#I know this does not apply to every evil character | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

cripplecharacters · 2 months

Text

The Mask Trope, and Disfiguremisia in Media

[large text: The Mask Trope, and Disfiguremisia in Media]

If you followed this blog for more than like a week, you're probably familiar with “the mask trope” or at least with me complaining about it over and over in perpetuity. But why is it bad and why can't this dude shut up about it?

Let's start with who this trope applies to: characters with facial differences. There is some overlap with blind characters as well; think of the blindfold that is forced on a blind character for no reason. Here is a great explanation of it in this context by blindbeta. It's an excellent post in general, even if your character isn't blind or low vision you should read at least the last few paragraphs.

Here's a good ol’ tired link to what a facial difference is, but to put it simply:

If you have a character, who is a burn survivor or has scars, who wears a mask, this is exactly this trope.

The concept applies to other facial differences as well, but scars and burns are 99% of the representation and “representation” we get, so I'll be using these somewhat interchangeably here.

The mask can be exactly what you think, but it refers to any facial covering that doesn't have a medical purpose. So for example, a CPAP mask doesn't count for this trope, but a Magic Porcelain Mask absolutely does. Bandages do as well. If it covers the part of the face that is “different”, it can be a mask in the context used here.

Eye patches are on thin ice because while they do serve a medical purpose in real life, in 99.9% of media they are used for the same purpose as a mask. It's purely aesthetic.

With that out of the way, let's get into why this trope sucks and find its roots. Because every trope is just a symptom of something, really.

Roughly in order of the least to most important reasons...

Why It Sucks

[large text: Why It Sucks]

It's overdone. As in — boring. You made your character visibly different, and now they're no longer that. What is the point? Just don't give them the damn scar if you're going to hide it.

Zero connection with reality. No one does this. I don't even know how to elaborate on this. This doesn't represent anyone because no one does this.

Disability erasure. For the majority of characters with facial differences, their scars or burns somehow don't disable them physically, so the only thing left is the visible part… aaand the mask takes care of it too. Again, what's the point? If you want to make your disabled character abled, then just have them be abled. What is the point of "curing" them other than to make it completely pointless?

Making your readers with facial differences feel straight up bad. I'm gonna be honest! This hurts to see when it's all you get, over and over. Imagine there's this thing that everyone bullied you about, everyone still stares at, that is with you 24/7. Imagine you wanted to see something where people like you aren't treated like a freakshow. Somewhat unrealistic, but imagine that. That kind of world would only exist in fiction, right? So let's look into fiction- oh, none of the positive (or at least not "child-murderer evil") characters look like me. I mean they do, but they don't. They're forced to hide the one thing that connects us. I don't want to hide myself. I don't want to be told over and over that this is what people like me should do. That this is what other people expect so much that it's basically the default way a person with a facial difference can exist. I don't want this.

Perpetuating disfiguremisia.

"Quick" Disfiguremisia Talk

[large text: "Quick" Disfiguremisia Talk]

It's quick when compared to my average facial difference discussion post, bear with me please.

Disfiguremisia; portmanteau of disfigure from “disfigurement” and -misia, Greek for hatred.

Also known as discrimination of those mythical horrifically deformed people.

It shows up in fiction all the time; in-universe and in-narrative. Mask trope is one of the most common* representations of it, and it's also a trope that is gaining traction more and more, both in visual art and writing. This is a trope I particularly hate, because it's a blatant symptom of disfiguremisia. It's not hidden and it doesn't try to be. It's a painful remainder that I do not want nor need.

*most common is easily “evil disfigured villain”, just look at any horror media. But that's for another post, if ever.

When you put your character in a mask, it sends a clear message: in your story, facial differences aren't welcome. The world is hostile. Other characters are hostile. The author is, quite possibly, hostile. Maybe consciously, but almost always not, they just don't think that disfiguremisia means anything because it's the default setting. No one wants to see you because your face makes you gross and unsightly. If you have a burn; good luck, but we think you're too ugly to have a face. Have a scar? Too bad, now you don't. Get hidden.

Everything here is a decision that was made by the author. You are the one who makes the world. You are the person who decides if being disabled is acceptable or not there. The story doesn't have a mind of its own, you chose to make it disfiguremisic.

It doesn't have to be.

Questions to Ask Yourself

[large text: Questions to Ask Yourself]

Since I started talking about facial differences on this blog, I have noticed a very specific trend in how facial differences are treated when compared to other disabilities. A lot of writers and artists are interested in worldbuilding where accessibility is considered, where disabled people are accepted, where neurodivergence is seen as an important part of the human experience, not something “other”. This is amazing, genuinely.

Yet, absolutely no one seems to be interested in a world that is anything but cruel to facial differences. There's no escapist fantasies for us.

You see this over and over, at some point it feels like the same story with different names attached.

The only way a character with a facial difference can exist is to hide it. Otherwise, they are shamed by society. Seen as something gross. I noticed that it really doesn't matter who the character is, facial difference is this great equalizer. Both ancient deities and talking forest cats get treated as the same brand of disgusting thing as long as they're scarred, as long as they had something explode in their face, as long as they've been cursed. They can be accomplished, they can be a badass, they can be the leader of the world, they can kill a dragon, but they cannot, under any circumstances, be allowed to peacefully exist with a facial difference. They have to hide it in the literal sense, or be made to feel that they should. Constantly ashamed, embarrassed that they dare to have a face.

Question one to ask yourself: why is disfiguremisia a part of your story?

I'm part of a few minority groups. I'm an immigrant, I'm disabled, I'm queer. I get enough shit in real life for this so I like to take a break once in a while. I love stories where transphobia isn't a thing. Where xenophobia doesn't come up. But my whole life, I can't seem to find stories that don't spew out disfiguremisia in one way or the other at the first possible opportunity.

Why is disfiguremisia a default part of your worldbuilding? Why can't it be left out? Why in societies with scarred saviors and warriors is there such intense disgust for them? Why can't anyone even just question why this is the state of the world?

Why is disfiguremisia normal in your story?

Question two: do you know enough about disfiguremisia to write about it?

Ask yourself, really. Do you? Writers sometimes ask if or how to portray ableism when they themselves aren't disabled, but no one bothers to wonder if maybe they aren't knowledgeable enough to make half their story about their POV character experiencing disfiguremisia. How much do you know, and from where? Have you read Mikaela Moody or any other advocates’ work around disfiguremisia? Do you understand the way it intersects; with being a trans woman, with being Black? What is your education on this topic?

And for USAmericans... do you know what "Ugly Laws" are, and when they ended?

Question three: what does your story associate with facial difference — and why?

If I had to guess; “shame”, “embarrassment”, “violence”, "disgust", “intimidation”, “trauma”, “guilt”, “evil”, “curse”, “discomfort”, “fear”, or similar would show up.

Why doesn't it associate it with positive concepts? Why not “hope” or “love” or “pride” or “community”? Why not “soft” or “delicate”? Dare I say, “beauty” or “innocence”? Why not “blessing”? “Acceptance”?

Why not “normal”?

Question four: why did you make the character the way they are?

Have you considered that there are other things than “horrifically burned for some moral failing” or “most traumatic scenario put to paper”? Why is it always “a tough character with a history of violence” and never “a Disfigured princess”? Why not “a loving parent” or “a fashionable girl”, instead of “the most unkind person you ever met” and “total badass who doesn’t care about anything - other than how scary their facial difference is to these poor ableds”? Don’t endlessly associate us with brutality and suffering. We aren’t violent or manipulative or physically strong or brash or bloodthirsty by default. We can be soft, and frail and gentle and kind - and we can still be proud and unashamed.

Question five: why is your character just… fine with all this?

Can’t they make a community with other people with facial differences and do something about this? Demand the right to exist as disabled and not have to hide their literal face? Why are they cool with being dehumanized and treated with such hatred? Especially if they fall into the "not so soft and kind" category that I just talked about, it seems obvious to me that they would be incredibly and loudly pissed off about being discriminated against over and over... Why can't your character, who is a subject of disfiguremisia, realize that maybe it's disfiguremisia that's the problem, and try to fix it?

Question six: why is your character wearing a mask?

Usually, there's no reason. Most of the time the author hasn't considered that there even should be one, the character just wears a mask because that's what people with facial differences do in their mind. Most writers aren't interested in this kind of research or even considering it as a thing they should do. The community is unimportant to them, it's not like we are real people who read books. They think they understand, because to them it's not complex, it's not nuanced. It's ugly = bad. Why would you need a reason?

For cases where the reason is stated, I promise, I have heard of every single one. To quote, "to spare others from looking at them". I have read, "content warning: he has burn scars under the mask, he absolutely hates taking it off!", emphasis not mine. Because "he hates the way his skin looks", because "they care for their appearance a lot" (facial differences make you ugly, remember?). My favorite: "only has scars and the mask when he's a villain, not as a hero", just to subtly drive the point home. This isn't the extreme end of the spectrum. Now, imagine being a reader with a facial difference. This is your representation, sitting next to Freddy Krueger and Voldemort.

How do you feel?

F.A.Q. [frequently asked questions]

[large text: F.A.Q. [frequently asked questions]]

As in, answers and “answers” to common arguments or concerns.

“Actually they want to hide their facial difference” - your character doesn’t have free will. You want them to hide it. Again; why.

“They are hiding it to be more inconspicuous!” - I get that there are elves in their world, but there’s no universe where wearing a mask with eye cutouts on the street is less noticeable than having a scar. Facial differences aren’t open wounds sprinkling with blood, in case that's not clear.

“It’s for other people's comfort” - why are other characters disfiguremisic to this extent? Are they forcing all minorities to stay hidden and out of sight too? That’s a horrible society to exist in.

“They are wearing it for Actual Practical Reason” - cool! I hope that this means you have other characters with facial differences that don’t wear it for any reason.

"It's the character's artistic expression" - I sure hope that there are abled characters with the same kind of expression then.

“They’re ashamed of their face” - and they never have any character development that would make that go away? That's just bad writing. Why are they ashamed in the first place? Why is shame the default stance to have about your own face in your story? I get that you think we should be ashamed and do these ridiculous things, but in real life we just live with it.

"Now that you say that it is kinda messed up but I'm too far into the story please help" - here you go.

“[some variation of My Character is evil so it's fine/a killer so it fits/just too disgusting to show their disability” - this is the one of the only cases where I’m fine with disability erasure, actually. Please don’t make them have a facial difference. This is the type of harm that real life activists spend years and decades undoing. Disfiguremisia from horror movies released in the 70s is still relevant. It still affects people today.

"But [in-universe explanation why disfiguremisia is cool and fine actually]" - this changes nothing.

Closing Remarks

[large text: Closing Remarks]

I hope that this post explains my thoughts on facial difference representation better. It's a complicated topic, I get it. I'm also aware that this post might come off as harsh (?) but disfiguremisia shouldn't be treated lightly, it shouldn't be a prop. It's real world discrimination with a big chunk of its origins coming out of popular media.

With the asks that have been sent regarding facial differences, I realized that I probably haven't explained what the actual problems are well enough. It's not about some technical definition, or about weird in-universe explanations. It's about categorizing us as some apparently fundamentally different entity that can't possibly be kind and happy, about disfiguremisia so ingrained into our culture that it's apparently impossible to make a world without it; discrimination so deep that it can't be excised, only worked around. But you can get rid of it. You can just not have it there in the first place. Disfiguremisia isn't a fundamental part of how the world works; getting rid of it won't cause it to collapse. Don't portray discrimination as an integral, unquestionable part of the world that has to stay no matter what; whether it's ableism, transphobia, or Islamophobia or anything else. A world without discrimination can exist. If you can't imagine a world without disfiguremisia in fiction... that's bad. Sad, mostly. To me, at least.

Remember, that your readers aren't going to look at Character with a Scar #14673 and think "now I'm going to research how real life people with facial differences live." They won't, there's no inclination for them to do so. If you don't give them a reason, they won't magically start thinking critically about facial differences and disfiguremisia. People like their biases and they like to think that they understand.

And, even if you're explaining it over and over ;-) (winky face) there will still be people who are going to be actively resistant to giving a shit. To try and get the ones who are capable of caring about us, you, as the author, need to first understand disfiguremisia, study Face Equality, think of me as a human being with human emotions who doesn't want to see people like me treated like garbage in every piece of media I look at. There's a place and time for that media, and if you don't actually understand disfiguremisia, you will only perpetuate it; not "subvert" it, not "comment" on it.

I hope this helps :-) (smile emoji. for good measure)

Mod Sasza

#mod sasza #disfiguremisia #face difference #mask trope #writing trope #writing resource #writing reference #writing resources #writing advice #writeblr #writing tips #long post #burn survivor representation

413 notes · View notes

homunculus-argument · 5 months

Text

You know what? If you're trying to get back into the habit of reading books - just reading any books at all - it's best to not start with anything fancy and high brow. This is one of those things where "quality over quantity" really does not apply. You can start with something goofy, really something that doesn't take itself too seriously. I procrastinated starting my "read at least a little bit of a book every day" new year's resolution for well over a week, but now that I got around to it, I've picked up something goofy set in the Warhammer universe.

It starts with introducing the main characters, one of whom is a dwarf with a mohawk and a nose ring chain who - within the first eight pages of the story - tries to fight a whole forest's worth of undetected, likely imaginary ghouls, one very real huge horse carriage of some sort of evil demon presence, and one wooden door. The other protagonist is a human dude who basically just follows this other guy around, with the goal of observing what he could possibly fuck up next.

317 notes · View notes

ariadne-mouse · 18 days

Text

This post discusses addiction & mentions related heavy topics.

The addiction comparison for what Laudna has going on with Delilah is certainly not 1:1. Most obviously, addictive substances & activities IRL are not sentient evil wizards who have found a way to cheat death (that we know of). Put more seriously: in-universe, warlocks exist all over and the relationships they have with their patrons don't necessarily evoke addiction; someone saying they are a warlock does not mean are an addict. But I've seen a couple takes thrown around for why Laudna's connection with Delilah isn't or can't be compared to addiction, and I'd like to examine those briefly.

Let's start with the origin of their entanglement - it's notable, for instance, that Laudna's fusion with Delilah's spirit was not something she chose or was necessarily even conscious of at first; however, equally notable is that not all IRL addiction begins with a person making bad choices to do the addictive thing, such as in the cases of forced drug use in trafficking, painkillers post-surgery, etc.

There is also the point that Laudna would die if Delilah were to be removed, whereas addicts can put aside the object of their addiction. But here there is also grey area: in some cases, unassisted withdrawal from serious substances can in fact kill you. And for another angle, even when it is quit the object of addiction will still exist in the world somewhere; it cannot be completely removed either, and it is the recovering addict's challenge not to engage.

Next is the way feeding Delilah gives Laudna new powers she can use to help the group - and certainly, IRL addiction doesn't give you magical combat abilities! But a substance being abused may indeed provide an effect that the user can leverage to their advantage (stimulants for work productivity, alcohol for relaxation or confidence, etc). Addiction happens because the mind and/or body are getting something in return that feels good, at least in the short term.

I mention these counterpoints not to say it's all a slam dunk, but rather to point out that addiction is a hugely complex issue, both mental and physical, taking many forms. If you want an addiction comparison to apply to Laudna, or not, you can probably find a manifestation of addiction out there that aligns with your argument. Marisha and others of the cast using addiction to describe Laudna's behavior just gives us one (1) possible lens to orient her experience and motivations, and, critically, to envision a way out for her: to fight Delilah with every ounce of willpower she has, to ask for the support of her friends in that effort, and to shove Delilah back into the sub-basement of her brain and keep her there for good. A common adage around addiction is that there is no "curing" it, just the lifelong work of recovery; and similarly, if Delilah can't be fully removed from Laudna, she has been successfully suppressed before and could be again. I think it would be incredibly powerful to see Laudna take that journey! She has agency in her circumstances and she can seize it. Also, she still has responsibility for her actions when they harm those around her; addiction, like trauma, explains but doesn't excuse.

The addiction comparison for Laudna and Delilah seems to have mixed reactions from fandom, and that's fine! If it truly just doesn't resonate with you, fair enough - there are plenty of other valid ways to describe Laudna's behavior and circumstances, and not mutually exclusive with the addiction angle either. We don't have to pick only one way of interpreting what characters do (in fact I advise against it), and as the story evolves our frameworks of interpretation may change too. A lens is just a tool for understanding. But for the handful of folks on the two sides of the polarized reaction coin at the moment - those either overly defensive about the comparison or conversely leaning into it in an ugly, mean way - if you think the word "addict" by itself irrevocably condemns Laudna or deprives her of compassion for her circumstances, perhaps consider mulling over how you view addicts IRL.

#cr spoilers #cr discourse #not maintagging this #laudna #c3e95 #op #cw: addiction #addiction

116 notes · View notes

quirkle2 · 4 days

Text

so one thing i rly like abt mob psycho (shocker !) is that the Incident between the kageyama brothers is kept entirely contained. like, most other shows—at least ones that i've watched—feature long monologues of characters traumadumping to other characters, sometimes in the middle of fights, and while that Does happen a lot in mob psycho, the kageyama bros never do this abt The Incident, and i think that's a fascinating choice bc The Incident is the entire reason why the show starts in the first place. it's the reason mob meets reigen at all, it's the reason mob doesn't fight back against teru, it's the reason ritsu goes through his character arc. it is arguably the Most Important Story Beat and the show has countless opportunities to let the characters spill their guts on screen for drama, and yet neither of the brothers let this spill. neither of them talk about it, except with each other

there's been numerous times i've watched shows where people suddenly traumadump and tell their life story unprompted when truly not a single soul asked, but with mob psycho, both the bros are Constantly berated with questions on Why they do these things; Why are you so off-putting and quiet, Why do you not use your powers, Why won't you fight back, Why do you want psychic powers so badly, Why are you ruining these students' lives now that you have them, Why are you helping me defeat my evil dad . all of these questions eventually loop back around to The Incident, and yet neither of them ever let it slip. neither of them Ever share, and the only time they come anywhere close to it is in the wd arc

it is the event that Shaped Who They Grew Into, and yet it is not known by the main cast at all. teru has no idea, even reigen doesn't seem to understand the full extent of it, even though The Incident is what caused mob to come to his office. their parents prolly don't even know

idk, i just think that's a good detail. the brothers both hold the weight of their troubles close to their chests. and even though that makes it seem as though they figure it out on their own, it couldn't be further from the truth

their own experiences with the people around them allowed them to grow and make mistakes and learn from them, all without sharing their deepest secret, and then both took those new experiences and lessons and applied it to this issue, and learned Again

meanwhile, the rest of the cast is largely clueless abt this Entire issue. it's Crazy to me that most of the cast has no idea what the main issue is, and i think it's a brilliant choice. these characters helped the kageyama bros without ever meaning to or knowing about it, no matter how big or small the role. you truly never know what somebody else is going through !

and even in the end, it's not like there's a big reveal that tells every character the kageyama brothers' Tragic Backstory. nobody fucking knows, still. like Yeah they should totally talk this out and go to therapy or smth but i just like the fact that the story doesn't treat it as some dramatic fanfare for Other Character's Shock Value and doesn't let them air their troubles to the ends of the earth. i appreciate that

#qktalks #mob psycho 100 #shigeo kageyama #mp100 mob #mp100 shigeo #ritsu kageyama #mp100 ritsu #sorry im feeling particularly ill abt this show tonight

137 notes · View notes

prince-kallisto · 4 months

Text

Crowley is Neige’s Father Theory (+ actual Neige backstory speculation)

You know, I was planning to make this an April Fools theory. I remember finding this headcanon about a year ago, and I’ve always thought it was a funny and cute headcanon to think about.

BUT THEN my hubby @snakevsnis utterly insulted my dignity and pride (kindly said the theory was my most outlandish yet) and I’ve decided to take this seriously. Not playing games anymore, I will collect every bit of flimsy evidence for this ᕦ(ò_óˇ)ᕤ

This all started out when I saw a closeup of Neige’s eyes to be honest haha 🤣🤣🤣 Why do they look like that?! What’s with that odd glow? All the characters eyes, especially in card art, are quite striking. But I’ve noticed that Fae eyes in particular have a tendency for a stronger glow or just overall more detailed eyes.

But anyway: dark hair, pale skin (this can apply to half the cast but SHH let me be annoying ahxhdbs) If you want to consider Disney’s Snow White, she has “lips red as the rose, hair black as ebony, and skin white as snow”, which we can keep in mind in terms of similarities🤪

People have always mentioned Crowley’s strange connections to Pomefiore and the Evil Queen- perhaps suggesting that he is twisted from the Evil Queen’s crow. Perhaps this, OR THIS IS ALL ACTUALLY A CONNECTION TO NEIGE.

The courtyard apple trees, the mirrors, the wishing well. Aside from the mirrors, all of these feel very reminiscent of Snow White, NOT the Evil Queen. The wishing well was indeed part of the Evil Queen’s castle, but it is Snow White who sings to it to make her wish. Crowley is very protective of the apple trees as well, and seems to honor them greatly. Neige’s first introduction through the commercial LITERALLY has the apple trees in the background as well!!

We also cannot forget his stupid vacation outfit (affectionate), which depicts a crow resting on an apple, and the background is riddled with flowers that look suspiciously like the ones from Snow White’s grave. And now with this uniquely yellow fit that no one expected Crowley to wear, Crowley technically shares the same exact color scheme that Neige (and this Snow White) does: yellow, blue, and red. In his vacation outfit, Crowley even ditches black as his main color and wears white instead.

Because what’s interesting about the Evil Queen’s crow is that the crow does not play a prominent role like Maleficent’s Diablo does. In fact, the crow almost seems afraid of the Evil Queen’s plans, shying away from the apple and afraid of her wicked transformations. In Twisted Wonderland terms, couldn’t that partially make Crowley more sympathetic towards Neige?

I also think it’s funny that Neige probably has the closest reference to a Disney character name, because “Neige” means Snow, and “Blanche” means White in French.His name literally translates to Snow White, and OF COURSE Crowley would name a child so directly after one of these historical figures 😭😭😭

And here’s where my theory gets even more crackish AJDNHDE, but when Crowley transforms into a ghost in the prologue, he notable has the cape of the ghosts in the Dwarfs Mine. The Dwarfs Mine we visited in the prologue is NOT the actual one used in Snow White- instead being a very convincing replica in honor to the Fairest Queen. But even so, there is a cottage that’s exactly the same as the dwarves cottage in Snow White. The ghosts from the prologue say that Ace, Deuce, and Yuu are the first visitors in “ten years.”

Ten years? Neige is around 17 or 18 years old, and his vague backstory heavily implies he’s been abandoned from his birth parents since a young age. So what if- hear me out- Neige for some reason was left behind in the Dwarfs Mine area when he was around 6 or 7 years old, entrusted to the ghosts before he met with his RSA dwarves?!

But let’s also take an actually serious look in Neige’s backstory. Neige’s backstory is shockingly vague, despite being the rival for Vil in Book 5. Book 6 seems to imply that Rook and Vil know more about what Neige went through, but it’s strangely cut off.

Neige has apparently been living with the dwarves and taking care of themselves on their own since a young age. We don’t know yet how dwarves age in Twisted Wonderland- Yuu remarks that they resemble Fae because of their pointed ears, and they may indeed be a type of a Fae. But even if they had the lifespan of Fae like Lilia, the dwarves are also school-age kids. And considering the lack of knowledge regarding Fae in TWST society in general, I wouldn’t be surprised if there were discriminatory laws preventing the dwarves being considered actual adults even if they were far older. The VDC competition shows how all the human audiences consider the dwarves to be cute children- likely even elementary-aged children.

I feel like this further validates the idea that Neige and the dwarves actually lived in the abandoned cottage in the Dwarves Mine- since it was a completely abandoned area, they were able to take the space without worrying over their young ages. The cottage looked abandoned in both Vargas Camp and the prologue because Neige and the dwarves are currently living at RSA. Additionally, in the Book 5 trailer, there were interesting shots of Neige and the dwarves at a bridge, a bench, and a forest. It felt overall very reminiscent of the cottage we see at the Dwarves Mine, so I wouldn’t be surprised if Neige and his friends actually occupied this space before

But with this in mind, how DID Neige secure a filming job or even attend the same middle school as Neige if he had no parental guardians or adult assistance in the first place? Again, I highly doubt that humans would ever seriously consider the dwarves to be Neige’s guardian on the small chance they’re older than Neige, for the same discriminatory implications that I mentioned above.

If Crowley was Neige’s father, I’m sure he managed to pull some strings in the background even if Neige was left behind for some unknown reason. Much like Diaval in the live-action Maleficent, Neige was essentially the Aurora that Crowley was taking care of from afar. Going back to Crowley’s vacation outfit, the crow resting on the apple reminds me a lot of Diaval in his bird form looking over Aurora in her cradle. I’m sure Neige has strong magic power of his own, but I find it interesting that he ended up at RSA despite most of his focus growing up was between his job and chores at home. Perhaps Crowley couldn’t get him into NRC, but did put in a good word for him with Ambrose and eased the application process for Neige

I also feel like Neige would indeed have stronger magic BECAUSE he’d be half-Fae like Sebek. His glowing eyes is the only physical indicator of his Fae heritage, but he also has the magic to boost.

And the most unserious note to wrap up this crack theory, they even have a similar taste in shoes because what is this 😭😭😭

This is all to say that I um. May or may not have been working on a chaptered fic for a long while now based on this premise of Crowley being Neige’s father so 😭😭😭 yeah. Um. Look forward to or dread that 🤣🤣🤣

(I will steal your kitchen sink if anyone says this is more convincing from my also crack Malleus and Crowley theories PLEASE 🤣🤣🤣 /j)

#twisted wonderland #twst #twst theory #dire crowley #twst dire crowley #twst Crowley #twst neige #twst neige leblanche #neige leblanche #twst crack theory #twst headcanon #kallistopost

159 notes · View notes

acewizardinspace · 1 year

Text

People complain that the jedi don't act appropriately to being forced to use a slaver army, but they seem to forget that the jedi can't. Not just in universe (although yes, in universe there was nothing the jedi could do about this decision made by the senate) but narratively.

The jedi can't comment on the clone's slavery because the narrative won't let them! As a matter of fact, the narrative won't let anyone mention this! Literally no one calls the clones slaves seriously, even characters who by all accounts should feel that way because the narrative won't let them because they are fictional people created by a team of writers.

The clones aren't slaves in universe because the writers refuse to write them that way. Do I personally feel that this should have been a plot point? Yeah I think it would have been interesting! But they didn't!

Is it fun to explore this in fanfiction? Yeah it totally is! I know I would mention it in any fic I write in the future.

Does it make for good media criticism or analysis? No! This is just straight up not how you professionally analysis media. It is worth bring up in a discussion about the creators and exploring why they didn't bring these things up in the series. That would be good media analysis.

But as "proof" that some characters are bad this fails dramatically. Why? Because then you must apply this logic to every character, meaning not just the jedi are evil but actually every single character in the whole series, yes all of them, are evil. Once you do that you have successfully thrown away any meaning the original work had. It is all pointless now.

People confuse in-universe (watsonian) and out-of-universe (doylist) analysis. 'Why did no one do anything about the clone's situation?' is a shit watsonian analysis. But 'why the fuck did the writers write the clones like this?' is a GREAT doylist question.

Media analysis should add meaning, or explain meaning, or even describe why you feel the work lacks meaning, but it should never take all meaning away.

It is the same reason droids aren't called slaves. It would complicate the narrative and distract from whatever the writers were actually trying to say. The writers don't want to go there, so they don't.

#I WISH the fandom was more willing to talk about the doylist question. Because that is the important one #my meta #my thoughts

1K notes · View notes

ayphyx · 3 months

Text

Why is it that whenever someone talks about media literacy they only talk about things like rape, incest, pedophilia, and murder but never misogyny, racism, fatphobia, or ableism

Like it’s always about “problematic ships” and “evil characters” but never about how the treatment of woc in media influences how woc are treated in society and vice versa. How female characters are almost always the ones being singled out as “annoying” compared to male characters. Or how, yeah, there might be an in-story reason to why this lazy, depressed character is fat but societal views on fat people being lazy, depressed, unhygienic, etc., most definitely influenced the writer’s choice to make that lazy character fat.

I find that a lot of the “media literacy” arguments that pertain to subjects of sexual abuse and violence don’t really apply to other subjects in a way that isn’t wildly or even somewhat bigoted. Ofc there’s not gonna be a catch-all argument for how every theme should be treated in media but the arguments should at least be somewhat consistent.

I rarely ever see anyone talk about media literacy in a way that doesn’t boil down to “ok but liking evil/bad/taboo characters/themes/stories don’t make you a bad person and authors can write things they don’t agree about.” This statement isn’t wrong and i agree with it but it shouldn’t be your only knowledge on what media literacy is.

Sometimes, a story that has a rape scene in it depicts rape poorly. Whether its because rape was written in a fetishistic light or because the victims weren’t treated with the respect that they deserve, you need to be able to know how and why that scene is (cant think of a better word rn but I’ll probably change it later cause i don’t really like using this word) problematic. The fact that the story depicts rape isn’t the problem, it’s how they chose to depict it. And yes, how this story depicts rape can absolutely affect how a person views rape victims irl.

Sometimes, an author includes racist views into their work. Sure, depiction isn’t endorsement but when an author writes primarily about white characters, and has the first character of color in their book be executed as that character’s introduction, don’t be surprised when that author turns out to be a racist.

Yes, fiction isn’t one-to-one with reality but they both influence each other in a way that cannot be escaped. You will never find a piece of media that isn’t influenced by reality and you will never find a person whose views havent been influenced by a piece of media.

(Also, there is a tendency that i see in a lot of fandom “media literacy” people. And that is the tendency to use leftist, anti-racist phrases and terminology to refer to fandom discourse. “Kill the cop inside your head” refers to killing that part of your brain that has been drilled by society to view black, brown, and poor people as threats. It does not refer to people who don’t like your 20k incest fanfiction and are kinda mean about it. Stop fucking fandomizing anti-racist rhetoric. You just look fucking racist)

Sorry if this is kinda incoherent, I’m mostly just rambling.

#funnily enough #i find a lot of medial literacy discussions lack nuance #anti intellectualism #if you will #media literacy #if you want #long post #long rant #making this my pinned post an acquaintance on discord said this was good #my takes

103 notes · View notes

punkeropercyjackson · 3 months

Text

Hot take but Percy Jackson actually isn't anything like Harry Potter and the reason they're popularly compared is due to the mass mischaracterization and misenterpretation that leads to sanatization of Percy to turn him into a more standard protagonist despite the whole point his character being that he's NOT normal while Harry's is that he IS and that made him into a very bland and lowkey passive aggressive bigot that's an awful example for kids while Percy is the perfect role model.Like let's look them over.Percy:

Was born poor and never becomes rich

Is a child abuse victim with consistent trauma responses and unhealthy coping mechanisms all the way starting at The Lightning Thief

Beat up bullies as a kid,was targeted by them to begin with because he's neurodivergent and his teachers picked on him too

Has nothing but love and respect for his fellow minorities,women especially thanks to being a mama's boy with no positive older male figures in his life except Beckendorf

Is pessimistic,sardonic,anger issued,bad at socializing and gets embarrased to be overly open with his emotions but none of this turns him into a bad person but instead makes him realistic and relatable

And he's also kind,gentle,nurturing to the point of basically adopting younger demigods as his found siblings and pseudo-kids if they don't have positive adult figures in their lives already,encouraging,loyal to a literal fatal fault and has a distinctive and iconic sense of humor that never dosen't land

Didn't like Annabeth or Rachel for shallow reasons and instead for their personalities and only wasn't into Reyna because he was taken at the time and treats all three of them very nicely

Is an instigator who's driving point as our hero is taking down corrupted figures but also does activism for the lesser treated people in his world by helping out every time he gets a chance to,has one of his core trait's being that he's COMPLETELY devoid in power hunger and pretty arguably counts as an anarchist because of this

Relating to the sense of humor thing again,his whole PERSONALITY is distinctive-He's not just some fantasy protagonist,he's PERCY JACKSON.The name alone gives everybody who's read the books flashbacks to all his crazy ass shit(affectionate)and that's how you know you've got a well-written protagonist

And Percy is legitimately transfem-coded,because i've met so many trans women in the Pjo fandom and every single one of them without exception have said that she's a femme trans woman egg.This also applies to black/afrolatino folks and autistics in the fandom like me to a less near universal extent

While Harry:

Grew up middle class and then got riches out the ass when the series started

Is a very poor attempt at positive abuse survivor rep because he uses his mental health as an excuse to a huge dick with no consequences given to him afterward

Had no tormenters other than the Dursleys

A 'dosen't know better and refuses to learn' typa bigot with tons of passive aggressive remarks about girls and ableism and fatphobia thrown in too,not to mention racist moments like hating Dean for dating Ginny

Is the quintessential young male fantasy protagonist and this is exactly his problem because it makes him boring asf and we're dealing with so much fucking damage in the kids fantasy genre thanks to his musty ass

All his crushes were shallow(Only liked Cho for a pretty girljock and only noticed Ginny when she became one too and prioritizes looks and society's idea of 'coolness' on the other girls his age too like damn i wonder why he only ever saw Hermione as a sister,surely it can't be connected /s)

Never does actual justice fighting unless he's required to and don't tell me he shouldn't have needed to because this wasn't real life,it was a magics series so he should've fought evil on purpose like Percy did and so did Katniss Everdeen and the Pevensie Siblings and all the other actual good kids books protags.This genre is supposed to be a power fantasy for kids that they can be heroes too and Harry failed big time at his job just like he did at everything else

Again,he is VERY mediocre as a character but mediocrity sells and now we have a million clones of him instead of real mcs

Is part of exactly zero minorities,neither intentionally or accidentally,and that made him grow up to be a cop.Douchebag ass white straight boy Harry vs Autistic afrolatina transfemme slay Percy.No competition,Percy's punk so she'd kill Harry to earn her blue laces

And before Maraturds and Luke/gods stans get bold,you're literally him irl but worse besties♡

82 notes · View notes

happyflux · 4 months

Text

Saw a really long post today where someone was talking about D&D vampire lore, compiling what different sources say about it (including the Baldur's Gate games) and, y'know, for the most part it was a good post, it's a useful and good quick reference on what the different sources have said about vampires.

(readmore because this turned out long oops)

But then at the end, and in an addition to the post replying to a tag someone had put, the post began talking about applying all this lore to BG3 specifically, and it made me think. Because the takeaway that post had seemed to be that the things about vampire lore which are consistent to the rest of D&D do apply to BG3 as well, and that Astarion is simply an exception due to his extremely strong willpower and sense of self. And that just doesn't seem right to me at all. It feels like missing the point.

BG3 did some very specific, very interesting things with the lore of D&D. In terms of vampires, yes, but also more generally, BG3 pretty consistently gives the message that the things that are said in the rulebooks are not necessarily true, but are oversimplifications and generalizations that are believed to be true in universe.

BG3 got rid of racial ability scores, giving every race the same "choose a +2 and a +1" that variant humans can have in D&D. BG3 not only got rid of racial alignments, but got rid of alignments entirely - there is no detect evil and good, protection against evil and good has been replaced with a spell that mechanically protects against outsiders of various kinds, there is no alignment selection for player characters, no alignment showing up on inspection despite pretty much entire stat blocks being visible, and the companion characters all have complex morality that doesn't fit neatly into any alignment box. BG3 establishes and many times repeats that Volo, the in-universe author of a lot of the texts we have access to about Faerûn, is an incredibly unreliable source. BG3 has Halsin, a large-built and hairy elf (something which the rulebooks claim is impossible as elves are slender and graceful and have no body hair), say that "sometimes I think conventional wisdom is too narrow about what someone can or cannot be".

On the topic of vampirism specifically, BG3 has Jaheira (who is established to be wise and knowledgeable due to being an experienced and well travelled adventurer) say "They say that the only thing a vampire can feel is hunger. Nothing else touches them - not grief, or mercy. Or any sense of what is just. Who knows. There is often more ignorance than insight in what 'they' say", in response to Astarion remaining a spawn. And, on an Astarion origin run, it is established that at least half of his siblings can be convinced to want to oppose Cazador (it's just that non-origin Astarion chooses to antagonize them instead), and they can be persuaded not to feed off of people, and even without Astarion suggesting it Dalyria will take the initiative to help and take care of the other spawn. And, and this I think is crucial, every vampire we see in BG3 aside from possibly Vellioth is established to have been through circumstances which could easily twist someone and turn them horrible, no magical twisting of emotions or inherent existential evil required.

To play Baldur's Gate 3 and take away from it that the things which D&D lore has previously said about vampires apply to this game, and that Astarion is just somehow Special because of his Extremely Strong Willpower and Sense of Self feels like completely missing the point. Vampires in BG3 are evil because they're stuck in a cycle of violence and suffering and aren't able to escape, and when they are given an escape from that cycle they are able to heal and recover and be more than what they were made. Astarion does not have exceptional willpower, Astarion got lucky. He got out, he made some connections, he got a chance to heal and unlearn the things he'd been taught before being thrust back into Cazador's presence, and that's why he's able to break the cycle. Or, alternately, if the people he finds when he gets out don't push him to unlearn the things Cazador taught him and instead reinforce those beliefs, he becomes just like him. Again, no magical twisting of emotions required.

#bg3 #astarion #sorry about the long post lol #also don't take this too seriously. i don't think interpreting a story differently than me is problematic or anything #it just annoys me when people are wrong about my blorbo on the internet (read: when people interpret the story differently from me)#hence why i made my own post instead of commenting on the one that i reference

102 notes · View notes

herstuf · 1 year

Text

Spider-verse little theories/thoughts I had following seeing the movie:

The spider that bit miles might be dead but it’s been preserved which means it’s dna is still there which means earth-42 miles could still become a spider-man.

Hobie has been stealing tech since the beginning because he never trusts establishments and has his own happy little tech lair full of everything the band would need to fight Miguel

Miles wasn’t supposed to be a spider man so canon events don’t apply to him. Miguel knows this and is bitter about it and that is why he is SO angry at Miles specifically.

Miguel’s choice to take over another Miguel’s life is like fucked up for a lot of reasons but the most glaring one to me is did he sleep with that Miguel’s wife while pretending to be the Miguel that died? That is beyond fucked I don’t even have the words for it.

Earth-42 Miles had more tech than Uncle Aaron’s prowler. What if he is already aware of the multiverse/spider-verse but just hasn’t been able to get it going. Likely because that world doesn’t have a collider since there’s no Spider-Man to fight to lose Kingpin’s family over and create the series of events for it?

Alternatively he was bit, is a spider-man, but he lost his dad in the collider fight and it changed him differently from how it changed the other spidermen. (Not sold on this one but it did pop into my head)

Not totally a theory mostly just an observation: Earth-42 is older. By the grey and Uncle Aaron’s hair and the slightly more mature shape of that Miles’s face and height I believe it is at least 2-4 years ahead of our Miles’s time.

We also don’t know immediately that Prowler Miles is evil. The possibility of all the glitches and villains appearing in wrong universes means it could have happened in that universe. Means that he could have fought them. While he might not be a hero in the way we think of Spider-Man he could be more of an anti hero, such as Eddie Brock or even Batman.

Speaking of Eddie Brock: he’s now jumped to the MCU’s spider world, earth 616(?), and now The Spot has travelled to his. This connects them more and implies either that there will be a spider-man in Eddie’s universe, OR, that Venom himself counts as the Spider-Man of that universe, which then tosses Miguel’s Canon Events theories out of the water.

How many anomaly spider-peeps are there. Miguel is hung up on Mikes for being bitten by a spider from another universe and leaving that universe without one, but is he the only one? If every universe is creating colliders, exploring the multiverse, it stands to reason that The Spot exists as a scientist in other universes and could cause the same situation to happen. Miguel’s technology seems to imply he can see all in the multiverse but how can that be possible in a world of infinite universes? He must have missed something at some point.

If there were two Miguel’s there could be more. If we operate on the theory that each (large) decision has two paths then each time a “canon” character makes a choice another universe must be created where they made the opposite choice. If Miguel’s theory about canon events collapsing universes is unilaterally correct, then how many have collapsed before? How many are collapsing as they speak? How would they know?

In the comics Hobie is the prowler before thinking he killed spider-man, changing, and then becoming Spider-Man himself (I think, correct me if I’m remembering wrong because it has been years). As far as Miguel’s theories go does that make him an anomaly since there should only be one Spider-Man per universe, or is that the path his universe and others identical to Hobie’s are meant to take?

Please someone talk to me about this movie

#hobie brown #spider punk #spider verse #miles morales #across the spiderverse #miles molares #gwen stacy #Spider-Man #spider woman #miguel ohara #pavitr prabhakar #peter parker #peter b parker #into the spider verse #spiderverse

281 notes · View notes

blackcat419 · 5 months

Text

Pros and Antis in HotD and aSoIaF Fandom: the breakdown around grey storytelling

I think I know why TB people struggle so much for understanding why TG is liked by people and it’s because fandom discourse has been so rotted away by “pro shippers” and “anti shippers” discourse that we’ve entered into a puritanical view of consuming media.

They see the media you consume as a direct reflection of the type of person you are and thus the characters you like must be similar to who you are as a person.

To a certain extent I get it, looking at a broad portfolio of media consumption can reveal a bit about a person. For example, I consume a lot of horror media. You can discern that I like being scared and the adrenaline that comes from it. But that’s only in a safe controlled situation where I can turn off the tv or monitor when it gets too much. I don’t like haunted houses, being alone at night, or even the dark.

Media is a safe place to explore different sides of humanity in a controlled setting where the only thing at risk is our own enjoyment. People can find that they like things in media that they wouldn’t like in real life. But this distinction is lost on a lot of fandom puritans. To them, media consumption is a political act. You reaffirm that you are a “good person” by watching the “good shows” and rooting for the “good guys”. To look upon a morally complex character or even the villain with interest and sympathy is thus to condone and support every action that character will be written to take.

But this idea of assuming moral righteousness from the characters you support in media because even harder to understand and justify when applied to stories like HotD and aSoIaF where every character possesses both good and evil. So how does a puritan fan reaffirm their belief that they are morally good in a series such as these? The fan will assign the idea oh moral correctness and superiority to the characters they like. Any bad, morally questionable, or straight up evil act the character commits will be justified as righteous no matter how the story frames those actions to the audience. The same is applied to characters these fans do not like. Every bad, morally questionable, or evil action is amplified to become the main character trait while any good, just, or morally righteous act is off written as either an evil act in disguise or any good to come out of the act should be attributed to another character. Any harm committed again the character is then down played as not that bad or actually deserved.

In HotD and aSoIaF, this fandom Puritanism mainly affects female characters.

In aSoIaF, we have characters such as Dany and Arya being framed as the morally righteous and just while characters such as Catelyn and Sansa are painted as villains. Weirdly this does not apply to actual villainous female characters likes Cersei. This could be because the books and show are very clear that her actions are evil and cruel, puritan fans do not feel insecure liking her as they feel secure that the story and thus other fans know she is a bad person and won’t assume liking her means viewing her as a good person. Characters such as Margery Tyrell and Arianne Martell are viewed with more complexity than other female characters but I bet once they come into conflict with beloved female characters, they will be viewed as villainous.

In HotD we see the same thing happening. Puritan fans see Rhaenyra as the perfect hero with any negative action being just or not her fault while Alicent is painted as more evil than the step mother from Cinderella who, despite all evidence to the contrary, wanted to be queen and this deserves everything that she gets.

This is why so many people have to explain to puritan fans that liking characters like Sansa, Catelyn, Alicent, Aegon, or Aemond does not make one bastardphobic, a rape apologist, or anti feminist. I also think it explains why these fans can’t except that their favorite characters have done wrong and hurt people. They can’t accept criticism or critique of their favorite character because to them it’s not another person’s reading of a fictional character, it’s someone judging them on their morals.

Puritanical fans interlock their identity and sense of self with the characters they like and struggle to separate criticism of those characters as criticism of themselves as a person.

#house of the dragon #hotd #asoiaf #a song of ice and fire #hotd discussion #asoiaf discussion #hotd discourse #asoiaf discourse #Puritanism in fandom #puritanical fans

77 notes · View notes

dealilcats · 9 days

Text

Have you ever thought about the fact that Macavity just sounds sick. Like, "very tall and thin", "eyes are sunken in", "coat dusted from neglect", "whiskers are uncombed", "he sways his head from side to side", "always wide awake".

Which makes sense. T.S.E. based him on Professor Moriarty, and sickness and 'uglyness' were often associated with evil in literature (think like Jekyll and Hyde), so Macavity is evil and he carries it on his body like an illness.

He has a "respectable" side, and he can be found "in a by street", "in the square", "resting, or a licking of his thumbs, or engaged in doing complicated long division sums". (The latter is, again, just a reference to Moriarty, but hilarious when applied to a cat, like the equivalent of whistling with hands behind your back).

Because all his crimes are either done for him, it seems, or carried out so efficiently, that he doesn't need to linger one moment. So that even though "the Secret service" swears up and down "it must've been Macavity", they have no real way to prove it.

When applied to Moriarty, this creates an evil mastermind:

"The greatest schemer of all time, the organizer of every devilry, the controlling brain of the underworld, a brain which might have made or marred the destiny of nations—that's the man!

But so aloof is he from general suspicion, so immune from criticism, so admirable in his management and self-effacement, that for those very words that you have uttered he could hale you to a court and emerge with your year's pension as a solatium for his wounded character."

Holmes, The Valley of Fear

"He is the Napoleon of crime, Watson. He is the organiser of half that is evil and of nearly all that is undetected in this great city..."

Holmes, "The Final Problem"

(Citations from wikipedia)

But then you remember Macavity is a cat, and so the idea that he's "broken every human law" is as preposterous as him being capable of complex equations. It's just exaggeration. There's no real consequences. Macavity does crime, he's as slimy and slippery as a snake, and he gets away with it, and it's funny because he's a damn cat, baffling the entirety of Scotland Yard.

But if we're talking song, that's an entirely different story. Demeter sings about him, and she's stricken with grief and fear, and she sounds like she's warning you to keep watching over your shoulder because you never know where you might (not) encounter him. Bombalurina seems mildly turned on, but it's not like she's paying him any compliments. They changed the line from "they say he cheats" to "I know he cheats", which along with "always wide awake" makes it sound like she's speaking from experience, and with the choreography sounds more like she's telling Demeter (but mostly the audience) not to believe whatever facade he may put up because, after all, he's a "monster of depravity".

And adding onto what I was saying earlier about sickness, with the way he's "not there" and no one can catch him, not even his footprints, he almost sounds like a ghost. Hell, apparently he has "powers of levitation". Demeter certainly looks like she's seen a ghost, like it's whispering in her ears and tormenting her with all that he's implied to have done to her.

And his costume is just as horrifying - in the 98 ver, the makeup is so over the top, the long claws, the messy fur, the sharp stripes, he looks nightmarish, and completely out of place when compared to the other cats. He matches the description to a T, he's exactly what you expected, and then some.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, the musical makes you think about the consequences of what he does. It's not a silly cat confusing the humans. It's a depravate spreading his sickness on anything he touches, who fascinates with his appearance, but still cannot hide what he really is - and the fact that he gets away with it is terrifying.

#macavity #i hate that guy #cats musical #cats 1998 #cats ramblings

48 notes · View notes

stuckasmain · 7 days

Text

Hal as an “Evil AI” is a prevalent misinterpretation that we all heavily dislike but I don’t see anyone addressing the other prevalent misinterpretation of “Hal did no wrong” and not in a joking or genuine exploration of technology and morality way but a flat out “owo” way.

The infantilization of Hal is absolutely rampant and I think part of it may be a overlap with how the mentally ill (in this case serious disorders like schizophrenia, that Hal displays symptoms similar to) are either overly demonized or overly infanalized. In this case people using his glitch as an excuse rather than an explanation IF AT ALL because “he was just scared they’re so mean owo” is another common thing I see which… no. People heard the self defense argument and then run to demonize every other possible character.

The thing about Hal is that he knows what he did was wrong, he understands why even. In the cases of computers like him one can even have a interesting discussion onto wether our sense of morality should apply at all— how much free will does he exactly have as one could argue all actions still come back to the limitations of his programing etc. and a lot of his more “sinister” or “innocent” traits are outright our human projection but that’s rarely the conversation.

It’s all “sweet little thing could never even think of violence it’s too scary” (he’s killed four people…) or they were going to/killed him for no reason because they’re bad.

Idk it’s really tiresome seeing him babied… that’s a grown man… computer… he likely knows more than most of us even. Self preservation was a factor but not in the “he was scared they were so mean and wanted to kill him for no reason🥺” I discussed it before but really I think he would’ve went with it had he been healthy but that’s neither here nor there. I think a lot of the infanalization comes from hearing of this and well… he’s simply a very pleasant fellow and you can’t help but feel for him.

But you can feel for a charecter without mischaracterizing, you know? That’s the thing about Hal he has both more and less emotion than you think.

#2001 a space odyssey #2001 aso #hal 9000 #fictional computers #computer charecter #2001 meta #misinterpreted #media analysis #fandom

39 notes · View notes

controversial-blorbo-bracket · 2 months

Text

Controversial Character Tournament Round 2: Blaine Anderson from Glee vs Barok Van Zieks from The Great Ace Attorney

(remember that these characters are fictional and your fellow tumblr users are real. i will block you if you harass others in the notes, please consider sending your unhinged harassment to my inbox instead)

Propaganda under the cut, may contain spoilers:

Blaine Anderson:

LOVE: - "you know that post that's like "fandom will call a character evil and immature and then the character is just 15 yo" because that's what happens with blaine. he's just a sweet but socially inept kid with a lot of insecurities who's trying his best. compared to most glee characters he hasn't done anything wrong in his life. and yes he cheated on his boyfriend that one time, but he was super depressed afterwards (also this is glee literally every character has cheated and none have suffered as most as blaine because of it). in conclusion he's just a silly goose. my little princess <3"

HATE: (tumblr will not let me format this one bc its too long)

"A lot of people say he's the male Rachel Berry, and while I think that is absolutely a true statement, I actually don't mind his personality all that much. Literally everyone in Glee has a personality that ranges from inconsistent to downright horrendeus, so instead of talking about what he's like, here's some things he canonically does (buckle up, this'll be long): In season 2, when we first meet him, he's the leader of his school's showchoir. (redflag no.1/j) This gives him the freedom and authoritity to do a lot of stuff- not all bad, but he does serenade a closeted guy he doesn't know all that well, who works in costumer service AT HIS WORKPLACE, with a song about sex toys. (The guy in question ends up getting fired of course). He also gives some pretty hypocritical advice to his love interest, Kurt, about how he should try to blend in (hypocritical, cuz Blaine does the opposite and he's thriving under the attention), and he asks some insesitive questions, but those are all pretty excusable, or at least standard for Glee. In s3, him and Kurt are boyfriends, and he transitions school for him, which we could absolutely count as a decent thing, however it all kinda sours when he gets the part of Tony in the school's production of West side story. Why is this important? Kurt is a senior, and the performing arts university he's applying for is really competitive, so he needs all the extra curriculars and theatre experiance he can get. He asks Blaine to not aidition for Tony- which he agrees to- than promptly goes against that by singing one of Tony's songs at audition. He then gets offfered the role, doesn't turn it down, tells Kurt he should be happy for him, and honestly, BY GLEE STANDARDS, this is also pretty chill. Meanwhile: enter Sebastian Smythe, another contraversial character, who's now the new captain of Blaine's former showchoir, and who decides that either 1. Blaine is hot 2. Gonna use Blaine as an informat (His reasons are unclear tbh) Either way, he starts flirting with Blaine, who does end up rejecting his advances and telling him he's taken (though much later than it's probably ethical, idk tho, I'm aro). He (Blaine) really enjoys the attention though, so they end up keeping in touch. (Important for later.) Back to our main plot though; Blaime doesn't have sexual chemistry with his co-star, so the director tells him to lose his virginity (yes, you heared that right, it is fucked up). So he tries to sleep with Kurt, who of course, doesn't know that his boyfriend's sudden interest in him is due to directoral instructions. And then probably the most contraversial Blaine scene happens- see, Blaine, Kurt, and Sebastian (who Kurt hates with passion) end up going to this gaybar. Blaime gets drunk (though he only drinks one beer on screen, so we don't exactly know how drunk), and tries to sleep with Kurt in the parking lot. Kurt is visibly upset, and tells him no multiple times. Blaime doesn't oblige, and Kurt ends up shouting at him, which Blaine...doesn't take well, and blames Kurt, then leaves by foot. (They end up having sex by the end of this episode btw. No, Kurt still doesn't know about the directoral instructions. Whether he does it out of love or fear that Blaine will leave him is unclear) So we already know these two are not very good at boundries and communication, but the writers say they're "soulmates" so apperantly it's okay? Anyway, this all culminates in cheating incident no.1, where Kurt meets a guy whom he shares similar interests with, and who gives him some very cheesy compliements. They exchange numbers, and text a lot. Blaine doesn't like this. He checks their texts in secret, and then sings a song in front of the entire Glee club about how he's being cheated on, to humiliate Kurt.

Kurt insists it's not cheating, giving the example that Blaine's doing the same/used ro do the same with Sebastian. Blaine says "that's different" and they leave it at that. Kurt apologises via song. S4- Kurt moves to New York. Has to work a lot, since rebt is high, and also gets an internship at vague, so he's quite busy. Blaine feels ignored, so he cheats on him with some guy we only see the facebook profile of. They break up. S5- Blaine has a crush in this other guy, Sam. (He's been trying to get Kurt back, so him moving on is a big deal). Except gay marrige gets legalized, and Blaine decides to propose to Kurt. So he gets back together with him, then bot a week later he arranges a huge public proposal where it'd honestly just be plain emberassing to say no, but dontcha worry, because Kurt accepts. They move to New York together. Blaine becomes insecure, because Kurt gets ripped thanks to his fencing lessons, meanwhile he lrts go of himself a bit, enjoying all the fine food New York has to offer. His reaction to this is to try manipulating/tricking Kurt into eating copious amounts of food too. (To be fair, Kurt's reaction to the situation isn't perfect either, but this is not about him, their actions can co-exist without one of them necessarily having to be "the right one") S6- Kurt breaks up with Blaine. Blaine ends up going back to Ohio, and dating the guy who bullied, non-consensually kissed, than threatened to kill Kurt. (The guy did have a redemption arc, but I still dunno how to feel) You might be wondering- "wow, this was so lpng and extensive", and you'd be right but also this was mostly romantic relationship centric. There's also a lot of stuff Blaine says to his friends that make me question my sanity, but this is Glee, so that's every character in basically every episode. What makes me hate Blaine isn't even JUST all this- it's the fact that in universe, he almost never gets called-out, people take his side, it's as if the writers are condoning his actions, and I Don't Like That. I'm all for liking morally grey, or even morally dispicable characters, as long as their actions don't get excused. Hell, I started out just mildly disliking Blaine, but a lot of people paint him as innocent and pure, and that didn't feel right. Then I was ready to like him BECUASE of his questionable morality- but turns out, the guy doean't have much else going on besides this. His personality is almost the same as Rachel, except Rachel's more...full? If that makes sense? Blaine is just...bland. And inconsistent, and boring, and I just Do Not Like Him At All."

Baron Van Zieks:

LOVE: - "man's 6'4", british, looks like a vampire, took a mental health break for 5 years thanks to the dead bodies that cropped up after he lost in court, and is uhhhhhh kinda racist which is a key part of his character. the explanation for it is divisive but he does grow as a character eventually?? i think he's fun. there's a bonus case exclusive to the 3DS version of the games where he mentions he was almost poisoned in one of the first cases he ever handled. he objects with his leg. he brings wine into court but rarely drinks it. he has bats in his office. we have no idea where the scar on his face came from. his voice actor did a subway commercial. i think he wants to believe he is the sane one in the courtroom but that title belongs to the 16 year old judicial assistant for the defense." - "I love to hate him tbh!!! He's a complex interesting character tied up in things outside of his control and being used by the antagonist to hurt people, isolated due to his grief and rumors from the public. He also sucks SO fucking bad and I want to punch him. Lovingly. But I love him I promise."

#poll #round 2 #barok van zieks #blaine anderson #ace attorney #the great ace attorney #glee #2 submissions

35 notes · View notes