she would indefinitely pull out extra stops for (ie; willing to indulge befriending Peridot, live on and try earth, go into the ocean once more, etc) . But I do not think that would be the one of the driving forces between their relation but it might be one of the factors to goad them into trying and befriending each other. And perhaps…. More.

Similarities On a surface level you can perhaps glean several similarities, perhaps similar shadow and body type, sasuke pointing hair… And then another layer and find their personalities are vastly different. Pearl is very educated, prefers order, dramatic, emotional, enjoys engaging in combat, very forgiving (ex; is quick to forgive Peridot once she actually makes the amends to not call her an object), and does her best to make up for mistakes (ex; several episodes of making it up to Garnet).

Lapis is very lazy and blase, the barn she and Peridot have formed together has no sense of order and moreso chaos, she instantly flies at the first sight of conflict, is the least forgiving gem out there (ex; holds it against the crystal gems for pretty much the entirety of the series, and Peridot goes lengths and miles to try and get Lapis forgive her and still is unable to and it takes Steven to intervene and scold her to make an attempt), and honestly? Lapis hardly ever apologizes for her mistakes versus Pearl. She shows signs of guilt but she never really apologizes to Peridot for anything she’s done to her nor Steven nor… Well, really anyone else, except in Future.

But that aside, it’s when you think about their more lighthearted sides and trauma is where most of their similarities lie.

Hobbies

As off as it sounds, it’s fairly essential in pretty much any relationship to cross over a few hobbies, even if you don’t share everything, it often all starts with something along those lines. And Pearl and Lapis share a huge chunk of their hobbies, believe it or not.

Both Lapis and Pearl definitely enjoy reading, Pearl being the educational beast she is and Lapis probably enjoys the relaxed activity. In fact their genres might be even similar as Lapis and Pearl enjoy reading odd textbooks (ex; The hairstyles book for Lapis, and the engineering book for Pearl) and both enjoy dramas (albeit, perhaps this might be different) like Camp Pining Hearts and Pearl was willing to write a play and overseer one in Jamie’s case. This perhaps is b-level canon however, in the comic issue Camp Pining Play, Lapis is willingly engaging in participating and acting out in a play, she even enjoys it.

If given incentive of enjoying the subject already, Lapis is willing to perhaps enjoy the drama of things along with Pearl.

Both enjoy singing, if we’re going off Lapis was previously like other Lapis, that would mean singing and dancing is looked down upon on her caste. So the fact she even makes the attempt to do so in Distant Shore means she’s practicing in it, and if we want to add another layer of it, in the game Unleash the Light, one of Lapis’s key items is the Crying Breakfast Friends Sing-Along. And who else enjoys karaoke? Pearl (ie; the commercial karaoke). Also Lapis does it in Future so like if you want canon material it’s right there in Why So Blue.

This is a bit of a stretch but it’s clear that Lapis enjoys the arts which her participation in the class and what the heck else she does with Peridot in the barn, and Pearl has at the very least has experience in it. (ex; the drawing she makes, despite her humble opinion, makes it clear she’s done it before, in fact I’m willing to bet she even painted that fucking painting of Rose Quartz) It perhaps could lead to some more experience and artworks together if you know what I mean…

Casting that aside, it’s clear the two have a main stream of things to enjoy together should they choose to versus some other couples. (And different ones should they choose to introduce the other, Pearl with baking and sword fighting and Lapis with farming and flying, etc)

Traumas

Now this is the important part, I’m willing to argue they both can share extremely similar and relate to each other’s problems. They just have vastly different ways of coping with it, or well… They both have some similarities there as well, but we’ll address that in the next paragraph-ish.

But the biggest one? Both miss their homeworld. Dearly.

In fact it’s the driving force for Lapis’s introductory episodes and one of Pearl’s where she tries to get Steven into a rocketship back to her home. Both are ancient and dusty as fuck, or well, at least heavily implied to be ancient with the fact of Pearl commenting she learned the sword when she was only ten thousand years old (Sworn to the Sword iirc), the war was six thousand which implies Pearl learned before it. And Lapis, it’s merely conjecture however the fact that Lapis isn’t a vegetable after and still has a strong sense of identity after being in the mirror for 4 thousand years says something (ie; My name is LAPIS LAZULI!), the likely conclusion is the fact it’s because that’s not even close to how old she is. It’s only a fraction of her lifetime, which means both are… Well, old as hell. And even more likely? They come from the same ‘homeworld’ unlike Peridot or Amethyst who were made after and Garnet who has herself.

The second one is the one both of them likely have their divisive opinions on, especially as they were from opposing sides of it, is that they were both part of the War.

Both obviously have their trauma’s from it, as shown as Pearl in ‘A Single Pale Rose’ she’s still traumatized over the thousands of shattered gems (which is essentially corpses to her) she was forced to witness right after the war, and Lapis being forced to watch inside the mirror as everyone condemns her to being a crystal gem. I’m willing to bet she saw everyone die while inside the thing as well. As well as considering Lapis never really got over anything as she was gonna literally yeet herself away at the mere IDEA of the war… Well, who else could help her but another person who knows the horrors as well? And Pearl has experience as she had a support system unlike Lapis who got worse and worse purely just by being herself.

Moving on as I don’t have a cool and smooth transition...  This might be a bit of a stretch, but the last thing they both share very heavily over is the fact both were objectified.

Pearl was born to be an object, whereas Lapis was forced to become one, the mirror. And both consistently fight over the fact throughout most of the series. In the movie, the thing that makes Pearl remember herself is the freedom to be herself, and when she returns to her homeworld she’s forced to be reminded of her place when she talks to Holly Blue and returns to Steven in the final season. Lapis is obviously shook over it and holds it against the fact she always feels like she’s being used, (‘[...] AND YOU CAN’T KEEP ME TRAPPED ANYMORE!’) she longs for a safe place and to be free just as well just as Pearl does and the freedom to express herself (ie; her art). And who else but Pearl----- *coughcouhgcough*

Differences

I covered this in the first part where it's obvious the two have very vast differences when it comes to their personalities. But I find it important to have differences as both have something to bring to the table with their differences, no? Another essential part of a working couple.

And to quickly cover what I had before, their personalities. Pearl is literal and Lapis is sarcastic, Pearl is outwardly emotional and sobs and Lapis moodily and angrily exists, so on and so forth. How does this work? It’s also one of the hardest parts of their relationship, should they ever try it out because one of their biggest differences, is one of their flaws in a relationship as proven over and over.

Pearl is all give and no take, and Lapis is all take and no give. Which is a mix for a toxic relationship, as Pearl would constantly be giving to Lapis as Pearl’s entire worth as shown in her previous relation was all about what she would give to Rose, or else she was nothing. Even by the end of the main series she still needs to be reminded she’s still something without her. And Lapis’s emotional baggage? Let’s face it, Lapis is selfish and it’s all about her. She’s angry? She’s gonna fuck you up (ie; Jasper and the two Lapis), Lapis doesn’t want to deal with war? She doesn’t even think twice about what Peridot wants, and jumps away despite Steven calling out towards her.

But, but, but, but… It’s also a mix for something amazing as after their development, they’re kind of the perfect people to call each other out. In theory of course should they communicate.

Lapis would teach Pearl to be a little more selfish and care about her own needs, whereas Lapis needs constant reminders to actually take notice about what others want and feel (ex; the way she immediately rushes in and notices Steven’s expression at the last moment). It’s clear that Pearl isn’t willing to be treated that way should Lapis do so (ex; the way she snapped back at Peridot and towards Holly Blue) and Lapis upon caring enough? Is in fact willing to try to do better (ex; Why so blue, and Alone at Sea). It’s just that Lapis is farther behind on maturity (considering she ran away and panics instantly twice in a row). They can strike a perfect balance should they put the effort to do so, which would lead to the possible second problem they might have and would need to work through.

And the second difference the two of them have?

Fusion.

It’s the one trauma Lapis has that Pearl wouldn’t understand, and, it’s something Pearl clearly finds something addicting or to use above others. In fact she needed a crash course on it with the string of episodes of what she did to Garnet. Because Pearl is the kind of person who would desperately try so hard to not repeat the same mistake, she’s probably she’s willing to wait a millennia about it or even be fine with never fusing with Lapis. Because consent is important, but I think because of her actual experience with good and loving fusions? She might not be actually be a bad candidate for helping Lapis should she ever want to try again.

The Biggest Conflict

Now, for the biggest problem of the relationship. Uh, let’s be real here…. Despite all these arguments and nice claims and all.

Lapis doesn’t like Pearl, at all. Perhaps she even holds the biggest grudge against Pearl because Pearl was the one who literally carried her around in the mirror for a good chunk of time, doesn’t even bother to learn who she was, and even was willing to bubble her and trap her further. And Lapis probably has incentive to keep it against her for purely that fact as she was holding it against Peridot for the same fact, except for the fact Pearl has made zero amends to apologize for it. So why would Lapis ever want to talk to her?

You might consider the possibility of Steven but it’s not his job to make them friends. The only thing the two of them would do for him is to pretend to be friends, as shown in ‘Hit the Diamond’ and ‘Gem Harvest’ but otherwise, there’s clear distaste from Lapis’s side (ie; The New Crystal Gems) and her consistent ‘fuck the crystal gems’ attitude from the beginning. Maybe for him they might try something however I doubt it’s enough.

Regardless, I do believe an apology is due on both sides whenever they are ready. And that would be the start of perhaps their romantic relationship shenanigans which I consistently desire. Also I’m a slut for tense relationships to friendship to lovers if people would just---

Anyway I think there’s a lot more material for them to work with and they might actually be a pretty awesome couple

[vowled]

Unpopular Opinion: Johnlock edition

So, I am, as invariably suggested by my blog and username, a major Sherlock fan. I absolutely love it. The first time I watched it, I immediately related to it, and my peabag brain instantly saw a friend in John Watson. Sherlock’s character, on the other hand, was quite unconventional to me. I couldn’t bring myself to quite like him for the first 2 episodes. He was.....different. I knew I wanted to watch the series just for the dynamic duo and their and sweet friendship. The cases I couldn’t at first care for much, but eventually that changed too. I always was completely amazed by how well they had managed to adapt the series to the 21st century and their subtle winks to the original canon too was quite impressive. Eventually, I fell in love with it, and proceeded to watch the entire series thrice. in a row. I was, and still am, completely obsessed. 

Then came the thought, which was also somehow initially suggested subtly by the show itself, ” What if Sherlock and John are in Love?” I must agree, I had read too many conspiracy theories about certain celebs being closeted to not come up with that question. 

At first it was just a thought. But then, critical analyses on tumblr came up. I couldn’t stop reading them?! and so many of them were thought-provoking and persuasive and honestly, I was living for it. The phone = heart theory is still one of the best Theories I’ve read among all the fandoms I’ve ever been in. And that is just one among many. JohnLock was everywhere. Other ships were persistent, but none could reach the amount of fervor as JohnLock. And I was living for it too. I still really enjoy all the adorable fanfics and the ever-interesting theories, and honestly, at this point, my motto is “I’ll find homoerotic subtext even if it kills me”.

Shipping is ok, shipping is good. But here’s the deal we need to talk about:  we shouldn’t justify our ships to the point of interpreting every action as romantic. This propagates unrealistic expectations and results in harmful stereotypes.

Yes, I’m talking about the unending debate on Johnlock. 

From season one itself, Johnlock was phenomenal. It is widely argued that  the show-runners themselves inserted subtle hints, and hence, birthed this beast on their own. The Sherlock fandom remains one of the oldest fandoms in the world, with its beginnings rooted in the Nineteenth Century when ASiS was published, and since then many have argued about the latent homosexual subtext embedded into the writing, my point here being people have been shipping Johnlock for well over a hundred years. Hence, It’s not really a surprise that people are still drawn to this ship. But to be shipped by this magnitude of people? This invariably suggests that there’s material provided to us by the creators themselves that is very blatantly obvious about the relationship. And while in most cases shipping two characters is completely okay in itself, according to me, shipping Johnlock has further validation in the fact that there is proof of intent of it becoming canon eventually (at least in the first two seasons).

Like I said before, shipping is OK, shipping is good. 

But is shipping okay if we take it to the point of over-analysing every move?

Sherlock is a comfort character for me. God knows half of my maladaptive daydreams are about him being a father figure towards me. My entire twitter tl and Tumblr dashboard is stuffed with cutesy or angsty things about him, and that’s great! But being in the fandom for about eight months, I’ve realised how this sort of feed eventually resulted in me completely forgetting the original storyline, and more importantly, in me forgetting how flawed a character Sherlock is!

Everyone(including me, the first time) freaks out in HLV because of how Sherlock isn’t listed as John’s pressure point. I, however, think we should question ourselves: Why should John still consider Sherlock that tantalizingly close to himself as he was in the beginning? John learnt his best friend had died, and he decided to do the bravest thing he could: make peace with it and move on. BUT NO! The Ghost of the man who loved him returned from the grave to haunt him! Here I talk about the other possible reasons why Sherlock wasn’t a pressure point for John in HLV. 

I am tired of this constant sugarcoating of Sherlock’s character. I am tired of seeing constant posts about how Sweet and caring Sherlock is and how much he loves John and how he loved her more than Mary. I am done with over analysis of every single shot where Sherlock looks at John, completely done. This shot below? It’s been overused for so many fanfics and cheesy romantic lines that I forgot that it’s supposed to be a look of GUILT.

Anyone who knows me knows that I love sherlock so dearly because he’s a very unlikeable character. That is precisely what sets him so far apart from the other characters. Sherlock started off with a hateful and dismissive character, but through the course of the events he undergoes a lot of emotional development. And that is truly noteworthy. In TFP he said for Mycroft, “ He did the best he could (for Eurus)...” and that is truly sentimental. This sort of development is always heartwarming.

What I want people to understand is that Analysis is, obviously, important. And CRITICAL ANALYSIS more so. And it’s saddening to see so many people glossing over the critical part of the analysis. Why is it so wrong to point out HOW HURTFUL SHERLOCK’S ACTIONS TOWARDS JOHN HAVE BEEN?  Why is it wrong to to point out Johnlockers borderline bully other shippers? 

Can we finally talk about the problematic aspects of Johnlock, or rather Johnlockers?

Even though I’m relatively new to the fandom, I’ve noticed how dismissive people are of anything negative said about Sherlock. In the beginning, it was endearing, really; but now I see this pattern of constantly singing praises of Sherlock’s character, and it has lead me to realize how detrimental it can be to the relatively younger audiences. Sherlock is Rude, period. There’s no question about it. And this constant glorifying of his rudeness and arrogance and dismissing it as  a quirk could very well possibly give the impression that arrogance and vanity are in fact not so bad, and hell, it might make one seem a little cooler even ! Oh, don’t be mad if I act like my comfort character ! I’m quirky like that !

Constant bashing of the creators. And when I say constant, I mean it. This sort of bashing about is never-ending. And when I say this, I don’t mean that the creators were perfect; some of their mistakes were, quite frankly, blatantly ignorant ( like Irene the Canon Lesbian falling for Sherlock), but I don’t see enough people praising it for what it is. Even now there is so much slander against the creators ( and personally I feel bad for Mark Gatiss because he’s actually on twitter and is constantly spammed). Is it really a surprise that the creators hate the fans and especially the Johnlockers? Was it supposed to be so shocking when Martin said that being in the show wasn’t very fun anymore because of the fans?

We just don’t actually analyze anymore! I get that we haven’t got any new content for FOUR muheffing years but please I literally don’t see anything that’s actually interesting or analytical anymore and that kills me because that was the reason I joined this fandom- to read and comprehend the subtext, and the AMAZING META!  All I see are cute couple-ish pics of ben and Martin and tbh we can do so much better than that?!

Johnlockers have so much actual stuff to talk about? There is literally so much going on Subtextually, and yet all I see is people losing their mind over any interaction between Sherlock and John. This is so unfair! AND it’s detrimental too! With people painting every interaction as romantic in nature, the younger teenagers in this fandom who might not have experienced Love or Attraction may glean unrealistic ideas about them! It is difficult as it is to navigate oneself through romantic entanglements, let alone being fed such rose-colored ideas! And I say this because although I don’t know much about the audience on Tumblr, but Stan Twitter is like, (at least) 50 percent teenager-fuelled. It actually isn’t healthy for them at all.

Stop with the Benedict-worshipping for God’s sakes. Are you only in here because of him? We all get it, he’s absolutely stunning but come on, we’re here for the stories too right?

Romantic love is important, no doubt. But you know what’s completely overlooked? The platonic sort of love. And it’s tiring. Sherlock and Molly/Janine/Irene/John are all amazing duos and each pair has it’s own uniqueness and tang to it! Let’s not constantly dissect everything in the name of shipping, shall we?

lol looking back at it, I feel like it’s a vent rant for the prevailing circumstances on Stan Twitter. I apologize if anything I said hurt anyone, it wasn’t meant to. I completely understand that shipping people is for...recreation (?) but this was just my opinion. Let me know what you think about it!