#wtf loki isn't narcissistic

[chromomantic]

Ugh. Dreamlight Valley, seriously?

It was already annoying that with all the characters we get, we had to have Mother Gothel. (I mean who tf asked for her? Literally no one?? I get its for Rapunzel stuff but still...) Not only that but there's no option to get rid of villagers like in Animal Crossing if you don't like them. (And I would very much like to kick her ass straight into the fucking void that's for sure.)

But now in The Beast's 7th level quest, The Crown of The Claw, her clearly being a narcissistic abuser (as she's always been depicted in both movie and most especially in the game (Why was she chosen/allowed to be in the game?? Who dumb terrible idea was this??? Especially if they're not gonna properly address this???)) is front and center and the main focal point of the quest.

Beast is rightfully upset over Gothel saying terrible things to Belle, but our playable character is written as if he's being overly dramatic and ridiculous. This is absolutely not how I would respond.

And now we have to wait to let Beast "cool down" and now talk to Gothel to get "her side of the story". This makes me both fucking furious and absolutely sick to my stomach.

The reason this bothers me so much and why it isn't how I would react is because I have and still receive abuse from the person who's supposed to be my "mother" (also a narcissistic abuser). I know what's its like to hear terrible, terrible things from such a person. I know what it feels like. It's the reason my fav characters are (OG) MCU Loki, BG3's Astarion, and BioShock Infinite's Elizabeth Comstock is because I relate so heavily to them, because of abuse and them being abuse victims.

I wouldn't be on a moralistic "high horse" and wait for Beast to "calm down" and think he's being dramatic. I'd be just as furious as him, if not more. Honestly, if this wasn't a kids game, if this was something like BG3 instead, Gothel would go the same way as Cazador if I had a choice. An actual choice, unlike how I have zero choice in the matter with this game. Despite very clearly not choosing the answers that treat him as overdramatic and "needing to calm down", the game still portrays my character as acting as such.

And then on top of that, forces me to wait until Beast has "calmed down" and, worst of all, have me talk to Gothel to get "her side of [fucking] story"??!? No. No, absolutely fucking not. Abusers should never get to tell their side of their story, but they don't tell a truthful side to their story ever. They'll take the truth and twist it so they're never to blame and always a victim. And that's if they choose to use any truth at all. Sometimes they straight up lie. There's no "their side of the story". It's just a means for them to control the fucking narrative in other people's eyes.

This is gross. I hate this. Gameloft wtf.

[oh-so-heavenly]

On the portrayal of pain in Loki (2022)

Loki had many things the fans enjoyed, and I did too find several aspects of the series that were truly incredible, although there were some things that overshadowed them (the se!fcest, not fully acknowledging loki's gender as fluid, etc.) but the one thing that really pained me on a personal level was how they portrayed loki's pain.

tom hiddleston's performance is immaculate and it's obvious he truly loves and cares for the character, but there were certain dialogues on the series that were really harmful to me because of how much i care for loki.

i didn't watch thor until i had already watched the avengers, and it was 2014 or 15 by then. the movie had long since been out but for me watching loki in avengers was an incredible experience; it was right then when i started to be a marvel fan (not only because of loki but because of the movie as a whole) and i saw loki as a charismatic villain and i loved him. then i watching thor. i know that thor isn't precisely in the top five best marvel movies but it completely changed how i saw loki.

in avengers, he's the villain. in thor, he's still la boy. tom hiddleston's performance completely stole the show because it's in that movie where we truly see loki, not as a villain but as thor's brother. i'm glad i watched the avengers first because watching thor felt like seeing the background story of a character i already loved. there, we can see how loki is often not taken seriously because of his lying nature, how he isn't the favourite and how his brother (without even realising he's doing it) is sometimes unfair to him. we see a loki that discovers his whole life is a lie and it's the most devastating truth he could have ever heard. it's horrible.

in loki the series we see the avengers' loki, quite literally. in my opinion, the way it was written it seemed as if the people who did it only saw avengers (or decided it was the only movie that mattered) while leaving thor's loki completely aside. if you think about it you'll see it makes perfect sense, if you only saw avengers and then watched the series you could actually describe loki as narcissistic, egoistic, manipulative, and cruel.

all these descriptions ignore the fact 2012 loki is a character deeply in pain. not because of that headcanon saying he was tortured by thanos, but because all his life is a lie, he feels not only unloved but unlovable and the only way he knows how to deal with it is by being cruel, because while he's hurting others no-one can hurt him (also that's what he learnt from odin and thor). he is touch-starved, has low self-esteem, trust issues and fear of abandonment. he's not attention seeking, he's crying for help.

this whole essay is actually about a very particular scene which is really bittersweet to me because i both love it and hate it. the scene is that one in which he's imprisoned with sif who is constantly repeating how horrible he is while she hurts him (lets have into account loki already thinks he's the worse). it's a horrible scene that would kinda make sense for avengers' loki but not for thor's loki because in reality he isn't any of those things.

then comes the bittersweet, because mobius appears to rescue him and he tells him he can be anything he wants to be, even someone good.

now, this is nice, really sweet, i love it, but it also hurts. it hurts because loki isn't bad, he isn't some worthless unlovable narcissistic villain who can "be good" if he decides he wants to be, loki is already good (even if he has done bad things). and to be honest i feel very represented by loki, specially in his struggles and his anger and his pain and fear, so in this scene what it felt like to me was:

there's a person who has lost everything, has low self-esteem, believes themselves to be unlovable and literally the worse. and instead of telling them "no you're not" the writers decided to go with a "yes, you are but hey, maybe if you try to be better (because you right now aren't enough) you won't be (unlovable, worthless)".

this scene is the epitome of how they've decided to portray loki's personal trauma (because finding out his whole life is a lie is indeed a trauma, and discovering his destiny is to die and almost all his beloved ones are dead and some of those are kinda his fault also is) and his pain in the series. in episode one there's also some pieces of dialogue like that and in general the first thing the tva should have done was give this man a bloody therapist.

in conclusion, the portrayal of mental illnesses and trauma in the mcu is awful and in loki this keeps happening. all the pain and trauma of a character is erased because he's "the villain" and it's reduced to some selfish self-preserving asshole who might be good if he gets a redemption arc, while in reality the only thing that can make loki get better is learning how to cope with trauma and being appreciated for once.

[lokisprettygirl]

hi sorry, thought this be a better place to rant about TB because evidently the length of said rant doesnt accommodate the number of character available in the comments. anyway, sorry if this is rather lengthy and if this is ever a bother

nooo wtf. first of all, lokis back story in cairo, wtf sameera or whatever her name was. he was beaten to a pulp, darling im so sorry. Things like that make me want to be there and be the one to comfort and nurse him back to full health and it just brakes my heart that he was beaten up in the first place. That bitch didnt deserve him at all, im so sorry darling that you had to fall for that wretched girl only to be left broken and beaten, im so so sorry darling.

second of all, i understand why he's trying to sever the intimate and sacred contact they shared because, one he doesnt want to get hurt again, two he feels guilty that that bloody bastard steve laid a hand on her and hurt and left a mark on her and he wasnt there to help and save her, three he knows he has to give her up when she get married to steve and he cant be there to save her from the torture she going to endure from him and four he's afraid of the capability and power steve and her father have of hurting or killing him like with what happened with whats her name and the fact that she might do the same thing she did

third of all, I understand y/n as well. shes trusted him and he broke whatever that was they had and it hurt her. it made her think and believe in the things those horrible people said to her. Its also making her think that she like poison, that if she gets involved with someone else they'll leave her or they'll get hurt or taken away from her or they'll use her for their own evil scheme. (honestly this might be a terrible metaphor)

Honestly the internal conflict i have with myself will cause my untimely death, Im always like this, I understand or at least try to see both sides and this is great example of it

and lastly four, erik stevens sounded rather familiar to me and i looked it up and it turns out its actually killmonger (sorry i always call him that and might have forgotten his actual name)

Now wtf (it appears i have said this way to much i apologize) now their separated and they thought they still had that time even though they arent "friends" anymore, it still hurts them that their separated ( i dont think this paragraph makes sense sorry) Now lokis appointed to who im assuming is bitchannah or something (honestly i really dont care for the name of the characters that annoy me)

And steve you conniving asshole, thats it hes a bloody fucking bastards asshole. Honestly, everyone but y/n and loki is a narcissistic, self centered asshole that dont give a bloody fuck about anyone but themselves. (then i remembered her mother and that lady from the shelter, their good)

wow im sorry for the length and if this ever bothers you, im simply ranting of how i perceive these characters and this is a testament to your brilliant writing. You are a brilliant brilliant writer and dont let anyone think else, (even me if i ever do or did, which i hope not, if i ever did it wasnt my intention). The complexity in the stories that you muster up to conjure in your head is already brilliant but to share it to the world and to us or me personally is a privilege so thank you

again im sorry for the length of this and wish you a good day darling and hope you get better soon. sending all the love 😊❤️💜💙💚💛😊

Never apologise for a long comment or ran or feedback as I like to call it. Trust me your comments are everything that keeps me going and makes me want to update faster. 😘😘💚

Yeah Sameera really fucked him up badly, he is broken too, just in a different way and they both need to love each other to fix each other. It's just a perfect fit, he's the safe harbor she wants and she's the validation he needs. But their attraction for each other isn't limited to what they need from each other , they both want to protect each other selflessly and that says alot

And yes the new bodyguard is in

I just wanted to finally bring a side character I really like but never have written before

Whether he'd be a friend or foe? We will see 👀👀

You're making me cry with the last paragraph, lately I have been feeling even worse about my writing for some reason but this made me feel so validated. I try to give my characters a solid foundation and I'm just super happy that you feel so invested in them. Thank you for this ask my dear 😍💚

I'm sending all the love too 💓💓

[sofiadragon]

I just want to point out that we should compare and contrast the backstory recap of WandaVision, Falcon and the Winter Soldier, and Loki. These are the TV shows that Disney burdened with the purpose of getting casual fans and new viewers up to speed on who everyone is and WTF they do. It is absolutely fair to make this comparison. In each series the main characters had very explicit scenes where they talked about why they do the things they do, both the good and the bad.

Wanda gets to talk about her trauma from growing up in a war ravaged country. On the side we get the destruction of SHIELD and creation of SWORD and setup for characters who were background players in SHIELD shenanigans stepping up to take on main character roles as hero replacements for the dead/retired in that arena and hinting at the type of antagonists they will face.

FatWS talks very explicitly about trauma and mental healthcare for the two title characters, even showing therapy sessions. It does some worldbuilding to set up the type of antagonists these heroes will be facing (both in the show and going forward) and creates a specific villain we will certainly see again. It goes deep into brand new backstory for the guy who was light on that and summarized things for the one who had plenty, then builds on that with some very real takes on modern racism and the glass ceilings less fortunate families face when trying to thrive and build wealth.

Sure, both shows have their flaws because nothing made by human hands if perfect, but they both succeed in establishing the backstory of the title character(s) and developing them so they are ready for what the next set of movies is going to throw their way.

The Loki show does a good job of worldbuilding for the sake of the next phase of marvel stories. We can expect lots of multiverse shenanigans and the TVA was set up as a nasty antagonist hiding behind the curtain and pulling strings with ruthless confidence and near limitless power. It also explains that any plot holes from the previous films were the fault of this one guy and the main character stabs him for being such a despicable creature. As a show meant to set up the next big bad - Kang - and get new fans ready to see all the heroes take a crack at taking him down it gets full marks, but as a recap of information about the title character?

Loki's personal recap starts with a brand new bit of backstory - a dare he had to complete on the 1970's after losing a bet with Thor. Great: skill set and personality established with an entertaining new story about who he was before his trauma... but then it skips straight over the entire first movie he is in. It skips his primary motivation entirely - and he was clearly just a mischief maker for the laughs according to the characterization we do get in the show so never mentioning why that changed is very obvious to a critical viewer.

Loki is, arguably, the one who brought the last big bad to our part of the universe - he met Thanos and accoding to the wiki spiled the beans about the Tesseract being on Earth under some level of duress. Where is that scene from his backstory? Why do we get D.B. Cooper but not the off screen moment that was most importan to the plot of the last decade of movies? Not a word about it is said anywhere. It is all framed as because he is just wrong. He is chaotic and senseless because he is greedy, arrogant, and childish [traits the first movie assigns to Thor who he is meant to contrast.] The most explanation given for why he did what he did is this: he is a narcissist and a puppetmaster forced him into the role of someone who causes harm so that others can become the best versions of themselves while beating him down. As shown in the scene with Sif, he does hurtful things for no reason whatsoever. The racism, the lies, the shattering of his self-image resulting in a psychotic break... file not found. There is one line about his adoption when talking to Sylvie and it isn't even about him. He brings it up to try and commiserate with a kindred spirit and then gets off the topic instantly when she says she didn't share that experience, giving no hint that this was a major life event and establishing to people who understand the significance from seeing Thor (2011) that their life experiences have nothing in common.

They introduce Sylvie as a new, superior version of Loki who shares none of his trauma and has none of the same reasons for her actions. She is quite correct in saying "I'm not you" at the end because we are the sum of our experiences and her timeline branched from his so long ago they have no common memories. Not even of learning magic from their mother.

The Loki show does not explain the title character's backstory. It replaces him with a new character that does not have his trauma instead of confronting his trauma. He does not rise above his issues to become ready to face a new threat, he is beaten down and framed as the one who must always lose so that others can become the best versions of themselves - and at the end, in the last scene, everyone except for him has become a new version of themselves that doesn't even remember who he is because he doesn't matter to the story - only Sylvie does.

Never mentioned in series that was supposed to be about him: