#why can there not be moral complexity in both the good and bad characters

[fairystarstorm]

Thinking about what's going wrong with Arcane s2

I have not finished s2 yet (still need to finish act 3 but basically got all the major spoilers). I feel like a big problem with this season and why the Z vs P conflict fizzled out is that so many characters are simply not in the that narrative anymore. Especially since they all had interesting stories to explore in regards to it. And if they are apart of the plot line, the things that would make things more interesting are simply ignored.

Taken from the narrative

Heimdinger: the founder of the city realising that the society he built ain't shit and that he failed Zaun by not helping to uplift and protect them (instead of just picking out a pupil from Zaun and calling it a day). All that Talk about how destructive magic could be in the wrong hands while realising he build a society filled with those exact wrong hands because of his inaction. Him actually putting in the work to change and dismantle those structures and belief systems that he allowed to grow in the first place

Jace: He goes against his own morals once again to build weapons for Caitlyn and her team. But we get none of the introspection or the regret that should have gone with it. Why because he is off in an alternative reality fighting for his life. He finds out that Hextech is poisoning Ekko's tree and there's nothing more to that conversation?? If something had gone wrong with the core it could have destroyed Zaun? Something could have happened that could have disabled or killed many others like it did with Viktor. But let's gloss over it. Him reconciling with his actions as a councilor??? That kid really was just a blip in his life i guess.

Viktor: a big problem I feel with Viktor's character is that he can feel very removed from Zaun at times. Like we never got to see his horror about Hextech being used against his people. We never got to know about any family or how he actually felt about being resurrected. What his plan was for Zaun beyond making a little commune. A huge part of that is also because they barely let this man have meaningful interactions with anyone in s2 besides ghost Sky and Jace. Vi, Jinx, Vander and Isha going to his commune could have been a possibility for that. Because even though I do believe that Vander and him did not know each other personally, I don't think he would not have known of him. Also we barely hear him talk meaningfully about his identity as a Zaunite in Piltover

Ekko (and the firelights in general): In my opinion the biggest snub. The others character arcs were mostly about other things in s1 (piltover politics, hextech etc.) but Ekko's whole motivation was to protect his ppl from both the enforcers and Silco. However we didn't get to see him deal with the rise of enforcers in the undercity or Sevika being the one to try and unite Zaun. We didn't get to see him grapple with the fact that Vi became an enforcer or that he was wrong to place his trust in Caitlyn. And even though I love how ep7 is highlighting his good qualities I wish they were explored in his timeline. Him being there would have also allowed for more spotlights for the firelights and Zaunites in general. None of the other people in the cast (Except for Vander) are as involved with regular people in Zaun then he was. It makes Zaun feel less complex and lived in beyond the visuals.

Mel: Considering that they are setting up her mother as the true big bad (which flattened the Z vs P conflict + general bad writing surrounding ambessa which i won't discuss now), it would have been nice to have her be able to react. Like in the beginning of the season we get it a little bit with Mel using spies to figure out her mother's plans. We could have had her realise that Piltover is not fundamentally different from Noxus because of how easy it was for her mother to take over. Only that the violence they dish out is different between the 2 cities. We could have had her sit that in both cases she is part of the oppressive class and that she was only acting out of self interest rather than actually caring about these issues. Instead of her being Kidnapped to get powers, let her finish the story arch that had been set up for her in s1.

Underexplored

Sevika (And Jinx): her involvement with Silco and how that is seen by Zaunites that are not chembarons. Ppl being unwilling to trust or listen to Sevika pleading for united Zaun when she was apart of Silco's operations make sense. Silco brought shimmer into Zaun. Ekko says that a lot of the firelights joined because of how it ruined their lives. Sevika having to struggle with her role in it and how it ultimately makes it harder for the to reach her goal would have been satisfying! Also her showing up after episode 4 would have been nice in general. Also same with ekko, she was the only one who was reaching out and communicating with different groups of Zaun. She and Ekko were windows into Zaun society that they just kept closed for some reason.

Vi: Just everything man.... her trauma, her choosing to be an enforcer, her alcoholism... her relationship with Jinx/powder, her guilt, her role as protector who seems to be failing no matter what she does. All kinda of flushed through the drains for caitvi to be able to exist (yes i dislike caitvi, no i also don''t really care for jayvik or timebomb and i am also a lesbian).

Jinx: I thinks she has been done quite well so far but I have heard for how her arch ends and it is just bad..... also wished they explored Isha more and what Vander coming back would mean for Jinx

Caitlyn: wish they would actually put the responsibility of her actions onto her instead of Ambessa/Jinx killing her mom. Also the fact it was never addressed that even in s1 she was microagressive as fuck towards Zaunites. Yes she eventually saw the need for independence (after talking to Ekko mind you) but does that mean anything if when she was in power due was actively making things worse for Zaun. She could have started working kn redeeming herself but the fact that the narrative/the writers don't want to put the full blame on her just makes that idea seem laughable

Tbh a lot of it has to do with the fact that the writers didn't let characters interact with each other for long periods of time or deal with the consequences of their actions but hey at least the coplesbians fucked and the scientists had their madoka magica moment

[imastoryteller]

Understanding Morally Gray Characters in Storytelling

Definition and Core Characteristics:

Complex and Ambiguous Morality: Morally gray characters exhibit traits and make decisions that do not fit neatly into the categories of 'good' or 'evil'. Their actions and motivations often blend aspects of both.

Humanized Flaws: They possess human flaws, which make their actions and decisions relatable and believable. These flaws often drive their complex behavior.

Realistic Motivations: Their motivations are multifaceted and realistic, often stemming from personal experiences, traumas, or societal pressures.

Importance in Storytelling:

Adds Depth: These characters add depth and richness to the narrative, providing a more nuanced and realistic portrayal of human nature.

Creates Tension and Conflict: Their unpredictability and complex morality create tension and conflict, driving the plot and engaging the audience.

Reflects Real Life: By portraying characters with both good and bad qualities, stories can reflect the complexity of real-life moral decisions.

Examples and Their Impact:

Walter White from Breaking Bad: Initially a high school chemistry teacher diagnosed with cancer, Walter turns to manufacturing methamphetamine to secure his family’s future. His descent into criminality and moral compromise makes him a quintessential morally gray character.

Severus Snape from Harry Potter: Snape’s actions and allegiances are ambiguous throughout much of the series. His ultimate loyalty and sacrifices reveal a deeply complex character motivated by love and regret.

Creating a Morally Gray Character:

Blend Virtues and Vices: Give your character a mix of admirable qualities and significant flaws. This balance helps create a sense of realism.

Motivations Over Actions: Focus on the character’s motivations rather than just their actions. Understand why they make certain decisions, even if those decisions are morally questionable.

Consequences and Growth: Show the consequences of their actions and allow for character growth or regression. This evolution keeps the character dynamic and engaging.

Impact on the Audience:

Empathy and Engagement: Morally gray characters can evoke empathy from the audience, as they see parts of themselves in the character’s struggles and decisions.

Moral Reflection: These characters prompt audiences to reflect on their own moral beliefs and the complexities of right and wrong.

Discussion and Debate: The ambiguous nature of morally gray characters often sparks discussion and debate, making stories more engaging and thought-provoking.

By understanding and effectively using morally gray characters, storytellers can craft richer, more engaging narratives that resonate deeply with their audience.

[thewriteadviceforwriters]

Crafting Compelling Morally Gray Characters: A Guide for Fiction Writers

In literature, there is often a clear distinction between good and evil. Heroes are portrayed as virtuous and villains as wicked. However, in recent years, there has been a rise in the popularity of morally gray characters - those who do not fit neatly into the categories of good or evil. These characters are complex, flawed, and often make decisions that challenge the reader's moral compass. In this guide, I'll help you explore the art of crafting compelling morally gray characters and how to make them stand out in your fiction writing.

What Are Morally Gray Characters?

Morally gray characters, also known as morally ambiguous characters, are those who do not conform to traditional notions of good or evil. They may have both positive and negative traits, and their actions may be motivated by a mix of good and bad intentions. These characters often blur the lines between right and wrong, making them more relatable and intriguing to readers.

Examples of Morally Gray Characters

Some well-known examples of morally gray characters include:

Severus Snape from the Harry Potter series: Initially portrayed as a villain, Snape's true motivations and actions are revealed to be more complex and morally ambiguous.

Jaime Lannister from A Song of Ice and Fire series: Known for his arrogance and incestuous relationship with his sister, Jaime's character evolves throughout the series, showcasing his internal struggle between his duty and his personal desires.

Walter White from Breaking Bad: A high school chemistry teacher turned methamphetamine producer, Walter's character is constantly torn between his desire for power and his moral compass.

Why Are Morally Gray Characters Compelling?

Morally gray characters are compelling because they challenge the reader's perceptions of right and wrong. They are not easily categorized as heroes or villains, making them more relatable and human. These characters also add depth and complexity to a story, making it more interesting and thought-provoking.

The Power of Relatability

One of the main reasons morally gray characters are so compelling is because they are relatable. They are not perfect, and they make mistakes, just like real people. This makes them more human and allows readers to connect with them on a deeper level. When readers can see themselves in a character, it creates a stronger emotional connection to the story.

The Element of Surprise

Morally gray characters also add an element of surprise to a story. Their actions and decisions may not always align with what the reader expects, keeping them on the edge of their seat. This unpredictability makes the story more engaging and can lead to unexpected plot twists.

The Exploration of Morality

Morally gray characters also allow for a deeper exploration of morality in a story. By challenging traditional notions of good and evil, these characters force readers to question their own moral compass and consider the gray areas of morality. This can lead to thought-provoking discussions and a deeper understanding of complex moral issues.

How to Craft Morally Gray Characters

Crafting morally gray characters requires a delicate balance of positive and negative traits, as well as a deep understanding of their motivations and internal struggles. Here are some tips for creating compelling morally gray characters in your writing.

Give Them a Strong Motivation

Every character, regardless of their moral alignment, should have a strong motivation for their actions. For morally gray characters, this motivation should be complex and not easily defined as purely good or evil. It could be a desire for power, revenge, or even a sense of duty. This motivation will drive their decisions and actions throughout the story.

Show Their Flaws and Vulnerabilities

Morally gray characters are not perfect, and they should not be portrayed as such. They should have flaws and vulnerabilities that make them more relatable and human. These flaws could be physical, emotional, or moral, and they should play a role in the character's development and decisions.

Create Internal Conflict

One of the defining characteristics of morally gray characters is their internal conflict. They are torn between their good and bad tendencies, and this struggle should be evident in their thoughts and actions. This internal conflict adds depth to the character and makes them more relatable to readers.

Avoid Stereotypes

When crafting morally gray characters, it's important to avoid falling into stereotypes. These characters should not be one-dimensional or defined solely by their moral ambiguity. They should have unique personalities, backgrounds, and motivations that make them stand out as individuals.

Show Their Growth and Development

As with any well-written character, morally gray characters should experience growth and development throughout the story. They should learn from their mistakes and make decisions that challenge their moral compass. This growth and development will make them more dynamic and interesting to readers.

How to Make Morally Gray Characters Stand Out

With the rise in popularity of morally gray characters, it's important to make yours stand out in a sea of similar characters. Here are some tips for making your morally gray characters unique and memorable.

Give Them a Distinctive Voice

A character's voice is an essential part of their identity. It should be unique and reflective of their personality and motivations. For morally gray characters, their voice should reflect their internal conflict and the complexity of their moral alignment.

Create a Strong Backstory

A character's backstory can provide valuable insight into their motivations and actions. For morally gray characters, a strong backstory can help explain their moral ambiguity and add depth to their character. It can also create empathy and understanding for their decisions.

Use Foils to Highlight Their Morality

Foils are characters who contrast with the main character, highlighting their strengths and weaknesses. For morally gray characters, foils can be used to showcase their moral ambiguity and challenge their beliefs. This can add depth to the character and create interesting dynamics between them and other characters.

Morally gray characters add depth, complexity, and relatability to a story. By challenging traditional notions of good and evil, these characters force readers to question their own moral compass and consider the gray areas of morality.

[stardustizuku]

Unfortunately I came across a very strange and misinformed video about Black Butler.

It’s not good. Don’t watch it. Unless you wanna ruin your day, in which case have fun.

Despite it all, I watched it. What left me wondering, however, was how off the mark the person who made the video was on, well, everything.

From their insistence that the Book of Circus Arc theme or point is non existent, to reading Ciel’s character so badly they genuinely thought the Green Witch Arc did nothing for his character development.

While baffled, it also made me think on how someone could read Black Butler so badly.

Sure, you can say that there’s no real way to read or interpret something “in the wrong way” but interpreting The Hunger Games as a pure battle-royale action story would make you believe it’s bad.

“Why are we focusing so much on how the capitol preps them?” Or “Why isn’t Katniss winning everything?” Or “I wanna know more about the rebellion” All questions that miss the actual point of the story - which is criticizing (not solving or ignoring) the way that media distracts us from violence via spectacle.

The same thing applies here. While there is no “right” way to consume media, there’s things that the author makes clear they wanna focus when creating a story. Things that, if you understand, make the story you’re reading actually make sense.

And in Black Butler there’s three things that you have to understand to properly get what Yana is saying.

Sebastian is the protagonist

Ciel and Sebastian’s relationship IS the story.

And that relationship is, fundamentally, a positive one.

A quicker version of it would be:

Black Butler is a love story from the POV of Sebastian, and you have to ship it to get it

- but that’s not entirely true.

You can still look at it as a complex but ultimately positive rship and get in broad strokes of what it’s conveying. It doesn’t have to be romantic. Although, it helps much more than a platonic framing.

(That said, interpreting their rship as father and son, still isn’t the best way to go about it. Mostly because by its very nature of “soul consuming” their relationship is extremely sexually charged. And hey, if you’re into that I don’t judge. However, if you’re desperately trying to interpret their rship as NOT romantic to the point you fall back on heteronormative patriarchal ideals of nuclear familiar as framing device, I don’t think this interpretation bodes with you)

Now, having all that ground work:

Why do I say these are the key components to understand BB?

Okay so, first,

1. Sebastian is the Main Character. The protagonist.

There’s a lot of people who wanna argue against it, claiming he’s either the villain or the antagonist. Both wrong.

He does not function as an antagonist. Even if, and an emphasis on if, you consider Ciel to the protagonist, Sebastian isn’t a narrative antagonist.

If you wanna go back to Creative Writing 101, be my guest. An antagonist is directly defined by the protagonist. It’s the opposing force. If the protagonist wants A, the antagonist wants to stop them from getting A.

Sebastian’s catchphrase is “Yes, my Lord”. He never opposes Ciel, in fact quite the contrary. By the mere fact they’ve created contract, it means that they’ve both agreed in the inevitable outcome.

People want to frame Sebastian as the villain, because Ciel having his soul taken by a demon, would be a BAD END in the context of their moral compass. They see Ciel as a frail victim of abuse, who’s being tricked by Sebastian, who wants Ciel’s soul.

Which is an. Interpretation. A bad one. But still one.

The narrative (and whether the narrative fits your personal moral compass and lack of critical thinking is irrelevant) treats Ciel as an agent in his own destiny. The abuse he suffered was the moment in which he had no control. It’s only after he meets Sebastian that he can rid of both his guilt and his despair, and do what he wants.

In this case though, it’s revenge.

The famous “Asthma” scene shows this. If Ciel is taken back to his past, he becomes helpless. Swarmed with pain and memories that make it so that he can’t even react. Sebastian is his saving grace. If Ciel didn’t have him, and the power he wields to rebuilt what’s broken, he would crumble once more.

If Ciel has a panic attack, because of all the pain he has, Sebastian picks him up and says “you are not a helpless child anymore, you are not a victim anymore, you have the power to do anything. So, what do you wanna do?”

Ciel’s answer is to kill them.

A proper analogy would be to say that, if Sebastian offers a gun, Ciel pulls the trigger. They are both at fault. Sebastian, strictly speaking, is not here to directly cause Ciel’s downfall, but as a tool Ciel uses to plunge into the abyss.

If, again if, you were to frame Ciel as a protagonist, Sebastian falls closer to the “Voice of reason” character. Not a literal voice of reason, but a literary one. If you have a protagonist and an antagonist exchanging ideals, the Voice of Reason serves to engage with the protagonist on their own ideals.

That said, Ciel isn’t the protagonist. The story quickly falls apart if you interpret it as such.

Things such as Ciel’s character arc being…shall I say odd?

It’s not that his character arc isn’t there, but it’s never lineal. His goals stay the same, the only thing that happens is that we start to peel back the “why”s of his goals. Throughout the series it’s never about Ciel understanding himself better, he knows who he is, he knows what he wants, he knows why he wants it. He doesn’t ever need to uncover these, but simply remember them. Because it’s always about the audience understanding Ciel.

He knows he wants revenge.

In the Circus Arc: He knows that he needs Sebastian because without him, the pain of the abuse he suffered would be too much to bear. But WE are introduced to it.

In the Book of Atlantis: He knows that with this new lease he does not want happiness and peace, he wants revenge. The one being told this is the audience.

In Green Witch Arc: He knows that their revenge isn’t for his family, the real Ciel or guilt. It’s because he wants it. He’s angry, he’s upset, and this is entirely for him. The one being told this is the audience.

Except. Not really. The one either discovering or remembering these key moments - is always Sebastian.

Sebastian is the one who reassures him that he now holds the power of a demon to override the pain. Sebastian is the one who remembers that to override that pain, Ciel wants revenge. And Sebastian is the one who discovers that that revenge isn’t built out of grief or guilt, but for himself.

We are witnessing it all, through the eyes of Sebastian.

This is why we have an extremely vague idea of who Ciel is, Sebastian does not have the whole picture.

If you haven’t been reading this manga with your eyes closed, you’ll realize we have a better grasp at Sebastian’s character than that of Ciel. We get a lot of insight on how he thinks and what he values through light hearted dialogue he has with the servants. You even see the character development in these little interactions.

Think about how when he first arrived to the mansion he magically created food with no regards to taste, but when he meets Bard he states that food is created to see whoever will eat it, smile.

That is character development, more than you will be able to see from Ciel.

Because Ciel’s character, while not static, doesn’t go from point A to point B. Mostly, cause it doesn’t need to. He went through that when he lost the real Ciel and got Sebastian. Everything we are watching is the falling out.

Now, given the fact that I’ve told you that it makes more sense for Sebastian to be the protagonist/main character, and that he 100% isn’t either a villain or antagonist in ANY of the interpretations you can get:

Do you believe me?

If you don’t, you’ll probably believe Yana herself.

This is from the first Volume, where Yana herself describes the process of making Black Butler. The primary idea behind the creation of BB was a butler as a “hero”.

If you go back to the introductory chapter, you notice that Ciel is barely mentioned. He’s simply the one to give Sebastian impossible tasks and standards that Sebastian must find how to overcome.

Ciel is properly introduced until the NEXT chapter. The second chapter has this formula too, introducing Lizzie as a problem to overcome. Although, to Sebastian the best way to “get rid of the problem” is simply to indulge her.

The issue here being that the problem isn’t as simple as a business meeting but something directly tied to Ciel and Ciel’s past. Each time that Sebastian has to solve a problem, it chips away at Ciel. While with Lizzie he shows a persona, once he’s alone with Sebastian he acknowledges the toll it took on him. It serves to build Ciel as Sebastian’s master, and how some problems aren’t as simple as discarding a tablecloth.

The third and the fourth, are a unified narrative, with a similar premise to the first chapter. Ciel gets kidnapped and Sebastian must find a way to retrieve him without raising suspicions.

If the first chapter is to set up what Sebastian must do as a butler, the third and the fourth serve to set up what he must do as a demon.

The entirety of the volume, and up to Book of Circus Arc, is about how Sebastian tries to follow the increasingly absurd orders that Ciel has - it is not about Ciel trying to solve them.

That’s how they work, we follow Sebastian for the most part, because he’s the one having to come up with the solutions.

If anything, in early Kuro, where the emphasis was more on a slice of life conflict, Ciel is the antagonist. He’s the one creating problems for Sebastian to solve.

What’s more, in the second volume, the very first chapter is one from Sebastian’s POV. So far, we hadn’t gotten an entire chapter from Ciel’s POV. In fact, I would find it hard to point to a single chapter where Ciel is the POV throughout. The reveal of real Ciel and the flashback is the closest contender.

But once we move past early Kuro, and into Book of Circus, this set up changes.

It’s fairly easy to assume that Ciel is the main character, because from this point on the conflict of the plot sorta surrounded him. We spend a lot of time with him and with his story. The enemies start being people directly tied to Ciel and Ciel’s trauma. Rarely, if at all, we get to see Sebastian before he met Ciel.The framing device for the story, is Ciel.

This is where point 2 gets intertwined.

2.- Sebastian and Ciel’s relationship IS the story.

The story begins at the point where Sebastian and Ciel met. Who Ciel was before he met Sebastian, informs why he’s the way he is when he does. You have to know all he went through to understand why he’s a brat, why he lashes out. However Sebastian’s past doesn’t matter…because Sebastian himself doesn’t care much for who he was, before he was “Sebastian”. That’s also part of the narrative.

Unlike Ciel, he doesn’t seem opposed to revealing information from before the contract. He talks about how pets from where he is from are gross, he talks about how he knows how to dance because of other places he’s been to, and alludes to the life he's lived before.

Just that, to him, they're footnotes.

He makes allusions to a very bland, uninteresting life, up to the point he meets Ciel.

That’s why we don’t know more about his past.

As for why we focus on Ciel’s story…okay maybe we need Creative Writing lessons 102

I studied Dramaturgy for about 3 to 4 years. And something you notice is how play-writing is the quintessential story telling. It’s making it work with the bare bones of a story.

Some other mediums have more finesse, more depth, or more spectacle - all amazing things that work for whatever they’re created for. But understanding a play, how and why it works, helps understand the fundamentals of any derivative story telling medium.

Particularly, conflict.

Conflict is dialogue and dialogue can take many forms. A story, in its essence, is a dialogue between two opposing ideas.

Take Batman, for example, who embodies the ideas of justice and order. On his own, he’s not a well rounded character.

If you ONLY present him, in a vaccum with nothing else, you don’t have a character. You have a list of characteristics that you’re supposed to know.

You only know who he is when you have dialogue with another character.

I say Dialogue, but it doesn’t necessarily mean spoken language at one another. Dialogue can mean fist fighting, playing tabletop games, talking to other people about the other, or even just a competition. The idea is to simply to compare and contrast both ideas.

If you want an example on how tabletop games serve as dialogue, watch the video “Well, Someone Had to Explain the Liar’s Dice Scene” by Lord Ravecraft

Another example, were we to retake Batman, you have him fight Joker. Who’s the embodiment of chaos and randomness.

In the following picture, you get far more information than the one previously shown. While the Joke fights with daggers and fake guns, Batman only uses his fists. He doesn’t use the tricks that Joker does. His serious demeanor, contrasted with Joker’s glee at the dangerous situation. The fact that Batman has a deathly grip on Joker’s shirt, while the Joker doesn’t, which shows a desperation to catch him.

You are being shown, through a dialogue, who Batman is.

It’s so much easier and much more effective to explore a character through another character.

This is the reason why Shonen has a tendency to make incredibly good gay ships. If you want to explore Naruto’s personality, and his feelings of inferiority, you HAVE to have him interact with Sasuke.

If you wanna understand Hinata’s passion for volleyball, you have him enjoy himself the most with the only other crazy motherfucker who’s as obsessed with volleyball - Kageyama.

And I think that originally, Yana had this problem.

Sebastian was the protagonist, but she had little room to develop him as a character in the confines of the manor, dealing with random enemies.

She likely tried to create Grell as someone of the same stature as Sebastian. Someone who could be this other person to engage dialogue with and show or allude to his past a bit more.

The problem being that Sebastian didn’t care for his past. Or really, engaging with anyone. He sees everyone as below him, but when confronted with Grell who isn’t below him, he doesn’t wanna talk to her.

So you’re stuck in conundrum.

How do you have dialogue with a character, that as a character trait, doesn’t really wanna have dialogue?

Well, Grell also solves the problem. Because only the moment she gets him to start any semblance of a dialogue - is questioning why he’s serving Ciel.

And this is the moment when it’s perfectly cemented that the focus of the story is their relationship.

Why is Sebastian here? Why does he stay? What did he see in Ciel that made him want this extremely convoluted contract?

THATS the dialogue.

THATS the conversation we’re having in Black Butler.

We need to know Ciel because understanding who he is, let’s us know WHY /Sebastian/ is here.

Then slowly, with the introduction with the Undertaker, we find out Sebastian’s conflict.

Which is…

He’s scared of losing Ciel. It becomes apparent with the constant imagery of the Undertaker taking away Ciel and at some point even obtaining r!Ciel’s body, that he’s worried it might happen.

But he can only be worried that Ciel might be taken away if he wants to stay near Ciel.

And that’s his character arc.

Realizing that he actually likes Ciel, cares for him and the role he plays a butler that he doesn’t want this to end.

In the first chapters, he doesn’t feel a need to protect Ciel anymore than what’s strictly necessary. Just don’t die, that’s about as deep as his involvement in chapter 4 gets.

But by the Green Witch Arc, he feels a need to protect Ciel from ANY harm.

This is why I also said

3.- Their relationship is fundamentally a positive one.

In broad strokes, Sebastian to Ciel is the person who allows him to survive. He’s not worried about giving up his soul since he’s already dead. While Ciel to Sebastian, is someone who’s making him have fun. He’s slowly becoming more and more attached to Ciel and the life he has with Ciel.

Their relationship is not that of just a predator and prey, but also of master and pet.

In the terms that Black Butler itself would call: Sebastian is a wild wolf acting like a collared dog.

Ciel is aware that the wild beast will eat him at the end of the day, but if he clings hard to leash for now, he might just be able to have Sebastian maul his abusers.

Sebastian as a dog, currently finds that he enjoys being a chained dog.

(This is demonstrated in the Green Witch arc where he quite literally says, he doesn’t wanna be a wild beast and prefers to be a butler)

And much like the actual DOG Sebastian, Ciel constantly interprets his attempts to get close and protect him, as an act of aggression.

This push and pull of Ciel’s perception of Sebastian and Sebastian’s true motives is what feeds the story.

And the briefs interludes were that isn’t the case (what other people call the “plot”, but I would refer to as the connective tissue) such as Sullivan and Wolfram, the other servant’s past, the grim reapers and the like, serve as a parallel to Ciel and Sebastian relationship. Either to signify how they care for each other, highlight their weaknesses or fears, or explore how they feel.

It’s no surprise that Sullivan and Wolfram are parallels to Ciel and Sebastian. A sheltered sickly child who seeks the protection of a cold hearted machine that only knew how to kill, but who eventually found he cared for her genuinely.

Undertaker and Claudia’s relationship being heavily paralleled with them, even though we aren’t 109% sure what they had but heavily implied it was a romantic attraction from the undead supernatural creature and a Phantomhive.

Everything is a parallel.

That’s why, like the approach of the terrible original video, is flawed.

Trying to interpret Black Butler as action scene after action scene, with mystery after mystery with the only connective tissue being the mystery of who burned down the mansion - is missing the trees for the forest.

That’s not the point.

And if you’re too much of a prude to engage with gothic horror in its gothic horror game, I see little point as to why you even bother to engage with it at all.

A lot of people, including the person who create the video, simply refuse to acknowledge Black Butler IS the story of Sebastian and Ciel as a close and positive relationship, romantically and sexually charged. The reason for it being that they’re “put off” by it.

Part of me wonders how much that is genuinely true, and how much is just performative outrage. It’s like ignoring the fact that Cersei and Jami are in an incestous relationship and try to frame it as “platonic love”, because the idea of it is THAT off putting.

But regardless of that, if you don’t like the fact that it’s as canon as canon can get, I would reccomend you don’t engage with the story at all.

As I’ve explained, the entirety of the series is about them. If you refuse to see Sebastian and Ciel as, at the very least, a duo that cares deeply for the other - you aren’t reading Black Butler.

I have no idea what you’re reading.Perhaps your own biases and subconscious stigma with British aesthetic. At that point, watch the fucking British Royalty Gossip Magazine. You’d find more substance there.

Just don’t be like the person in the video, please? Don’t play dumb. Don’t ignore the fact that Yana is a Shotacon, don’t ignore the fact Sebastian is a hero, don’t ignore the fact that the entirety of the story is based on Sebastian and Ciel’s dynamic.

Because if you do, you are ashamed. You are ashamed of what this story is about. You don’t wanna engage with the text, you want to engage with yourself. You wanna project into Ciel whatever traumas and experiences you have, for the sake a vanity project, where you come out as the morally superior.

You don’t wanna talk about Black Butler, you wanna talk about how good YOU are. How you “don’t sin” by watching it “without all the gross unholy stuff”.

Which is the exact opposite of what BB is about.

So, if you don’t want to, save us all the humiliation fetish and leave.

[transrevolutions]

While overall I felt like the tbosas movie was well done, there's one part that really bothered me. When Sejanus gets involved with the rebels in the book, he's fully on board, stealing them ammo and weapons from the base, and planning to hold guards at gunpoint to free the prisoners. In the movie, however, he just wants to run away and then is surprised and upset by the fact that the rebels were planning an act of violence.

This doesn't seem like a major change, but from a political standpoint (as tbosas is a very political book), it's a big one and one I very much do not like.

In the text, Sejanus plays the role of the moral compass. Whereas both Coriolanus and Lucy Gray having complex and subjective motivations, Sejanus is always driven by wanting to do the right thing, even if it costs him. He acts as a baseline, keeping the readers from getting lost in endless loops of justification for atrocities just because Coriolanus's internal narration is rhetorically persuasive.

So when Sejanus (who up until this point has been relatively pacifist) joins up with the rebels in the book and agrees to participate in an act of revolutionary violence, the text is pointing out that that act of rebellion is morally permissible. That even violence against the oppressor class can be an altruistic action. Sejanus planning to fight the guards with the rebels is not a sign of his corruption, it's a sign of the fact that his society has become so corrupt that not doing it would be morally worse than doing it. After all, someone's going to die either way, so why not have it be the oppressors?

If movie!Sejanus is still occupying the role of the moral compass (which he seems to be), then his dismay at the possibility of the rebels using violence acts as a narrative condemnation of the violence, when the opposite is true in the book. The movie tries to make a distinction between the "good" dissenters (pacifist, nonviolent, morally superior) and the "bad" dissenters (violent radicals/terrorists). In the current political climate, this idea and narrative is extremely unsettling. And I'm disappointed they did this, but not surprised. Like the other Hunger Games movies, it was produced by a large media company, and they can't follow the satire of the book too closely lest people realize the fundamental irony of it. People in positions of power do not want to tell a story where violent activism is portrayed as moral--at least when it's against a society that obviously mirrors our own. (The brutalist architecture style is another complaint that I have, but that can be discussed in another post.)

Changing that seemingly small detail about Sejanus's involvement with the rebels doesn't do much to change the continuity of the storyline, but it does a lot to change the underlying message of his character and the story. This was almost certainly intentional, because the same sort of thing was done in the original trilogy movies as well. Companies are scared of subversive media because it makes them look like the 'bad guys' too, so they wrap rebellion in a lens of fantasy and moderatism.

[can-of-w0rmz]

My thoughts on Frankenstein can basically be summed up in, “Victor is a dickhead but at least he’s not an incel,” and “The Creature is a dickhead but at least he’s not a rich prick”.

To this day “ermmm Victor/Creature is the innocent guy and (X other character) is the bad guy achtually 🤓☝️” takes make me so fucking mad. THEY BOTH SUCK, AND THEYRE BOTH STILL SYMPATHETIC PROTAGONISTS. THATS THE POINT OF THE FUCKING BOOK😭

Also people who think Victor was the bad guy for refusing to make the Bride and going “huh, maybe making a creature for the sole purpose of suffering and fucking you is really fucked up and not my place at all actually?” legitimately need their fucking heads checked because do you genuinely have zero reading comprehension or life experience??? Can you read a book? Can you understand basic themes and concepts? Are you actually stupid?

Victor is a terrible guy for being self absorbed enough to cheat God and nature itself, creating a being that was never meant to be born and inflicting immense suffering on it by the nature of it existing in a way that fundamentally can not be balanced out — following the Christian influences and background in which the novel was written at the time, Victor is not God, he can’t offer the creature salvation or in any way metaphysically balance out his suffering, so he just introduces him to a life of a living hell by his own design and by the nature of the fact that Victor is just a man, and the Creature himself is terrible because the nihilism inherent to his condition as Victor’s creation turns him into a murderous incel who wants to just further the suffering Victor caused, because if he can’t be happy, nobody should, so he kills every innocent bystander who Victor loved and demands that he makes him a woman like Eve who’s equal to him in suffering, who exists for the sole purpose of being his, who was created to be his.

And Victor says no, because he has actual character development and realises it isn’t his place (also, very likely mirroring his engagement to Elizabeth if you kinda follow the same reading as me that Victor never really loved her romantically and felt forced into the marriage because of his mother), which, shock horror, makes Victor a more likeable protagonist, because again, shockingly, he’s actually a pretty good guy in this one situation making a really good moral decision for once by saying “yeah I’m not going to create a woman whose sole purpose in life is to fuck you and suffer as much as you, also what if she doesn’t want to fuck you???”

Are people allergic to the concept of character development or something?? Are people allergic to multifaceted complex characters?? You feel terrible for the creature because of what Victor has done to him by bringing him into existence, and you feel terrible for Victor because of how doomed he is (in the worst way, it’s not just him suffering, he has to watch everyone he loves being forced to suffer because of him) by his one mistake and how he doesn’t have any way to fix it. A creation with no God, and a Man with the weight of God upon him because of his own mistake. They’re both doomed. That’s why it’s so good, THE BOOK IS A FUCKING TRAGEDY WHY IS THIS SO DIFFICULT FOR SOME PEOPLE TO GRASP???😭

[mysterycitrus]

I know a lot of ppl ask u abt jason or dick but im wondering now, what do u think about bruce? I find him a very interesting character whose characterization is incredibly feeble, both bc of his 80 years of history and the tendency writers have to project their own male fantasies on him. So i'd definitely love to hear ur own thoughts about him. I personally enjoy depicting him as someone morally grey, although my sympatization for him changes day to day. Wether you think he is a good or a bad person, i believe u need to make him dedicated to gotham and the bat as a symbol, and that comes with all its advantages and drawbacks

bruce wayne is sooooo interesting (derogatory) because like u said, he carries the baggage of every masochismo author that decided batman was too woke and should hurt his kids and that supporting gotham’s infrastructure is for pussies. there’s also the flipside of that, where he’s the perfect father who’s waaaay too emotionally regulated for my taste. both of these interpretations are bad imo, and both functionally miss the point.

i think part of this (in fandom) is an obsession with moral angst — u can either be a good person doing good things, or a bad person doing bad things. think about how some characters are crucified while others are babied. someone always has to be absolutely right, and the other has to be absolutely wrong.

in reality, there are a lot of people who are fundamentally kind and fundamentally want to do good that are really terrible to the people in their lives. bruce wayne being someone who relies on having so much control that it implodes his connections to the people around him is an important part of his character. his profound love for his children, for gotham and her people, for humanity in general and his belief in peoples ability to change, doesn’t circumvent the fact that he’s often an emotionally abusive man who hurts others to achieve his own ends. he contains multitudes.

writing him as a functionally irredeemable, violently abusive person is the anti-thesis to the symbol that he himself created. no, i personally don’t believe he actively beats his kids (even though it’s supported in the text). no, i don’t think he’s an irredeemable sadist (as much as frank miller wants u to believe otherwise). to have people like dick grayson and diana and clark and dinah love and believe in u means that there has to be something there worth caring about, otherwise the whole universe is gonna fall apart.

that’s what makes his relationship to cass so interesting — he sees his neuroticism, his dedication to the cause above all else, and does not find it admirable. he finds it confronting and upsetting. and to be clear, cass (like dick) is very much the moral ideal of what batman should be, but still bruce finds it hard to deal with!!

his abject failures — his treatment of the robins, his crippling guilt about jason, his fears of becoming a killer, the impossible load he gives himself to carry — means that when he’s shown as someone who genuinely cares, it makes him more complex. like yeah, bruce isn’t actually a cold hearted person. he really really gives a shit. too many shits, to be totally honest. he’s a morally grey person that wants to do good, but is so terrified of losing control that he keeps others away and hurts them in the process. there’s a reason why his emotional crutch was a traumatised eight year old fr. nothing is more important than the mission, including bruce wayne himself

[theresascove]

why is it that the arcane fandom has to always HATE someone? it’s so fucking immature, stupid, obnoxious, and annoying

first it’s Jayce really and then it’s Caitlyn and then it’s Jayce and then it’s Maddie and then it’s jinx and then it’s vi and then it’s viktor bla bla bla

NO character is morally correct. NONE. They all screw up and make bad decisions. The show isn’t showing perfect people, and if you’re looking for that—? fuck off.

you can understand their motives, but you’re not supposed to support them. they’re really good complex characters. dont hate human like characters.

arcane has done an amazing job bringing such diverse characters together. The plot is OUTSTANDING. It brings light on such a deep plot to help you understand their motives and reasonings, not support or excuse them. You love them at their best and dislike them at their worst.

It shows both sides of a character’s live’s coin

don’t discount the show as a whole because you’re looking for morally perfect characters and stop the fucking cancel culture over every little thing it’s ANNOYING AS SHIT

[gleamingtempest]

DRDT - Chapter 3 Predictions+ Analysis [Disordered]

Hello. 👋 Chapter 2 DRDT has concluded. I'd like to share some of my thoughts on what chapter 3 will be like here. This post will be disordered.

Remaining

Teruko, Charles - Eden - Nico - Hu, Veronika - Rose, J - Arturo, Levi - Whit, David

Xander, Min - Arei, Ace

Current Relations

Not including Teruko, relations are only marked for characters who've had more than two interactions with another living character. Teruko's relations are decided based on characters who've had more than 4 scenes with her, excluding her tie-in with Whit. [Arbitrarily picked based on my own opinions.]

New Relations

Nico-Levi: Nico has negative feelings towards Levi. Levi has mixed feelings towards Nico. Both connections are heavily tethered to their individual feelings regarding Ace. Nico will be the pursuer because Levi will be preoccupied & incapacitated.

Hu-Veronika: Hu has negative feelings towards Veronika. Vice-Versa. Both characters are foils. They will have some tension in chapter 3 as a follow up to their chapter 2 secret setup. Hu will be the pursuer because Veronika finds Hu boring.

Rose-J: ??? - Unfounded ATM. Rose & J are the only foil pairing to not have a significant tie-in at this point in the story.

Arturo-Levi: Arturo has negative feelings towards Levi. Levi is indebted to Arturo. Arturo does not like Levi as a person and resents the position he's out him in; Arturo will also be Levi's primary caregiver and lifeline. Arturo and Levi will experience and immediate and intense conflict.

Whit-David: Minor tension / conflict. Major tension and conflict will be reserved for future chapters. David & Whit interact but are not the focal point of the chapters conflicts.

Major Themes & Motive

Title Prediction: "From Rags To" [Riches]

Major Theme: What is 'selfish'?

Chapter Motive: Money / Cash

Chapter 2 discussed morality & why it's incorrect to assert that anyone is necessarily 'good' or 'bad.' Morality is a complex spectrum of gray which cannot be defined by binary labels.

Chapter 3 will discuss morality in an even more complex manner by discussing 'selfishness' - specifically, by calling attention to the fact that the act of living itself is 'selfish.'

The motive which best reflects this theme is 'money' or greed. The finances of each character will be jeopardized & the standard survival question of 'is it selfish to want to live' [comfortably] will be called into question by threatening basic livelihood.

Discussing selflessness & selfishness is the natural progression when going from 'good & bad' to even more complex moral issues & questions. Every action is 'selfish' or self serving in some way; so how can anyone be 'good' or do 'good'? Does a selfless act exist?

Some events in chapter 2 this would build off of are Rose & J's secrets, Arturo's secret, Hu & Veronika's secrets & Levi's sacrifice. All characters listed here have some directly highlighted selfish or selfless act or acts which have driven forward the story in some way.

Major Players & Tone

The 'Main Characters' of Chapter 3 will be Arturo, J, Rose, Veronika & Hu. Veronika & Hu will be the primary plot movers while Arturo, J & Rose will receive significant character progression as a result of Veronika & Hu's proaction.

The tone of chapter 3 will be immediately frenzied and somber; even moreso than in chapter 2. The cast's relations with one another will be much more distant in chapter 3; in stark contrast to the constant fighting of chapter 2, everyone will self isolate and avoid one another in an attempt to prevent what happened last chapter happening again. The mood will be despondent & avoidant.

This will be a major issue for two characters in particular - Veronika & Hu. Both characters will experience immediate conflict as a result of this tone. Veronika's part in this conflict will be much more immediately prevalent. She'll be bored. Plain and simple, the cast not fighting or interacting much at all will bore her to tears. She'll be the shit stirrer, encouraging conflict & disorder amongst the remaining other 11 in hopes of more chaos. Ignoring the fact that this will obviously be a major problem for Hu in and of itself, Hu will also experience distress as a result of this new group state.

Hu relies on others harmony & wellbeing in order to feel at peace herself; she derives her worth from being a person who others can rely on & need so her losing access to a social group where she can assuage her own insecurities will cause her grave distress. Her way of dealing with this conflict will be much more subdued than Veronika's but still forceful. She'll plead & bargain with the others, namely Eden & Nico, encouraging them to rejoin & form a remaining 'group' of sorts in spite of everyone being in shambles. These attempts will of course, fail and Hu will be left with nothing but herself & her sense of worthlessness.

Veronika & Hu will directly conflict as a result of their individual desires going into the chapter, with Hu desiring a harmonious group and Veronika desiring chaotic disordered enemies who are playing a killing game. I suspect Hu will have a major confrontation with Veronika during this chapter akin to Arei's confrontation to Eden & this will result in Veronika's hedonistic fixation cracking as it's directly challenged for the first time.

Arturo will also suffer as a result of Veronika's fixation, since he'll be preoccupied with aiding Levi & unable to 'play' with Veronika. Veronika will likely harass him and be reprimanded for distracting him from his job

Arturo ties directly into this chapter's themes because he made a selfish decision in his past which resulted in a negative result that he was NOT responsible for; he made a 'good' selfish decision which resulted in 'bad.'

This will parallel J & her relation to the chapter's theme, since she also made a 'good' selfish decision by disowning her mom and living authentically as herself. J & Arturo's conflict will come to a close during this chapter in some form or another. J certainly won't forgive Arturo but after what happened with Ace she'll be more mindful of his 'breaking point' & will likely just avoid him as a whole.

Rose's relation to all of this is obvious.

She made a 'bad' selfless decision in her past which resulted in more suffering for herself and her family. Rose disregards herself entirely for the sake of others [her family] because she doesn't value herself, implicitly. She's plagued by feelings of worthlessness and not being helpful enough.

Rose's conflict with J will also very likely come to light this chapter as she's pushed to be more present & true to her self by J & the motive, which will torment her more than anyone else as someone who absolutely needs the money & whose finances are beyond precarious.

Deadly Life

Hu & Veronika are going to die. Of the 'main characters' they are the most likely to progress during daily life, prominently & die before deadly life.

There will be two victims.

J, Arturo or Rose are going to die - of the three, Arturo & J are much more likely to die.

Arturo, J, Veronika & Hu are in the hotspot in terms of victim & killer positions. Veronika & Hu will die, so Arturo or J has to be the 'third' death.

Personal Thought:

Arturo will kill Hu & J will kill Veronika. J will be executed while Arturo will survive with a separate 'punishment' [all murderers must be punished.] Alternatively, Arturo & J will both be executed & there will be 4 deaths in the chapter.

Levi will be key to the murder case but will not die.

Other thoughts:

Eden will feel responsible for Hu's death.

The motive for murder will not be related to the money motive. It will be something simple like 'I hated them.'

Revenge will be a part of the murder somehow.

Veronika will have some involvement in her own death or in the other murder.

Somebody will disguise themselves to trick Teruko.

Rose will be framed.

Thanks for reading these thoughts on the chapter.

: )

I look forward to seeing what is correct and incorrect. Please be well & take care.

[schlong2]

latest fix rant time

none of my friends want to talk to me about monkey movies and then i remembered i have a whole blog dedicated to my latest fixations so. i've watched Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes two (TWICE ✌️) times in theaters. this was after watching the newer trilogy (Rise, Dawn & War) and the first 1968 original in prep.

things (SPOILERS!!!):

Kingdom's run time is 2 hours and 25 minutes. this is incredibly long for a movie. compared to 1968's 1 hour and 52 minutes, that's a half hour difference. Infinity War was 2 hours and 36 minutes for reference. that's a whole marvel cinematic convergence, but ape. the run time isn't exactly the issue i've seen talked about. it's the pacing. sitting twice through this movie was not a problem for me. i sat there engaged all the way through. on the second watch, i tried to be mindful of times in which it might have been dragging for the average person, and i like, literally couldn't find any. pretty much every scene had meaning and didn't drag imo. which is something these newer movies do extremely well. Kingdom is pretty equally split between verbal communication and sign language compared to the first three before it. the apes use both verbal and visual cues to talk. but because they don't talk every single time, it makes every moment that they do feel special. it reminds me of the Quiet Place concept, where most of the movie you only hear a human voice a few select times when it's safe to do so. Rise, Dawn, & War were kind of like this, as Caesar only really spoke when he was trying to make a point or communicating to humans, who are mostly speaking in those movies. he speaks more as he gets more fluent, and by War, he can speak very well. we see other apes like Koba, Maurice, Blue Eyes, and Bad Ape also speak English. these moments are rationed pretty well throughout Kingdom, making the dialog more select and meaningful. this makes every time these beasts talk feel like it means something and isn't just fluff to fill your ears. every other scene feels like it's building or showing a side of a character we hadn't seen before, and the scenes between those advance the plot or are like, really action-packed. i just don't see why some people say it has pacing problems. it's just long. i understand the average person's attention span is super short, but when you're sitting down to watch two and a half hours of movie, you gotta know there's gonna be downtime. moments where they're not fighting or advancing the plot. and i think that's GOOD man. but im also not one for action/adventures very much so maybe that's it? i think a lot of people maybe watch these apes for the violence and conflict rather than their introspection, genuinely thoughtful world building, and complex characters. and hey, that's completely fine to enjoy, but POTA is originally about morals and asking the audience questions and posing dilemmas to popular beliefs at the time. ok

Raka. he's great. Peter Macon has this butter smooth voice that's just perfect for the kind of character he plays. you can't help but like him. but he dies like 1/3 into the movie and is really only there to religion dump about Caesar (ape jesus) and then he's swept away. people are complaining that that's all he was really there for. to explain the real values of Caesar and provide a foil to Proximus. and i agree to some degree. i really hope he's not actually dead. his presence and death are felt throughout the movie, as both Mae and Noa (mostly Noa vocalizes it, Mae just silently shares in his loss and i think cries at one point?) seem to mourn him, saying shit like "if Raka were here..." and especially at the end when Noa gives the Caesar pendant to her. it's the shared memory of Raka and what he devoted his life to. but they never really like, actually linger on his death. there's a moment after he's swept away, and the shot stays on the rushing waters, Raka no longer visible and plays some sad tunes, but like. C'MON. he's not really dead. he isn't please tell me he isn't PLEASE

Noa isn't Caesar. i honestly do not get why you would want otherwise. of course, he isn't Caesar. we don't need another Caesar. he had a whole three movies to be the center of. i would be extremely disappointed if they just made a carbon copy of him or made Noa like a direct descendant of him or whatever. i hate that Chosen One bullshit. Caesar was just a guy that wanted peace for his people and that got him killed in the end. Noa is also a guy who wants peace for his clan. they're both leaders and have good hearts, but like. they're different characters. i LIKE that Noa has no relation to Caesar, i LIKE that he's his own character with his own ideals and purpose. Owen Teague does a wonderful job making the character his own. i mean Andy Serkis is Andy fucking Serkis. pretty big shoes to fill and i think Teague has the right foot size you know. i heard one guy say like "we've had our time to mourn Caesar" and yeah. we have. let's accept that and move on

WHERE MY APE DIVERSITY AT. we get a fuck ton of chimps, ONE orangutan, ONE gorilla, and ONE bonobo. what the hell. i mean. what is with the bonobo villian. Koba i fucks with because bonobos are some of the most playful, nonviolent apes out there. that humanity and its cruelty could twist a naturally peaceful creature into what Koba became.. i mean, that's great. but again with Proximus? maybe trying to evoke some of the same energy and nuance Koba had? ALSO. GORILLA PSA they are like so sweet. all that muscle is there to protect their families, and they're strictly vegetarians. i feel like Rise, Dawn, & War portrayed this better with most of the gorillas getting bodyguard jobs because of all their bulk. especially when Luca tucks that flower in Nova's ear. man. and Red going out like he did. gentle giants. in Kindgom we just have Sylva. gorilla henchman for Proximus. that's it. then we have Raka, the one orangutan character that i saw. wise and knowledgeable, guides and accompanies Noa and Mae then dies. at least we get one female chimp character that's more than just wife or mother. wikipedia lists Soona as Noa's love interest, which i can totally dig, like it's there. he takes her to the telescope at the end of Kingdom, which is more than what we saw romance-wise between Caesar and Cornelia. and the only other important chimp female is Dar, Noa's mom. in Rise, Dawn & War there was usually only one of each species of ape assigned a main role, but we saw much more diversity it felt like. maybe that's because there were smaller in numbers and have since spread out in the last 300 years? also like, bonobos are known for having female-female & male-male sex. dont know about the other apes. my friend mentioned that Raka said something about having a male companion and promptly searched reddit. all they had to say was: gaype?

the visuals. dear god the visuals. this movie is just visually stunning. absolutely breathtaking. they did a great job. i mean Rise, Dawn, & War are all triumphs of cgi and are excellent examples of the animation style done right. i did hear some guy say there is a loss of texture, as mostly everything in Kingdom is cgi, from the characters to the landscapes. but there's an explosion of texture in this film. there's one point where Noa is covered in the ash of his village and you can see it on his fur. there's quite a couple water scenes where the moisture clings to the apes' fur. It's all very impressive. great work

the references!! Rise especially has a ton of them (IT'S A MADHOUSE!!! & GET YOUR STINKIN PAWS OFF ME YOU DAMN DIRTY APE), and names like Nova and Cornelius, but Kingdom... i picked up on at least three main instances, but im sure there are more. there's the scene where the apes are rounding up the feral humans, and its very reminiscent of the scene from 1968 where they're doing the same thing for sport. there's the scene where Mae is running in the field, and she jumps on that log structure to get to Noa, which is nearly identical to a similar scene in 1968. the scene when Noa, Soona, and Anaya are exploring the human bunker and they come across an old classroom. one of them picks up a doll that says a distorted "Mama" which was huge in the original because that was evidence that once man did speak, why else would he make a doll that talked? superb call backs to the og. respect what was there before

SCHLONG THEORY

here me out guys. the starring ape-human relationship in Rise was between Caesar and Will. this type of love is called storge and describes the love a child has for a parent as well as the love a parent has for their child.

the starring ape-human relationship in Dawn was ultimately between Caesar and Malcolm. which i believe is truly philia towards the end, the love between friends and allies. just two dudes trying to keep peace in the world.

in War, i mean Caesar well and truly hates the Colonel. like more than he's hated any human in his life before. close to mania, obsession. anyways it's a study on this type of relationship between an ape and a human. true, all consuming hate.

SO in the newer movies we've explored familial love, platonic love, and hate, between an ape and a human.

in Kingdom the main ape-human relationship is between Noa and Mae. and their relationship is complex. not really that friendly and certainly not familial. no trust. some kind of begrudging respect maybe? i just think it would be neat if in further installments they explored a romantic love between a human and an ape. ok.

i KNOW Noa and Soona are probably going to get ape married and they're never going to touch on the subject but i just find it hard to believe that in the last 300 years or so that's NEVER been heard of. apes have the same level of intimacy between each other as humans do in this universe and can willingly consent. what are you so afraid of wes ball

after all, the whole franchise is about how apes, when given intelligence, compare to humans and begs the question: how different are we really?

is it possible for an ape and a human to fall in love?

[floralcavern]

This fandom seriously just… frustrates me to the point where I’m writing this rant. 

This fandom does not understand flawed and complex characters. 

And, uh. Let’s talk about that. 

How they treat David and Exer:

The amount of bias this fandom holds for Exer and David is astounding. “Oh, the gay boys! They’re so sweet and wouldn’t hurt anyone!” (Paraphrasing, obviously, but this fandom does seriously put them on a pedestal)

When David and Exer were introduced, from very early on, they were shown to be heavily flawed characters. 

Exer is responsible for the entire story. He tricked Jackson to going to the girl’s changing room, which is what kicked off everything. Jackson getting bullied and harassed, Jackson eventually having his name cleared, Jackson not trusting the REDs, Jackson eventually learning about Exer’s powers, Exer having his powers found out, etc. This all started because Exer fucked with Jackson. He gaslit him to hell and back, he harassed him, he was jealous that Jackson was getting close with Brenda, his ex who he felt very possessive over. 

And David? David is a follower. He hears people saying “Jackson did something bad” and he immediately turned on Jackson, not hearing him out. Gossiping about him, talking shit to his face, letting people bully and harass him. And I understand that it was his sister, so he’s bound to feel more protective. But what happens when he learns it was actually Pamela who was ‘harassed’ by Jackson? He doesn’t care. 

And that moves me to David and Exer’s treatment of Pamela. Exer, like with Jackson, gaslit the shit out of her. He bullied her, called her a witch, called her creepy and a stalker and a liar. And he did this even though he knew she was right. He let people bully this poor girl to the point where she’s a loner with no friends and is picked on every day. 

I’m not saying Exer isn’t a good character. He actually has one of my favorite character arcs! But quit putting David and Exer on pedestals. Quit acting like they didn’t have any of the bad shit Jackson’s did to them coming. 

Speaking of Jackson…:

 Holy shit. This fandom is ruthless to Jackson Smith. And for no gosh damn reason. 

“He’s mean to Exer and David!”

Did you miss the whole ‘Exer and David harassing him in the same way they did to Pamela’ thing? They literally ruined all of his friendships and his social status. Jackson was just the new kid trying to fit in and they never gave him that chance. 

“He’s so emo and cringe!”

He is literally so depressed that he has to go to therapy. Exer and David bullied him so he is constantly guarded and has serious trust issues since they were his friends. 

“He’s using the diary to control Exer’s life and ruin it!”

Season 3 premier shows otherwise. He’s only testing out the diary to see what it can do. You telling me that if you didn’t have a magical diary that can control the universe centered around someone, you wouldn’t test it out? Don’t you lie to me. And he hasn’t even done anything horrible. In fact, he uses the diary as a way to try and help Exer and David after William kicked David out of the house. He may not like Exer, but he has good morals. He’s not going to let someone who is suffering be open to any harm. That’s why he used the diary to try and protect them both. And when it backfired, he decided to stop using the diary. He didn’t want anyone to get hurt or for anything bad to happen. 

“He beat up David!”

There we go again, putting Exer and David on pedestals. Guys, you’re blowing it way outta proportion. Jackson was in a fist fight with Exer, David tried to intervene and got kicked in the face. You know how people tell you don’t try to stop two dogs fighting unless you want to get bit? That’s what happened here. 

Jackson is literally just a traumatized kid. He lost his mom at a young age g age and moved to a new place and was hoping to make some new friends. His ‘friends’ immediately turn their backs on him and harass him. He learns one of them is behind everything that caused this? Ya, don’t tell me you wouldn’t be fucking pissed either. 

We are the audience. We have more insight to these character’s mind and situations than Jackson does. Put yourself into his perspective. 

Anyways, thank you for coming to my TED Talk. Make sure to pet Lucy-furr on your way out. 

[raven-at-the-writing-desk]

The anon who sent the malleus ask. While there are some characters in twst cast that I tolerate there is just the Octavinelle trio that I dislike significantly. There actions during book 3 just made my blood boil. Vil was also on that list but he managed to redeem himself somewhat in book 6. At least he apologised. Can't say the same for merfolk trio. I'm curious though. Despite what they were doing to everyone (especially yuu) they are still very popular within the fandom. Your thoughts?

… Which Malleus ask?? I have several in my inbox and queue 💦

I think it's important to first establish that people do not always base whether they like/dislike a character based on the morality of the actions that character made in-universe. TWST is a game with a wide variety of characters, and a game which centers on both the good and the evil that they are capable of. Some characters apologize for their actions (Riddle with his apology tart, Vil at the start of book 6, Idia mumbles a sorry at the end of book 6), others don't or may have apologized off-screen (Jamil, Leona, Azul). We shouldn't expect them all to react to their issues in the same way, and nor does lack of a formal apology mean they do not feel remorse or aren't addressing their issues on their own way. For example, while we may not see Azul utter a "sorry" to anyone, we do see him and the twins changing up the business model at the Mostro Lounge after his OB, both in terms of food/drink sales and in terms of how to get one of his well-sought-after consultations. Many of the students, the OB boys in particular, do dubious things and that was a huge part of the advertising and marketing for TWST (and still is to this day); the franchise largely pulls fans who are interested in these types of narratives.

This brings me to Octavinelle. Was what they did scummy? Yeah. Do people have a right to judge them and dislike because of what they did? Also yes. But they remain popular anyway because the wrongs they committed are not the only things defining them. You have Azul's backstory, the complex friendship-business partnership deal between the trio, the very cohesive mermaid mafia theme--and, despite all the bad they've done, you can't also help but respect and admire them for the intelligence and planning it takes to carry out the operations that they do (+ using that asset when they return to help in book 4). Running a restaurant on their own AND Azul's... other business... while also being students and participating in clubs is nothing to sneeze at. They have redeeming qualities that fans love outside of being upset at them or holding them accountable for book 3.

I think what also helps to offset the evil of their actions in book 3 is the fact that it can be argued the 225 students they suckered "opted in" (and Yuu "opted in" too, it’s not like Azul forced them to sign). They came to Azul of their own free will seeking help, and Azul provided that help. He laid out the conditions and made them VERY clear, and it was the students who agreed to his terms and signed on the dotted line. Technically Azul did nothing "legally wrong" and played by the rules (respecting client confidentiality, taking advantage of loopholes), which is why Crowley cannot intervene. And, as Leona states later in book 3, anyone who falls for Azul's schemes is dumb and only has themselves to blame for thinking there is such an easy way out to their woes. Yes, it was dirty for Azul and the twins to interfere and/or set up the conditions in their favor, but there's also a degree of responsibility on the signers to read the terms and consider where the contracts may be deficient.

My point is, people will like what they like and it doesn’t solely come down to the righteousness (or lack thereof) of the characters’ behavior. I’d also say that behaviors themselves don’t always fall into “good” or “bad” categories. Azul’s contracts themselves are technically neutral. Other times, it depends on perspective. For examples, Malleus deems his actions in book 7 "good" but to everyone else it's "bad"--and the players, looking on, have to grapple with the dual nature of it. That's a discussion for another time though, I don't want to go too out of the scope of this ask.

[imastoryteller]

How to Craft a Compelling Morally Grey Character: A Step-by-Step Guide

Step 1: Define the Character’s Core Traits

Identify Strengths and Virtues: List positive traits that make the character likable or admirable. These could include bravery, intelligence, loyalty, or compassion.

Identify Flaws and Vices: List negative traits that add complexity and realism. These could include arrogance, selfishness, impatience, or a propensity for violence.

Step 2: Establish Motivations and Backstory

Create a Detailed Backstory: Develop a background that explains why the character has their particular mix of virtues and flaws. Consider their upbringing, significant life events, and personal experiences.

Determine Core Motivations: Identify what drives the character. Is it revenge, love, ambition, survival, or something else? Motivations should be realistic and relatable.

Step 3: Develop Moral Ambiguity

Set Up Moral Dilemmas: Place your character in situations where they must make difficult choices with no clear right or wrong answer. These dilemmas should challenge their morals and reveal their complexity.

Showcase Contradictions: Allow the character to make decisions that might seem contradictory. For example, they might commit a crime to protect someone they love, revealing both a moral and an immoral side.

Step 4: Create Dynamic Relationships

Construct Meaningful Relationships: Develop relationships with other characters that highlight different aspects of your morally grey character. These relationships can help explore their multifaceted personality.

Use Relationships to Drive Conflict: Relationships can be a source of moral conflict and development. Conflicts with friends, family, or rivals can push your character to reveal their grey areas.

Step 5: Show Consequences and Growth

Illustrate the Impact of Actions: Show the real-world consequences of the character’s morally ambiguous decisions. This adds realism and stakes to the story.

Allow for Character Growth: Let your character evolve. They might become more virtuous or more corrupt over time. This evolution keeps the character dynamic and interesting.

Step 6: Balance Sympathetic and Unsympathetic Traits

Make Them Relatable: Ensure the character has traits or experiences that the audience can relate to or sympathize with, even if they do questionable things.

Maintain Complexity: Avoid making the character too sympathetic or too unsympathetic. The balance between good and bad traits should make the audience feel conflicted about the character.

Step 7: Use Subtlety and Nuance

Avoid Clear Labels: Do not overtly label the character as good or evil. Allow their actions and motivations to speak for themselves.

Employ Subtlety: Use nuanced behavior and dialogue to reveal the character’s moral complexity. Avoid heavy-handed exposition.

Step 8: Test and Refine

Seek Feedback: Share your character with others and seek feedback on their complexity and believability. Adjust based on constructive criticism.

Refine Motivations and Actions: Continuously refine the character’s motivations and actions to ensure they remain compelling and consistent throughout the story.

Example: Crafting a Morally Grey Character

Core Traits:

Strengths: Intelligent, determined, loyal.

Flaws: Arrogant, manipulative, vengeful.

Backstory:

Grew up in a tough neighborhood, witnessing crime and corruption.

Lost a loved one to a gang, fueling a desire for revenge.

Motivations:

Driven by a need to protect their remaining family and seek revenge.

Moral Dilemmas:

Joins a criminal organization to infiltrate it and bring it down from within.

Struggles with the ethical implications of committing crimes for a greater good.

Relationships:

Has a strained relationship with a sibling who disapproves of their methods.

Forms a complicated friendship with a morally upright police officer.

Consequences and Growth:

Faces the legal and emotional consequences of their actions.

Gradually questions their own morality and seeks redemption.

Balance:

Helps the community but uses unethical means.

Shows moments of kindness and ruthlessness.

Subtlety:

Reveals their inner conflict through small actions and dialogue.

Avoids overt explanations of their morality, letting the audience interpret.

By following these steps, you can create a compelling morally grey character that adds depth and intrigue to your story.

---

+ If you find my content valuable, consider Support This Blog on Patreon!

[alphacentaurinebula]

I need to talk about the Edinburgh minisode, because I have SO. MANY. THOUGHTS.

It's sort of an afterthought minisode in some ways. Before the Beginning gives us so much giddy joy (despite the ominous foreshadowing). 1941 gives us all the giddy romance. Job gives us so much insight into both characters histories and how they came to be who they are and work together...

The Resurrectionists gives us a morality play, basically, but also gives us Crowley high (and HIGH) on laudanum and plenty of bright shiny bits...

...so the morality side maybe doesn't get as much focus.

Which is a shame. Because the Edinburgh episode demonstrates perfectly the flaw in Aziraphale's understanding of the world that leads to him going to heaven.

When we start out in 1827, we are introduced to grave robbing and Aziraphale immediately decides that it is Bad (a sin). He does all he can to prevent the young woman he meets and likes from doing Bad (sinning), assumably to try to pave her way into Heaven. And Crowley tries to help her with her grave robbing, much to Aziraphale's chagrin.

Grave Robbing = Bad; Crowley supports Grave Robbing; Crowley=Bad

When they meet Mr Surgeon, and Crowley starts to ask some pointed questions meant to poke holes in Aziraphale's certainty, he flips entirely the other way, without noticing any of the other moral greyness (like the fact that Mr Surgeon would never take the risks or do the dirty work himself. Which is pretty important, since we learn in Edinburgh in the present that Mr Surgeon was so convinced of his own superiority and importance later on in his life that he started murdering people (probably "unfortunates" like Elspeth) when he couldn't get corpses fast enough).

Grave Robbing = Good; Crowley supports Grave Robbing; Crowley = Good

When he is then confronted with the idea of selling Wee Morag's body, and Crowley points out it is different when it's someone you know, Aziraphale is basically frozen in indecision. He doesn't know what the good thing is anymore.

He spouts the party line about the fact that starting off poor somehow gives Elspeth an advantage when it comes to Heaven, but is unable to explain why or how, not even to himself. And when he's put on the spot as Elspeth tries to kill herself, he doesn't have any arguments to offer.

CROWLEY: Say something! That... convinces her that poverty is ineffably wonderful and that life is worth living. Go on!

But despite all the moral ambiguity present throughout the episode, Aziraphale still sees everything as black and white. First, grave robbing is bad, then it is good. First, Crowley is bad (when he has the opposite position to Aziraphale), then he is good (when he has the same position). Aziraphale never understands Crowley's constant questions are a challenge to the very idea that there IS a 'good' in this situation. He never examines or questions the complex systems of class and sexism and capitalism which force Elspeth to this desperate recourse, or the laws which prevent Mr Surgeon from accessing bodies for research via legal means.

He doesn't see the systemic injustic. He just sees individual moral actors making either good or bad choices.

(and just to deviate slightly from the Edinburgh minisode -- while he says he understands that sometimes things are not just black or white but also grey, in 1941 - I don't actually think his grey and Crowley's grey mean the same thing. The 'greyest' thing that Aziraphale does in 1941 is help a showgirls theatre and hide information from Hell - this is not the same thing as truly seeing that some situations simply don't have a Right Thing to do, or understanding that systems shape and control individuals' decisions, so the idea that humans all have the same ability to choose Right is an illusion.

AZIRAPHALE: You know, they cannot be truly holy unless they also get the opportunity to be wicked.

So it is no wonder at all that when the Metatron offers him the opportunity to run Heaven, he doesn't see a broken institution or systemic oppression/injustice, but rather a series of bad actors preventing Heaven from achieving the Goodness it is meant to represent.

[obsessive-valentine]

Are your request open? Can I request a sequel to Barbarian?

I know he's kind and everything but I don't think I could give in to him 100%, like yes, probably return the kindness but never love him. Reader feels a lot of guilt about the attack and I think that after the event and realizing that they didn't have much to do in the situation, they just felt numb about everything, living on autopilot except when they are with their dog.

This is just my interpretation and basically a self insertion sorry haha.

I would love to know about their daily lives! Does the barbarian take reader to war with him? (If you delve deeper into my idea) Would he realize that reader doesn't talk to him much? Would he be jealous of the dog?

Requests are always open, I love to hear about people’s thoughts on my silly little characters lol.

I did focus more on the barbarians perspective on the relationship rather the actual complexity of the whole thing and psychological depth of it all, it was a rather shallow Drabble but I’d love to expand more on his character. I’ll see if I come up with any domestic short stories for him in the coming weeks, love that idea thanks :)

Yandere!Barbarian X GN!Reader Headcanons

The barbarian himself isn’t a good person, morally or in any other way, and he knows that. He understands what he’s done to you -pulled you away from everything you’ve ever known or loved leaving it all in tatters- he understands he’s killed innocent and guilty all the same and will continue to do so for the clan to thrive. And he doesn’t feel bad about any of it.

He definitely tries to sympathise with how his greed effects you, but, he doesn’t regret his actions but does understand to an extent how hard this is for you. This is why he tries to over compensate by gift giving and finding it within himself to be gentle and patient, so as not to damage you further (despite that being the polar opposite of how he was raised).

He’s not super emotionally intelligent so doesn’t really know what to do aside from the above. Anyone with common sense will learn fast that they can’t fight him off so it’s very possible to become numb and retreat into the mind. If you wont retreat into his arms he will try make it so you feel comfort in his tent that way you’re not always on autopilot but enjoying a craft or something in your quiet tent if even just for a hour.

Honestly though he doesn’t really mind if you’re on autopilot but does expect you to tolerate him, so if you are adamant on distance or fighting him you might trigger his temper. Like pulling and tugging you around, making you sleep in the same bed no exceptions, raising his voice to remind you who you’re trying to challenge etc.

A very tearful darling is a whole other situation, he cant stand seeing you cry, he’d be sobbing, crying, throwing up on the inside while trying to maintain a poker face and think up a solution.

Onto a lighter topic, the barbarians do move camp every few weeks and that includes reader (dont worry he never makes you walk) they don’t have a permanent home just their tents though our barbarian does intend to settle down at some point once the fighting becomes to much hassle for his ageing bones. But never once does he imagine bringing you into one of his raids, rebellions or battles.

He leaves you at camp with the members that aren’t participating that particular day (like the few women, elders or barbarians that just didn’t go-nobody’s forced to fight every battle, just to pull their weight). And of course your beloved wolf dog who he doesn’t regret, he doesn’t get jealous easily especially of the dog he got you for the soul purpose of cheering you up, if he can’t cheer you up at least the dog can and that’s a win in his books.

He’s really not high maintenance, as long as at the end of the day he load up your plate with his finest hunt and sit near you while you both eat, watching whatever fight breaks out in the clan from a safe distance before he has to eventually step in. There’s not much entertainment in the middle of the woods during the evening so you both take what you can get even if it’s drunken fight.

Maybe he takes you and the dog out for walks or fetch if it gets really boring at camp. Will bring you the best stick he finds for you to play fetch with the dog, he sees how much the dog means to you so he treats it with utmost respect. He’ll let you have control over this one little thing in your life for your own sakes.

Therefore while he would prefer you to love him truly, he doesn’t expect it (mostly because half the time he can’t tell the difference between your compliance and you showing affection), doesn’t stop him from trying though. He’s a saint compared to the barbarians before him... only for you though.

[steakout-05]

it's so funny seeing the negative fan reactions to Jax being even more of an asshole than he was in episode 1. like first of all, how can you not enjoy his dickhead antics and growing frustrations at the things that aren't allowing him to be a dickhead 100% of the time. i think it's really entertaining to watch him be a complete jackass to everything and everyone! and second of all, i feel like this is an effect of twitter fandom kiddies always praising a character who's a perfect angel or a "bad boy but he's bad in a good way..." character and deeming characters "immoral" as soon as they do something bad. as soon as that character they attached themselves to isn't what they thought they were, they get super mad about it, even though Jax hasn't really changed at all since episode 1. it's like seeing Jax have more opportunities to be an utterly selfish and destructive asshole put them off from the character entirely because "ohh he's mean now". it's so weird. like god forbid a character has flaws or does objectively horrible things that makes them more entertaining /sarc.

it's kinda like the whole discourse surrounding Pomni "abandoning" Ragatha in the pilot. a lot of people were deeming Pomni to be a terrible character because she did something that could be perceived as "morally incorrect" when 1. she was scared and confused out of her mind and practically in survival mode the entire time she was there, 2. she literally just met Ragatha a while ago and wasn't in the right place to properly prioritise anything but her own survival, and 3. characters are allowed to do """immoral""" things because it's interesting, it makes them more complex and it drives the plot. oh yeah, and they're not real!!! they can't hurt anyone!!! it's so confusing how people will see a character with flaws and then get so enraged about how immoral they are, while completely missing the point as to why a character has flaws in the first place.

i just find it funny how people saw Jax in the first episode, visualised a bad boy version of him in their heads and then got super mad when he was even meaner deliberately in the second one and isn't exactly what they wanted him to be. like you guys just pulled a full 180 and went from loving him to despising him in and instant. characters will have something deserving of a character arc and twitter fandom kiddies will become livid about it.

by the way, i thought Jax being even more of an asshole shined a brighter light on his troubled nature. like,,, to me it seems Jax's asshole-ish attitude is kind of a mask for deeper insecurities, especially when you see his face soften during Kaufmo's funeral, before quickly replacing it with anger and walking away. i think he's grappling with some heavy shit and trying to hide it behind a troublemaker attitude and constantly causing chaos and destruction to distract himself. i think that's why he got so angry and frustrated during the second episode, because he couldn't always have his way. he's definitely hiding something. whether it has something to do with Kaufmo, his situation or both, i wanna see what happens and what's going on with him.

personally, i want Jax to get worse, because it would be a very interesting look at how he deals with the circus compared to everyone else. i want him to get so aggressive and asshole-ish that he does something he deeply regrets (in reference to what a tweet from Gooseworx teases). to me, the biggest allure of TADC is the way the characters react to what's going on around them. each character has such a different way of coping with everything and i think Jax's way of coping, desiring chaos and death and destruction, would be an interesting look into who he is as a character. i want his harmful coping skills to drive him to a breaking point because hell yeah, character development!!! i want to see what makes the asshole into something closer to not really being as much of an asshole as he started out as.