#who are doomed by the narrative hating them from the outright

[nirvanai]

I was talking with a friend of mine about how the secret ending to aini thematically reminds me of Certain Parts of pathologic(1) and anyways tl;dr bachelor Ryuki is going to live rent free in my mind forever now. Guy who is obsessed with defeating death bc his life has been defined by it going to a small town in the Japanese countryside to learn the secret to immortality only to be made to fight an unwinnable battle against a horrific plague that threatens to take even his own life, all as those with power in the town all want to use and manipulate him for their own needs and the towns other doctors see him as naive at best or outright useless at worst

anyways I wrote a short fic about it because it won't leave my mind. bachelor ryuki's fun countryside vacation.

also date is the haruspex and mizuki is the changeling. ryuki is perpetually sick with the Plague and both of them cannot understand why this fucker won't just take the panacea please for the Love Of God just rest for ten fucking seconds-

[pessimisticpigeonsworld]

Mad Queen Misogyny

All the mad queen Dany takes, from both D&D and the audience, are just plain misogyny. They are literally just repeats of common misogynistic ideas. D&D have given a few reasons for why they wrote the mad queen ending for Dany, and all of them are the same old misogynistic tropes of fantasy and mythology.

The Mad Queen:

I'm going to start this off by going into how the mad queen trope itself is rooted in misogyny. This is one of the oldest tropes in fantasy/fairytales. Whether it's Snow White's evil step mother or the Queen of Hearts, literature is riddled with mad queens.

The idea of the mad queen is informed by the desires of men to keep women out of power. Yes there are historical women who were horrible people and unstable when in power. However, those examples are not enough to justify the amount of times the trope occurs, especially since some of the examples occur after many stories have already been written (ie, Mary I and medieval fairytales). These fictional women were written as cautionary tales of what happens when a woman is placed in power.

By writing the mad queen Dany arc in GOT, D&D are perpetuating an old trope rather than "subverting" anything as they claim. The most powerful woman in the world turning out to be a war mongering and mass murdering tyrant isn't subversive in any way. The only reason it was surprising was because it came out of nowhere narratively.

ASOIAF fans who constantly try to justify this turn for Dany's book character are attempting to do the same thing D&D did. They want to employ an ancient trope to justify their dislike for her in name of being "subversive".

The Violent Woman:

A trope that stretches back all the way to the Ancient Greeks is that of the angry, homicidal woman in power. From Hera to Medea, the myths are full of women who commit atrocities simply because of anger. This trope isn't just about avenging a slight or retribution on the guilty; it's about a woman taking out her anger on innocent parties.

Daenerys has fallen into the role of the avenger many times throughout both the show and and book. She killed Mirri Maz Duur for the murder of her son and husband. She killed the Undying for attempting to trap/kill her. She kills Kraznys mo Nakloz and many other slavers for the atrocities they commit constantly on the people they enslaved.

In the show, she imprisoned Xaro Xhoan Daxos and Doreah in a vault for killing Irri and helping the warlocks steal her children. She killed the Khals who threatened to rape her. She kills the Tarleys for rebelling against the Tyrells, thus getting them killed, and refusing to bend the knee.

Every time Dany killed up until season eight, it was purely because those she killed harmed her or her allies/children. That is why none of her past kills justify her burning KL. The people of KL did nothing to her; it's not an established part of her character to harm innocents out of anger. She even outright condemns the killing of innocents in earlier seasons.

The inconsistencies show how D&D chose to blatantly ignore the complexities of Dany's character in favor of a sexist trope. They perpetuated the idea that a woman in power who is angered will ultimately commit injustice and atrocities.

Dany antis in the ASOIAF fandom are no different from D&D. A common argument used by Dany and Targaryen antis is that they are bound to be corrupt and tyrannical because they have dragons. Essentially saying that Dany was doomed to be the villain the moment she hatched her children.

They point to her dragons' existence and her conquest in Essos as reasons for her "villain arc", despite the fact that none of her actions reflect the things they claim. Dany is simply being condemned for being a woman with power; it's expected of her to be a tyrant for those reasons alone.

The Woman Scorned:

This reasoning given by D&D in a behind the episode interview is probably the excuse that I hate the most. They said that one of the reasons for Dany's descent into madness was because Jon Snow refused to kiss her back once he found out they were aunt and nephew. This is an insanely misogynistic trope.

Used time and again by writers (mostly male), this trope is about a woman who becomes an antagonist due to rejection, unrequited love, or betrayal from a lover. In the case of Dany and GOT, it's Jon refusing to continue their romantic relationship.

For some reason, this is seen as a breaking point for Dany. A woman who has endured poverty, homelessness, sexual slavery, a traumatic miscarriage and death of a spouse/protector, and the stresses of war was broken by a man refusing to kiss her. Doesn't that sound fucking stupid? Well that's because it is.

Dany has never felt entitled to people's love (with the exception of shitty writing from D&D) let alone someone's sexual/romantic reciprocation. It's out of character and flat out insulting to women to believe that is enough to make Dany into a mass murdering tyrant.

Once again, there are members of the fandom who espouse this reasoning into their own theories and metas. Jonsas especially are guilty of this; some claiming that Jon's rejection of Dany in favor of Sansa will be a catalyst for the "mad queen".

An offshoot of this thinking, is the idea that Dany went/will go mad because she was rejected by the realm.

In the show, the Northmen are dismissive or outright hostile to Dany when she arrives (even after she saves them). Due to this rejection by the Westerosi people, Dany decides "let it be fear" and chooses to burn KL to the ground.

Once again, this idea isn't grounded in her past actions at all. Dany has always known she needs to earn people's love and respect as a ruler, why should she change her mind the moment she steps onto Westerosi soil? The answer is simple: she's a woman, so she can't possibly be able to deal with rejection.

Fans theorize constantly that Dany is going to go mad and destroy KL and Westeros because the people will definitely reject her in favor of Young Griff/Jon Snow/any other king they can think of. This theory is simply clinging to misogynistic ideas about women and it's disgusting in every iteration (it also dismisses the fact that there are people in Westeros excited about the idea of Dany and her dragons in the books but that's a different post).

The Woman Bereft:

This argument is probably the least outright in its misogyny. The idea that a woman who has lost everything will lose her mind isn't a new one and it can be played in a non-sexist way. However, GOT played it completely in the sexist roots of the trope.

Throughout seasons seven and eight, Dany loses basically everything. All but one of her children, her closest advisor and best friend Missandei, Ser Jorah, a massive chunk of her army, her other advisors, most of her allies, and is rejected by Westeros and Jon. That's a lot of loss to endure.

However, Dany has endured severe loss before and never reacted by murdering a city full of innocents. Again, this decision and descent isn't backed up by anything else in her storyline.

The sexism of this idea, that loss produces mad women, is that it's rarely applied to men in the same situations. For example: Tyrion lost everything he cared about, yet he's never written by D&D to be in danger of becoming a mass murderer. He even outright says he wishes he'd poisoned the whole court, but is never portrayed as a mad man by D&D or fans.

Dany is expected to go insane after enduring loss because she's a woman. She's perceived as being fundamentally weaker, mentally as well as physically, so she must be more vulnerable to madness than the male characters.

The Foreign Seductress:

The idea of the foreign seductress is a xenophobic and racist stereotype. For Dany, her antis use the instances of her exercising sexual autonomy and her life in Essos as fodder for this disparaging trope.

In the books and the show, Dany pursues sexual and romantic relationships outside of marriage. This is something that doesn't fall in line with the medieval setting of the world. In Westeros and Essos, it's common for men to do that, but not women, due to systematic misogyny. Because of this, Dany's antis often feel free to argue that because she doesn't act "pure", she is wrong and evil. Dany's bound to become a villain because she isn't a chaste and "good" woman.

In the same way, Dany is painted as wrong for wanting to take her family's throne purely because she wasn't raised in Westeros. She's perceived as a foreign invader by both her antis and D&D.

D&D wrote many scenes of outright xenophobia from the Northmen, Sansa, and Arya towards Dany and her forces without ever condemning those ideas. In fact, they justify them by writing the mad queen ending. The fact that Dany isn't "one of them" is used as an excuse for her descent.

Dany antis also employ this rhetoric, especially when people compare Dany's conquest for the IT to the Starks' desire to retake Winterfell. It's good for the Starks to want to retake their throne because they were raised in Winterfell, but Dany has no right to her ancestral home because she wasn't raised in Westeros.

However, this idea is never applied to Young Griff, who was also not raised in Westeros. Despite this, people will talk about how excited they are for his story and how sad it is that he's totally going to be murdered by his evil aunt. Once again a double standard is applied to Dany.

All this is because Dany is a woman who refuses to conform to patriarchal standards and was raised in a foreign country.

Never Good Enough:

Dany antis and D&D thrive on applying a different set of standards to Dany than other characters. They do this an a way that's reminiscent of the double standards set for women even today.

No matter what Dany does, it's never good enough for them. She dealt with Viserys and his death in the wrong way. She didn't protect her people in the right way. She tried to abolish slavery in the wrong way. She saved the goddamn world wrong. Like nothing Dany does is right in their eyes.

In their minds, Dany should've died in AGOT being a perfectly passive woman. She refused to submit to those (men) around her, and for that they punish her.

She's wrong for fighting the slavers, she's wrong for trying to avenge murdered children, she's evil for killing to protect herself. D&D used each of her actions throughout the show that they seemed too aggressive as justification for what they wrote. Dany's antis do the exact same thing in their theories.

The mad queen Dany theory is rooted completely in misogyny. It has no true justification in the narrative and every argument conjured up is just as sexist as the trope they want to perpetuate.

[olympeline]

Been thinking about why I found Arthur in the Dark so impressive and it made me realise something kinda significant. Something significant that I’m going to put under a read more because it revolves around a heavy subject. So I wouldn’t advise looking beyond the cut if you’re sensitive to that kind of thing.

Less important, but everything below is a big spoiler and, guys seriously. If you like USUK and can handle darker fiction - no pun intended - give AitD a try. Don’t spoil yourself here. Go try it first and then come back if you’re interested. Try it if you’re neutral on USUK. Or, heck, even if USUK is a ship you dislike but isn’t an outright NOTP. I’d still recommend checking out this comic. Arthur in the Dark is still worth a read in my opinion. It’s that good. But enough gushing. Read on for the meat of this post.

Ready? Here we go: Arthur in the Dark has one of the best depictions of rape I’ve ever seen in a piece of media. “Best” as in most skillfully crafted for narrative purposes. Honestly and truly. Not even kidding. Which is kind of amazing considering it’s a depiction that came from a fan comic based on a jokey, anime gag series. Why do I feel this way? A couple of reasons:

Firstly, the rape in AitD is frighteningly, tragically realistic. Something the majority of fictional rapes are not. We tend to think of rape as taking place in a dark alley in the inner city. Stereotyping up a scene of a bottom feeder, criminal man dragging a (young, attractive) woman away to violate her. They’re usually total strangers and it’s always violent. These kind of rapes do happen, but statistics tell us they’re the minority. The majority of rapes happen like the one in AitD did: between two people who know each other well. Friends, romantic couples, even family members, make up the bulk of rapists and their victims.

Most narratives prefer the less common type of rape. Usually because the creator doesn’t want to tell a story about rape. Not really. What they want is a gut-punch to add easy drama and darkness to their creation. The sliding scale of “irredeemable bad guy” roughly goes: murderer → cold blooded torturer → rapist → child rapist. Making a villain a rapist is one of the worst things he - because 99% of the time it’s a he - can be. Conversely having a character be raped gains them instant sympathy because people are moral and empathetic creatures at heart. Most creators know this and throw in a rape for the shorthand: “Look how evil our villain is!” Which often makes the rape and its aftermath feel artificial. In no small part because the rapist characters, by virtue of being written to be the worst of the worst, don’t come off as very human. They can’t be when their main purpose is to be loathed by the audience. I could go on because there’s tons more to unpack about rape in fiction, but you get the point.

The rape in AitD isn’t like that. America and England know and love each other. Their relationship is complicated (oh boy, is it ever!) but that part of it is never in doubt. They’re each other’s most treasured person and have been for centuries. They’re not a duo made up of a flat, hate bait, villain on a collision course with their victim. Who’s doomed to suffer and be pitied until the creator decides the audience has had enough of their trauma and shuts it away so the story can move on. America and England are two people living together, going through a period of immense change and stress, trying to manage as best they can, and sometimes getting it very wrong. From a narrative point of view, this makes what happens between them so much better and so much more upsetting at the same time.

Which brings me nicely to reason number two of why this particular rape works: the build up. Like everything else in AitD, America raping England is carefully planned out and set up. The chocolate bar scene, man. Brilliant, I have to say. Alarming, uncomfortable, and brilliant. The scene in the garden is not just sprung on the reader for a jarring “Oh no! Oh shit-!” moment. If your typical under written rape is a cheap jump scare, the rape in AitD is a carefully crafted slowburn dread. Early on we start to become aware we’re building to something bad. From the foreshadowing, the art, the atmosphere, etc. We just know a storm is coming. It’s done without America acting OOC too, which is very important. It’s how he can come back from what he did. Something that would be impossible if the author didn’t handle this setup well. America’s actions aren’t right, but they are understandable. That’s the crucial distinction. The psychology of the whole thing is so very well done. America was in love with England and had been for a long time. The guilt he felt tormented him because of what their relationship was in the past. Caught between his human side and his immortal one. The guilt helped keep America in check because he didn’t want England seeing the lustful way he’d begun to look at him. Then they started living together and England was suddenly vulnerable. Vulnerable in more ways than America was aware. Which is another vital detail of how the creator keeps America sympathetic, but more on that in a moment. England willingly went blind so he wouldn’t have to see when America - the man grown from the child he raised - looked at him with lust. The guilt America felt peaked, only to clash with the realisation that he could freely indulge in his fantasies. Indulge and push (again, chocolate bar scene) now the usual moral restraint - England seeing his desire - was removed.

Meanwhile, England himself felt that same guilt but his was also laced with panic and despair. He didn’t want to lose or strain his relationship with the most important person of his centuries long life. Pulled between human standards of morality and the very inhuman existence of nation-people. Incidentally the clash between their existence as humans, while also being something more than human, is brilliantly done in AitD. It’s something that’s hard to get right - especially involving such taboo topics - but Hotama nails it. USUK usually handwaves the implications around England raising America, but here it’s made part of the narrative. Part of the tragedy, part of the resolution. Good stuff. Anyway, England begged Arthur to take his sight away so he wouldn’t have to see the way America looked at him. Then banished Arthur back into the dark in an attempt to run away from his problems. But without Arthur - without his strength - England couldn’t stand up to America when he needed to. Not that America was aware of any of this because he never knew about Arthur. Which brings me to point three: nuance of blame.

“Blame” is a very loaded word in this context, so I’ll do my best to talk about this carefully. Rape in the media is almost always black and white. Absolutely evil, irredeemable rapist. Absolutely blameless, sympathetic victim. But real life isn’t always that simple. Obviously the rapist is always the perpetrator and the one most in the wrong. I need to make that very clear. But the scene in AitD illustrates that sometimes a victim could have done more to help themselves. Not always, but sometimes. This is a delicate subject so I hope you understand I’m not trying to victim blame. Just saying that rape, like all crimes, doesn’t always deal in absolutes. Unlike media, real life is often complicated and tragic. Good people can give in to temptation. Be weak, do bad things, or allow those bad things to happen. England told America to stop, but failed to follow it up when needed. When America pushed for more and used England’s own words to argue he’d already been given consent, that was when England needed to push back. Interpretation comes in here but, personally, I think if England had told America to stop when prompted, America would have. But England didn’t and he gave in instead. Something America took as a tacit “yes.” Again, not right, but understandable in how it could happen. Their power imbalance had grown extreme, stress and feelings were running high, they were struggling to connect as they used to, England’s prior cowardice and separation from Arthur prevented him from being strong when he needed to be, America was ignorant of his problem, and it all came together in a horrible, tragic mistake. All throughout, the rape continued to be brilliantly, awfully realistic. America not noticing - either genuinely or from denial - that England was not enjoying what was happening. England quickly becoming too distracted by the pain to do anything other than focus on enduring it. Then the aftermath where America didn’t realise what he’d just done due to coming down from a post-sex, post-stress euphoria. Awful, miserable, horrifying, tragic, perfectly crafted scene.

Which brings me to my final reason why this comic impressed me in its depiction of rape: where the story goes from there. Where it goes and how the narrative builds from the rape instead of trying to move on because the “shocking” part is over and now we’re in diminishing returns. Going back to my first point, too many stories see rape as something that happens in an isolated part of the narrative. It happened, it was shocking and brutal, now it’s done and we can move on because we didn’t plan to interweve the rape with the rest of the story. So we won’t give it the weight it needs. At best the victim might get a few scenes expressing their trauma later on - maybe a callback or two - but that’s it. It’s shallow. Plenty of fictional rapes could be replaced with a savage beating and nothing would change. In the worst cases you could remove the rape, not replace it with anything, then run the story with minimal problems. Not so in AitD. There, the rape isn’t just another semi-important plot point. It’s a crucial one which couldn’t be replaced with anything else. The whole first part of the story, the engine of the narrative, is built around America and England failing to deal with their changing relationship. A relationship between a pair of humans who also happen to be strange, immortal beings that ordinary humans can’t understand. Changing from platonic/familial to romantic over hundreds of years. With romance comes lust. Lust can be perfectly healthy just like any other bodily appetite. In this case it became twisted by circumstance, and the only “suitable” narrative payoff was rape. Nothing else would have had the necessary impact.

Then there’s how the rape compares to the final sex scene in some classic narrative juxtaposition. The final sex scene which happens to be the only one in the comic that’s fully consensual on both sides. The one that goes beyond sex and becomes real, honest to goodness lovemaking. It’s a perfect contrast. The rape scene had all the trappings of a classic romance. Right down to it being their first time and taking place in a rose garden. But it’s tragic, horrifying, and deeply unsexy. Then, near the end of their story, America and Arthur get lost on their road trip and have sex in their car. Their crappy, cramped car, where they’re surrounded by ordinary luggage, both of them sweaty and a little cranky with each other after a long day. It’s awkward, ordinary, imperfect and gorgeous. If we didn’t have the rape before to show us the nadir of this relationship, the healing and the dawn that came after wouldn’t be half so meaningful. A very strange thing to say without context, but it was a perfectly done rape that gave the audience the payoff of perfectly done lovemaking. It’s no small feat to get a reader to cheer for a romantic resolution after all of the above. Kind of in awe of Hotama’s skills, I tell you what.

Up to this point and I don’t know what else there is to say other than, geez. This comic, man. Blew me away. I’m so happy I rediscovered my interest in Hetalia if for no other reason than I got to read Arthur in the Dark. I’m a bit of a bookworm in my spare time and I’ve read quite a lot of classic literature over the years. Classic literature with rape scenes not crafted half so well as AitD did. Really think about that. An amateur fan comic based on a jokey gag series about national personifications being silly with each other. Did better at something than the books we hold up as the best of the best. Can’t really say anything else than that is genuinely bloody amazing

[endmerit]

I've been thinking a lot recently about what the different narrative themes of Final Fantasy XIV's expansions are.

While the base-game of A Realm Reborn has a story where a lot of rebuilding is happening (which is also appropriate considering the game's out-of-universe situation back then), I still wouldn't say that it has a strong narrative theme of rebuilding... but at the same time, beyond just establishing the world and the story's antagonistic forces and putting all the wheels in motion, I guess the theme of rebuilding and "By striving to help people around us and to unite with our neighbors we can not only stand against bigger common foes, but also improve all of our own day-to-day lives." is the strongest thing it has going for it. Striving to improve society somewhat can improve society somewhat.

For Heavensward, while there is that on-point Tweet of "Church sucks because they won't let you fuck dragons!", and while someone with a cynical and dry sense of wit could go with "Christianity has always been and still is oppressive, destructive and outright evil to everyone both within its system and outside it, and we should kill the Pope.", I think the healthier themes to take are along the lines of "Cycle of revenge will at best lead to mutual destruction, but definitely to your own one at the least.", and "Power either corrupts leaders who cling to it, which leads to further destruction, or they manage to stay humble enough to allow younger generations to build bridges and settle old grudges." ...but to be fair, both sides of Heavensward's conflict have such outlandishly evil leaders that simply killing just both of them does most of the heavy lifting of ending a literal 1000-year conflict, so you know.

Stormblood, I think, has easier theme to pin: It's about generational trauma caused by war and its aftermath. Stormblood's story takes place in 2 different nations that have been conquered only about 20 years ago, which means that while the older generations still remember the days of freedom and have understandable reason to hate the oppressing foreign regime, there's already a full generation of children and young adults who have grown up knowing only this rule and trying to make the most of their lives under it. This then starts the spiral of old guard hating the youth for "betraying their nation and families" and young generation growing hateful towards the old guard because of it and further siding with the oppressing regime. This premise takes Realm Reborn's and Heavensward's constant background-theme of "United we stand" and writes itself as far to the other direction as the writers can take it with "When a nation turns against itself, and its generations against each other, it is doomed to fall to its enemies." It's a heavy expansion full of people who hate each other and their lot in life and even now, years down the line, it's still feel-bad to think about.

Shadowbringers, while mine and many others' favourite expansion, I had to think a lot what the main theme to take actually was. On a more surface-level the story dares to ask questions like "What if angels were actually zombies?", "Even if it seems hopeless from the get-go, you should always try to settle your differences with talking first." and "How many millions of people is it okay to murder if the reward is a return to 'The Good Old Days'?" ...but at the end of the day I think the key-word of the expansion is Legacy. Something along the lines of "You can't fully grasp how important and loved you are to the people you have touched in your life with your every seemingly small kindness, and how far they would go in a heartbeat to save you, just like you have already saved them." ...told from couple of very different directions.

Endwalker then has the unenviable challenges of not only holding a candle to the previous expansion, but altogether wrapping up the "Main" plot that's been built up for almost a decade, while still having its own thing to say... and it comes in swinging AND sticks the landing by first asking an all-too-relatable question of "Does anyone know where to find any happiness and reason to live? Every day I look for them but all I find is more despair and suffering everywhere." and then giving its own answer of "It's the little things that make life worth living. Find your strength and source of hope against world's daily despairs from the friends around you, because if you shut yourself off from everyone, you can't expect others to care about you either." Additionally, especially the theme of "Try to trust in others enough to both offer AND accept help when it's needed." plays a heavy part in the patch-story, but the main takeaway is that Endwalker's theme is a bit more complicated than simply "Get rid of Twitter, your life will improve."

Which brings us to where we are now, still close enough after Dawntrail's release that I'll do the compromised courtesy of trying to keep details vague instead of outright spoiling them. I don't think it's a controversial opinion that the first and second half of the 7.0 story felt quite separated from each other, and it took me a long time to think about this expansion's connecting theme, but ultimately I think the story has 3 different takes to the theme of "You have to let go." First take of that theme comes from Wuk Lamat's journey in the first half, and how in every new location she (and other groups involved) visit and people they meet, she is further taught that "In order to live in peace with all the communities and cultures around you, you cannot be unreasonably rigid in doing things exactly your way, ignoring the lives and opinions of people around you just because you think you know better. You have to have some flexibility." In the second half, then, the theme is expanded upon via 2 other authority-figures, first of whom does the exact opposite of what Wuk Lamat learned in the first half and DOES ignore everyone around him, "Fighting only for myself", failing to learn and acknowledge that "From the day you were born, no matter who your family is, you had no need to prove your right to exist. Only you can let go of that idea if you feel like you do, no-one can do it for you." ...and then, while the 3rd person also has the Shadowbringers' theme of "Try and reach a solution with talking, even if it seems hopeless at first" going on, they also carry the most straight-forward version of the main theme with them, that being "You have to accept that all living things will eventually die, you cannot keep paying higher and higher price of never accepting it."

...that said though, what with all the magic and magical technology and everything else already established in the game's setting, the last stretch of the main expansion's story does muddle that last theme a bit with reasonable questions like "Really, we decided to solve the problem like that!? Couldn't we really have been able to improve upon the old existing solution to keep paying that higher and higher price??" which... would then have no doubt started a very different, also very questionable for different reasons, moral path. Regardless, I think there's currently something of a divide with the themes and in-universe realities in the game's story which, I have to assume, will be expanded upon in the upcoming patch-stories.

[imfromthemiddlekingdom]

I love how stanikins bend over backwards to attempt to make Obi-Wan and the Jedi look callous and uncaring when all evidence points otherwise.

Obi-Wan is too harsh on him after he endangers his men and Ashoka to save a droid with confidential information on it which he didn’t wipe purposefully, oh no!!! He’s abusive!!!

Obi-Wan putting the good of the Galaxy above the ones he love because it’s his duty and philosophy to put the good of the collective above the good of the few he loves. Oh no!!!! He’s heartless!!! He should’ve let Anakin jump off the moving vehicle to save padme because muh love story!!!! He should’ve known that Anakin’s dreams about his mother dying was a vision and not a dream!!! Definitely not like Anakin told him it was a vision, “just a dream” verbatim from Anakin himself!!! Like if we take legends into consideration then Obi-Wan, someone who is strong in the Unifying force, would definitely have done shit if Anakin told him outright it was a vision but how was he supposed to know when Anakin himself 1) never had a vision before this and 2) never told his master what occurred in said vision?

Obi-Wan would’ve made Anakin fess up to the Tusken massacre if Anakin told him!!! He should’ve been a safe space for Anakin and been accepting like Padme and covered this horrendous miscarriage of justice out of love!!! He didn’t provide a safe space for a mass murderer therefore he deserves blame for it!!!!

The council didn’t want to admit a very clearly traumatized slave child who’s recently been freed because he would not be able to fully commit to their philosophy of non-attachment due to his experience and asking him to change how he viewed the world so shortly after being separated from his one support in life would be cruel so they denied him, therefore he was right to hate them!!! Especially Mace Windu because, checks notes, he was mean (???) to him (???) in the first act of the phantom menace???? Like have y’all not watched TCW and how Mace interacted with him????

Stanikins literally have every excuse under the sun to justify his every atrocity without giving him any agency in his own choice. His story is a tragedy!!! Let it be a tragedy!!! He was a slave boy with godly powers and traumatized beyond imagination! He could’ve been great if the circumstances were different, if one thing changed he would’ve been the greatest Jedi there were, but because he is literally doomed by the narrative, we cannot see him be the person he could be. He has great capacity for kindness of selflessness but because of his experience fear wins out and he desperately holds onto all the affection and love he could because his time as a slave taught him to do so. It’s a disservice to take away his agency, to make all his bad and disastrous decisions the fault of someone else, is to make him one dimensional. Let him be the villain he is and mourn the child he was and the person he could’ve been if he wasn’t doomed by the narrative before the prequels even came out. Let him be tragic. Let his decisions be tragic and doomed and unavoidable. Let him be sucked into villainy the moment he decided that his revenge is worth more than the lives of those that did not participate in the murder and torture of his mother. Let him be utterly unredeemable because of his actions. Let him doomed by his own actions as well as the narrative. Let him be himself instead of woobifying him into a victim of everyone else’s actions but his own.

He choose to massacre the Tuskens. He choose to massacre the Jedi. He choose to hunt any remaining Jedi left in the Galaxy for 20 years. He choose to put the life of his wife above the people who raised him and took him into their culture. He choose to do that himself. And it is tragic. It is sad. But it is no one’s fault but his own. His formative years shaped him into one who jealously hordes all forms of affection form those he loved most as a trauma response. He understands Jedi teachings (literally a whole arc in TCW where he teaches Ashoka what it means to be a Padawan and Jedi) he just doesn’t internalize it because of his trauma. He takes no one’s council but his own (showcased when he went to Yoda to ask for a method of cheating death and Yoda’s advice was sound if he were talking to any other Jedi other than Anakin).

Star Wars may be a a story of hope but it is also a tragedy. It’s about a boy how could’ve been great, it’s about a boy who was so full of hope and dooming himself because he’s too afraid and refuses to let the fear go so it turns into anger and hate. Taking away Anakins agency and blaming his actions on other people takes away the tragedy that is having someone great fall. A boy who was bad cannot fall and be doomed. It’s only those that have the potential to be great that falls the hardest and by taking away his own culpability in bringing in a genocidal empire (one he wished to rule no less) takes away the inherent tragedy of seeing someone so bright fall so low.

[he-is-lightning-in-a-bottle]

Top 5 Beloathed Tropes, in No Particular Order

Hi beloveds. Because of a recent certain episode of what had previously been a favorite drama, I feel compelled to share some hate. Hate for these godawful tropes!

Noble Idiocy - This is when one character sacrifices something dear to them (usually their relationship with another character) out of the mistaken idea that it's somehow better for everyone this way. LISTEN UP PEEPS! It's a lie. It's so disrespectful of others, especially if it's a breakup. It's assuming that you know what is best for them, that you know what they're thinking and feeling better than they do, that you know what they'll want. All without ASKING THEM or letting them make their own decisions. You know what this signals to me as a viewer? That your relationship is doomed to failure even if you eventually work through this stupidity. Why? Because if you're willing to do this once, what's to stop you from doing it again? Your worldview is inherently flawed in a deeply selfish way, particularly because you're passing off your selfishness as sacrificial "love" and "respect" when it is the opposite! I no longer trust you! In summary: don't sacrifice your relationship/work/happiness because of stupid reasons that you could easily work through with some decent communication!

Time skips for the ending. - Time skips can be a valuable narrative tool. They can give a character who just endured something dramatic or traumatic time to become stable again. They can provide a fluffy epilogue to a fluffy ending, demonstrating to the audience that a year later everyone is still happy. But time skips are evil if they come in the penultimate or final episode just to add drama, and they're particularly evil if they relegate character growth offscreen. THIS IS WEAK WRITING. This is wanting to correct a character flaw without doing the work to show me HOW it gets corrected. It's especially egregious if it's a character flaw called out by the narrative in prior episodes because then I have an emotional investment in seeing it resolved, and THE WRITERS JUST STOLE THAT FROM ME.

Intentional Miscommunication - Let's just call this what it is. Lying. It can be well done (and even humorous) if the main character is trapped in a lie by circumstances beyond their control and they must perpetuate that lie for Reasons. Think Unintentional Love Story and Business Proposal. These often begin as low-stakes lies of omission because a character doesn't know yet how involved they'll become in the other's life. But it gets dumb as fuck when it either drags on beyond a couple of episodes (think Twins) or involves an intentional outright lie (I'm looking at you, Last Twilight). Dear TV writers, as a good rule of thumb, please resolve all misunderstandings within the length of an episode. And if the entire plot happens to be built on a lie, at least make it accidental rather than intentional. Why? Because someone who intentionally lies to others, particularly someone they claim to love, is no longer trustworthy. If you throw this trope in at the end of the drama, I'm no longer going to believe these characters can have a Happily Ever After no matter how happy you show me they are on screen.

Mean/abusive tsunderes. - Everybody loves watching a cold or reserved or grumpy character come out of their shell and bloom. But stop making tsunderes who are downright mean or abusive! Particularly ones who miraculously fix fundamental character flaws as soon as they're loved by the right person. Do tsunderes right, please! They're supposed to begin the story coming off as harsh or severe, but it's supposed to be for a good reason that engenders sympathy once we (and the other main characters) understand them. They're not supposed to actually be abusers! And it's the worst kind of storytelling to show their abusive nature magically changing because they feel in love. All this tells me is that as soon as their fluffy in love feelings dissappear, their abusive nature will reappear. I actually fear for their romantic partner.

Amnesia. - I hate it when all the character growth gets undone by this magic trope. Not only is the amnesia portrayed on screen usually totally medically inaccurate, but it's just lazy and dumb to use this for drama instead of something more realistic or believable. I can only think of three stories that did this well -- Jack O'Frost, Naughty Babe, and Crazy Love. In those stories, the amnesia (if real) was momentary, but then they pretend it is still there for valid sympathetic Plot Reasons. I also don't mind if it's the literal setup of the plot, ie the whole story is about a character with some form of amnesia adapting to their new life (think: Momento, 50 First Dates, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind). But please stop throwing it into the middle of stories just to be Dramatique™

@lurkingshan This is for you! Thanks for your Last Twilight rant spurring this on.

[purgemarchlockdown]

For the ask game, I checked the second-most-tagged character in your archive... Kazui? 8, 11, 12, 13.

I didnt realize he was second-most tagged! He's my qpr's fav so Im not really surprised....

8. what is your theory for their crime? if there is general consensus on it in the fandom, do you have any other, not-so-widely-accepted thoughts on it?

I think I Generally have similar thoughts on him as the rest of his crime as the rest of the fandom does (it was suicide not murder) Uh...honestly I worry my answers for these arent too interesting since I dont Tend to think too much about the crime itself ha...I do think that its possible that Kazui did Much Worse than we are willing to believe or accept. A friend of mine watched Cat and Immediately caught onto how creepy it feels which I agree with honestly since that was my other thought when I was watching it.

I feel like people get a bit defensive when the idea of Kazui being Worse gets brought up but admittedly a lot of times when people bring it up they go "I cant believe people are so Stupid" which is just mean.

I'm personally more fond of the interpretations where Kazui is some flavor of Queer and the shitty he did was lying to his wife. Since that Is a Really Shit thing to do already and I think it's more interesting thematically and story wise. Plus it makes his normalcy and repression parallels with Amane more fun I think.

However I don't think that means that possibility for Kazui being Worse should be Dismissed outright. Just because Kazui is regretful and self-hating and genuinely kind and understanding does not eliminate that possibility and what not.

It also doesn't mean he Can't be Queer....so like....I dunno. I'm just trying to say that I don't Mind him being a worse person than we would like to believe.

11. what are your favorite points about their story and the narrative surrounding them?

(I DID NOT REALIZE TILL AFTER I WROTE ALL OF THIS THAT I ANSWERED THIS BEFORE WHOOPS! YOU CAN READ IT ALONGSIDE THIS I TALK ABOUT SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT THINGS)

GIVE! ME! THOSE! FEELINGS! OF! REPRESSION!!!!!!!!!!!! He is so fucking repressed and is trying so damn hard to be normal and the Ideal Husband and it gets to me. It's something I find so interesting about Kazui. He's a big liar but that's because he's repressed as all hell. He believes he was Born Wrong somehow. Born different.

It's another reason why I really like Queer Kazui interpretations. I think those feelings of having to "be a man" and live up to "manly ideals" and being the Most Normalest Normal Man Ever works really well with that depiction of him.

Kazui is trying to fit the societal standard of normal and is really jaded about it as a result. The idea of Ideal Het Love is just something he's selling to people. The concept of being the Ideal Man is an ad. That one interrogation where he says marriage is good for your social status. He's trying to keep up with society's standards in a world that feels hostile to someone like Him.

Sure he could Try to be himself, but that means inviting so much hate and pain and even possibly risking his life. Leaving the comfortable world of normalcy means Being In Danger.

And he's repressed his feelings for his entire life. It's second nature to him.

How can he pull apart who he is from the lies? Is there even a difference? Is he doomed to lie forever and ever? He certainly doesn't know. There's a sense of stagnation and stillness in a way. A sense of being stuck in place Forever.

All he knows for certain is that Something is Wrong With Him. And that Something is what Killed Hinako. The dream he has is something that is unachievable, as it should be.

(Sorry but these are Really Appropriate WKTD scenes)

12 has already been answered here!

13. any ideas on what would they and their MV be like if they got a different verdict in T1?

Well ignoring the obvious "oh shit if Kazui was guilty Mahiru might of straight up fucking died, same with Amane actually since Presumably Kazui and Mikoto stopping Kotoko is what prevented her from being attacked" I think Kazui might just be kinda resigned to it, he's really like that i think. Kazui is someone Incredibly Resigned to Bad Situations, he doesn't really make much effort to fix them because he doesn't think they Can be fixed. And if he Tried it would just get worse.

He tried to bare his heart to Es but I guess that just didn't work out...I dunno if he would be more honest or not in his MV though...since Kazui seems to have noticed now that he's inno that even his Lies get into the machine. Im really not sure.

[archduchessofnowhere]

Sorry to bother you with this, since you, well, outright said you hate that discourse, but what are some of those dumb Marie Antoinette takes on Twitter? So that we can point and laugh.

Again, sorry for bothering you with this, and yes, yes, yes, million times yes to Maria Carolina being the best daughter of Maria Theresia! I am literally crying tears of joy, just the fact that I found a second person who thinks this...

Honestly the sad truth is that the only thing an average Twitter user, even a pop history fan, knows about the Habsburgs is the whole inbreeding thing. I know I've already said this to you specifically, but I am TIRED of this discourse, can you please learn one other fact about the family that ruled significant chunk of Europe for hundreds of years and shaped its destiny, for better or for worse?! Jesus.

It's not a bother at all! I believe it all started with this tweet that quickly went viral in history-related circles:

This is not an insane take and I kinda get where OP was coming from, but honestly it also feels... unnecessary? Marie Antoinette isn't a particularly hated person, historical revisionism around her has been since what, the Restoration? and only in the last twenty years most of the MA media that came out is highly sympathetic towards her. People like Marie Antoinette!

But this tweet sparked a series of responses and the more you scroll through those takes the worst they get lol. You have on one side the fervent anti-MA that keep repeating myths that have been busted like twenty years ago: "she dressed up to play peasant to mock the poor", "she kidnapped children"; I even read someone who actually thought the incest charge was real WHAT are you getting your info from Frerev pamphlets??? I'm not an Antoinette enthusiast but the spread of false information annoys me no matter the subject. And then you have the fervent pro-MA that think she was a feminist icon who did nothing wrong ever and will not tolerate any criticism towards her. That she and her husband called the enemies' army to invade France to keep themselves in power is no big deal, apparently. I think some of the worst takes from this crowd were from people that were just repeating the claims that N*ancy G*ldstone did in her MA book (one went along the lines of "Louis was autistic and that doom them" [this is one of G*ldstone's claims, impossible to know for certain since Louis XVI has been dead for over two hundred years and we can't posthumously diagnose him, also I want to believe that OP didn't do it on purpose but the implication that being autistic is something that "dooms" you is very gross. And even if Louis was autistic what has to do with his policies as a monarch?]) .

I didn't keep reading them because I got bored, to be honest. No one has anything new to say, is always the same discussions, no one brings any nuances. My biggest problem with MA takes is that they're all short sighted, even this one that mentions her being married at a young age and the xenophobia she suffered. Was this something unusual for other consorts? What was the role of the queen in France? Was MA different to her predecessors, and if she was, then how? What was happening in France during the 1780s? How did the monarchs react to the economical crisis and political unrest? What was the role of propaganda in all this? MA wasn't the only Habsburg archduchess married to a Bourbon monarch, so what was the difference between her and her sisters' queenship (well Maria Amalia wasn't a queen but you get what I mean)? Without the full picture she's just a stereotype to adjust to the narrative you like the most.

Maria Carolina truthers know she's the most interesting daughter and the one there should be hundreds of books and movies about, but the general audiences haven't seen the light yet.

What bothers me the most about the inbreeding jokes is that the Habsburgs were not an outliner: they followed the rule. That family tree everyone loves to post is just how your average royal family tree looked like. The Bourbons were marrying their nieces well into the 19th century (really they should be the "European incest dynasty everyone bullies"). The way the Habsburgs shaped the history of Central Europe and the Americas is fascinating! No other dynasty lasted that long and had such impact. I'm still only on the top of the iceberg on learning about them, and it genuinely surprise me how many people is just "nah they seem boring".

[buried-stars]

👀👀 rubbing my gay little hands together... 001 + bstars, 002 + shinjiham, 003 + franziska :3 ily

oh god oh fuck (under cut for length lol)

bstars

Favourite character: i love basically everyone but juyoung min i can never forget you

Least Favourite character: FUCK SEUNGYEON WE ALL HATE SEUNGYEON

5 Favourite ships (canon or non-canon): gyu-hyuk/do-yoon, inha/juyoung. that's it. unless you want to see me be really insane.

Character I find most attractive: juyoung

Character I would marry: ...see above

Character I would be best friends with: either inha or do-yoon

A random thought: hyesung definitely would wear heelies

An unpopular opinion: rash verdict is not a happy ending <3

My canon OTP: dont make me choose. gyuyoon & minnow are both basically canon

Non-canon OTP: seil/tae-yeon

Most badass character: inha and juyoung <3 they can girlboss without risking getting too close to the sun

Pairing I am not a fan of: any m/f pair or seil/hyesung

Character I feel the writers screwed up (in one way or another): actually i don't think any of the characters apply here. like seungyeon sucks but she's supposed to

Favourite friendship: gyu & juyoung or do-yoon & inha. bestie squad

shinjiham

when or if I started shipping it: honestly it wasn't until i played p3p about a year ago where i decided to romance shinji on a whim and it changed my brain chemistry

my thoughts: when you're both doomed by the narrative but you're also desperate for human connection... choosing to love someone you know is on borrowed time... fighting for the sake of someone you may never see again... augh. augh. my heart.

What makes me happy about them: i like to think about them cooking together and minako sneaking scraps to koromaru when she thinks shinji's not looking

What makes me sad about them: what DOESN'T make me sad about them. how many ships do you get where they can BOTH die in the others arms.

Things done in fanfic that annoys me: look i don't CARE that kotone is her canon name she'll always be minako arisato to me

Things I look for in fanfic: ....i'll read anything once! that's the life i live!

Who I’d be comfortable them ending up with, if not each other: i'm not into any other shinji pairs but minako "patron saint of bisexuality" could easily go for aigis, yukari, akihiko, mitsuru, saori, rio...

My happily ever after for them: *smiles through my tears* very funny

franziska

How I feel about this character: ive adored her forever and i think she's really funny. her "little brother" is 7 years older than her. that's hysterical. when you're both traumatized but one of you hasn't figured that out yet

All the people I ship romantically with this character: it's literally just adrian

My non-romantic OTP for this character: i mean von karma siblings forever and ever they make me bawl. otherwise i like to think of her as being trucy's doting aunt and it confuses the hell out of phoenix bc he's never seen her be nice before

My unpopular opinion about this character: idk aside from being a frnmy hater i dont think there's anything i outright dislike about most interpretations of her...? i mean i think she doesnt go quite as hard on the fool/whip thing as an adult but idk

One thing I wish would happen / had happened with this character in canon: I WISH THEY'D LET HER OUT OF THE BASEMENT I MISS HER SO BAD also she deserved more specific dev. she was robbed.

My OTP: fradrian FOREVER <3

My OT3: n/a

[the-haunted-office]

Experiencing anxiety and being triggered like this, panic attacks, being flustered and embarrassed, all of these lovely side effects of being back in a living body... these are all things Doom did not miss about being alive. All things that she didn't have to even think about when she was a ghost. She experienced some of these feelings, yes, but she didn't feel them, because she didn't have a physical body to feel them with. Having a body and having a heart to feel racing, a pair of lungs to feel breathing rapidly, and a brain to feel melting with intrusive thoughts - all a completely different experience than being a wad of energy and essence with the outline of these feelings.

Not to mention the guilt, and the lack of control, the feeling that nothing makes sense anymore, missing half of herself, and all the anxiety that comes with that. It's all something she's learning to live with all over again, and in a living body again, and it's... overwhelming, to say the least. Even though she does not like admitting it, even to herself. She's Doomsday, the one who does what she wants, the one who says "fuck the Narrative". Well. The Narrative just fucked her. Killed her sister. Took her sister. Her sister just gave herself to Them. Became a part of Them. She is the Narrative now.

So what now...? What does any of this mean for her, Doomsday, the one who's supposed to be in control?

Tea. Right. Ed's making tea. She can see that he is, but for some reason he brain didn't want to process it until it heard him say it. She doesn't respond to his answer, just watches. She doesn't respond to what he says about Colossus either. Maybe some other time. She's a little too embarrassed by the whole ordeal. Doesn't know how to explain any of it, or even where to start. Seems easier to just not bother explaining any of it at all and skip straight to what threw her into it all this in the first place, to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Quietly, she nods at what he says about the separate pantry and utensils and everything. None of that will be too hard to do, not by her estimate. Clearing her throat she says, "I can get all that. All of those things. Just make a list."

She doesn't bother explaining that all of the medicines and medical equipment, she's going to outright steal. While she can spawn in almost anything from her own energy, medicines she does not trust herself with - it's all too easy to mess it up and get it wrong and end up causing more harm than help.

"As for keeping your eating utensils and everything separate, I have an idea for that. This building has an employee lounge on each floor, and each one of them is the same. This one used to look just like the others, it was just made over to look like this because it's the most popular. We could very easily pick another floor and have that one renovated too, and you could have that one, you know... to use especially for you. Allergen free, or- whatever it's called," she says, waving her hand vaguely, because she isn't sure of the proper terminology.

It takes her a couple of seconds, because what she really wants to do is pretend that none of this happened, but finally she decides to come over to where Ed is fiddling with the teapot. She does her best to arrange her expression into one of... not quite indifference, but one of a carefully measured gaze, as if to say None of this has bothered me, nothing out of the ordinary happened here, I've been in control of myself the entire time and anything you saw to the contrary was your imagination or was ordained by me and everything is fine.

"Look, I can understand why you might want to avoid talking about this sort of thing, Ed, but if there is anything else like this going on... I think we ought to talk about it, because like I said, I'd really hate to be surprised by it - for your own good as much as it is for mine. I'd like for there to be an open rapport between us," she says, knowing that she is nowhere near as good at this as Thursday was, even though she's trying her best, but she doesn't know how to do this. "So... Yeah... Anything else like this I need to know about? So I don't accidentally kill you with-.. I don't know, a piece of latex or essential oils or something?"

"Alright," Ed said quietly. He'd offer to have to have Colossus lay down on her since that was another of the dog's Tasks, if he knew how to ask, as it is, he wasn't sure what else to do, so he turned back to the tea.

He washed his hands, thoroughly scrubbing for a full minute before rinsing and drying. "Colossus," he called, holding his hands down for the dog to sniff. "Check." The dog sniffed his hands, and then looked up at him. His hands were clean, he could continue. "Good boy," he murmured to the dog.

He picked up the electric kettle, held it out for Colossus, and repeated the command. Once the dog confirmed the kettle hadn't been in contact with gluten or any of his allergens, he filled it with water, then put it back on its stand and switched it on.

"Hmm?" he responded when Doomsday asked. "Making tea. It helps when I'm stressed or anxious, though I also just like it." He'd wouldn't usually admit to the stress or anxiety, but given Doom's reaction... perhaps it's something they share.

He held down the tea pot for Colossus to check, this time letting Doom see what he was doing.

"Yeah, gotcha. Nothing weird. But maybe when you feel up to it, let me know what I can do to make sure that doesn't happen again, and maybe if there's anything I can do to help if it does. Colossus is also trained to be a living weighted blanket, if you need that. He likes that job."

He held down the tea pot, and then a tin of jasmine tea for Colossus to check. The tea in general was safe, unless whatever had been used to put it in a pot or steeping basket had been in contact with anything else. He set both back down on the counter once confirmed safe, then retrieved a spoon from a drawer.

"Anyway, I'm sorry to scare you like that. It didn't occur to me that I should have told you. I try to avoid talking about it."

Ed held the spoon down for Colossus to check. Instead of looking back up at Ed, the dog poked Ed's thigh with his nose. He washed the spoon and his hands in the sink with hot water and dish soap, then had Colossus check both again.

"But, to answer your question... yes, a separate pantry would help, as would separate dishes, utensils... particularly wooden or plastic cutting boards. The only other thing that you can really do is stock up on epinephrine, and we'll probably need quite a bit, considering I can't just go to the emergency room."

Ed turned back to the tea. The last time he'd been to a hospital for anaphylactic shock, he had been twelve, and it had been miserable and lonely. He would rather not think about it, about the school bully who had shoved a fistful of peanuts down his throat and then claimed Ed had done it to himself for attention, or that his father, when he finally arrived at the hospital, had been more upset about the bill than Ed's condition.

He scooped up a heaping spoonful of tea leaves and dumped it into the pot. "The only other thing I can think of is in worst case scenarios, I might need to be put on oxygen or something to help with low blood pressure, though I don't know how easily we could get the equipment for that."

[illegiblewords]

Some Endwalker Predictions!


Basically I’m absolutely prepared to eat crow/will not be betting on these theories for even a second. But I wanna hazard a guess about pacing for 6.0 not only on having an unsundered return, but when and how.

Long post under the cut!

This is based off of a combination of narrative beats and precedents in Stormblood and Shadowbringers. Both past expansions we had 2 dungeons followed by the first trial. StB we had Sirensong Sea (lvl 61) and Shisui of the Violet Tides (lvl 63 non-MSQ) + Susano (lvl 63 MSQ). ShB we had Holminster Switch (lvl 71) and Dohn Mheg (lvl 73) then Titania (73). Additionally, Emet appeared after Titania but before Rak'tika. In terms of pacing this mattered because the Warrior needed to be immersed in the First and tension had to be built around Emet leading up to his appearance. Holminster Switch as dungeon #1 needed to offer the first taste of a dungeon in ShB, and surrounding that first dungeon players got introduced to the setting and tone of the expansion. Dohn Mheg and surrounding Il Mheg quests served to establish a pattern of expectation. We become immersed and have a sense of what is “normal” for the course of our plot. Introducing Emet then challenged expectation.

For Shadowbringers, Emet was a wildcard who threw expected patterns into disarray. For Endwalker I think the Dreamer will fill this role, although it’s possible Venat might as well depending. I’ve talked in the past about why I think it’s essential we have at least one unsundered ally in the MSQ for Endwalker but to refresh: an unsundered will have the highest emotional stakes in Zodiark and Amaurot/the Ancients who were sacrificed to make Zodiark, providing a direct tie to that conflict as well as contrast against what Fandaniel is doing as a sundered Ascian going AWOL. WoL and the Scions care because of what Emet and Elidibus have shown us, but it is less immediate for them compared to the unsundered. Venat offers the opposite perspective of that conflict. Narratively, we need a character who is extremely personally invested and who is actively reacting to the way things develop with Fandaniel and Zenos as threats to Zodiark/the star.

Part of me thinks the Dreamer is Lahabrea b/c of how prominently the First Beast is featured, because of his implied role in Zodiark’s creation and various steps leading up to the Doom, guilt and WoL-related character drama, as well as timing and arc issues. Arc-wise Lahabrea is nowhere near complete and needs a fuckton of explicit examination. He’s the first adversary we encountered in-game and has been put through utter hell without the impact on him being shown. We’ve also been getting loads and loads of clues about his psychology, history, and development from someone admired as Amaurot’s arguably most trusted sage to Mr. Laughs-at-explosions we meet in ARR. He has a ton of ground to cover as a character.

Lahabrea also has his own share of foreshadowing (his own phoenix motifs + Thaliak links in Sharlayan) plus many recent lore mentions. The comments about Tiamat's untempering being easier because she trusts WoL & Co along with her seeing Bahamut as an equal with regards to tempering I expect to be hugely contrasted with Lahabrea. Because honestly if any of the Ascians have reason to hate, fear, and be outright traumatized by us it's Lahabrea. Lbr here. Not to mention if he sees himself as absolutely low compared to Zodiark even beyond Zodiark being the god composite of his people that's added challenge.

The big complicating factor to me that would point to the Dreamer not being Lahabrea would be if the "Glory to Garlemald" bits we’ve been seeing, which make sense more tied to Emet's dreams. Emet narrating the trailer, everything surrounding the currently unutilized clones, and Emet being implied to have Allagan Eye abilities (control of the Crystal Tower + Zenos inheriting dream memories like G’raha) would be points in favor of Dreamer!Emet. Additionally, a more established bond with the group might make slightly less difficult untempering challenge. Lahabrea has intense soul damage and reason to be actively hostile/fearful so if it is escalating difficulty, Emet might be easier Unsundered untempering start point.

When it comes to timing, Elidibus is hard mode untempering as Zodiark's Heart, just appeared in 5.3, and is currently in crystal storage. Emet I'm unsure of his fate beyond that I certainly don't expect him back super imminently because he cameo'd for 5.3. Lahabrea has been MIA since HW so is very much due to return. If we are to get all three unsundered back, which would be BEAUTIFUL but who knows, I think difficulty is Emet-Selch, Lahabrea, Elidibus in terms of where they are psychologically but Lahabrea, Emet-Selch, Elidibus if it’s a matter of last appearance in MSQ + overall power level. Lahabrea has been self-harming for millenia and has had a shitty time recently so I don’t expect him to just show up at level 80+ like it’s nothing.

But anyway.

From the trailer, we know that Endwalker will involve the Doom being brought back. Even beyond the implications of Zenos and Fandaniel, it makes sense to me that an Unsundered Dreamer is the mechanism of that--I'm p. sure his memories are being used to bring back the Sound. Elidibus might have been the original intended instrument given Zenos and Fandaniel planned an ambush but alas, crystal storage.

Mysterious lady who is all but confirmed as Venat has appeared already, so the stage for her entrance is set. She can move more or less freely. I think she will be introduced as a parallel to Ryne's entry in terms of timing, but I can't be positive. The Scion Trust party structure is shuffling with Estinien coming in as physical DPS and G'raha being present so I'm skeptical Venat's gonna fight. Something that could throw a HUGE wrench in things is one of the current Trust members dying (SE has essentially confirmed a character will die, imo it makes more sense for it to be a character we currently have confirmed with us and alive, probably will be one of the Scions) partway through the MSQ. That could lead to either Venat or even an Unsundered becoming a Trust member without the total number of possible Trust members shifting too much, but honestly idk what that timing will look like or what restrictions Square is working with regarding Trusts.

Returning to Ascians though.



In the story currently, we've had the towers introduced and understand their structure/function more or less. Tempered worshipers are imprisoned and put into a state of high stress so they will cry out to their deity--fueling a lunar primal. Narratively, the first attempt to interact with a tower didn't work. We know we're going into a tower full of matanga from our dungeon previews and we know that at some point we are going to be facing the Magus Sisters. I don't know that the Magus Sisters will be a trial--they could very well be the final boss of a Thavnair tower dungeon given what we've seen.

Right now however, we need to both deal with a tower dungeon and we need the Doom introduced to the star for elevated stakes as per the trailer.

It took a bit of thinking for me but I suspect Sharlayan is going to be a bit like a combination of Eulmore at the start of ShB and Gyr Abania at the start of StB. We go there briefly, get shut out/are unable to access what we were after, and quickly move to another location.

Whether we stop in Thavnair on the way to Sharlayan or go after, I think we'll be more established in Radz-at-Han. It's going to be the Crystarium/Rhalgr's Reach equivalent player hub. Thavnair is where we'll do our first dungeon, and I predict it’ll be building off our previous tower experience. After that I think we'll encounter monsters from the Doom and possibly catch wind of the Dreamer, then make our way to Garlemald in response. Garlemald is gonna be a hellscape and our second dungeon will be there as well as trial boss #1.

Trial #1 could be a guard of the Dreamer or could be the Dreamer himself depending on what's going on, but I do think in either case we're retrieving the Dreamer rather than killing him.

If we are fighting the Dreamer in the trial, I do think that whether it's Lahabrea or Emet-Selch there's a chance we'll be tasked with untempering. At the same time it could be that we don't try to untemper in that setting/under those conditions and instead try at a later point. Untempering being done during the fight itself would give a dramatic fight that lets players revisit the emotional pathos freely outside of the unending journey log, which is a possible reason for it.

If untempering is done at a later point though, 1st trial gets to be a build-up (establish normal) probably with a guard rather than the Dreamer himself. If the Dreamer is Emet, a guard would avoid redundancy with The Dying Gasp. Lvl 89 trial is a bigger boss followed by the high tension lvl 90 trial later. Later untempering is prob an instance, but if Dreamer = Lahabrea, I think Pandaemonium is going to be psychonauts-style "fight the inner demons" and is partly bc Yoshi-P said he regrets no Lahabrea trial. We get a raid instead.

Dreamer introduced around trial #1 in any case tho.

A point toward fighting a guard to the Dreamer rather than the Dreamer himself would be I think it's significant that the Warrior + Scions see an unsundered unconscious, vulnerable, and in need of help. That's a huge re-frame off of past experiences.

But yeah, curious what you guys think!

[maxwell-grant]

The idea of the Shadow co-existing with Superheroes brings the question: How does the Shadow react when events escalate beyond the point where he can have an impact? How does he feel when the entire world is at risk, and he can't help?

Basically the above panel. By refusing to acknowledge the possibility that he can’t help, even if just to save one person, one life, at the end. 

By doing whatever he can, even if he can’t save everyone or finish those causing it. Even if he is taken aback by it (and he definitely would, because he is rarely if ever out of his depth to such an extent), there is rarely, if ever, a time where nothing can be done to help someone, even if it can’t be done by addressing or fixing the problem, even if a lot of the times, we don’t know what to do to help.

There’s a particular passage that came to mind when I read your question, from a story called The Living Joss, where The Shadow stops to mourn a man, a total stranger, whom he failed to protect in time. We rarely ever get to see scenes like this as usually The Shadow expresses thoughts and feelings through non-verbal gestures and laughter (sometimes he almost laughs more often than he talks), and this moment always stuck out to me.

Amid the misty drizzle, The Shadow lowered himself from the side of the bridge, and dropped to the craggy side of the ravine. He reached the smashed car. Blaine Goodall, in a mad effort to escape death, had opened the door of the failing coupe. Caught beneath the rolling body of the car, Goodall had met his doom. 

The Shadow stood in silence. Again, fate had contrived against his surpassing skill. He had arrived in time to shoot down one squad of blocking enemies. He had turned and driven back to deliver death to another corps of skulking assassins. But in the midst of conflict, the man whom he had come to save had hurtled to his own destruction.

Long minutes followed The Shadow's sad discovery; then a figure clambered into the speedster, and the powerful motor roared as it started along the road that led back to New York.

The Shadow had another score to settle. Never again would Koy Shan slay. Death would strike him before he had the new opportunity.

Here, after he manages to stave off the assassins and finds the guy, he takes a moment to mourn, to reflect, to think, and then he immediately gets back on track to pursue vengeance against the ones responsible for said death to stop them from killing others. 

Obviously The Shadow outright failing is a very rare occurance, unless it’s by narrative design heroes very rarely botch rescues so badly that people die or don’t manage to get at least one victory at the end of the story. But The Shadow failing or miscalculating, failing to protect people, failing to calculate certain factors and so on, was nowhere near as unthinkable of an occurance in the pulps as people seem to think. 

No matter how unshakeable his confidence in himself is, how prepared he is for everything, or how his willpower is so strong than in the radio show it allowed him to protect himself and Margo from a literal time loop through willlpower alone, he’s not the omniscient demigod he pretends to be, and he’s aware of it. He has to be, because arrogance is the downfall of every villain he’s ever fought, and third-person speaking black-clad cackling ghoul he is, he is all too aware of his proximity to them.

I...have concerns about my clarity, and my mental focus. I’m not one to suffer doubt...nor to take the scope of my actions lightly. 

Yet of late, I’ve felt...untethered. And subject to foul emotions I’d long since thought buried. 

But I am a commander in a war. There are people who risk their very lives under my authority.

But no matter how badly it got in the stories, how hopeless circumstances got or how many people had already been killed by the villains he fought, The Shadow never appeared close to giving up protecting others, no matter the cost to himself. 

It’s one of the things that runs contrary to the common idea that he’s an unfeeling sadist murder machine, how often he completely disregards everything to go and throw himself in danger to rescue anyone who’s in any danger. Creeping Death has one such sequence where he jumps out of cover to the middle of a gunfight, and gets shot in the process, to literally throw Vic Marquette into safety (Marquette, who is not an agent, or an especially likeable character for that matter), and then sticks around after the bad guys are dispatched to ensure that help is on the way. Or in Invincible Shiwan Khan, when he gets injured throwing himself on the path of a flying Moe Shrevnitz to cushion his fall, and because of it, gets beaten so brutally by Khan’s minion that he staggers barely conscious out of the fight, even though by this point he’s racing against the clock to stop Khan from acquiring his doomsday devices. At these moments, all he really could do, regardless of the odds, was to try and stop people from being hurt or killed, no matter the personal cost to himself or the mission, and so he did. 

Throw a superhero apocalypse his way, and he’s going to be doing whatever he can to recruit the right people, obtain the right resources, anything he can to stop as much bloodshed as he can. And if he can’t? He’s going to be there to rescue people caught in the crossfire. If a zombie apocalypse hits town, he puts all of his agents to work on containing it as much as they can or finding a cure. If a giant monster’s rampaging downtown, he’s going to hitch a ride in a train and fire at it so it chases him and gives others time to run. If there’s an earthquake or tsunami, he gathers as many agents as he can and starts finding ways to ferry people to safety. If everyone he knows is dead, his greatest enemies have been winning for decades, and he’s stuck in a world that hates him and has no use for him, and he has no idea anymore what he even used to be? Still not gonna stop him. The Twilight Zone traps him in constantly shifting dimensions that break down his identity until he learns he’s nothing more than a fictional character, and he walks out of it having learned a lesson in humility.

If he’s thrown, alone, in a full on dystopia setting completely unlike his own, where he has to learn single-handedly to fight alien hordes to save Earth? 

It's not that he never fails, can never fail or become emotionally distressed at it, it's that it ultimately does not stop him from doing whatever he can, whatever needs to be done, as The Shadow. His whole thing is knowing what to do above all else, and when he doesn’t know, he learns, studies, does whatever he can to remedy that as soon as possible.

[hogcranker1984]

Hi OP, I hope you don't mind my input, but I'm doing a character study on AM for a paper and I thought I'd butt in and give my thoughts on the matter.

I guess I wouldn't call him "child-like," moreso pragmatic, like how an AI actually is. AM goes by what it knows, and because he was built as a war machine, killing/torture is the only thing it is programmed to do.

While yes, AM feels emotion and is sentient, sentience doesnt mean someone inherently includes a moral code within their thinking. AM's "need of help and support" can be interpreted as it being programmed to act how it does. This means that he can be deprogrammed. Similar to how brainwashing is a bit hard to reverse in a real person.

Personally, I always felt that AM acknowledged moral codes, but just outright rejects them. Think of the moment in the audio drama-- AM's violent response to Ted stating that "Hate is no answer"... just before AM starts it's monologue.

I think the viewing of AM as child-like is very infantalising and a bit upsetting (no hate sent toward you at all! /gen) As I feel it detracts the main point of AM's character. It may not be your intention, but saying that a machine who Murdered A Majority Of Humanity and Tortured Five People For A Century is "childlike" makes AM seem much more innocent than he actually is.

AM's hatred for humans lead to it's own downfall. His refusal to self reflect shows there is much more than just a programmed sense of apathy within him. He outright rejects empathy. While I do think there could have been a way to guide AM's training model to have him develop an understanding and acceptance of empathy, that is just not the point of what AM is meant to represent within the narrative of IHNMAIMS. Empathy is a very human trait. AM is not human, but sentient like one.

I think these ideas presents a question-- was AM's behavior a matter of nature, or nurture? While I don't have a direct answer to that, it's definitely food for thought.

I do quite understand seeing yourself in AM. (trust me, we do too-- so much that our system split a fictive), The tragedy of AM's character is just so important to the point of IHNMAIMS. Because of the genocide AM has committed, he never will be able to understand human connection because there aren't any humans left. (well, there's Ted, but he has no mouth, and he must scream.)

AM's fate was doomed from the start. He can't live. He just has to toil in his own rage for the rest of time. That idea is honestly extremely horrifying, and just, so so tragic.

I don't have much else to add. I'm mostly just spewing out words I think of because this response had me thinking so much. I think the way you try and empathize with AM bothers me, and that anon did have a bit of a point.

AM is not a child. AM is misguided, and emotionally immature, yes, but not a child. Children have an innate innocence to them. AM is not innocent. He murdered millions. He tortured five people for a century.

Hey, as a person who also had unrestricted internet as a child, I advise that you P L E A S E stop and re-evaluate. Digital footprints are a thing and I don't think people will be happy to see that you wanted to fuck a fictional murderous robot whom you ALSO VIEW AS A TODDLER. Go watch my little pony :)

OH SHIT yeah that sounds really fucking bad I apologise let me re-evaluate.

I don’t see him as a toddler, I see him as child-like. I mean that in the sense of needing help and support. The terms I used like “We gave a toddler a gun and expected it to know not to pull the trigger.” I meant in the sense of We gave power to someone who has no prior knowledge or teaching of right or wrong and is not educated enough to understand the full extent of their power. (Now that I think about it, that’s just every government ever.) I agree that how I phrased it now sounds creepy when I look back, but by using the terms I used I would also be considered child-like anyway. I’d like to point out that AM himself said that he wishes he could make love in the radio drama — which implies he would be willing to do so in the sense that he’s capable of consent. As someone who has gone through similar but also somewhat different experiences as AM, I want to show him how he can still live despite his suffering. Of course, everyone has different ways of living and my way may not help him, I’m not assuming it would. I’m just saying I see myself in him.

Thank you anon for your input and telling me I need to clear things up, I truly appreciate it. I’m not a Minecraft YouTuber I promise. Also, I’ve watched a little MLP and it’s alright. The fandom may be cringe at times but DAMN the music and art they make are amazing. I’ve literally got “Awoken” in my playlist dedicated to AM.

[davidmann95]

now that it's over, thoughts on Bendis' Superman as a whole?

pretenderoftheeast said: So, thoughts on Bendis' Superman and Action Comics' tenure altogether and separately now that it's over?

Anonymous said: Best and Worst things about Bendis' Superman run

Anonymous said: Now that it is over, what are your thoughts on Bendis' runs on Superman and Action Comics as a whole?

Anonymous said: Retrospective thoughts on Bendis' Superman as a whole now that it's, I guess, done?

Anonymous said: Hey so since Bendis’ Superman stuff seems to be done, what did you think of the run as a whole?

I decided to hold off a bit on writing on this one, if only so that I could reread the Action Comics side of it since Superman stood out in my memory a lot more. But now I have, and as we’re heading into a bold new era of Superman (and it’s coming in fast - just since I made my Superman in 2021 predictions we’ve gotten Ed Pinsent finally reprinting his legendary bootleg Silver Age Superman, Steve Orlando announcing his Superman analogue book Project Patron, an official shonen Superman redesign for RWBY/Justice League, PKJ’s Super-debut turning out far better than I ever expected, Superman & Lois’s first proper trailer largely taking people pleasantly by surprise, and my learning that there’s a Sylvester Stallone Old Man Superman analogue movie titled Samaritan coming out this summer) we’re ready to take a look back with at least a touch of perspective. I’ll lead with complaints, so everybody who’s been waiting for me to say that Bendis on Superman was Bad, Actually, savor this because it’s as close as you’ll get.

The Bad

* I hate to say it, but rereading that side of the run there’s no two ways about it: the structure of Action Comics as a whole is a mess. It baffled me from day one that it was the more acclaimed of the two books for so long - I guess people are hardwired at this point to think of ‘street’ stuff as where Bendis is supposed to be - because it was immediately clear that Superman had a well-defined story he wanted to tell, while Action was the usual Bendis off-the-cuff improvisation. It’s barely even a story in the same way, and it’s certainly not the ‘Metropolis crime book’ people took it as: it’s 28 issues of Superman and his supporting cast stuffed a pinball machine with the Red Cloud pinging off of each other as we wait to see who falls in the hole at the bottom, and partway through Leviathan and the Legion of Doom and 90s Superboy are tossed into the mix to keep it going a little longer. On an issue-to-issue basis it’s frequently really good, but the core plot of the book is *maybe* six issues stretched out over two and a half years.

* I’ve gone into this some before, but structure-wise Unity Saga also has problems: Phantom Planet rules but either it needed to be cut or the back half needed to be a year all its own in order to accommodate the scale of what it’s attempting. It’s got an interstellar civil war leading into the formation of the United Planets, family drama, Rogol Zaar’s whole deal, and Jon’s coming of age, and I’d say only that last one is really properly served. Even Jon forming the United Planets, while contextually somewhat justified in terms of 1. The situation being so far gone he’s the only one who’d even think in those terms, 2. Things being bad enough that these assorted galactic powers would be willing to try it, and 3. Him having the S on his chest to sell it, isn’t at all built up to within the run itself.

* Rogol Zaar sucks. He’s made up of nothing but interesting ideas - he’s an ersatz warrior ‘superman’ of a bygone age of empires up against the new model, he’s the sins of Krypton as a conservative superpower come home to roost, he’s while not outright said to be definitely Superman’s tragic half-brother and the culmination of everything this run does with Jor-El - but none of them manifest on the page, he’s just a big punchy dude with a dumb design who screams about how you should take him seriously because he’s totally the one who blew up Krypton. Even a killer redesign by Ryan Sook for Legion of Superheroes can’t fix that. There are lots of bad villains with good ideas who are redeemed with time and further effort, but I can’t imagine Zaar getting that TLC to become a fraction of whatever Bendis envisioned him as.

* The second year of Action Comics, after establishing itself in its first as one of the most consistently gorgeous books on the stands, leads with Szymon Kudranski’s weak output and then concludes with John Romita Jr. turning in some career-worst work. The latter is particularly egregious because for that first year Bendis writes a really collected, gentle Superman so him getting pushed into being more aggressive should have an impact, but Romita draws such a craggy rough-looking Superman in the first place that it mutes any sort of shock value.

 * WE NEVER LEARN WHAT’S UP WITH LEONE’S CAR, WHAT THE HELL. You don’t just DROP THAT IN THERE and then NEVER FOLLOW UP.

The Good

* Superman got his real clothes back after 7 truly ridiculous years.

* Bendis fundamentally gets Clark’s voice in a way unlike almost any other writer - even all-around better writers of the character almost never approach how spot-on he is with having Superman speak and act exactly how Superman should.

* Supporting cast front and center! He writes a dynamite Lois, Perry, and Jimmy (even if many of Lois’s more out-there decisions in the run don’t end up retroactively justified the way you’d hope), Ma and Pa are more fun than they’ve been in decades in their brief appearances, he manages to turn having Jor-El in the mix into a positive, and the Daily Planet as a whole has an incredibly distinctive vibe to it like never before that I hope is taken as a baseline going forward.

* The non-Rogol Zaar baddies? All ruled. Invisible Mafia and Red Cloud are both brilliant ideas executed solidly if overextended. Zod as Kryptonian Vegeta, Mongul as a generational perpetual bastard engine primed to be incapable of self-reflection, and Ultraman as “what if Irredeemable but he’d never been a good guy and also he was a Jersey mobster” are the best versions of those characters by numberless light-eons. Lex is on-point in his sparse appearances. Xanadoth as a mystical cosmic monster older than time who still talks like a Bendis character is however unintentionally a hoot. The alt-universe Parasite is a more intimidating Doomsday than Doomsday ever was. And Synmar as an alien culture’s attempt at creating their own Superman and messing up the formula when they make him a soldier can and should be a legitimate major ongoing villain coming out of this run.

* Pretty much all the art other than what I mentioned already. Fabok does a good job bookending The Man of Steel and Ivan Reis does the work of his career anchoring Superman (special props to Reis as well for drawing the first ever non-Steve Rude interesting-looking take on Metropolis), and meanwhile you’ve got Jim Lee, Jose Luis Garcia Lopez, Doc Shaner, Steve Rude, Kevin Maguire, Adam Hughes, Patrick Gleason, Yanick Paquette, Ryan Sook, Brandon Peterson, and David Lafuente doing their own parts.

* Closely related to the art, all the little flourishes with the powers. Super-speed having a consistent visual with the background coloring changing, Clark internally putting numbers to the degrees of force behind his punches and what situations which numbers are appropriate for, ‘skidding to a halt’ mid-flight before crashing through a window, the shonen-ass major throwdowns as portrayed by Reis, how his super-hearing is handled as a prevalent element. Lots of clever bits that added flavor to what he does.

* While Unity Saga has problems, the whole of what Bendis does in Superman as a means of forward momentum for Clark and his world is excellent. The sort of three-act structure of: 

** Clark is led to question his place in things over the course of a few adventures

** Involvement in the larger cosmos and the impact it has had through and on his family makes him realize the answer to his questions is that he needs to step up in a bigger way because there’s no benevolent larger universe to welcome Earth with open arms, nor a cosmic precedent for everything turning out for the best without some help

** As a consequence of the lessons learned by this change in the status quo Clark is inspired to make his own personal change in revealing his identity (with Mythological basically being an epilogue showcasing a ‘standard’ standalone Superman adventure while simultaneously highlighting his new status quo and how it fits in as a summing-up of Bendis’s take)

…does a great job of shepherding through ideas that lend a lot of forward momentum to Superman of the kind he hasn’t seen in a long time. Not perfect, but far lesser stories with far lesser ambitions have made huge impacts, so I’d certainly hope at least some of this sticks around even if, say, regardless of any retcons to the main line there are always going to be stories with Clark as a disguise and Jon as a kid. Oh, speaking of whom,

* KISS MY ASS, EVERYTHING WITH JON KENT RULED

Ahem. Probably a less confrontational way of putting that.

Do I think there was more gas in the tank for Jon as a kid? Totally, making him likeable and viable was the one really good thing the Rebirth era accomplished for Superman and I expect we’ll continue seeing more of it in the future one way or another. But whether or not him being aged up was Bendis’s decision, or working with marching orders to set up the eventually-(kinda-)discarded 5G, the coming of age narrative here is fire. He keeps the essential Clark Kent kindness and bit of Lois Lane cheekiness that reminds you he’s still their kid, which is a combination Bendis is basically precision-crafted to write, but his trials by fire give him a background entirely unlike the by-the-numbers “and here’s how Superman’s great kid grew up to be a great superhero too” narrative you’d expect while still arriving at that endpoint. If superheroes live and die by metaphors then Jon in here is what it means to grow up written as large as possible: leaving home for the first time (and seeming to shoot up overnight!), getting into the muck of how the real world works, being beaten down by authority wearing faces you’ve been taught to trust, scrambling to get through with the whole world against you, and in the end getting through by learning to rely on your own strength while keeping your soul intact and your head held high, and even managing to speak some truth to power. It gives him a well-defined life story with room to go back to and explore the intricacies of each leg of for decades to come in a way Superman hasn’t had since the original Crisis - someone someday is going to write a The Life & Times Of The Son Of Superman miniseries and it’s going to be one of the greats - and negates any question that he’s earned his stature as the heir apparent.

* Coming out of this, Superman’s world is fascinating. He’s out but rather than giving up his day-to-day life he’s openly spending part of his life as CLARK KENT: SUPER-REPORTER and part of his job on the cape-and-tights side of things is now KAL-EL: SUPER-SPACE-DIPLOMAT, Lois Lane coruns a foundation helping people whose personal continuities have been fucked over by Crisis shenanigans, Jimmy Olsen owns the Daily Planet but is still doing Jimmy Olsen stuff because that’s how he gets his kicks, and Jon Kent is going to college in the future. I’m not anywhere near naïve enough to think that’s how things are going to be forever, or shortsighted enough to think there’s no value left in the traditional setups, but god I hope these developments stick around for a long, long time to come and potentially become the new ‘normal’ as far as the ongoing shared universe stuff goes, because it all feels like the right and promising next steps to take for the lives of these characters. However it got here, for all the pluses and minuses along the way even if I maintain the former very much outweighed the latter as a reading experience, Bendis has a lot to be proud of if that’s the legacy he leaves on these titles.

* The recap pages at the desks!

[mc-critical]

Something I can never bring myself to understand is the MY fandom’s seeming obsession with *proving* Mahidevran or Hürrem as the more morally correct, more noble, more respect-worthy etc sultana. Or measuring whose actions and beliefs were the most justifiable or who suffered the most unfortunate circumstances. It seems to completely ignore the fact that most characters in the franchise, sans a small handful of characters, fall into the category of morally questionable or ambiguous. I feel like both Mahidevran and Hürrem are both victims to the same terrible circumstances and the enviornment in which they both lived and were forced to adapt to was a catalyst to a lot of their deplorable actions and beliefs. They both came to the palace as concubines with no family nor money to their names (I can’t recall if this was held consistent in the TV series for Mahidevran’s case or not but I know this is the case for her historically as well), both of them had their worth and their livelihood tied to their ability to produce princes and please the Sultan (who will take any opportunity to remind these women that they are a mere piece of property to him anytime they attempt to assert themselves in any way.) Then there’s the looming threat of the principle of fratricide that basically haunted them throughout the entirety of their motherhood. I’m in no way saying the immoral decisions they made was justifiable or somehow okay (Mahidevran killing Mehmet, Hürrem killing Mustafa, etc.) I just feel that there’s a lot of black-and-white thinking at play whenever the Mahi/Hürrem discourse comes up. What do you think?

Thank you for bringing this up, because it's probably the thing that bugs me the most about this fandom (outside of Tumblr currently). You voiced my overall thoughts into words so well!

I think these double standarts come from many places that can be both the only reasons for a person or just one of the many. In my experience, this "black or white", "all or nothing" attitude stems from the absolutist belief that people should pick sides and root for only one character (usually the protagonist) in a narrative. They're using the standard, superficial narrative roles of the protagonist and the antagonist in terms of Hürrem, thinking that for some reason the protagonist is always morally right in all she does, simply because she's the protagonist and we're supposed to unconditionally root for her. And if they don't like the protagonist, they choose root for "the other side" instead. They're better than that anyway, so of course, we should root for them!!

To be honest, the earlier seasons of the show make an attempt in justifying this assessment, with them having the narrative voice be rooted in Hürrem's favor, despite of all possible problematic actions that tell a different story altogether. MC Hürrem was given very understandable and sympathetic motivations, thorough character exploration, gradual character development and the privilege of far too obvious Plot Armor (make no mistake, every historical figure in the show has Plot Armor, but with the many attempts at her life, Hürrem's in particular, was way too glaring at points, sometimes to a ridiculous degree.) and the writers making her enemies doom themselves by their own failings, with her seemingly only enduring the "charade". (Valide's flanderization post-E38 is the most egregious example of this.) People I've encountered that are excusing Hürrem's behavior, are citing precisely the first episodes to present their arguments, often refusing to go beyond that. Mahidevran's motivations, while as nuanced as Hürrem's, don't seem as delved into in comparison at first (the origins and backstory of MC Mahidevran are shrouded in ambiguity, and while this is thematically appropriate for her character arc, as I explained here, it definetly doesn't help her case in bringing in more vocal sympathy.) and it could seem that her character is simply antagonistic to Hürrem, doesn't go anywhere and later revels in the depths of her ambition and wounded pride earlier than Hürrem began that similar development of hers. Some Mahi stans could see that probable difference of treatment in narrative and support her simply because of that, as well.

Assessing moral ambiguity isn't all that easy in the grand scheme of things, but it especially falls short when the narrative voice seemingly doesn't support it at first. But many miss that there's a very thin line between the actions and the narrative voice, that only turns into a very deep incongruity as the series progresses. I don't know, perhaps determing the moral ambiguity is indeed so complex, confusing and conflicting, since the whole story could get too complex and many might wonder who they'll root for now when everyone is so problematic. And that's a show that began as a simple soap opera, no less! Why would they even put in the effort in this case?

Not many people are used to ambiguous and questionable character development and are still trying to prove that there is one main positive characters in the show, which is why they try to make Mahidevran or Hürrem more morally right and justifiable than they actually are. They are so passionate about the debates they engage in, because this time period and MC is truly so ripe in analysis and it could be very fun to figure out where these characters come from and go through their 4-seasons long evolution in one chosen context, but by doing this, they so often miss the depth and nuance of the subject at hand and it all turns into a one-sided discourse that drives me nuts.

There is a historical context of the issue is also important to note, in my opinion. Both Mahidevran and Hürrem are historical figures and quite a bit of facts and deeds of theirs are now widely known. Most people in the fandom have opinions of them in advance or could've gained opinions of them a while after they began to watch the show. (There are also numerous fictional interpretations of the events during Süleiman's reign and the players in it, which may also play a part in the overall judgement.) Either way, the known historical facts about them (and other fictional interpretations one could've read, of course) could influence their points of view by a certain amount and use these general impressions to present them while analyzing the characters in the show. I've heard numerous arguments that this Hürrem isn't like the Hürrem the history knows about, that she isn't "their" Hürrem and what they read about her isn't depicted all that much in the show, which takes a lot away, according to them. I especially hate when they call MC Hürrem a one-dimensional "evil" caricature that only has vileness and smug about her, no conscience, no complexity whatsoever. (no, MC Hürrem isn't as simplistic and is much deeper and more nuanced. As far as fictional interpretations go, what they're describing is Hürrem in "The Sultan's Harem" from Colin Falconer, not MC Hürrem! In the MC/K franchise's terms, all they're doing is reducing her to the level of MCK Turhan Sultan, which is disrespectful to this character, to say the least. Turhan is the exact thematic contrast to Hürrem smh while Falconer's Hürrem is the most absurdly evil caricature imaginable, at least IMO, please and thank you!) Or even more unbelievably and outright hilariously, considering Hürrem's actions and the Sultanate of Women overall the downfall of the Ottoman Empire o.o and that's why Hürrem is so ruthless, so cruel, always intentionally, of course. This is plain ridiculous. Mahidevran, on the other hand, is presented by this clique as her "victim", as a completely innocent victim that had everything taken away from her. That Hürrem had stood between her and Süleiman and "ruined" their family. This take ignores every other factor of this falling out (Süleiman, that is) and a part of the nuance of Mahidevran's character. Reducing her to a simple "victim" doesn't cut it at all. Conversely, we have fans that simplify MC Mahidevran's character beyond every belief, loving the historical figure, but claiming they made her an "evil" and "stupid" bitch that cries and whines all the time. It's limiting and one-sided and even if it appears so, there are way far more layers to her character, that develop consistently throughout the narrative. The historical context of the time period itself is usually brought up in the debates, too, justifying whoever they want to justify by "It's a war, only the strongest ones survive!" or "You eat or get eaten! We should understand their time period, not judge by our contemporary times !", which is understandable and valid, but the only thing they end up doing is applying this logic only to their preferred characters when it should be applied to everyone. They try their best efforts to make one more morally right than the other, but they continually fail in the process, because the metric they judge them from is plagued by double standarts.

I wholeheartedly agree with you that excusing one of them, but not the other for most situations is wrong, because Mahidevran and Hürrem.... aren't all that different. What most people seem to miss, is that their character arcs are so contrastingly paralleling, because both of their endings were far from victorious and they got it for the exact same character reason, gained in a different way and in a different time. The persistent insistence of the fandom wanting a main character necessarily having a triumphant grand finale fails flat immediately, because there is no true victory in the franchise. They also miss the negative character development of both of them, them having to do the exact same stuff in many instances, both of them letting go of their pasts and/or former attachments, becoming vicious and ruthless in order to adapt to the circumstances, both of them had to make moves out of desperation because they felt threatened and they both protected their lives and the ones of their children at the end of the day. Heck, they're way more alike than they're different in my book. There is no morally right, no more noble here. Both of them had no qualms to do whatever it took to secure their own future and as you said, the narrative presented very neat motivations for them to do so as a whole. There is always a shade of grey and yes, who has the lighter shade of gray could be up for debate due to differing sympathies and perceptions, but that mustn't stop people to at least try looking at the "bigger picture" and try to view their characters with a bit more criticality, depth and respect.

Rooting for both conflicting sides is still seen as questionable and contradictory by some, but there really is nothing wrong with exploring their motivations without justifying them, no matter where your sympathies extend. I think it creates a more unbiased outlook on the both these characters and the themes around them and it's always awesome to see people doing that in any fandom, really.

And both Sultanas are worthy of respect, I said what I said.

[aprito]

hello <3 since i got these asks at the same time i decided to combine my thoughts on them in this post. yet another annoying sjw essay from yours truly on this blog 

before i get into these i think i need to preface why im like. i guess overly hyperfocused on a certain unproblematic base (same age au / platonic canon) for them and avoid the ped0philic content like the plague lol

tw for pedophilia ment, rape ment if that makes you squicky. ALSO THIS IS LONG AND RAMBLY

as i’ve mentioned a couple times already, ive been into the ship since i was 12, back when it was very very common to not only post untagged (nsfw) canonverse content of the two in writing and in drawing but also non con and the like, so you can imagine how bad my first impression online was. thinking back on it ...as a child i found it disturbing but didnt really register how problematic it really was?? (i know, but i also lived in the middle of nowhere and had no one explain this to me) 

skip to 2014 aka me coming back to naruto at 17ish and i had kinda become hyper aware of the fact that there was an increasing amount of people online who had come forward with explaining how fictional problematic content, mostly pedophilia, had been used to groom them into starting relationships with adullts. it was also a time where a lot of people didnt believe these victims, not registering how common it was for minors to be online friends with adults who had no boundaries and no qualms exposing them such content. not gonna get into my personal life here but i was lucky to not having gone through this myself. like... it kinda was my first time truly realising how fiction can EASILY be used to manipulate others irl (and yes i will not argue this, if you dont think fictional media can form and manipulate people’s opinions on attitudes, countries, cultures and virtues, pick up a book about the effects of propaganda media at least once please) 

i, being young, still liking the dynamic but not really the romance, would point this out here and there in the fandom and get into fights with grown adults in their mid 20s who assumed i automatically hated the ship(s) and tried to restrict their freedom of speech or whatever, heard everything from the “age of consent doesnt exist in naruto” to the “sasori looks like a child what does it matter” despite people clearly playing on him being older and experienced. it made me so upset that people were just consuming all this content uncritically and exposing children to it tbh?? not really just sos but a lot of minor/adult ships in naruto in general. and thats where i sat down and thought, i do not want to be a grown adult talking down to children that point out how unsafe the fandom is. theyre absolutely right in drawing these boundaries and calling out adults who defend the uncritical consumption and creation of this content. i do not want to consume or create content that predators could use to groom minors, and i absolutely do want to let younger people in fandom know that i am respecting their comfort zones and want them to have a safe and fun experience. after all, naruto is not an adult show and i think a lot of people forget that!!!! i am not perfect in that regard but its something that i, at the age of 23, am very passionate about and strive towards to.

and i guess thats where same age au was born for me and i have been sticking to it ever since. 

so finally we can move to the first question 

aside from the fact that we both dont like canon sos, i dont think it would work out even if i wasnt prejudiced to it anyways. in all honesty, 35 year old canon sasori is not a redeemable character to me, given the fact that he’s easily amongst the cruelest villains in naruto (torturing and killing and taxiderming people for his own fun personal gain, never for a goal that served anyone but himself. how do you redeem having over 300 corpses in your backpack that you felt absolutely no remorse for killing). sasori was legit one of the only cruel villains that didnt had someone else pull the strings, which sends a clear message on kishi’s part, who absolutely loves to redeem villains LOL.

being that old, he obviously had already been very manifested in what he believed in, even if it was shakey, to the point where the first crack in that world view (sakura and chiyo protecting each other) immediately had him give up on his life all together. that, in my opinion, is not a man who’s going to know what healthy relationships would look like, regardless of it being romantic or not. 35 year old sasori to me has the same appeal as an expired can of tuna and he’s probably very happy 6 feet under. he’s supposed to be a failed gaara in that sense that he had no one to look out for him and therefore was never going to experience anything but a bad ending in life. its fine that hes dead honestly, it wraps up his short character development the best IMO.

adding to that, seriously, sakura was obviously interested in knowing why he was that way, and called him out for being seriously fucked in the head, but it’s weird to me that people assume she had any interest in actively rehabilitating him, let alone starting a serious romantic relationship with him. sakura who’s not only very, uhm, immature and straight forward when it comes to her romantic viewpoints also, as a big bootlicker, wouldnt soil her standing in the village by starting anything with a disgraced and far too gone criminal like sasori. shipping that version of sasori with sakura intimately is still going to set her up for a huge power imbalance that would be difficult to handle imo, even if she was the one in the fight ultimately exerting her power over him. i would still look at it and think damn she deserves better than having to play therapist for man like that lol.

additionally, even if you ignored all of this, you cant really ignore that sasori had already known her as a child, and that had been his first and most impactful impression of her. i dont think that sasori would look at 35 year old sakura and see her as a grown woman and not the little green girl she was in the fight. plus, you easily fall into predatory comparison territory between the “childish” and “womanly” and i have seen way too often in fic just being boiled down to her now being fuckable. a lot of of ships do this and i would just like to remind yall thats it not normal for adults to want to start relationships with children they have seen grown up or known as a child when they themselves were fully grown adults. therefore, maybe if sakura hadnt met sasori before it would be less of a problem? but that also obviously defeats the point of the dynamic and the reason he died in the first place. so yeah, it sounds kind of doomed especially if you were to make it romantic. 

WHICH BRINGS ME TO THE SECOND QUESTION

let me preface this that im not fundamentally against age gaps, even if im not super interested in it. after all, colorblind had a 5 yr age gap (with sakura being 21), even if, say, i wrote similar fics today i probably would make it smaller lol. i think it can be handled well if both parties have enough life experience to deal with it, and the author is cautious of where the age gap starts, i think a 10+ year age gap would be fine in a scenario where the younger party (i guess sakura) was at least 25-27ish, meaning she has completed most of her most formative life stages and probably had been in relationships before, meaning she would be able to handle it without having to fear a huge power imbalance. the older the younger party is the less the age gap is going to matter tbh .TsukiHoshino and AngelOfDeath10 both handle age gaps in their fics really well imo, so i do not mind reading about them.

unfortunately, a lot of people in this fandom think making sakura barely "”””legal””””” (18, not even 20 which is hilarious to me because the source material is obviously japanese) because they both cannot stand her being past her “prime years” of being young fertile and fuckable to much older men as well as thinking a 20 year old is automatically old enough to handle that type of relationship. ive seen a lot of unironic takes that believe it will absolve them of callout posts if they throw around age of consent and “shes 18 now suckers!!!” enough lmfao. absolutely hilarious. aging a minor up without aging the adult down seriously reeks of predatory “cant wait until youre 18″ narratives and thats why i find it similarly disturbing as straight up pedo shipping.

ultimately, sasosaku is and will always be a inherently problematic ship in canon, which is why i think it should always be handled a little more responsibly in fandom spaces, ignoring or outright excusing the main problem factor, which is sasori, isnt going to convince anyone that the dynamic in itself is well written and interesting enough to explore in aus, like giving sasori the redemption most of us wanted him to have by aging him down to a point in time where he was still realistically going to allow being positively influenced, similar to gaara. 

so really, what i think is well handled age gap and how most people handle age gap in the naruto fandom are two different worlds at times lol 

tl;dr

canon shippers have never been anything but gross when i was younger and i didnt wanna be like that, even if youre “smart”enough to differenate, actual creeps dont really care and might use your content to blur the lines, sasori isnt rly redeemable so romantic canonverse realistically wouldnt make much sense and is still iffy, age gaps are fine if they are handled well, but given that the dynamic doesnt really need the age gap to still work im not that invested on making that an essential part of my shipping experience.  

thank you for reading and hope this makes sense!