#yeah yeah everyone's written meta addressing this aspect of the story BUT I THINK ABOUT IT ALL THE TIMEEEEE | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

khattikeri · 3 months

Text

one of my favorite things about mdzs is that for how heavily its plot involves politics of classism and misogyny... even the characters most directly impacted by it can't and don't free themselves from it. literally the closest exception is mianmian.

meng yao being the "son of a whore" wasn't some sort of commie awakening for him that led him to wanting everyone to be socially equal. he played the political game, climbed the ladders, sucked up to and backstabbed and murdered people, including other prostitutes who actually had nothing to do with how he and his mother were treated at the brothel he grew up in.

he put in so much extra excessive effort for even a fraction of the same respect that members of gentry cultivation clans got. and he did deserve to be treated more humanely! but he feeds into the exact same system that created him, leading to his own undoing.

his efforts were for a fragile upward mobility that was never going to hold up. he never surpassed his origins nor did he empower others in similar stations, because the society he lives in is not one that would accept that.

the second he got caught and all those crimes exposed, he was scapegoated to hell and back, replacing wei wuxian as society's terrible one-sidedly evil boogeyman overnight.

speaking of not-quite male gentry, i think it's interesting that wei wuxian explicitly doesn't try to climb the ladders in BOTH lives, knowing full well that anything he does will be punished just for the sheer fact that he is wei wuxian.

wei wuxian is scolded for giving intelligent and correct answers in school. lan wangji does the same and is praised.

wei wuxian occasionally lounges around with fellow disciples and is punished. jiang cheng does the same and mostly escapes.

wei wuxian refuses to carry his sword around in public (after losing his golden core, which nobody knows) and is scorned as an arrogant upstart. nie huaisang has been doing the EXACT SAME THING for YEARS and nobody bats an eye.

unlike jin guangyao, wei wuxian knew subconsciously from the start that his acceptance was superficial and that he could be cast out any time. when he was 10 and recently taken in by the jiangs, he canonically would not eat or use "too much" food and water because he thought they'd find him a nuisance for "wasting their things" and kick him back out.

now away from just the classism, yu ziyuan is a proud and strong noblewoman in a society that belittles and derides women for everything they do. her strong cultivation doesn't matter. she's victim to the vicious rumors of her husband loving another woman who is strong like her but apparently had a more likeable personality.

it doesn't matter even if jiang fengmian didn't cheat or that wei wuxian is wei changze's son with cangse sanren; yu ziyuan can't bear with the humiliation of herself (and by extension her children) not being "good enough". she's ridiculed for "failing" in that one duty as a wife, mother, and woman.

she lashes out and takes out that anger on everyone present for years, giving her children lasting trauma and also being a key element in how the jiang family and yunmeng jiang sect are effectively wiped out at the hands of the wen clan.

madam jin doesn't even have a name outside of the fact that she's married to jin guangshan. i don't even remember reading anything that indicates if she's a strong or weak cultivator, or what, which in itself proves that to most people, it doesn't matter. she's "just" a woman.

of course she's angry at her husband's affairs and all the bastard children they bring in. but she also can't do anything about them, so she lashes out at the few people she can: servants. non-cultivators, probably. those very same bastard children.

shoutout to meng yao getting shoved down a flight of stairs at age fourteen, because if madam jin tried that move against her husband instead, it would make her lose even more face, which as a noblewoman she'd never do.

and that's not getting into how jiang yanli is consistently sidelined for being physically weak.

that's not getting into how mianmian was actually a good cultivator, but was mocked by everyone around her for trying to stand up for wei wuxian when everyone was turning on him. how everyone scoffed at luo qingyang's words as "just some lovesick woman" who "obviously wants to marry or bed him since he saved her".

luo qingyang is the only one of these characters who HASN'T died. she didn't play society's games like jin guangyao. she didn't dig her heels in confidence of her own abilities like wei wuxian.

she didn't bitterly lash out like yu ziyuan and madam jin. she didn't gently accept it like jiang yanli.

she just LEFT.

she married an ordinary merchant and cultivates separately from mainstream cultivation society, and therein found her own peace and happiness.

mxtx doesn't bother with particularly class conscious or feminist vocabulary to hand-hold readers into understanding these disparities, but that choice highlights them & the deeply entrenched politics of their society even more. i really love it.

#keri chats #mdzs #mo dao zu shi #long post #mdzs spoilers #im novel only but still tagging.#the untamed #cql #yeah yeah everyone's written meta addressing this aspect of the story BUT I THINK ABOUT IT ALL THE TIMEEEEE #maybe i just don't get to read a ton of books often; esp not ones that mirror my own culture. but it's just so. soooooo. augh #the fact that the setting itself enables so much of the tragedy in mdzs... which is true of all tragedies but STILL...#this isn't even getting into qin su and the power imbalance w her and jgy post-reveal... man.#man. so much going on here. man #THIS POST IS MESSY AND BARELY EDITED BUT IF U READ IT. ILU

503 notes · View notes

therealvinelle · 3 years

Note

I know this is like taking a bat to the beehive but... I really wanna hear your opinions on the whole... Imprinting thing

(Note before we go any further: this meta is written purely about the shapeshifting aspect of the Quileute characters, I don’t at all get into the racism in Twilight or any kind of social commentary. This is a purely watsonian meta. Others in this fandom have already addressed the racial dynamics at play, far more eloquently and knowledgeably than me. If I say something in here that’s in any way offensive, that’s not my intention and I’m open to criticism.)

Ooh imprinting.

I touch upon it here, basically I hate it.

The imprinting is part of this theme where the shapeshifters lose their free will and autonomy, and I find it tragic, cruel, and unnecessary.

First of, the fact that they have to phase at all.

They’re made warriors to protect their tribe. There’s no choice involved, only genetics and magic irrevocably changing their lives, and at a ridiculously young age, too. Sam is the oldest of them, and he is 19.

Violence is an inherent part of what they become. Their purpose is to protect the tribe, by fighting vampires. Not only is this insanely dangerous (we see Jake get so injured by a single vampire that he’s bedridden for weeks), but if they succeed, they will have killed. In the singularly brutal manner of tearing apart and burning someone who looks a lot like a human, who talks and might beg for their life, at that. And I remind you, most of these shapeshifters are literal children. They might not see vampires as people, but all the same, killing one can’t be good for their mental wellbeing. (Thought: Perhaps an argument can be made for Laurent’s death having a part in the turn Jake’s personality took? Some, though not many, of the symptoms for PTSD do fit. I don’t know enough about PTSD to pursue this train of thought, but it occurred to me just now, in particular he becomes quite aggressive and prone to outbursts after that incident, so into a parenthesis it goes)

Not to mention how inhumane that responsibility is. Vampires in the Twilight-verse are terrifying, and the shapeshifters might have the power to fight them. But (and this is where I plug one of my all-time favorite animes, Puella Magi Madoka Magica, as it asks the question “Is it okay to sacrifice yourself for others?” because that’s... well there’s a parallel to be made to the shapeshifters. It’s on Netflix!) does that mean they should? Is it really their responsibility? Again- they’re kids!

Then there’s the time Sam lost control, and accidentally mauled the girl he loved. And it’s so cruel to both him and Emily. Sam never chose to have to control himself in the first place, he never chose shapeshifting. He didn’t choose to imprint on Emily either, and he didn’t choose to lose control that day. At no point in the series of events that led to Emily being mauled did Sam have any real choice, and yet he will shoulder the guilt for what happened for the rest of his life.

These kids get superpowers, and several of them seem to enjoy being shapeshifters, but the fact remains that they now carry this huge responsibility to protect their families and homes, doing so is incredibly dangerous, they lose out on their regular lives, and they can’t opt out of it.

This all sucks, but then we get to the fact that they are deprived of their free will, as their alpha can issue an order they physically can’t break. The alpha becomes alpha because of bloodlines, not because of a democratic election. Jake got a mockery of a choice in that he could choose to become alpha himself, or let Sam continue, which was really just choosing between a rock and a hard place. There is no limitation to what this order can be, from “don’t say X to person Y” to “let’s kill someone you love”. Jake has to struggle to break that last one, and he’s only successful because of the bloodline thing letting him become his own alpha.

Oh, and there’s the massive invasion of privacy when they have a hive mind. Cool concept, less cool to have it be reality. Leah is the poster child for how a hive mind can backfire, and they can’t opt out of this.

I’m not good at gifs, but the shapeshifters just make me think of that gif of someone flicking a lightswitch on and off, “WELCOME TO HELL!”. Of course, Twilight in general is a pit of despair for everybody, so I suppose that gif really is... well it sums up all of canon.

So, we have these kids aged 19 or younger, as of Breaking Dawn they skew as young as thirteen, their lives are turned upside down by something they can’t opt out of, they must shoulder this huge responsibility to protect their homes and families from the terrifying threat of vampires, and on top of all of that, they must obey orders that are so irresistible, they can compel them to harm someone they care for.

With all of that in mind, you’d think that the shapeshifters had enough on their plate. That through all of this they would at least retain their selves, and be able to look forward to a future where they could stop phasing, and go on to live normal, human, lives.

Yeah, NOT IF THEY IMPRINT.

I’ll just quote Jake’s description:

Everything inside me came undone as I stared at the tiny porcelain face of the halfvampire, half-human baby. All the lines that held me to my life were sliced apart in swift cuts, like clipping the strings to a bunch of balloons. Everything that made me who I was—my love for the dead girl upstairs, my love for my father, my loyalty to my new pack, the love for my other brothers, my hatred for my enemies, my home, my name, my self—disconnected from me in that second—snip, snip, snip—and floated up into space.

I was not left drifting. A new string held me where I was.

Not one string, but a million. Not strings, but steel cables. A million steel cables all tying me to one thing—to the very center of the universe.

I could see that now—how the universe swirled around this one point. I’d never seen the symmetry of the universe before, but now it was plain.

The gravity of the earth no longer tied me to the place where I stood. (Breaking Dawn, page 237)

Everything that made me who I was disconnected from me.

Jake’s love for his father, his home, his very own self, it’s all gone now. And while I have thoughts on the authenticity of this imprint, whether it was organic, the description above is apparently how imprinting feels. It’s along the lines of what Sam, Jared, and Paul all describe.

I don’t think I can put into words just how devastating I find imprinting, I think the above quotation speaks for itself. And as with all other shapeshifter things, there is no choice involved.

We see its devastating effects in the Emily, Sam, and Leah debacle. Sam and Leah were serious together, so much so that they were engaged. Sam had fallen for and chosen to be with Leah. Perhaps they would have broken up eventually, but Leah was still the choice he made. Then he imprints on Emily, and all that is for naught. He had to break up with Leah, who if she hadn’t phased never would have learned why, Emily and Leah’s relationship is ruined, and Emily must forever live with the knowledge that if Sam had his free will intact he would be with another woman.

Then there’s Jared and Kim. Kim crushed on Jared, but Jared never noticed her. The fact that they were in the same class is damning: if a boy is attracted to a girl, he's gonna notice her. Jared never did.

Quil imprints on Claire, who is a toddler. That’s just a recipe for misery and disaster all around.

And I’ve only touched the shapeshifter side of things. They lose their autonomy and freedom, but the imprintées draw the short straw too. They’re now responsible for this other person’s happiness. Sure, having someone who’ll be whatever you need them to be sounds nice (well, it sounds horrifying, but I’m playing ball) on paper, but you can’t opt out of them being like that. The imprintée can’t say “Sorry, not interested,” and she certainly can’t shut the imprinter out of her life, not without irrevocably ruining the imprinter’s life. The imprinter needs her. She’s the center of his earth now, but she didn’t choose to be.

Imprinting is a liferuiner for everyone involved.

Then we have the question of what imprinting is even for. I’m afraid I agree with Billy, that it’s for procreation. We see Sam, who was dating a woman about to phase (even if Leah isn’t infertile, she’s a warrior now. She can’t run in the woods and fight vampires, and gestate and nurse a child at the same time) conveniently imprint on her cousin, who as cousin to Leah is from a shifter bloodline. Claire, as Emily’s cousin, has those same genetics. Paul imprints on a woman from the Black family line. Jake is the outlier, but either Renesmée’s gift helped that imprinting along, or he imprinted because of the offspring they could potentially have (I firmly believe it’s the former because the latter... NOPE. Also, I can’t imagine whatever magic drives imprinting would want vampiric progeny for the future generations. Regardless of Renesmée’s person, her biology is wired to desire human blood. That’s exactly what Jake is supposed to protect people from. Bad match.).

I just.... ughhh. God, I hate imprinting so much, and on every level.

To me, everything about the shapeshifters is about free will, autonomy, and the loss thereof. And it would have been beautiful if their story was about reclaiming that, but it isn’t. None of this, with the exception of the alpha orders, is even acknowledged.

So, in summation, yes I hate imprinting, but it’s only the horror cherry on top of a very sad and problematic cake.

408 notes · View notes

filmmakerdreamst · 4 years

Text

‘Boy Meets World’ Re-watch (as an Adult)

‘Girl Meets World’ doesn’t count as a sequel. Not because of the writing/tonal choices but because in the original show - despite continuity issues - the characters felt like real people e.g. the way they spoke/acted/dressed was the way people behaved in the 90s where as in the spin off, they were Disney characters e.g. hyper versions of themselves especially Cory and Eric. And the transition between both shows didn’t come naturally. It’s not an objectivity badly written show but it was pretty much a re-do of the old show with the same storylines/tropes without continuing the story. (I say the same thing about ‘The Incredibles’. vs ‘Incredibles 2’.) Also there were too many cooks in the kitchen pushing one way or another. You could see Micheal Jacobs style, all the aspects were there, but he was also creating a ‘DISNEY’ show at the same time. I don’t know about you but the one message I took from the original show was ‘finding out that life cannot be packenged into a lovely little present ’ which kind of contradicts everything that the new show is. If anything GMW is an AU universe (and it really felt like that, rewatching it right after BMW e.g. it felt flipped) almost like Disney’s version of ‘what happened next?’ The primal difference between both shows is BMW is portraying what is real and GMW is based on what is real.

Going off my point, I will however be always thankful that it exists because I probably wouldn’t of found out about ‘Boy Meets World’ otherwise. Although saying that, I never thought that the original show needed a continuation of any kind (a lot of things make sense about the spin off if you acknowledge that Disney requested it - I think it would of been much better off on its original platform) ‘Boy Meets World’ was very much a product of its time i.e. when tv shows were still relevetivley new and had no rules - like there is stuff in there that not even adult shows today have. Plus there was something about it that felt very personal (such as the characters and setting) as if the creator based it on his own childhood growing up and I think that was part of its charm and why it had such a big effect on pop culture - I’m not so sure you can repeat that.

BMW is big on meta I’ll tell you that. I love how it’s so aware of itself. The amount of depth that it has never ceases to amaze me. It’s whole universe is so dense and huge. Every quote/storyline is so unique it sticks in your brain forever. (I swear the humour got more and more deranged every season). The show was also incredibly queer and progressive. It didn’t give a crap about sexuality. Much more than I remember. Proof to never use ‘but it was made in the 90s’ excuse.

I loved how the show kept reinventing itself every season as Cory grew up so you really felt you were growing up with him and all the characters. The Character Development on this show was so natural/authentic. Every single character got a chance to shine. No one changed their look in one episode and no one had an intervention every time someone had an identity crisis (GMW) My favourite development was Shawn Hunter. He went from a cool kid to a ladies man to a poetic soul. It was so satisfying to watch.

I realised that Cory Matthews is actually my favourite character (before it was Eric or Shawn) I already have a special soft spot for ‘annoying’ characters because they tend to be the most memorable/real. For example, Karma Ashcroft from ‘Faking it’ was my babe while everyone was hating on her. I really related to his anxiety/self hatred about being average and I loved that he constantly made mistakes. It was very refreshing. He’s also incredibly queer-coded. I found that alot of his mannerisms make sense if you see him with extreme compulsory heterosexuality (because identity’s such as bisexual or gay couldn’t exist normally in the 90s) There are moments in the show where he literally mimics his best friend’s behaviour around girls e.g. when the class pretty much gets brainwashed by the sex ed video in ‘Boy Meets Girl’ Shawn gets asked out by a girl, making Cory jealous - which pushes him to ask out Topanga.

It’s funny how a few years of life experience can change perspectives completely because when I was sixteen (aka the same age as Cory and Topanga) watching BMW for the first time, I was mad at Amy for ‘not understanding that they were in love’ (in ‘A Walk to Pittsburg’) but now that I’m older I’m actually agreeing with her. Yeah, what do they know about love? Because all season long they were acting quite superficially.

Cory and Topanga became somewhat of a toxic couple in seasons 5 -7. Reminded me of my parents relationship because my mum gave up her chosen university to be closer to my dad and they aren’t together any more. Topanga’s love for Cory was very conditional and Cory cheated on her multiple times/openly begged for sex (Again like my parents) And you should never be in a relationship with someone who makes you say “You make me think not so very much of myself” There are arguably much more signs of emotional abuse than love in their relationship especially from Topanga’s side. Plus their story was altered so many times to give it more basis (they retconned Shawn and Cory’s friendship to do this) I could write an essay on how Kevin and Winnie’s love story on ‘The Wonder Years’ is much more believable because it actually addresses how toxic it was and they grow apart in the end. If GMW was a realistic continuation, they would be divorced with a little girl - leave them in the 90s where they belong.

Alan and Amy were couple goals! Cory and Topanga wish that they could have what they have. Literally the definition of ‘a healthy relationship on tv that keeps thriving and over coming obstacles without big drama’. Best TV parents ever.

I loved the Matthews family; how they all had individual arcs and developments of their own. One of my favourite arcs was in season 5, when Eric and Cory were both jealous of what they ‘didn’t have’ with their dad, so Alan made an effort to give them both that they needed. Honestly, I had never seen so much healthy communication on TV before. Alan is the best father around. His whole personal arc of giving up managing a supermarket because he wasn’t passsionate about it anymore and buying a mountain store was so inspired. I found it funny that the family had more of a relationship with Shawn than Topanga.

Shawn Hunter never caught a break. It got a bit tiring. He was never allowed to be happy for five minutes. Every time he laughed or smiled, 5 years were added onto my lifespan. Why didn’t Johnathan Turner adopt him? I loved their dynamic. Why did he let him go back to his abusive father who just dumped him anyway?

Jack and Shawn’s complicated dynamic was possibly the most unique/interesting arc of the entire show and no one talks about it. I don’t care what y’all say - despite them being very different, Jack was the only one who fully took care of Shawn without second thoughts (Turner and the Matthews family had doubts)

I liked Shawn and Angela. I thought they were much better suited than Cory and Topanga. I honestly wouldn’t of minded if they ended up together even though I always had a feeling they wouldn’t. (Like I’m glad she went with her dad in the end) And considering how important they were as a interracial couple in the 90s, GMW handled that very poorly.

Shawn and Cory should of ended up together. And before you come at me with ‘it’s important to have m/m friendships without toxic masculinity’ (which is an important arguement to have) - yeah no shit there’s an entire Industry based around that/pitting women against each other. While it is important to have those friendships between men that are close and even intimate (take Chandler and Joey, Schmidt and Nick, Isak and Jonas and Jake and Charles for example) there was also another layer to their relationship which the narrative played off sometimes as them “going out” or “in love”. I actually recently found out that a writer - who came into the show in season 3 - confirmed that she wrote gay undertones into their relationship on purpose ‘In my opinion as a writer, they thought they were “straight”, they both didn’t realise or understand their feelings for eachother’ but couldn’t deliever because the producers wanted to keep the show “kid friendly”. Kind of like Xena and Gabby. I know people prefer Jack & Eric (I love them as well) but everything got ruined for me as soon as they introduced the ‘love triangle’ and I always tend to prefer emotional tension over sexual. They were just so unconditional with each other/ their friendship was so good and healthy and now I’m so bitter that it never happened.

I never understood why Shawn and Cory had to stop being best friends after he got married. He’s not Topanga’s property. I always hated how Topanga tried to interrupt/interfere with their dynamic — although now I realise it was because the two of them purposely left her out. Looking back at it, If it really was just a intimate friendship then why would she get so easily jealous if she didn’t sense there was something else deeper going on? You should never marry someone who puts you second.

I didn’t like Topanga when she was with Cory (or vice versa) Especially after they got married. She was a great character on her own. Feminist before her time. Hermione Granger before her time. I always felt she deserved a lot better than him in a way e.g. if someone I considered a friend speard a rumour around high school that we slept together - I would never speak to that person again. SHE SHOULD OF GONE TO YALE GOD DAMN IT. And as someone pointed out the other day, if the roles were reversed some of the stuff she does or says to Cory would be considered domestic violence. ‘She’s always blaming Cory on shit that isn't even his fault or makes him feel bad or shuts down his emotions and turns it around so he's comforting her instead.’ There was even a moment in GMW (not that I consider that show a continuation) where she locks him out the house for a few days after he insulted her chicken, and his son Auggie had to bring him spaghetti. If Cory was a woman, that would not be played off as a joke - that would be considered abuse. They were however a better couple in GMW ironically.

Angela Moore is now one of my favourite characters on BMW. She was beautiful. Her friendship with Rachel (and Topanga) was the best. And I frickin’ loved her and Cory’s friendship development - when they could of easily not played into that. I hate that she got villiaized in GMW.

My favourite seasons are 4, 5 & 1. My least favourites are 3 & 2 & 7. And even then the show was still pretty darn good.

The back and fourth clash between Turner and Mr Feeny in season 2 was very entertaining.

Mr Feeny and Eric are my favourite relationship on ‘Boy Meets World’. I love how Eric was the only person that Feeny directly told that he loved him. Also, why didn’t Eric become the new Mr Feeny? He showed more traits of becoming a teacher in the show than Cory did.

Eric and Tommy was probably the most heartbreaking plot line in season 6. (That season was an emotional train wreck) I cried for a fourth time. The world doesn’t deserve him.

I loved the development of Shawn and Topanga’s friendship. Even though there was a silent competition over Cory, they eventually became good friends. I found out that the song ‘She will be loved’ was inspired by them which is awesome but it’s also proof that people ship for less if it’s an m/f dynamic - just sayin’. I however see a more convincing potiental romance with the two of them than Cory and Topanga sometimes.

On Cory and Topanga again - they weren’t a bad couple overall. I liked them in s1 - 3. They had some great moments. But upon my rewatch (getting out of that 90s idealised headspace) I found them to be too similar at times - chafing as another person put it - to the point where they cancel each other out. A lot of people pointed out that Riley and Maya paralleled them and I was thinking “That’s not nesserily a good thing.”

‘Dream. Try. Do good.’ is on my mantelpiece.

202 notes · View notes

secretlyatargaryen · 4 years

Note

Don't respond if you don't like talking about specific/individual ppl or are irritated by such asks, if so I apologize. So do you have any thoughts on the Tyrion narratives put forth by content creators like PoorQuentyn/BryndenBfish? I know u wrote on Brynden's "monster" piece, but I searched Tyrion/Tysha on twitter and have followed other NotACast Tyrion discussion,and it all seems to be aimed at framing him villainously,and since they're influencers, it sets the tone for all Tyrion discussion.

I do want to answer this question, but I don’t want to start discourse directed at any specific person so I thought about blacking out the names. But as you said, I’ve responded to these specific people before and written my own counter-meta so it’s no secret what I think about their theories. And they do have influence in the fandom and this interpretation of Tyrion is a popular one so it’s not like I’m dog-piling on a small minority by making a different argument. And you’re right about it setting a tone, and I think we need to be aware of the tone we’re setting when it comes to a visibly disabled character like Tyrion, and I think a lot of people aren’t aware of this or refuse to be sensitive to it. It’s better than it used to be but the ableism in this fandom is still shockingly bad. I mean, I saw a post recently calling Tyrion the “most vile” character in the books. Really? That vile dwarf, amirite?

I will say first of all that any argument for Tyrion’s villainy that claims him as “the monster he was told he was” or any iteration of that phrase should be dismissed outright on the grounds of gross ableism. Even if Tyrion ended up as the biggest villain of the series, he would not be the monster he was always told he was because he was told that because of ableism, by a society that thinks that disabled people are less than human, and that is fundamentally wrong.

I know we use the word “monster” in a moral sense, to describe a person who does acts that we consider so heinous that they seem inhuman, but not only is that fundamentally wrong - because even people who commit horrible acts are still human, despite what is comforting to think - but there’s a connotation of ableism there even without taking into account how it’s used in the text to demonize Tyrion, and used by his family and others to justify abusing him.

Like, if I can go on a tangent for a second, I started thinking about this when I used to be a big “Dexter” fan, before I’d ever read asoiaf or seen an episode of GOT. Dexter is a ridiculous show and not very good (but I love it), and it suffers from the same problems that a lot of villain discourse in fandom revolves around. Dexter is a bad guy but in the context of the show, he is a hero. Dexter, the character, often calls himself a monster in the show, and yeah, he’s reprehensible. He’s a serial killer whose one redeeming quality is that he kills other killers. He’s more reprehensible in the books and the earlier seasons before the show got too in love with the idea of him as the good guy, but even before that, I started noticing something really interesting. The ways that Dexter refers to himself as a monster have less to do with his serial killing habits and more to do with how he is mentally different than others. I don’t mean in the “sociopathic” sense, either, because early Dexter would talk about himself in ways that are recognizable to a lot of neuroatypical people. Dexter talks about pretending to be a real person and not a monster the way that my college roommate and I would talk about pretending to be real people when we would work up the spoons to go out to a party.

After I realized this, I began to be really uncomfortable every time I heard the word “monster” on the news, used to describe some person who’d committed some terrible crime. I get why people use this word, because, as I said above, it’s comforting to distance these sorts of people - rapists, murderers - from humanity, to pretend they’re inhuman. I’m not asking anyone to find the humanity in a rapist. I’m not saying that disabled people are just like serial killers. What I AM saying, though, is that using the word “monster” to describe a canonically disabled character who, throughout his life and throughout the series, has suffered horrible abuse because of ableism, carries a lot of unfortunate implications. We use this word to distance humans from their humanity. Tywin and Cersei also use this distancing language to justify poor treatment of Tyrion. He’s not Cersei’s brother, he’s not Tywin’s and Joanna’s son, he’s a monster. The slavers use it to refer to the slaves in Yezzen’s menagerie, which includes disabled people and an intersex person. And we should all know that the best way to justify enslaving and abusing others is to dehumanize them. Don’t call Tyrion a monster. Don’t.

The same thing needs to be said about arguments that use Tyrion/Tysha as evidence for Tyrion’s villainy. I’ve written extensively about this and I’m not going to argue with anyone on whether Tyrion should be blamed for what happened there, because he was a child being sexually abused by a parent and any attempts to retroactively assign blame or link this to theories about Tyrion’s future villainy is completely and absolutely wrong.

Now, as far as what I have to say about the narrative that Tyrion is a villain / will be by the end of the series? That depends on a lot of things, and one of them is what we mean when we say a character is a villain.

A lot of people, when they talk about this, are of course talking about the theory that Tyrion will somehow lead Dany astray and manipulate her into blowing up King’s Landing. Unless you’re one of those weirdo people who also think Dany is a villain, but that’s a whole different story and I don’t feel the need to address that because it’s complete nonsense. Anyway.

But here’s the thing. In asoiaf there’s multiple conflicts in every POV narrative, and in Tyrion’s story here’s what I see as the two major big ones: the internal conflict, Tyrion vs himself and his desire to prove that he is not a monster / his desiire for goodness / love / acceptance; and the external conflict, the more immediate of which is Tyrion getting back to Westeros / whatever role he plays in the war of five kinds / whatever role he plays in the song of ice and fire / the conflict with the others.

The things that people often cite as making Tyrion villainous are personal villainies. They’re part of the internal conflict. And in this conflict, Tyrion himself is his own villain. GRRM says that killing Shae is “the great crime of his soul” (and I would also add raping the woman in Selhorys) and those are part of Tyrion’s internal conflict because their role in the narrative is the effect they have on Tyrion mentally. I don’t mean that what happened to these women isn’t important, but from a narrative perspective, they are important for how what happens to them affects Tyrion. Now, we could talk about how that’s problematic, but it’s problematic from a narrative perspective, and that should be lain at the author’s feet. And the problematic aspect of it is that it’s NOT there to make Tyrion a villain. It’s there to provide conflict for Tyrion’s internal struggle, which he will need to resolve in order to participate in the external conflict. I think that’s the real reason why some fans hate Tyrion, but I wish we could be honest about that instead of pretending the author intends him to be a villain, because that’s just not how Tyrion is written.

Now, when I say the internal conflict has to be resolved, I don’t necessarily mean that it will be solved, or resolved in a good way. I think it would be like GRRM to have Tyrion play a major part in saving all of humanity and still be terrible on a personal level, but I don’t think that’s where he’s going with Tyrion either. I mean, in the latter half of ADWD he has Tyrion say things like this:

An honest kiss, a little kindness, everyone deserves that much, however big or small.

Which is…just not the statement of a character who is being written as a villain. If GRRM were writing Tyrion as becoming a villain in Dance it would be a gradual progression to more and more villainy. Instead he has Tyrion vacillate between depression, apathy, and cruelty and kindness and heroism. In fandom spaces we used to call this Heroic BSoD, Joseph Campbell called it The Innermost Cave. This is the part in the story where you don’t want to hear the end, Mr. Frodo, because how can the end be good, after all that bad has happened?

…You get the idea. GRRM is darker and grittier, and we can argue about whether he goes too far, especially when it comes to his unfortunate habit of fridging female characters, but that’s a different issue.

So, my thoughts on whether I think Tyrion will cause Dany to blow up King’s Landing? I mean, I don’t necessarily think it unlikely for GRRM to go that route, but if he does it won’t be that simple. Like I said, there’s a difference between the internal, personal conflict in Tyrion’s narrative and the external, wider conflict that is going to come to the fore in the next two books. Will Tyrion try and convince Dany to blow up King’s Landing because of his own desire for revenge on his family / the city that turned on him / people in general? Maybe, but that won’t be his only motivation, and Dany isn’t going to be his hapless puppet. If that happens, here’s how I see it: I think Tyrion, when he finally meets Dany and sees the dragons, is going to buy into what she is selling. Yes, Tyrion is incredibly cynical about Dany, but he’s also intrigued and even a little hopeful, and there’s also that inner part of him that’s going to be all “dragonsdragonsdragonsDRAGONSGDSDrasfGonSSDRGRRAGONSS.” So if he has a hand in getting Dany to torch the city, it will be because he actually thinks it’s necessary or that it’s an acceptable sacrifice for the world Dany wants to create (a world where even a dwarf can look down upon the world on the back of a dragon) with maybe a side helping of revenge because here’s Dany, the rightful heir to the throne, who wants to make the world a better place and who trusts and values him, and here’s the city full of corrupt people who hate him, who almost executed him for something he didn’t do. Tyrion’s crime there might be convincing himself that it’s an acceptable sacrifice to make, for the greater good, but that’s not that different than decisions many of the rulers in the books have made, and that’s a scenario in which he, Dany, and anyone else at play are equally culpable, and a far cry from the theories about how he’s going to be the villain leading Dany astray. GRRM is too good of a character writer to pull anything else with one of his major POVs, especially not his favorite who he has often stated is “the grayest of the gray.”

It would also be like GRRM to have Tyrion commit war crimes and still save all of humanity on the back of a dragon as his final act of love, resolving the internal conflict once and for all. I have problems with this too, because I find it incredibly uncomfortable for a disabled character whose narrative deals so personally with a desire for love end with him dying in a selfless act of sacrifice / have some kind of epiphany about how his desire to receive love on a personal scale is not important. I go back and forth, but really, the only thing I’m sure about is that GRRM is not going to make it so easy for us to categorize Tyrion in the end.

#tyrion lannister #valyrianscrolls #asoiaf meta #ableism cw #abuse cw #rape cw

19 notes · View notes

rubberduckyrye · 5 years

Text

(User sent in an ask asking to make them anonymous, so I deleted the OG post and am remaking it here to accommodate)

Aside from Kokichi’s treatment being pretty unfair, there’s a lot I’d rather see changed in V3 specifically.

First and foremost, Maki’s writing needs some heavy tweaking. She gets away with everything, quite literally, and her arc is dissatisfying because of that. I’d either want to write Maki as a flip on the trope of “love can change a person for the better” and have Maki basically immune to all of Kaito’s help, and instead remains a cold hearted killer who can’t be swayed, or I’d want her to answer for her mistakes. Especially the issue of chapter five where she tries to kill everyone in the remaining class just as an attempt to kill “Kokichi” and frankly aside from the Kokichi aspect, it really bothers me that this was just. Brushed over and not addressed. Like at all.

I’d also really would like to tweak Gonta’s arc, or rather, not take away this big boy’s freedom of choice. Aside from the aspect that Kokichi gets blamed for Gonta’s decision, I just find this incredibly uncomfortable for Gonta. Like he’s reduced to a stupid innocent baby cinnamon roll who can literally do no harm and tbh, I really like the idea of Gonta being a pure hearted person who still resorted to murder. I think people think these two things cannot coexist, but good people can make bad choices and Gonta shouldn’t be an exception to this. He’s also smart, like he’s a scientist for fuck’s sake, he might not be great socially but the game treating him like a big dumb ass hurts my soul.

I’d want to change Korekiyo’s incest plot. Not to remove the incest part, in actuality, that part makes the most sense to me when compared to the serial killer plot. The serial killer plot came from no where, had no foreshadowing in the slightest, and didn’t make any sense whatsoever when you think about how Korekiyo could have gotten away with literal murder in the first chapter. Why I would keep the incest plot? Because I interpret that as him being a victim of abuse, and his love for his sister being conditioned into him and something he has to unlearn and grow from.

Tenko’s writing is another example of something I’d like to change, and that is based off of my friend’s interpretation (which you can find at @heart-ruled tbh it’s really good) and point out that everything Tenko thinks she knows about Akido is a lie, and imply her master was gaslighting her and mentally abusing her in general. I’d really love to write a thing of my own where Tenko realizes this and tries to grow as a person from it and unlearns her violent misandry. That or at least have her misandry stem from being abused instead of her taking on the idea that men are pigs because her master “teased” her about it… Also, no predatory lesbian writing, please, thank you–

Angie is a character that also needs a huge overhaul–her entire character is a gross, racist caricature and her back story needs a total wipe and reset. Also I really liked this one comic of Kokichi and Angie (idr who made it) that showed their parallels and I’d probably write Angie to be more obviously like Kokichi except which her own flavor and story.

I think what Kodaka tried to pull off, the meta and ambiguity, just did Not Work and came out very wrong. I’d probably redo the entire plot twist and ending to V3 to reveal that Tsumugi was full of shit and yeah.

I also want to tweak other characters in more minor ways, like Kirumi and Ryoma, and give them a bit more of a fleshed out story–especially Kirumi.

Honestly there’s a lot I would change, and a lot of writing in V3 to be critical of. I like a lot of base ideas Kodaka came up with, and some things are very wonderfully written–but other aspects are very, very awful, especially things like the racism in Angie’s writing. That’s a very Big Bad.

15 notes · View notes

familiaralien · 5 years

Text

Honestly the last couple of days I’ve been getting into the discourse about like art and ya know”problematic” content but I figure the twitter format sucks so instead of spamming people there with a thread I’ll write about something specific I’m going to call “The Meg Griffin effect”:

Basically if you didn’t know the writers of Family Guy went on the record that they didn’t know what to do with Meg so they made her into a buttmonkey character. Doesn’t sound bad on paper but you know having her constantly berated and even physically assaulted by her family as a “joke”... yeah doesn’t work the way it was suppose to. It isn’t helped when the writers were presumably confronted on how that joke doesn’t work they took it to write an episode where they justify the joke by proclaiming Meg needs to fill this role as the family punchbag.

Did I neglect to mention Family Guy is self aware and has admitted even in canon they know most people watching the series are teenagers?

Yeah having a teenage character be told that enduring abuse to keep the family together is a good thing is an example of sending the wrong message... like a really REALLY bad one. Their message was meant to be a meta one aimed at discussing the choice to give this character this role within the narrative but because it was written within a setting it ends up making it seem like the writer are victim vilifying abuse apologists. Once again reminder all of this is aimed at the very audience (ie: teenage girls) that would be most hurt by such a message.

So yeah in my experience a lot of people online that that claim to fame is writing dark themed narrative are writing Meg Griffin stories. When confronted with death of the author and what that means for their work they become defensive and end up not actually addressing the critique because they can only see their own perspective. My problem with you writing say a story where a child is raped isn’t you wrote a story where a child is raped its the surrounding circumstances of it then may have the unintended effect of normalizing or maybe even glorifying such a thing. This is not changed by the fact you may be writing a story based on your own life experiences. You will not be the first or last to have done this and potentially had their work used by shitty people to justify their shitty behavior (I’m looking at you, Fight Club).

A lot of my own stories are filled with abuse as a narrative choice but I’m always trying to be careful of the tone I take while doing so as if I ever publish those stories I want people to get the right message out of it. That doesn’t mean my work won’t still be uncomfortable to many and even triggering to some but at the very least most people won’t come out of it thinking I’m the biggest asshole ever. There’s still a chance some people will be offended and attack me for daring to tackle such an issue but you will get that for far FAR more mundane things. Its about carefully considering who’s saying what and for what reason. Hand waving all criticism and acting like everyone is just afraid of the more horrific aspects of life is dishonest at best and outright malicious at worst.

So yeah that’s my take on say people drawing rapey kid punching puppy kicking kinda stories: Be cool, be compassionate, learn to fight your battles and don’t write 6000 word essays where you misrepresent your critics at infantile tumblrinas with no real problems when most of them were abuse survivors that were being exceedingly polite... yes that’s vaguing someone that legit did that.

#csa mention #child abuse #writing meta

4 notes · View notes

mild-lunacy · 7 years

Text

The Fan Rebellion and the Last Season Jinx

As I said yesterday about Sherlock, I've definitely observed that a lot of people think that the last book or the last season in a series is often... problematic. If you've been in enough fandoms, you'll see this is a very common phenomenon. It's also very common for people who're particularly attached to a pairing or a character to feel 'cheated' and rant irrationally at the creators (unfortunately). As I said, this is just what fans and fandoms are *like*. I literally-- literally!-- cannot remember the last time a final season or book truly pleased most diehard fans, or there was a lack of wank at that point at least. Being a diehard fan means being unreasonable to some degree, and when you translate this to the way most people act on the Internet, it's a matter of trolling waiting to happen. My point is that there's certainly plenty of pure wank, and this is what people who're frustrated with the discourse often focus on. As for me, I'm more concerned with the fact that most of the more thoughtful metas aren't really... that much better, in terms of the depth or closeness of analysis being performed.

In general, I've been thinking that fans are often most frustrated when they feel that things didn't change enough, so the writers actually kept going with their MO in ways they'd hoped *would* change, while adding new stuff they feel unprepared for. That type of rug pull or 'gut punch moment' Moffat said he likes so much is actually something many fans tend to hate, especially when they're simultaneously confronted by the fact that many of the undesirable aspects of the style remained. This was a huge problem one could see with the overwhelmingly negative critical and fan response to the 'transgressive' approach Gatiss took with 'The Final Problem', as I've written about recently. Of course, this is also precisely what happened with Moffat and Gatiss's clear, consistent interest in queer subtext (largely remaining just that). It *feels* like a bait and switch, leading to claims of the lack of character progress combined precariously with criticism of the apparent inconsistencies.

In the Raven Cycle fandom, I've noticed the more mature sounding, analytical drive-by critiques of 'The Raven King' saying that the characters didn't grow enough, at least aside from Ronan and Adam. That is, the others' arcs didn't *resolve* enough. This is definitely a common refrain for the last book or season of a show, when people come into the story with a lot of preset expectations and projections onto the text. In the case of the last book in The Raven Cycle, it's common to see people say that Noah in particular just disappeared, somehow. And this critique is always presented as being somehow more hard-hitting than pure squee about the books, a sign the person is thinking deeply and critically about the text. In fact, it's generally a sign that they didn't pay enough attention to the story.

Do many narratives actually go off the rails at the last minute? Sure, yeah. But it seems to me that if your critique is primarily that things about the characters didn't change *enough*, or they changed in the *wrong way*, then that warrants a second look. It's a sign there were certain expectations being applied, certain standards as to what sort of thing qualified as a 'resolution' as well as what *needed* an explicitly textual resolution to start with. And unlike these fans' implicit assumptions, there's no rules about what a writer would *have* to address explicitly in terms of characterization and what they can leave to be inferred or simply understood by connecting the dots of related events.

It's hard to say exactly what any given fan thinks Maggie Stiefvater failed to resolve in TRK. Everyone seems to have their favorite axe to grind. I *can* say there is textual support for them being wrong about Noah, and this whole complaint is a misreading of his entire character from the start. Conversely, stuff to do with Gansey and Blue is more difficult because it's more complex and works with more of people's ingrained projections and assumptions about the characters, and what the two of them need in the first place. No one wants to think they've misunderstood the story, but my point is that this is relatively common, at least as common as stories suddenly turning bad at the last stretch, surely. I'd say more common than that, 'cause writers generally do have editors and some sort of existing plan for their characters.

Basically, when the last part of a story makes the mismatch between the audience's headcanons and the reality of the story all too apparent, most people clearly choose to blame the writers rather than reevaluating any of their existing readings of the characters. And this happens even though there's generally a mix between the audience misunderstanding and the writer's failings.

A lot of times, I think part of the problem is a mismatch of priorities. It's not that the last book or season generally just *ignores* the issues at hand, but the writers may have had other priorities that they chose to take center stage. Fans are usually pretty resistant to any such last minute shift in priorities (so many people resented the importance of Henry Cheng in TRK just 'cause he was new, just as many people really weren't thrilled with Eurus being so important in Sherlock Series 4). Basically, the character arc may turn out to be more of a case of character *growth* or development instead of a formal arc the way some characters may have. And needless to say, this isn't okay for fans of that character or people who thought they were 'important' enough for a more explicitly central role.

Of course, simply focusing on a different character-- such as making Adam and Ronan's arcs the core of The Raven Cycle, or keeping Sherlock alone as the protagonist of BBC Sherlock-- isn't actually a writing mistake. This is complicated for people who thought they were reading or watching an entirely different story, though, because an apparent shift (or final adjustment) in focus can seem to change the nature of the narrative as a whole. It's not even a misreading at that point: it's that you may think you're reading a story about Blue, Gansey and friends at the beginning, or it's a show about John and Sherlock's adventures and friendship. And then, boom! It hasn't really been about Blue after all: she's just the necessary mirror and introduction to the Raven Boys. Similarly, the show is not really about John and Sherlock's relationship, in the strictest sense, but primarily about *Sherlock*, whose central relationship is simply with John. That changes things... too many things, for many fans, who simply find they cannot accept it. After all, it still feels like losing something you loved.

Like I said, though, this isn't to say that Gansey and Blue's relationship (or John and his relationship with Sherlock) wasn't developed and resolved in the end, even if this wasn't the *kind* of resolution fans expected or wanted. That's definitely a difficult thing to wrap your mind around, and requires viewing the story impersonally-- or at the very least not taking what happens to your favorite characters *personally*, which is a tall order for anyone who's emotionally engaged with a story to start with. I'm not even sure it's *desirable*, really. It just kind of comes naturally to me, whether through personality type or college training.

Finding that seemingly missing character development calls for a certain type of engagement and close reading that I think most people either rarely engage in or only engage in if they're absolutely in love with the story. Basically, the John or Gansey type of characterization thread is part of a secondary (implicit or subtextual) rather than the primary narrative, so you have to look closer, read more deeply and generously. This is something which most disgruntled fans aren't apt to do. That's what I meant about many of the critical readings being a bit desultory or sloppy, more concerned with letting off steam than analyzing the text open-endedly. As I'd said yesterday, the motivation for most critiques in general is such that they don't lend themselves to making close, loving treatises. And in the end, the pay-off isn't very dramatic, anyway. As Ivy showed in her recent reply to me, the pay-off for John and Sherlock in TLD is almost entirely implicit and between the scenes (or lines). And well, the fact is that at the end of TRK, Gansey's King is found to be dead. He hasn't had a heart-to-heart with Adam except about Ronan, and I suppose it seems that some of the problematic aspects of his relationship with Ronan himself haven't been... fixed (although I'm far from sure they *needed* explicit fixing). Not exactly thrilling. And then the author says that he still can't kiss Blue. It's enough that that many people have to ask: is that part even *real*? It certainly doesn't *feel* real to them.

In the end, I'm a 'cold-prickly' kind of reader, so I don't mind those kind of understated emotional resolutions too much. However, this may actually not even register as any kind of resolution for many 'warm-fuzzy' types, who associate resolution with direct emotional pay-off. Because of that underlying assumption that a character resolution would automatically be *satisfying* and feel good, anything that isn't positive or satisfying will then presumably have to be called unresolved.

Essentially, my point is that character or plot-based resolution can certainly occur off-screen, or lack true emotional pay-off. For example, I've described the talks between John and Sherlock in the show, and they're all full of unspoken things: they're frequently being interrupted, are incomplete, or are otherwise unsatisfying in some way. This tendency of only hinting at things, or the characters not explicitly *saying* what they mean is typical for Moffat and Gatiss's work; Moffat has said he doesn't consider it a plot hole (or otherwise incomplete) if something is simply *unexplained* in the text. He expects the engaged viewer to fill in between the lines, as Ivy describes doing after TLD. Clearly, the question of whether one's viewers choose to grant the text that sort of courtesy is another thing altogether.

#raven cycle #raven ❤️#writing #narrative #the great divergence #sherlock feels #steven moffat #mark gatiss #series 4

14 notes · View notes

elizabethrobertajones · 7 years

Note

Ha! Sorry , yeah I forgot to put in Cas's name (and it's coming from a LOT of Cas fans in a "I get why they're happier to see their mum- just as someone without blood relations it makes me super sad to see people act this way about bio parents- same reason I can't watch Once Upon a Time which is super gross about that)

Aah, I get you >.> Yeah, I understand now. But I haven’t been on my dash at all so I have no idea what people are saying about this or how they have been interpreting it. I’m so far behind despite it being like 2 days since the episode I’m still in the fresh eyes episode reaction phase >.> I’d like to know what people are saying before, like, the next episode, but I suppose I can offer my perspective without any idea what everyone else is saying about this :P

To my eyes I didn’t think they were “happier” to see their Mom - they called Cas and Mary came too and they didn’t have an expectation she’d be there. Using Sam as a control group because Dean is definitely acting weirder in that scene, Sam just sort of stumbles on both of their other immediate family in the wood and glomps onto both of them.

I have read a fair amount of meta now suggesting Dean’s weirdness about Mary being there was because he hadn’t expected her and the whole deal thing - which we don’t know the terms of yet when they see her for the first time - being a real problem. Now I rewatch it Dean definitely seems much shiftier about it all so I read HIS reaction to seeing Mary as not letting go of Cas and rushing off to her because he cares more to see her, but he is distracted by her presence because he hadn’t counted on it.

(It all relies on Cas and Mary bonding while Sam n Dean are locked up - I don’t think they knew really that Cas and Mary had been as close as they were even before they both split off on their own things, because they talked alone at night. Mary IS Cas’s emergency contact and that should be fairly obvious but Dean made a point of calling Cas and only Cas over and over when they got out so his behaviour excludes Mary and remembering 12x06 I think he would have feared exactly what nearly happened, involving her in the deal even if he couldn’t have been sure the terms covered her, Winchesters tend to sacrifice for each other and the last time they saw her her vulnerability there was emphasised.)

Buuut the camera from Cas’s perspective tells us he’s THINKING Sam and Dean are prioritising Mary, so that’s a valid thing to discuss, but I do think Cas’s self esteem was literally the subplot of the episode for him, so his judgement on these matters is impaired - 12x03 with the conversation about belonging is so important and he thinks Mary belongs (and she assumes he does), but when Cas sees something like Sam and Dean rushing to hug Mary, despite how we see how happy they are to see him, he can’t process it properly; we’re getting Cas’s perspective but it’s only a perspective. So I think Cas is actually feeling what you are about the sad and isolating feeling of blood family winning over found family (as he expressed in 12x03 about Mary belonging just because she was their mom) and he feels like he’s seeing it in action there.

But the show has ALWAYS stressed these messages about what blood is and how that includes people who aren’t literally blood at all (and in Cas’s case are angel grace instead of blood :P)… Crowley’s one thing in the episode was to remind us how he cares (even though he says he doesn’t) and Dean gave him the family don’t end in blood (or begin there) speech about HIS newly discovered Mom back in 10x17, which is now pretty eerie. It looks like we’re coming up to conflict about Mary in 12x12, and her choices, and while I think there’s a very very low chance the Winchesters disown her, I do think the actual bonds of closeness between them all need to be really forged in fire through all the stupid decision making Winchesters do :P I just watched the end of season 6 yesterday, and Cas making all his stupid decisions, and Dean saying he considered Cas family to try and talk him out of it… The knock on effect of that long down the line when Dean and Cas reconcile, is a bond that’s far stronger than it was before, because it’s come through all that pain into forgiveness.

And not to say Mary isn’t important to them because although she hasn’t been in their lives, the comparison to Rowena is obviously nothing like how Mary was to her sons when she was alive and they were small… The tragedy aspect of her dying changes the way in which she wasn’t there for them and how they relate to that… It’s an emotional stake they have in each other that people literally can’t have in real life so the melodrama attached is very heightened and weird… Anyway, the way Mary has been written in the past, to go right back to episodes like Home, shows a huge sacrifice and love for her sons, so though she hasn’t had many chances in the narrative, their one encounter with the “real” her in the whole story before season 12, she did one of the big Winchester sacrifice plays out of love for them, so though she doesn’t remember it, in a way I would suppose to them it seems like she has been tested and her true self demonstrated to them in a way that would make them very happy to accept Mary as-is, as both blood and someone who would earn their total respect and trust, even taking the tragedy and subsequent canonisation of Mary aspect out of it.

Buuut yeah while Mary has been this constant presence in the show, Cas HAS physically shown up for them more… I don’t wanna get into points scoring or saying who is more deserving because they both have very different relationships to the brothers, and they have been put in the narrative in a neat sort of parallel to each other walking a similar path but with their own baggage, and the direct parallel in 12x03 of how they felt about belonging started this off. The narrative is therefore treating them as equals both needing to come to the same place and feel the same way in SOME ways, about belonging and finding a family (and they’re doing it with each other as well as bonding with Sam and Dean which is great because the family dynamic will work best with all 4 of them sharing love in all directions)… But it all needs to be tailored to the ways they’re approaching it. To take that 10x17 speech again, Cas is “family don’t end in blood” and Mary is “but it doesn’t start there either” and they’re working through those two extreme opposite ends of the mantra side by side, so in moments like this, it’s demonstrating where we’re at with this. (Mary seems to find some belonging but now is desperate to protect her family even more; Cas’s actions not just here but in the speech after killing Billie, clearly paint him as an outsider looking in, and admiring “the Winchesters” while not feeling like a part of the family unit - the three standing together and him addressing them)… This is not the end of this arc by a long shot, so while Sam and Dean are relatively stable and when it comes to THEIR relationship absolutely a fluid duo who move and think together (have they EVER been this good?) Cas and Mary have been thrust to extreme ends of their approach to belonging right now…

So I think to compare them by how much history they have with the Winchesters is a bit one-sided whichever character you are favouring, because these stories are parallel lines on the same emotional quest, and you need to consider both to understand the other. I don’t think it’s really a competition for family? Cas’s found family side is equally a valid part as Mary’s blood relationship but to reconcile both to the core family unit has to deal with the issues of both, which from Cas’s perspective is Mary having less history but easier acceptance into the family and from Mary’s perspective is reconciling being in this family by blood with properly feeling herself as part of the family unit with the same bonds that the forged in fire found family relationships have - in 12x03 her problem is she’s feeling like an outsider because “her” family is babies and married to John, not two gruff hunters and their angel. She HAS the blood connection and it seems to give her an “in” but she’s struggling so much with what is “more” than that.

… I hope this rambling makes any sense and maybe makes you feel better about whatever’s going on here. I definitely don’t think the show is betraying its age old mottos about family that I assume would make it so appealing when you have a lot of found family.

#Asks #12x09 #season 12 spoilers #12x03 #angels are watching over you #mind you people can be bitter as hell about Cas stuff and look for the worst #I think I'm generally level-headed about it #but then this episode knocked me for six with my expectations about Cas #I thought he'd be totally overlooked #instead I got beaten up by Cas feels :P #and he and Mary were the heart of the episode to me #I can see how if you're expecting something terrible you find it >.>#And this also comes down to a lot of character interpretation #and once you start on a thread of interpretation it's VERY hard to hop to another #as every subsequent action warps to fit what your main interpretation is

41 notes · View notes