[ cw: violence mention / death mention / ]
Will never stop thinking about how Leo, all alone in an endless void and being beaten again and again and again by the only other living thing around, still finds comfort in that space. The situation he was in was completely hopeless, and in any other circumstances he would not have escaped, at least not fast enough to save him from permanent (or even fatal) damage, be it physical or mental.
And yet, despite the bleakness of his situation, despite the agony and helplessness, all he needs is one glance at a crumbled photograph, one glance to remember his family, and that’s enough of a reason for him to smile.
Maybe that’s why his powers center around manipulating space - because no matter how much space is between them, no matter how dire his own situation may be, just the thought of his family, alive and okay, is enough to give Leo hope.
285 notes
·
View notes
In all seriousness, I think one of the most obvious parallels from past campaigns to Imogen is Caleb, and while I've talked about the reductive ways people have interacted with Caleb in the past (Sad Boy hours and whatnot) it is frustrating how Imogen is so frequently denied the same complexity. Caleb was traumatized, and lonely, and nearly friendless but for one person he'd met under difficult circumstances some time before joining the larger party, but he was also (for the most part) allowed by the fandom to be exceptionally violent and brutal in combat; to be angry at all the time he had lost and at the people who'd taken advantage of him; to have possibly questionable goals; and to, at times, work against the better interests of the party in service of his own priorities. He was allowed to fall down and look ridiculous and to be immensely powerful but he was also allowed to be far more than that dichotomy. And, most importantly, and to be fair this was somewhat more hotly contested, he was allowed to claim responsibility for his actions and to exist in a space where he was both a victim of manipulation and willingly made his own choices based on that manipulation, and still be worthy of a heroic status.
Imogen is so frequently denied these opportunities and this complexity- and not by her detractors, but by her claimed fans. She's allowed to be a failgirl who falls down the stairs and she's allowed to get the HDYWTDT but she's not allowed to be the person who deliberately triggered the traps to light up the rivals during the museum heist. You can't explore how cold she is to her father or how she grants her mother undeserved leniency - that's unkind to Imogen. She's not allowed to bear partial responsibility for how people in Gelvaan treat her, even after she nearly killed several of them. She's not allowed to have powers that are a liability or that intrude upon others' privacy; it's only allowed to be explored as her pain and nothing more. Her petty and bitter asides are either made out to be badass mic drops or conveniently ignored. If she wants to explore her darker tendencies it's bad unless she's doing it with Laudna in which case it's good. Her powers have, understandably, left her with fascinating gaps in her communication skills, which is a great point to be made about psychics, but that's neglected when so many people act as if it's everyone else's responsibility to accurately interpret her. It's impossible to explore how her worldview is often very focused on herself without a strong sense of the larger picture - not even self-centered, though it can be, but often merely limited due to her own sheltered experience - because within many fandom circles, every other character's morality is judged based on how far backwards they bend to accommodate her.
617 notes
·
View notes
"Talia can never be redeemed and her romance with Bruce can never come back because *falls for Grant Morrison's/DC's extreme racism towards asian and arab characters in the 2000s/2010s"
Yeah, sorry, but shut the hell up. It never fails to astound me when DC actually tries to fix the mistakes they made with Talia/the al Ghuls in general these last two decades and the fans manage to be even worse than DC by clinging to the blatant racist/sexist writing of the past instead of embracing the turn for the better.
"But she did this and that!"
She's a fictional character in a fictional universe that is aware that it goes through continuity changes/retcons. What Grant Morrison did to her character was a a complete retcon of her 30 year history and characterization with zero respect for her. Why am I supposed to take Morrison's bullshit as gospel and reject any attempts to fix her from writers who know better?
69 notes
·
View notes
I feel like oliver is doing this to lead us on bc they won't do buddie anymore bc they replaced it with a cheap version and Ryan doesn't want to be gay on TV and what the fuck am I supposed to do with this info???? How do we take revenge on fox
Okay. Here's the thing. I don't have ANY room for negatively because I'm too busy celebrating being fucking RIGHT. And so normally I would ignore this or try to placate but the thing we are NOT going to do, is put words in Ryan's, namer of the Buddie ship, mouth. I believe he's already played a gay character before in a movie or something? And with Oliver out here flat out saying FOX shut down a storyline "a couple years ago" which is around the shooting that was filmed in Lovers Framing and so romantically coded?? Yeah, I refuse to let people spread misinformation and try and lay this at Ryan's feet when we all Been Knew it was a FOX call.
Also, they literally set Tommy up just like every other LI Buck has had! He falls into something unexpectedly, he makes a mistake off the bat, ye doubles down because his childhood trauma kicks in and he panics about being left. 🤷🏻♀️ Tommy is sweet, and might be here for a few more episodes, and might even stick around in some capacity if the audience likes him (Josh as a character eternally looking for love would be an easy way for the show to keep Lou on and accessible if needed), but there is NO WAY Oliver "I'm always careful what I say because I know people will read into it and I don't want to be accused of baiting" is just stringing people along.
I'm absolutely not saying you need to fully board the clown car, I totally get needing to manage your expectations for your own mental health and wellbeing. But in managing your expectations, don't go so far that you suck ALL the joy out of the information out there by catastrophizing worst-case scenarios in order to feel miserable instead of excited. You gotta find some middle ground in there.
41 notes
·
View notes
i think part of the resistance i’ve seen in response to the view of ed as an abuse victim—not just the view of izzy as someone who abused ed, but of ed as someone who was abused by him, as opposed to interpretations that pursue an image of Nuance and Complexity (unnecessarily, because their dynamic has heaps of both, but there seems to be a popular impulse to conflate complexity with shared culpability) by characterizing their relationship as being toxic/unhealthy in equal reciprocity, or as “mutually abusive” (oxymoron)—i definitely see the influence of racism there, but i think the racism is also working to amplify an adjacent issue where we tend to receive very specific cultural messaging about What An Abuse Victim Looks Like, and ed is excluded from a lot of that criteria.
he’s outspoken. he’s boisterous. he’s Very Cool and he Wears Leather. he’s physically bigger and browner than the person mistreating him. he spends the first season with a big grey beard, he’s covered in tattoos, he projects the image of A Man’s Man, to say nothing of his being a man in the first place. we see him get aggressive and we see him get angry (and sometimes we even see both at the same time). we see moments where he’s surly, prickly, insensitive, arrogant. his survival techniques and trauma responses incur collateral damage to other people, and in the second season this extends into affecting people we actually sympathize with. he’s extremely private about expressing fear. without examination, his professional relationship to izzy seems to position him as the one with the power slanted in his favor.
most damningly, we see him react multiple times to izzy’s abuse with physical violence. this is behavior that gets referenced all the time in the construction of narratives condemning subjects of physical abuse, let alone emotional abuse. which is why writing that intends for its audience to interpret a character as being unambiguously A Victim Of Abuse will often, for simplicity’s sake, avoid showing the character regularly engaging in anything of the kind.
and again, all of these departures from the image of The Model Victim are compounded by his being a man of color.
without any of the shorthand designed to point a big flashing arrow at his mistreatment, all we have left to work with are the words and actions we see from ed and izzy onscreen. who instigates conflict, and how does the other respond? how are they able or allowed to respond? how do we see them speak about each other to outside parties? does one go out of their way to control or isolate the other? what consequences does either party stand to face in saying “no” to the other? in acting against the other’s wishes? in trying to leave the relationship? when either of them attempts these things, how do we see the other respond?
i realize and appreciate what people are driving at when they garnish their analysis with disclaimers that they’re not saying ed’s just a poor innocent abuse victim, they’re not saying he’s a perfect angel who’s never done anything wrong, and that’s true, but these are points already contained implicitly in statements like “this show’s protagonists act like human people” and “ed’s emotional struggles are portrayed in a realistic and believable way.” my assumption is that these disclaimers are anticipatory responses to worst-faith interpretations of any discussion that attributes any victim status to ed whatsoever, so i definitely sympathize with their inclusion, but a (very small) part of me still worries about them potentially reflecting or reinforcing a belief that there is any way for someone to behave towards their abuser that imparts a responsibility for them to make right whatever damage the abuser receives, or for that matter any degree of ambiguity over their status as an abuse victim in the first place.
part of what i find so gratifying about ed as a character is that i don’t feel like the show’s writing is pressuring me to consider that ambiguity at all. which was a really nice thing for me to discover!
and tbh—did using ed to deconstruct The Model Victim even factor into the writers’ agenda?? ive got no clue. im guessing no? ??maybe?? probably not?? but if you create a main character whose central premise is that he feels trapped in a performance of exaggerated masculinity that he’s desperate to escape, and then you set him up with a character premised on embodying a tangible obstacle against that escape, then i guess that’s the natural shape your story’s gonna be inclined to take
84 notes
·
View notes
its still so funny to me that murder of sonic was supposed to be an april fools joke.. like its definitely one of the shortest sonic games ever and none of the typical sonic gameplay is there but its still a full game with an actual story thats taken somewhat seriously and clearly had thought put into the writing and character portrayals. and also i get the content i crave of sonic characters in cute little outfits and a bunch of the main and supporting characters being a silly friend group. all for free . wheres the joke here
31 notes
·
View notes