#where the villain gets the girl

[the-elusive-soleil]

Reblog if your villain/heroine ship that people keep side-eyeing fits the Francie Nolan Approval Criteria as established by Betty Smith in 1943:

Ship getting together would solve central conflict

Villain willing to go to a whole lot of trouble to win heroine

Villain is around while the canon love interest is off doing Hero Things

[mouseshift]

[novelconcepts]

One of the most fundamentally interesting things to me about YJ and writing fic, specifically, is how the blame changes hands depending on the story. On whose perspective you're writing from. On whose story it is at a given moment. The very thing I dislike about viewers missing the point becomes so fascinating to me from within the narrative. Who are these characters when seen through the eyes of their peers?

Who does Jackie become? If you're Shauna, she's the love of your life, and your greatest rival, and the other half of your soul, and the person you blame for your dead dreams. If you're Van, she's the respected captain who earns none of your respect in the woods, the one who left you to die without blinking, the easiest target for teenage malice. If you're Natalie, she's competition for affection, the blabbermouth who can't leave well enough alone, the hands putting themselves to no good use. If you're Jackie? You're just a girl. You're so tired. You're so scared. You're losing face a little more every day, and you're made of despair, and you can't even trust your best friend. It's not your fault. It's not your fault. It's not your fault.

Who does Lottie become? If you're Natalie, she's your direct foil, the splinter under the edge of your thumbnail, the smart mouth to match your own, the confusing amalgamation of normal friend and mad ritual. If you're Misty, she's the first shred of obvious power in months, a leader who might need to be nudged back into line, a fascinating exercise in hitching your wagon to the right star early on. If you're Taissa, she's flat-nuts and endlessly frustrating, she's got your girlfriend's full attention, she's incredibly dangerous. If you're Lottie? You're just a girl. You're so tired. You're so scared. You've built a pedestal you can't keep your balance on, and you're not sure if you're right or going crazy, and you didn't want this. It's not your fault. It's not your fault. It's not your fault.

From outside the narrative, there is no bad guy. There is no blame. It is no one's fault. It is Man v. Nature, they are doing the best they can with an impossible situation. They're all trying to contribute what they can to the story, for better or worse.

From inside the narrative, you are a teenager trapped in a society constructed entirely of bare-bones-survival with the wildest assortment of girls. From inside the narrative, to stay human, you have to love and fight, respect and judge. Every story changes the game. Every story shifts the blame. A hero in one has the bloodiest hands in the next. And that, to me, is such a thrilling sandbox to play in.

[big-city-times]

their holiday cheese parties must go CRAZY

[dykedvonte]

I think the reason Benny designs are so varied and hard to pin is because some people remember the line that says he’s pretty and lean into it hard and others completely disregard it, do a 180 and make him like a Sopranos character.

It’s like he’s either someone’s uncles that laughs too hard at his own jokes while slapping you or random twink number 6. God bless those who have figured out how to merge the two.

[bunniehunn]

hughh I wanna talk about the queer theming and iconography in Disney villains/twst characters but I don’t want to look like a freaking nerd

Edit: I put my take in the og tags

[thatfanfictionchick]

Jude is gonna have the most fucked up heart-stabbing backstory and I'm so not ready.

[cryptic-underground]

Just got back from a three day con and, while I am resting up, I drew some lesbians!!

[percki]

loveybug is too busy thinking about kissing to fight supervillains... anytime an akuma shows up she hits it with a comically large hammer harley quinn style until it's flat and she can go back to unsubtly flirting with chat noir

[thousandyearphantombunker]

"We want more morally grey/flawed female characters"

You bitches can't handle APPLE WHITE!

like people keep saying "you couldn't even handle rose quartz" but this is even more pathetic to me. How can y'all make this kid into a monster?

[danwhobrowses]

For anyone else who is gonna struggle surviving the next 3 weeks with the angsty and tense situation of Callowmoore here's a few things from the last 2 episodes that I feel were underrated and will assist in trying to keep me sane/emotionally stable: - Matching messed up hands built for holding - Fearne nervously playing with her hair as she approaches Ashton - Ashton wanted Fearne to be either the last thing they saw if they died or the first thing they saw when they succeeded - Fearne's admittance corroborates Ashley's 4SD revelation that Fearne is in love with someone in the party but doesn't know how to process the emotions - Fearne wanted Ashton to be happy, while Ashton wanted to feel whole so they would be worthy of the Hells - Ashton twice tried to lead a search for Fearne, and instantly clocking onto Chetney saying he followed Fearne - Fearne making herself look as radiant as possible before giving Ashton the cold shoulder - Ashton only rose to Chetney's provocations until he said 'You hurt Fearne' Use how you will

[prolibytherium]

I never touched it but I feel like i only ever hear positive things said about song of achilles.. in (rough strokes at least) what makes it dogshit to you?

Okay it's been a while since I actually read it so some of this might not be spot on accurate. Sorry if at any point I say 'the book never does xyz' and it actually does once or twice but I think my underlying criticisms are accurate

-Patroclus is made into like this soft gentle tender quivering little yaoi boy. In the source text, he's shown as compassionate and moved by the suffering of his own men (and apparently having some medical skill, tending to the wounded in the camp), but very much invested n combat and very, very good at it (pages worth of descriptions of the guys he's killing left and right). In this, the arguably more complex character from this 8th century BC text is flattened into Being A Healer, he doesn't want to go to war he just wants to help people, he only goes because Achilles has to but he doesn't want to fight he's a HEALER he's a gentle lover NOT A FIGHTER who just wants to help he just wants to help everyone around him he HEALS while Achilles is a doomed warrior who is so good at fighting and KILLING its a DICHOTOMY GUYS!!!LIKE THE BEAUTIFUL SUN AND MOON DOOMED LOVERS SO SAD patocluse HEALER . (I Think he's specifically characterized as being BAD at fighting but might be misremembering)

-I don't remember much about Achilles' characterization I think it just makes him less of a jackass while not adding anything of interest and levels out into being mad boring.

-Not getting into the literal millenias old debate whether the mythological characters Achilles and Patroclus were being characterized as some type of lover by the original oral sources of the Iliad or its Homeric writers. We will never know. We don't even know what (if any) culturally accepted conventions of male homosexuality existed in bronze age Greece (we know much more about their descendants). But there are some interesting elements of their characterization in this direction, with how unconventional their relationship is WITHIN the text itself- Patroclus is described as cooking for Achilles and his guests (very specifically a woman/wife's job), Achilles chides Patroclus like a father, but there's also scene where Achilles' mourning of him directly echoes a passage of Hector's wife mourning her husband, Patroclus is explicitly stated to Achilles' elder, and is overall treated as his equal or near-equal, closest confidant and most beloved friend (to the point that pederastic classical Greeks would debate over who was erastes (older authority figure lover) and who was eromenos (adolescent 'beloved')- many took it as a given that this text depicted their present-day cultural norms of homosexual behavior but it existed so Outside of these norms that it had to be debated who was who). Their relationship is non-standard both within the text and to the descendants of the civilization that wrote them.

Basically what I'm saying is this book had opportunities to like, explore the unconventionality of the relationship (being presented here as explicitly lovers), explore the dynamics of why Patroclus wants to do 'women's work' (besides being a tenderhearted softboy), the weird dynamics where they take on paternal roles to each other but also roles of wives, how they feel about being this way, and just kind of Doesn't. Which I guess isn't an intrinsic fault (because it omits much of what I just talked about to begin with). it's just like.... Lame. This book takes jsut abandons everything interesting about the source text in favor of flattening it into bland Doomed Yaoi.

-The conflict that sets off the core story of the Iliad is Achilles and Agamemnon fighting over Briseis, an enslaved Trojan woman taken by Achilles as a war-trophy, Achilles spends most of the story moping because he was dishonored by his 'trophy' being taken. Achilles and Patroclus and everyone else are raping their captives, all the women in the story are either captured Trojans (or in the case of the free women within the walls of Troy, soon to be enslaved, and are slave owners themselves). Slavery as an institution and extreme patriarchal conventions are innate to the text and reflective of the context in which it was developed. You cannot avoid it.

But obviously you can't have your soft yaoi boys doing this, so the author has them capturing women to Protect Them from the other men. Their slaves are UNDER THEIR PROTECTION and VERY SAFE (and they might even Like And Befriend Them but I might be misremembering that. Briseis does though). Our heroes have apparently absorbed none of the ideals of the culture they exist in and the author seems to think "they're gay and aren't sexually attracted to their captives" would translate to them being outright benevolent (also as if wartime sexual violence is just about attraction and not part of a wider spectrum of violent acts to dehumanize and brutalize an accepted 'enemy')

In the source text, Briseis mourns Patroclus as being the kindest to her of her captors, who tried to get her a slightly better outcome by getting her married to Achilles (which probably would be the Least Bad of all possible outcomes for a woman in that situation, becoming a legal wife instead of a slave), and wonders what will happen to her now that he's gone. This is a really really sad, horrible, and compelling dynamic which could be fleshed out in very interesting ways but is instead is tossed entirely aside in favor of them being Besties. Like brother and sister.

All of the above pisses me off so much. If you don't want to engage in the icky parts of ancient/bronze age Greece then don't write a retelling of a story taking place in bronze age Greece. I'm not gonna get mad at children's adaptations of Greek myths or silly fun stories loosely based on them for omitting the rape and slavery but it is SO fundamental to the Iliad. If you're not willing to handle it, either fully omit it or better yet set your Iliad inspired yaoi in an invented swords-and-sandals setting where you can have all your heartbreaking tragic doomed lovers plot beats and not have to clumsily write around the women they're brutalizing.

-The author didn't seem to know what to do with Thetis and she made her just like, Achilles bitch mother who spends most of the story trying to separate our Yaoi Boys (iirc her disguising Achilles as a girl and hiding him on Scyros is made to be more about getting him away from Patroclus than trying to save her son from his prophesied doom in the Trojan War) until she sees how much they loooove each other and I think helps Patroclus' spirit get to the afterlife or something in the end?

-This is more of a personal taste gripe but it has that writing style I loathe where the prose feels less like a story and more like an attempt to string together Deep Beautiful Hard Hitting Poetic Lines that will look great as excerpts on booktok (might predate booktok but same vibe). It's all very Pretty and Haunting and Deep but feels devoid of real substance.

I really like The Iliad and The Odyssey in of themselves. They're fascinating historical texts that give a window into how 8th century BC Greeks told their stories, saw their world, interpreted their ancestors, etc. And genuinely I think these texts have 'good' characters, there's a lot of complexity and humanity to it.

WRT the Iliad- all of the main Achaeans are pretty fascinating, the one singular part where Briseis Gets To Talk and laments her situation is great, Achilles fantasizing that all of the Trojans AND the Achaeans die so he and Patroclus alone can have the glory of conquering Troy (wild), Achilles asking to embrace Patroclus' shade and reaching out for him but it's immaterial (and the shade being sucked back underground with a 'squeak' (the squeak kinda gets me it's disturbing and sad)), Hecuba talking about wanting to tear out Achilles' liver and eat it in a (taboo, exceptioally pointed) expression of rage and grief for his mutilation of her son's corpse, just one tiny line where the enslaved women performing ritual wailing for their dead captors are described as using it as an outlet to 'grieve for their own troubles' is heartrending, etc. A lot of grappling with anger and grief and the inevitability of death, a lot of groundwork laid for characters that could be very interesting when expanded upon in the framework of a conventional novel.

And Song Of Achilles really doesn't do much with all that. I know a lot of my gripes here are kind of just "It's different from the Iliad", I would have thought of it as mostly mediocre and forgettable rather than infuriating if it wasn't a retelling (and I DEFINITELY have strong biases here). But I think the ways in which it is different are less just a product of a retelling (of course there's going to be omissions and differences) and more a complete and utter disinterest in vast majority of its own subject matter, to the book's detriment. I think a retelling has a point when it EXPANDS on the source, or provides a NEW ANGLE to the source. This book doesn't Really do either, it just shaves off the complexity of its source material, renders the characters into a really boring archetype of a gay relationship, and gives very little else. Its content boils down to a middling tragic romance that has been inserted into the hollowed out defleshed skeleton of the Iliad.

Bottom line: I definitely would not be as mad about it if I wasn't familiar with the source material but I think it's fair to expect a retelling to Engage with/expand on its source, and I also think it's weak purely on its own merits. This book was set up to disappoint Me specifically.

[goldenspringmornings]

ya know for a fandom that is screaming from the rooftops that the books are ‘dark fantasy’ they sure do complain about people taking those darker elements at face value or even god-forbid exploring them

[greenglowinspooks]

Liminal Scarecrow

I see a lot of Scarecrow in DCxDP, usually as a plot device in tandem with his fear gas. And honestly, I’ll accept just about anything with a Scarecrow mention in it. However, there is one thing I doubt a lot of DCxDP fans know about from the DP side, which is the Scarebeast.

The Scarebeast is what was created when the Penguin decided to experiment on Scarecrow, essentially turning him into a living weapon.

It’s a giant monster that naturally produces fear gas in its body, and Scarecrow can only return to human form once the Scarebeast has been defeated.

I think that the Scarecrow could easily be a liminal of some sort, and the Scarebeast could be a manifestation of ghostly power.

Now, it should be noted that Scarecrow (to my knowledge) hasn’t died and been revived. He also hasn’t used the Lazarus pits. He gets beaten to hell and back on a regular basis, but he never actually dies.

However, we know that you don’t necessarily have to die to become a halfa. Vlad didn’t; instead, he was shot in the face with ectoplasmic energy by the malfunctioning proto-portal.

Also, we were never told exactly how the Scarebeast was created. Sure, we know that one of the Penguin’s scientists mutated him into existence, but we don’t know exactly what she used.

It’s not really so much of a stretch to think that he could have been exposed to some form of ectoplasm in order to stabilize or power his monstrous form, and as such became liminal (or a halfa).

Hell, all the other (canon) halfas in existence were created in a lab setting! Danny was mutated by ectoplasm and electricity when the portal opened, Vlad was blasted in the face by the previous portal, and Dani/Ellie was a clone.

Basically, give Scarecrow cool ghost privileges. He’s already got the creepy aesthetic. It’s what he deserves.

[smile-files]

(my ii3 rewatch is going swell! i'm quite enjoying myself.)

it is sort of funny how nickel goes from blaming everything on balloon in ii2 to blaming everything on clover in ii3. he very much wants to contextualize his misfortune, wanting someone to get mad at (he doesn't like feeling in the wrong personally, and i doubt he'd like to think he's just unlucky); when he starts to get along with balloon in ii3, he needs another scapegoat, and clover's the perfect pick...

as i was saying, nickel seems to have some hidden guilt about treating balloon badly before, with his stubborn, heels-dug-in hatred of balloon fading away now that he doesn't have to save face in front of baseball and suitcase. of course, he wants to save face in front of balloon too, so he half-passes it off as box suggesting it (he always wants a passive lackey to help him push for what he really wants, huh?). nickel's caught in a limbo of not wanting to seem like he had a sudden heel-face turn/change of heart, but also wanting to express that he genuinely enjoys balloon's company (because he's actually letting himself do so now). he isn't being explicitly nice to balloon, but he's simultaneously secretive about the fact that he only did it because "box" told him to -- he doesn't want balloon to think his amicability is nothing more than obligatory, but he doesn't want to be vulnerable either. really interesting stuff.

in any event, nickel's friendlier with balloon now, so obviously balloon could no longer be his scapegoat. he still doesn't like feeling guilty for his own mistakes, nor does he enjoy his troubles being blameless, so he picks clover as his target: largely because he's cynical and can't cope with the idea of pure goodwill, happiness, and innocence which clover represents. she is everything that he isn't, but at the same time what he wants to be; he resents that. this cynicism about clover probably connects with his cynicism about balloon in ii2 -- he initially couldn't wrap his head around a manipulative person changing for the better. weirdly, he still hasn't completely gotten over balloon's heel-face turn as of now (he still doesn't believe in that kind of change, at least not fully), and yet he's still chummy with balloon. as far as i can tell, nickel is strongly projecting his own reservations onto balloon: that he himself can't change and be a good person.

[rorydrawsandwrites]

So far I'm honestly a lot better at drawing Puzzles with the big cartoony eyes than the white dot ones for the moment