#''it's canon therefore you can't criticize me'' | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

shinidamachu · 2 months

Note

Sid, why do you think people think Kagome is “so annoying” and “whiny?” How exactly did she earn this reputation among her (rather dumb) haters.

The world is not kind to 15 years old girls, and what is Kagome, if not the perfect representation of one?

People forgot they can dislike a character just because and then move on. They'd rather grasp at straws to try and justify themselves, that way they can pretend they're being rational about the constant hate they're spreading when, truthfully, they're just being miserable.

Kagome specifically is in even greater disadvantage because her critics are, mostly, people who haven't read the source material and are instead basing their takes on a biased adaptation – which they probably watched ages before developping any critical skills – or people who see her as a threat to their ship and therefore are already prone to hate her.

The first group won't ever bother going out of their way to try and get a better grasp of her character by reading a 558 chapters long manga and the second group won't change their minds either way.

That's why they call her out for using the beads of subjugation even if: it wasn't her idea in the first place, it served to balance her relationship with Inuyasha at the beginning – since he was powerful and violent while she wasn't –, the rosary became a symbol of their bond, it saved Inuyasha a couple of times and he was always more annoyed than hurt by it, not to mention Sunrise blowing it out of proportion compared to the manga.

You never see Inuyasha getting bashed for hitting Shippo every other episode or Sango getting any heat for constantly slapping Miroku, because funnily enough people seem to understand it was just dumb, outdated, slapstick comedy, a courtesy they refuse to extend to Kagome.

That's also the reason they call her “annoying” and “whiny”: Kagome’s most important lesson was that it's okay to have feelings, so naturally they twisted that into a bad thing in order to keep hating on her. It's not about how her character was written, it's about people using of bad faith and deliberately mischaracterizing Kagome to pass their internalized misogyny as valid criticism.

I know part of the issue is that audiences nowadays are under the impression that for a female character to be strong, she can't cry or be feminine, but you don't see anyone hating on Sango even though she does cry and she can be as feminine as Kagome depending on the circunstances and on her mood.

The truth is that Kagome is playing a game she can never win, because the refs have decided they want her to lose before the match even starts.

If she stands up and sets boundaries for herself, she's annoying. If she doesn't, she's a doormat. If she feels jealousy, she's a bitch. If she shows kindness, she's boring. If she fights, she's overpowered. If she doesn't, she's useless. If any other character cries, it's heartbreaking. If she cries, she's whiny.

If she goes back to her own world, she's selfish. If she leaves that world behind to live the life she wants for herself, she's a stupid girl who left her family for a boy. If she does something grand, that's only because she's someone else's reincarnation. If she messes something up, the fault is hers and hers alone. She is, somehow, simultaneously a Mary Sue and a toxic abuser.

I've personally seen people slut shaming her because she got hitted on by Koga. I've personally seen people call her a "pick me" girl. Kagome. A pick me girl. Kagome.

And none of this is fair, because she is the kind of character who does her best to see the good in others, to understand the reasons why they act the way they do and to offer them some grace, but she gets very little of that in return, be it in canon, be it in fandom.

They always hold her up to such an impossible standard, but they completely forget to ask themselves: would the characters I stan be able to match the expectations I set for Kagome? Scratch that: would the characters I stan even be able to deal with things the way Kagome managed to do? Would I? The answer is most likely no, so how about cutting her a slack?

You ask me how did she earn this reputation among her rather dumb haters, my answer is: she didn't. They're just incapable of understanding that if a particular nuanced, well written, female character is not their cup of tea, they can simply ignore her and focus their attention on the characters they do like instead of spreading their baseless, misogynistic takes on the internet.

#I also feel like there's this trend of disliking protagonists in general #But I won't elaborate because this is already longer than I wanted it to be #And it applies to most of protagonists so it isn't Kagome specific #It's a dicussion for another day #Inuyasha #Kagome #Kagome Higurashui #Thank you for the ask anon #Sidmailing

161 notes · View notes

slytherhys · 4 months

Text

SJM writes stories about women overcoming their fears and finding other female characters and building a better world - and yet, I see an alarming amount of people being misogynistic and sexist towards the very same characters they read about.

Claiming Feyre is a bad painter when there's literally no evidence for it, calling her boring for choosing motherhood, calling her weak for having a human heart (something she is PRAISED for by everyone else), trying to blame her for everything her abuser did; Discrediting Morrigan and claiming she lied, giving Eris the benefit of the doubt therefore making Mor into the bad guy; Claiming Elain is a wh*re, a b*tch because she has a mate she doesn't care about but for some reason she has to be faithful to him, she has to reject him, ACCEPT him when all we've seen is her discomfort around him. Claiming she isn't good enough for a man because, supposedly, she can't have his babies; calling her useless because she doesn't want to use violence; Unfortunately, there are many other examples I could name.

Please note that the male characters are NEVER the object of such criticism - in fact, people will doubt the women who told showed us men are abusers and do everything in their power to believe them instead, ignoring the very canon content the author wrote herself ("there's definitely more to it!"; "feyre is an unreliable narrator!"; "why should we believe mor?")

And now, with HOFAS nearly out, I keep seeing people wanting Bryce to hate Elain? To be a bitch to Mor and Feyre? Where in the books did you ever get the impression any of these female characters would hate each other?

I genuinely never expected to see so much misoginy when I first joined a book fandom where female characters are literally the focus of everything. What saddens me the most is how much these ideas seem to be growing instead of disappearing.

You all need to grow up.

#acotar fandom #acotar #acomaf #acowar #acofas #acosf #feyre archeron #morrigan #amren #elain archeron #nesta archeron #emerie #gwyneth berdara #anti tamlin

230 notes · View notes

percheduphere · 4 months

Note

So...Thoughts on the whole people thinking Sylvie is Aro-Ace? I can kinda see her being Aromantic, but with her mentioning she's more "hedonistic" than Loki and silently hinting that she's Bi too, can't really see her as Asexual. But what do you think?

LET'S TALK ABOUT SYLVIE'S SEXUALITY, HER RELATIONSHIPS WITH LOKI AND MOBIUS, & HER CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE SERIES NARRATIVE

Before I answer this, I think it's important to acknowledge that fictional characters exist for people's comfort and pleasure. I write original fiction, and I would hope that most artists believe in the right of the audience to interpret character to meet their personal needs. To me, canon is a sandbox. Everyone should play with it as they please and not hate on each other. There are more important things in life to worry about. Therefore, if Sylvie reads as Aro-Ace to you and that reading brings you joy, then she is.

This question inherently requires the need to talk about Sylki in this post. I predominantly analyze Lokius, so please, no hate! My number one rule is never yucking someone's yum. Furthermore, Sylvie plays a critical role in Loki's development and the philosophical thrust of the series, of which Mobius also contributes to as the other half of Loki's character arc equation (selflessness and sparing life [Mobius] + free will and revolution [Sylvie]). It would be biased and disingenuous to not acknowledge her contributions to the overarching narrative.

ARO-ACE INTERPRETATION

All right, your question! I can definitely can see Sylvie as being aro-ace. That's a legitimate interpretation based on how she responds to Loki's flirtation and romantic advances. It is also possible that she's an aromantic bisexual. This second possibility is more likely based on the text the audience is given.

THE CANON TEXT

Having said that, I think you're curious about what the source material is trying to say about Sylvie's character and how that influences her sexuality. I believe it's important to remember that external behavior doesn't dictate how someone defines themselves. Closeting and disengagement from intimacy because of trauma are prime examples of this.

The train scene in S1E4 reads as earnest. Loki and Sylvie are both very lonely characters. In this moment, both are trying to connect with someone who finally understands them because they are the same. It's actually a lovely nod to the queer experience.

The dialogue, lighting, and costuming (blue, purple, pink) in this scene communicates they are both queer, specifically bisexual. The lighting and costuming combining to represent the bisexual pride flag is an example of queer subtext in film. The dialogue, while direct, is also written in such a way that it avoids explicitly stating "men and women." Sylvie later comments that the brief flings she indulges in during apocalypses helped her "keep going". She even specifies that apocalypses make people desperate. This suggests that Sylvie likely didn't need to do much wooing or charming like Loki would to obtain a sexual partner. Finally, the way Tom and Sophie play this scene is vulnerable. I therefore believe we can take this on-screen admission at face value.

So the question becomes, why does Sylvie respond to Loki's flirtations the way she does?

SYLVIE'S BACKGROUND

Sylvie was orphaned and forced to run all her life from a very young age. Her backstory is deeply tragic. To live in such a way means that she never had the opportunity to experience adolescence.

NOTE: This is honestly my favorite gif of Sylvie. She's so sweet and cute when she's happy. I can't get over the 5 stars on her employee badge. "Sylvie, can you refill the straws?" "Already did it!" The sweetheart.

Sylvie working at McDonald's accomplishes two things: it allows Disney to fulfill their advertising sponsorship agreement for the fast-food franchise, and it subtly alludes to Sylvie's need to live the adolescence she didn't get to. The TVA forced her into arrested development. She never had the chance to make friends and safely socialize on her own terms. The centuries of trauma have made trust, let alone romance, completely foreign to her.

Which is why, when Loki and Sylvie have romantic scenes, she is often awkward or, if not unreceptive, wary. Her previous flings, as she agrees with Loki, were "never real". Physical intimacy without emotional intimacy is a familiar dynamic for both characters. Their relationship with one another is their first experience of emotional intimacy (or at least attempt at it) outside of their families. The pursuit of this emotional intimacy feels safe to them because they are the same entity and thus they know each other's base nature (versus nurture!) to some degree.

The difference between them is that Sylvie has not experienced social rejection in the way Loki has (nurture!). She recognizes the wrongness with which the TVA has treated her. She knows the absolute atrocities the TVA has committed. She is determined to destroy them to free herself and all timelines. Sylvie is consequently more self-assured, more confident in what she wants and believes in, than Loki. In S2, Sylvie's clarity on desire is what allows her to help Loki articulate what he wants: his friends back, most especially Mobius.

In S1E1, Loki, still posturing before Mobius, describes himself as a "liberator". At this point in the story, we know that isn't true, but it will become true by the finale. This line of dialogue foreshadows Loki's trajectory as well as Sylvie's revealed motivation in S1E4: to liberate.

THE NEXUS EVENT

There are a variety of ways for viewers to interpret what exactly the Nexus Event was. The canon, within the text of Mobius's dialogue and verbal confirmation from the creators, is that Loki and Sylvie fell in love. Now, I'm not going to spend time arguing over other interpretations here, but I will say that regardless of whatever pairing or OT3 a viewer ships, the Nexus Event was ALSO definitively this: two Lokis in the same place, at the same time, not feeling lonely together.

And Sylvie, who had confessed to Loki she has no friends and has never really experienced joy, answers Renslayer with the number of positive memories she has:

Sylvie doesn't state it outright, but the subtext is clear that her one positive memory was her time with Loki on Lamentis. Indeed, moments later, Sylvie prunes herself in an effort to find and rescue him.

SYLVIE & MOBIUS

But being the harshly pragmatic individual she is, upon arrival and encountering Alioth, Sylvie assumes Loki didn't make it. I don't think Sylvie means what she says in a cruel way. I think she believes this because she is accustomed to disappointment and accordingly guards herself with cynicism. Sylvie's traumas, her difficulty with trust, her inexperience with intimate relationships, and her cynicism all combine to create an individual who may appear aro-ace when that may not necessarily be the case. Please note, however, that Sylvie being aro-ace or aro-bisexual may still be a possibility. My analysis here is based on what the text and subtext seem to be telling us about her character.

Notably, it is Mobius who is more optimistic about Loki's survival, wondering if Sylvie truly believes that Loki is dead.

This moment is brief, but it is significant because Mobius's optimism implies that not only does he believe in Loki, he also wants Loki to be alive. Sylvie is intelligent. She can read between the lines. We can also assume an off-screen conversation took place between them that confirmed for Sylvie Mobius's genuine care for Loki. When Sylvie informs Loki of this fact, I believe we get this:

Mobius was conservative in how Loki might interpret their relationship, extending a handshake before their goodbyes. Loki, on the heels of his conversation with Sylvie, chooses to hug him instead. The result: Mobius is delighted!

I've long pondered on why Mobius would say, "You're my favorite" to Sylvie. I believe this is why: she helped along their friendship and opened the gates for physical affection between them. This demonstrates that Sylvie cares enough for Loki to ensure he is secure in his bond with Mobius. It likely helped that Mobius did not deny the TVA's evil when she pointed it out to him, and that he did not hesitate to apologize to her for it.

Ironically, it is Mobius's optimism, especially in the potential of broken things to become something better (whether it is Loki himself or the TVA), that creates the fraught philosophical divide between Sylvie and Mobius (and Loki) with regards to the TVA in S2.

THE S1 FINALE

The S2 finale is where the narrative between Loki and Sylvie turns, and the plot pivots to the deepening relationship between Loki and Mobius. Triggering this event is Loki's desire to slow down and think about the consequences of killing HWR in the Citadel at The End of Time.

This may seem out-of-character at first glance. S1E1-E4 have demonstrated that Loki's decision making is sometimes chaotic by virtue of impulse. What was the last impulsive decision he made with heavy consequences?

He ran off after Sylvie. A good decision ultimately, as Loki learns the truth about the TVA through Sylvie, but only by luck. This decision very nearly cost Loki a friendship, one he didn't even realize he had until Mobius called him a "bad friend."

Despite the fallout, Mobius recovers relatively quickly once he confirms Loki's claims and views Ravonna's recording of C-20. He reestablishes trust with Loki as soon as possible to help Loki be with the one he loves. Why? Because Mobius is ultimately selfless and wants Loki's happiness regardless of his own feelings of jealousy.

Which circles us back to the theme of trust and Sylvie's challenges with it.

Loki and Sylvie's relationship falls apart not because of lack of mutual interest, but because Sylvie loses trust in Loki and with good reason: HWR (and thus the TVA) is the cause of all her suffering.

It is not Sylvie's fault she is this way. She hasn't had enough time to develop meaningful relationships, and the one relationship that was meaningful to her (Loki's) became, in her eyes, a profound betrayal. This experience only adds to the other traumas Sylvie carries with her, making encounters with Loki in S2 emotionally difficult if not triggering.

The relationships of Loki & Sylvie and Loki & Mobius are intentionally set side-by-side for 3 critical reasons:

1.) To demonstrate Loki's growth by developing trust and thus emotional intimacy with others.

2.) To create the Plot B emotional source of conflict in S2.

3.) To set-up Mobius and Sylvie's individual beliefs and values (selflessness and sparing life [Mobius] + free will and revolution [Sylvie]), which Loki combines into his own system of beliefs and values. This combination gives Loki the strength and wisdom to ascend the throne and become the God of Stories (and Time).

THE S2 FINALE

Loki comes to his final decision after speaking with the two halves of his character arc equation. Loki first seeks out Mobius, who shares with him the distinction between himself and Ravonna. Now, this is brainwashed Mobius. Brainwashed Mobius believed Ravonna could do the impossible while he couldn't. But Loki knows Ravonna's corruption.

Beneath Mobius's wisdom that "most purpose is more burden than glory" is also Mobius's heart: he could not prune children and that instinct was the right decision. His "failure" was not a failure of duty but rather his humanity succeeding despite the brainwashing. It's this same intrinsic compassion that drove Mobius to convince Ravonna to spare Loki. Loki articulates this to Don as such. He therefore takes the message of selflessness and sparing life from Mobius to Sylvie.

Sylvie, in turn, challenges Loki, stating they should have the freedom and right to fight whatever comes on their own terms.

She also stresses that it is all right to destroy things. Upon hearing this, Loki comes to the conclusion that what is destroyed must be replaced with something better. What needs to be destroyed? Not the TVA and the people in it (not Mobius, Verity, OB, and Casey), but the Loom.

Loki sacrificed himself (selflessness + sparing life [Mobius]) in order to save all timelines (free will + revolution [Sylvie]). Loki sparing Sylvie's life is a direct consequence of Mobius having fought to spare his.

Through this sacrifice, Loki gifts Sylvie the chance to get the type of positive experiences she wants and needs, which includes future romance, if she so chooses. That is canon and is a genuinely romantic gesture regardless of anyone's interpretation of mutual reciprocation or lack thereof.

It is also canon that Loki loves Mobius and Mobius loves Loki. Their actions for one another across both seasons demonstrate this to be true. Is it also romantic? Absolutely. Is it sexual? On screen, no, and it doesn't have to be. Romance does not require sex, let alone physical contact, to exist.

Loki loves them both.

#loki #sylvie #loki series #loki meta #my meta #loki season 2 #lokius #mobius #loki spoilers

89 notes · View notes

mpregfrance · 5 months

Note

i saw you say that you’re take on spamano diverts from canon and honestly i’d love to know more about it, i feel like most spamano shippers do this and i love hearing all takes because i feel like they’re all interesting! and i love them so so much!! do you have any hc’s that you think are unpopular with the fandom?? or do you like they way spamano is represented for the most part??

Hi! Thanks so much for the ask 💕 If you're the same anon who sent the last one I'm working on it. To answer honestly, I don't interact with Spamano fanwork enough to know what is and isn't popular or accepted as fanon these days.

But I'll hesitantly say that no, I think my views on this ship differ from that of the fandom status quo, as they usually do. I don't say this for the sake of being edgy or a need to always play contrarian, but bc I have a unique perspective.

Disclaimer; long post ahead. my opinion was asked for and you're about to receive it. Everything stated is opinion and I'm not discrediting alternate headcanons.

So I'll start by saying I'm not an expert on Spain's history or characterization. I have mentioned this before but the way Himaruya chose to portray him is a bit odd to me. Then again, Hetalia nations aren't really direct representations of their government, but instead stereotypes of their people. If everyone was accurate they'd all be unsympathetic assholes.

Spain as an empire was once a ruthless colonial force, and as a nation in more recent centuries they have a history of fascist rule, violent uprising and general civil discord.

Spain as a character is a sunny, bubbly himbo after he lost his reputation as a global power. I think he has a tendency to downplay the harm he's caused in the past and manipulate others into viewing him as a shiny happy goofy airhead.

Don't get me wrong, I think Antonio is adorable. He's cute, right? Dude's main personality trait is having a GREAT ASS 🍑 and liking tomates 🍅 He loves to cook and dance and do fuck all. The Hetalia wiki describes him as a, quote, 'cheerful country bumpkin' and honestly, let's go with that for the sake of his personhood?

This is why I like human AU. I enjoy reading historical Hetalia, but writing it isn't for me. As a creative, I don't want to operate within the limits of real world events and not gonna lie I prefer writing them as people!! And that's where I exercise some divergence from canon.

So obviously there's the dynamic of boss and his underling that existed when Romano was young. We can't entirely ignore that that arc exists and is part of his character development, but when Romano grows up I don't see them that way, and there's no denying their romantic potential.

I hear, and understand the common criticisms of Spamano. I don't view them as related, and Romano is not Spain's territory anymore. To me it's fair game. Hetalia is complicated bc well... these nation-beings are hundreds of years old, therefore the case for morality in shipping isn't black and white.

Personally I don't believe any ship is 'too problematic' to exist. I'm of the opinion that we can explore just about any dynamic in fiction as long as we do it mindfully. I'm a multishipper, these characters are all so versatile.

This might sound silly to say about an anime character but my analysis of Romano's personality is more in depth. As someone of Italian descent I recognize his stereotypical traits; and feel pretty strongly about his mischaracterization.

For one, he has a small dog Napoleon complex and that's a big thing for Italian guys (more on that later)

In canon (i.e. world history and Hetalia itself) when Romano was young, Spain did spend a lot of money protecting and defending him. Now as an adult he feels guilty, like he has an obligation to him, and he doesn't want to be seen as weak, reliant or incapable ever again. I don't think he'd allow himself to be dominated, in any way, or even want to be.

Here's an unpopular opinion; he is very masculine, but I think people have a hard time comprehending what constitutes masculinity.

And I'm not saying Antonio is therefore feminine. They're both cis men to me, and switch in the bedroom, but I will admit I prefer Lovino as the generally more dominant partner - in a physical and hierarchical sense.

Ultimately I don't think they box themselves into heteronormative roles all too much. Maybe for funsies, because Lovino likes feeling needed and Antonio to me doesn't have the discipline it takes to wear the proverbial pants in the relationship.

In a comic strip, Spain proposed to Romano when same-sex marriage became legal, and he basically said yes as long as you cook for me?? They're husbands!! It's canon 😎

It's a bit hard to explain, but in my perspective, Lovino would protect and cherish Antonio like a man would his 'wife'. He's his Carino. His Tesoro. His Amorino. Toni might be taller than him, but he's always talking to him like a child - mostly affectionately, but we've seen otherwise.

One of my favourite Romano lines is from the April Fools episode, "No talking to me when you look stupid", that to me is a defining moment of their relationship 💖💖💖

So anyway, this attitude of his brings me to the topic of Maschismo. If you're not familiar with that term, it's a performative, arrogant, and fragile brand of toxic masculinity that's prevalent in men of Mediterranean and Latin American descent. Any man can be machismo but the term is associated with these cultures.

(Again I'm of Mediterranean descent, I have lived experience with this, please don't think I'm racist and if that's legitimately your takeaway you have the reading comprehension of a sea cucumber)

In machismo society, men are discouraged from showing any emotion except anger. They're expected to be strong, and are extremely affected by any implication of personal failure, or threat to their (imagined) role as top dog. When something upsets them, aggression is the default response.

Men affected by machismo are often possessive, competitive, and motivated by material success; because there's an expectation to provide for - and honor - your family. They will often talk over women, objectify or ignore them completely, like second class citizens.

Whether this was a conscious intention or not, Hima actually does a great job at displaying Romano as a machismo poster boy. He's simultaneously expressive and repressed. He's stubborn, defensive and argumentative, and if that doesn't say Italian dad to you then you're probably a WASP /hj

What the fandom might see as a little tsundere uke, I see as machismo tough guy. He's not soft, that's the thing, but he deserves space to be soft because so does everyone. Maybe Antonio does bring that out in him. But it's not easy and it's not for anyone else to see. He pretends to hate when Toni calls him cute because he doesn't allow himself to feel appreciated on that level. He actually has a deep, unspoken respect for Antonio. It's just easier to tease him.

And he actually does care. He just does it in a way that isn't instantly recognisable as caring because it's not 'gentle'. He's jealous of Feliciano because he's the 'nice' brother. He's concerned for Feli when others mistreat him. That concern and protectiveness translates into condescension and ironically, distancing.

Sorry for going so in depth on what is essentially old man land mass yaoi, if you've read this far thank you and congratulations I guess.

#ask and ye shall receive #hetalia headcanons #character analysis #aph romano #hws romano #aph south italy #hws south italy #aph spain #hws spain #spamano #romaspa

35 notes · View notes

aleksanderscult · 3 months

Note

I think i remember leigh writing something along the lines of that 'wanted best for his people and he was a tyrant' etc, basically a nuanced view. Do you have it? I don't remember where it was.

I think you mean this, right?

It's from her acknowledgements on "Demon in the Wood" (graphic novel). If this is not what you mean, tell me.

She always gives a very nuanced characterization about him which makes me mad because I don't understand her point of view for him at all. It only confuses me more.

"I want the readers to make their assumptions about him. I don't want to affect their view of him". Look. If you give your own opinion of him which will consist of ten pages then it's going to be the reader's problem if they want to "adopt" your view or not. Also, your readers are not stupid. They can distinguish their own assumptions FROM your own opinion. And if they can't, then they're not fit to read books and complicated characters. It's called critical thinking. You take an opinion, read it, see if it makes sense with the canon we have from him and make your judgement. Easy peasy.

Now about that note. I agree that Aleksander isn't purely a hero or a villain. He sees himself as the hero while Alina and the others see him as the villain. We, the readers, mostly see him as something in-between and, at the same time, something entirely different. A human that has lived for too long and as a result of his immortality and tragic events he has reached a point of desperation that make him act relentlessly against the corrupt monarchy and in favor of a persecuted group of people and a country that he has lived and loved for almost all of his life.

Therefore, his characterization is (I believe) something more than the archetype of "good hero" and "bad villain".

Is he a survivor? Yup. In all the meaning of the word.

Does he want safety for his people? Isn't that why he didn't give up on life already? It was the ambition that drove him the most and kept his heart beating.

Is he a tyrant? I think that term needs to be studied. Back in Ancient Greece this word had different meanings.

1) A ruler who has usurped a legitimate ruler's sovereignty. The Darkling did that (good for him).

2) A person who rules without law, using extreme and cruel methods against both his own people and others. If Leigh means that then I'll have to disagree. First of all, we didn't see enough of the Darkling's rule to know if he was that cruel (unless she knows something we don't). And even from what we saw, it seems the word doesn't apply to him. He was sitting on the throne and listening to reports, signing paperwork, making an alliance with his enemy to feed his army. So where it the "cruel methods against both his own people and others" came from? He didn't have a beef with otkazat'sya that lived in Ravka and he certainly didn't want to hurt his own Grisha (unless they committed treason). So Leigh just threw that word in like it was nothing.

And, lastly, he brutalizes and exploits those who trust him most.

Brutalizes. Hmm....

Genya: she committed treason so he punished her.

Sergei: he committed treason so he punished him.

Baghra: committed treason so he punished her (and very lightly actually).

Yeah.. right...umm. Look. If he had attacked them or killed them for literally no reason then I would say "Yes, he brutalized them". But there was always a reason for his actions against them. He didn't see Genya on board and said "I'm bored. Gonna ruin your face 'cause I've got nothing else to do".

And he exploits them.

To exploit someone is this:

If my memory serves me correct, his soldiers (his Grisha) knew what they were serving him for. And he didn't use them for something completely selfish like "gaining power for myself because I like it" but he needed power to make Ravka better. So he didn't do it for selfish reasons.

The one instance where the term "exploit" may apply is when he gave Genya to the Grand Palace knowing what a pervert the King was. But then again, wasn't the Queen's responsibility to keep her safe?

#god I've missed analyzing #I need to finish my “Demon in the Wood” meta as well #also it's kinda funny how I have literally every piece of the Darkling's mention from Leigh's interviews etc.#the amount of search I've done for him is crazy lmao #anon asks #the darkling #pro darkling #aleksander morozova #pro aleksander morozova #leigh bardugo #grishaverse #shadow and bone #grishaverse trilogy #genya safin #baghra morozova #sergei beznikov

21 notes · View notes

stromuprisahat · 25 days

Note

What is your most unpopular Grishaverse opinion?

For me, I truly believe that the idea of every single Grishaverse book (yes, even Six of Crows) is better than it’s execution. They are fine books, sure, but they are definitely overhyped (I wouldn’t call them masterpieces as I’ve heard other people refer to them as such). Also, every time someone refers to these books as High Fantasy, a part of me dies.

As for a lighter opinion, I kinda ship Sasha and Genya together, not gonna lie (do they even have a name?). I do wish we would have seen more of their relationship in canon even if it would have remained platonic. If it weren’t for David and for Sasha’s attraction to morons, I believe they would have had the potential to be a good couple (more than canon!Alina or Zoya imo).

Oh honey, you've asked the right person, because recently I've discovered my takes are rather unpopular in certain circles- you wouldn't guess- because I love the Darkling, therefore my observations are disagreeable whether Sashka's involved or not. I'm especially proud it renders any history- or politics-related criticism fallacious.

So if you want an unpopular opinion, just go through my grishanalyticritical tag, randomly pick something, and you likely can't choose wrong.

Fully agree about Grishaverse books. SoC has the advantage of being written from several POVs, so reader finds their prefered character, whose chapters can they look forward to, AND better pacing, so they devour a page after page, while unable to contemplate events on a deeper level.

I've never seen anyone refer to them as High Fantasy. That's Tolkien, The Last Unicorn or ASoIaF. Grishaverse might've had the potential to become one, but the themes are totally fucked up.

I don't ship Genya and Sasha myself, but I would kill for more of their pre-S&S interactions. From what we know, they have a lot in common and seemed to be on rather friendly terms. I also have a suspicion (and half-formed draft) Aleksander intended to guide and tutor her further in preparation for a specific, specialized position among his closest in the future. They're amazing duo, overflowing with potential, and I'm a sucker for well-executed mentor/mentee dynamic. If you add (vague) sexual undertones- all the better!

#reply #Grishaverse #grishanalyticritical #Six of Crows duology #Genya Safin #The Darkling #anti Leigh Bardugo

18 notes · View notes

getvalentined · 12 days

Note

Please go on about Angela’s facade. He’s the character I struggled with most in crisis core.

Oh, friend, I have a whole dedicated tag for talking about how Ange*l behaves, often discussing his canonical characterization as opposed to how he's portrayed in fandom.

He's got a beautiful, tragic story arc that is honestly extremely well-written—and he's a sanctimonious trash fire who is so incapable of understanding that the people who love him feel that way because of who he really is, not what he pretends to be, that he forces one of those people to kill him rather than continue to live in a world where he can't hide his flaws.

But if you ask 99% of the fandom, he's a moral, noble, honorable man who never did anything wrong in his life—because he said he is and honorable men don't lie.

Never mind that I don't think Genny lied once in the entire game, and yet these same people will scream from the rooftops that he's a vicious evil liar who should have been the one to die instead of the "good guy" of the group—and how we know he's evil because his wing is black instead of white and the devs said the color is based on their sense of honor or something. It's not like J-virus infection responds to the will of its carrier or anything, it's not like Ange*l genuinely believed that he was right and also canonically had full control over his presentation of the virus and therefore would have instinctively presented himself as opposite to Genny, who presented with his wing in the middle of a war, learned that his genetics were literally contagious, had a mental breakdown, and embraced his role as a monster in order to leverage it into an instrument of justice against the company that made them this way in the first place.

Nah. That's not a thing at all. Ange*l said he's good, so he is. That's how it works.

(For reference, this is how people talk to me when I say anything critical about this character, so be careful out there if you wanna get into the discussion yourself.)

#angeal critical #fandom bullshit #fandom vent #reblogs disabled #for obvious reasons #i literally have to use that tag every time i talk about him #because talking about what he did in canon #apparently counts as hating #no I'm not kidding #no I'm not exaggerating #it is in fact that bad #people blow up my askbox telling me to die #or vagueblog about how I'm a piece of shit #it's really bad

13 notes · View notes

grandhotelabyss · 7 months

Note

Which books influenced the way you think about politics the most?

The worth of this question can be measured by how difficult I'm finding it to answer. On the one hand, far too many books come to mind, reputable and disreputable and in-between, fiction and philosophy, journalism and polemic, comic book and conspiracy theory, plus 20+ years on the internet. On the other hand, there's no one book, or even several books, I could recommend to demonstrate the way I think about politics; I learned most about politics from watching politics, in the ages first of cable television and then of the internet not primarily a bookish enterprise. And because politics is famously the art of the possible, and because what's possible changes year by year, neither politics in general nor my politics in particular can stand still. I learn something every year, though not always from books. I don't mean by this to be cynical; one has one's values, but they vary in their expression with the affordances of the moment. For me, the deepest hope—not belief, but hope; not yet a reality but an aspiration—is in the potential of human freedom against all totalizing systems. I doubt I got that from a book, though. More likely it came from somewhere else, in early experience, and prepared me to recognize the theme whenever I did encounter it in books. Nor have I been wholly dead to the genuine sublimity of those totalizing systems, given what I have jokingly called my protracted education at the hands of Catholics and Marxists.

Anyway, the spirit of the question calls for a list, so I'll provide one. It's a narrative list arranged chronologically by my age when I read the book in question with a little summary of what it taught me. I've avoided the temptation of pretending that canonical political philosophy has taught me more than it did: with respect to Plato, Hobbes, Marx, Mill, Foucault, and the like, mostly I read that material in too abstract a mood for it to matter or too late for it do more than confirm what I'd already learned elsewhere.

Alan Moore and Dave Gibbons, Watchmen (read age 12) - The world is comprised of systems in dynamic interaction with individuals and ideologies; art may replicate this in significant form; the proper attitude of the artist is an implied sardonic skepticism, albeit open to apolitical spiritual rapture and cosmic consciousness.

William Shakespeare, Julius Caesar (read age 14) - The political winds can shift like that, between the acts; when power is at stake, you can't depend on personal loyalties; a smooth speech is better than a good cause; the crowd will always kill the poet; those who plead their freedom often have, beneath their own awareness, an envious resentment of power; the artist can manipulate the audience's political sympathies for pedagogical purposes.

George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four, and John Steinbeck, The Grapes of Wrath (both read age 15) - The modern problem is the reconciliation of individual and collective such that neither is enslaved to the other, the populace starved by the rich, the citizen trampled by state and society; the novel (unlike nonfiction forms) is almost unlimited in its ability to examine this theme, encompassing fantasy and naturalism, sermon and treatise, journalism and prophecy.

Camille Paglia, Sexual Personae (read age 18) - We are ruled by darker forces than we know, especially if we refuse to know it; the whole complex problem of sex and sexuality is primordial, infinitely more fundamental than the comparative superficies of race and class that political philosophers and pundits prefer to discuss; art and politics both are contra naturam—sex, by contrast, is the tragic collision of art and nature—and therefore under the sign of beauty; the critic's sensibility should be cosmic and unyielding, itself a mark carved hopelessly into nature's loam.

Edward W. Said, Culture and Imperialism (read age 21) - Empire is the primary political fact, inescapable even for artists and angels; the most powerful move a critic can make is to ally art to empire, the more improbably or counterintuitively the better, this to establish the critic's own cultural empire; the critic may rhetorically take the side of the oppressed in a suave rhetoric the oppressed could never master, and charisma will dispel (almost) the consequent air of fraud.

Max Horkheimer and Theodor W. Adorno, Dialectic of Enlightenment (read age 27) - Our genius is our tragedy: the laws we codified to escape and then to master nature have enslaved us precisely because we identify them with nature; we have strangled everything spontaneous and tender in ourselves—and have projected out of ourselves and "other" and slaughtered that, too—in the name of this conquest, necessary to progress as in fact it was, with consequences even including the modern reduction of culture to the machinic product of industries consecrated to entertainment propaganda.

Fyodor Dostoevsky, Demons (read age 32) - Liberalism is not innocent; in destroying every metaphysic but freedom and utility it has cleared the path of psychotic anarchy and brutal tyranny; the artist must understand every inch of this dilemma from the inside.

Albert Camus, The Rebel (read age 35) - The urge to rebel against tyranny and its dialectical concomitant in the urge to become a tyrant in turn are structures of human consciousness traceable through the whole of human culture from ancient myth to modern art, with political philosophy in between; the artist's abundant vision may teach the moderation that preserves the impulse to freedom and holds in abeyance the drive toward tyranny.

Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism (read age 39) - The enemy is the reduction of the human to a calculus, any calculus, with whatever alibi (liberal, fascist, communist; race, class, nation); the solution is collective creativity.

Finally, for a wild card:

Nathaniel Hawthorne, The Scarlet Letter (read and reread between ages 15 and 40) and Sacvan Bercovitch, The Office of the Scarlet Letter (read age 25) - This is how American politics in particular works: it doesn't; it is sublimated as a cultural conflict about the limits of freedom and necessity waged over open-ended and contested symbols, including Hawthorne's own text; the proper ambition of the American writer is to write a text of such permanently productive ambiguity.

#political theory #literature #literary theory #political philosophy

21 notes · View notes

esther-dot · 6 months

Note

"No. It was not courage. This one was dead of fear. You could see it in his eyes, Stark."- Bran(AGOT I).

"The poor man was half mad. Something had put a fear in him so deep that my words could not reach him."- Cat(AGOT I).

Jon and Ned noticed that Gared was terrified. Ned knew he was traumatized by seeing something. I do think Grrm wanted to be critical of NW system. Ned was doing right thing according to their world. Maybe there should be changes in rules like a trial before executing for desertion. Thoughts?

(in reference to this ask)

I’m back answering all my very old asks. Apologies @please-dot !

So, I answered that last ask without rereading the chapter, but your comments made me revisit it and Ned comes across better than I remembered. Actually, he sounds as responsible as he could be in the situation:

So I agree that not only was Ned doing the right thing according to their world (duty), he was trying to do it conscientiously. I've said before, I really don't think Martin intended us to be quite as critical of Ned as we often are. I posted a quote once about Martin’s aggravation that writers ignore the realities of medieval life. He said he wanted it to have teeth, so Ned, even though he is a lord, being constrained by his duty is a genuine reality in their world. He is flawed but upheld as someone with the right ideals, and knowing this is how it begins, Ned delivering the king's justice while Bran is instructed in his way of doing so which isn’t the Targ or Robert way, and that Bran will then end up king of Westeros, well, it makes you read this whole passage with new eyes.

All of this is certainly set-up for Bran to be the person who can administer justice, potentially an even more merciful and wiser version than Ned's, but I just don't know how much Martin will allow society to progress when he wants to keep things kinda realistic?

Will the Wall fall, forcing the Watch to take a new form? Rangers who have homes and families to return to perhaps? Or will everyone accept the continued threat of the Others and they're therefore able to fill the ranks of the Watch with volunteers rather than pressing people into service? We're shown not only how unjust that is, but how these boys don't understand what the vows mean for their lives, and that they can't resist the lure of love, family, so even if it's voluntary, the celibacy thing is a problem. So, reform? keep it but overhaul it? In post canon fics we write many variations of all that, but I've never felt like I understood how the problem could be handled in a Martin-esque way. Something better is in store, surely, but I’m not sure how dramatic a change he’s aiming for.

We do have the Watch as a “shield” and I’ve mentioned before that makes Ned and Benjen’s hope for the Gift to be a “shield” a potentially hopeful sign, but that was in thinking of the FF, and we have the Others to worry about so it all depends on how resolved you think that issue will be. If they’re entirely gone, maybe there’s no need for a Watch, if not…

And then we have the idea of an independent North to throw in there. If it is free, I don’t see how the Watch / the Wall doesn’t become their thing, and not only has Jon been thoroughly disillusioned and then killed, Sansa has realized some truth about it as well (and will no doubt learn more). If they are in positions of power, it’s hard to imagine things wouldn’t infinitely improve.

But then, I look at the less hopeful Jon endings, and think he was meant to be the person with the ideals who became disillusioned who might be able to reform it—a post canon purpose for him, the prospect of short adventures beyond the Wall (Martin had at one point mentioned the desire to write a post canon adventure for Arya, and somewhere I saw a comment that made it sound like he had potential ideas for Jon too), and with the whole sequel show now in the works, I wondered if GoT really did deliver his ending, the Watch still exists and Jon is the one wise enough/with the relationships to keep the peace between the Northerners and FF. 😖

I really can’t say. I find my ideal too simplistic and the alternatives entirely unsatisfactory. I need you to tell me what to think on this one 😅

#dot chat

14 notes · View notes

doodlegirl1998 · 7 months

Note

Wtf is happening in the manga!!??? I just went to anti bakugou/izuku deserves better tags to get my weekly dose of justified character criticals, and see how All might might be dead and does a homage to Bakugou in his final moments?? I am not touching that can of worms until later and never have been so glad to stop reading manga.

However, right now I want your opinion on vigilante Midoriya fics. This interesting concept unfortunately falls into the popularized trope, so most fics are almost the same. I did my own rant in my vlog, but am curious about what do you think of it as you are much more experienced in the criticism of mha

Hi @venting-ghostwolf 👋,

I know ☹️ so much has happened in the manga that I dislike at the moment that I don't blame you for giving up reading.

Also second, don't put yourself down I like reading you critiques and seeing your thoughts and posts too 🤗.

As for vigilante Midoriya fics, I like the premise of a Midoriya (usually quirkless) being a vigilante I feel like that's in character for him. But what I resent about them is the usual All Might Bashing / Dadzawa coupling that usually comes with it with an OOC Aizawa saying that "Of course you can be a hero while quirkless, problem child."

A few things:

Are we going to pretend this response is in character for Aizawa? This guy threatened to expel Izuku because OFA broke his arm! Canonically, he'd expell a quirkless student the first chance he got therefore with a quirkless vigilante he would encourage them to stop before they got themselves killed at minimum if not turn them into the police. Aizawa certainly wouldn't aid in Vigilante!Midoriya's activities like I've seen a few fics make him do.

I can read Dadzawa in a fic, it can be done well but what I resent is the large amount of AM bashing that usually comes with this trope. I can't stand it. Vigilante and Villian Midoriya fics I've seen are some of the worst offenders at this.

To add on to this, I can't stand it when fics have ALL MIGHT someone canonically disabled and who began his life quirkless act OOC levels of ableist, quirkist, awful or stupid to justify Dadzawa (and insert another mentor here in some cases) telling him off.

This scenario can lead to some good #Bakugou faces consequences outcomes if done right especially if Izuku gets some vigilante justice on him. But it also can be done very wrong with Izuku in some scenario's still admiring Bakugou and thinking he'll be an awesome hero which is gross🤢. Or Izuku 'taking the high road' and forgiving him, which is a...choice but after everything Bakugou has done to Izuku I feel like it falls flat.

However there's sometimes #good friend Bakugou which is wildly OOC - just make an OC to support Midoriya at that point because BAKUGOU wouldn't do it being the POS he is.

A lot of the time Inko is also either OOC levels of abusive or dead to justify the existence of vigilante Midoriya which I personally don't like much in a fic - the latter can be done well in some cases, the former is harder to do well and makes me nope out of a fic more often than not.

To be honest I haven't read a vigilante Midoriya fic in some time, I like the trope but I kept running into severe AM bashing and Inko being OOC levels of awful which made me annoyed.

#mha critical #bnha critical #Anti Aizawa Shota #Aizawa critical

16 notes · View notes

elliewiltarwyn · 3 months

Note

I have to ask top 5 npc 👀

well if you guys insist 👀 this will get extremely long, i'm sure, so i'll throw it under the cut to save your dashes lol

-----------------------------------

5. Emet-Selch

yes part of me is a basic bitch and is in agreement with everyone that damn, that villain of the award-winning expansion of the critically acclaimed MMORPG do be written ridiculously well. part of me is such a basic bitch that i am among the many who made an ancient OC named Persephone. (She isn't Ellie's ancient, and therefore not Azem, for whatever that's worth. :V)

but I mean. damn, he's written well. and I really feel his influence in nearly every corner of the ingame universe. Ellie stands firmly against him, but also can't say for certain she'd make any different choices if she had been in his position, having lost everyone she ever loved. honestly one of the best implementations of the "everyone is the hero of their own story" concept I've ever seen.

plus he's just such a rude, uptight little bitch, and it's amazing to watch.

4. Alisaie

Both of the twins are really good, and I am definitely among those who, despite their less-than-stellar introductions, eventually ended up going all "I'm having children. it's you. sign these adoption papers." but Alisaie in particular has the fierce drive and endless capacity for love that connects with Ellie so well. they're both fiery and vivacious and searching for some sort of purpose in a world that doesn't care and eventually find that meaning in the people they love. Straightforward, hates beating around the bush, so eager to cut to the point that she pops the LB immediately every dang time on like the GCD right before I try going for it--

yeah she's just really good and she feels like a sister after everything we've been through.

3. Lyse

So, I grew up in the shadow of an older brother; he was immensely popular, very self-confident, and knew what he wanted to do with his life ever since he was a kid. Everyone loved him, everyone admired his clear sense of purpose... and more than a few people looked at me in his wake and literally asked "why aren't you that cool? you should try and be more like him." not even exaggerating.

thankfully, I've done a lot of self-growth and am on very good terms with him these days. A lot of that sense of self-growth came from finding the courage to strike out on a path he hadn't laid down before me, find ways to define myself that aren't just carbon copies of his own traits. It was better for everyone for me to figure out what I wanted and how to achieve that by becoming the best version of myself -- not anyone else.

is it any godsdamn wonder Lyse resonates so much with me? plus she's a beautiful kinda-dumb punch girl, and I live for that archetype. In my canon, Ellie drops reaper after Endwalker and trains up to be a monk under Lyse, because albeit for different reasons, Ellie also empathizes a ton with Lyse's struggles and development. to the extent of fairly severely crushing on her for a long time imma be real.

2. Esteem

you ever just *clenches fist* become so traumatized that in order to cope you manifest your own inner darkness that wants you to love yourself so much that she tries to subsume you into herself so you don't have to suffer anymore, only to come to terms with the weight of all the traumas you are carrying and learning to love yourself through it all anyway, in a way that helps you master the darkness and bring it to bear against those who deserve it? is-- is this not a common experience? oh. well I mean. it was very cool to have that happen.

Ryne

i made a meme a long time ago for this exact purpose:

i love my beautiful gay daughter

thanks for the prompt and the excuse to gush, @oneiroy and @alliezweihander!!

#ffxiv #final fantasy xiv #wol questions #ask games #shadowbringers spoilers #long post #just in case #there's so much i want to say and i feel like i'm not expressing it how i want but OH WELL #here are my blorbos from my shows. im love them your honor.

8 notes · View notes

gemstonenostalgia · 1 year

Text

I love seeing all these critical analyses of harry potter as a piece of fiction but I haven't seen any of the world building element that bothered me most even as like, a 7 year old child who missed the other 99% of Fucked Up Shit in those books, and that's that the canonical reason wizards have to be secret from muggles is because if muggles knew wizards existed they would want magical help with their problems. It isn't outright stated why wizards can't or don't want to help muggles. You, the reader, a grade school child, are meant to take for granted that your less-capable neighbors asking you to help them is so bad that your entire government has to enforce secrecy, and that therefore it's okay that violating this secrecy is punishable by prison time in the inescapable torture prison that gives you chronic depression.

#harry potter was my childhood special interest and it shows #dw i got better #before she went even cryptoterf btw

37 notes · View notes

stoportotouch · 10 months

Text

okay, i am playing with my toys. you are all coming into the circle with me we are going to play with dolls together in my favourite way. by which i mean "time for the small opera company au". this is likely to be a borderline-offensive level of "bring your blorbo to work" in that parts of it may be thoroughly incomprehensible without outside knowledge. no less i hope that my passion for playing with my toys in strange ways is in some way charming enough to keep your attention.

i struggle with what to do with sir john franklin in an au where he is still alive in that "musical director" and "stage director" are both very much taken. but i guess he's like. emeritus producer/guy bankrolling the whole opportunity and who crozier talks to only through gritted teeth. alternatively franklin is the noda reviewer that crozier has a decades-long one-sided beef with. but also maybe that's sir james clark ross or sir john ross, if we need a Critical Offstage Presence.

crozier (as we have established) is the resident conductor/music director. he's good at it. in fact he is very good at it and knows exactly how to get both chorus and principals performing at their absolute best. he is very, very supportive of young performers... but only until the moment that they Fuck Up one time too many. simultaneously he is the sort of MD who most people do not want to work with more than once and who basically cannot do amateur productions any more because of... the person that he is.

jopson is basically his secretary but he also does a bit of everything arts admin-wise.the only thing that jopson can't really do is read music; he knows "that's middle c" and can extrapolate from there but he isn't A Musician as much as an Admin Guy. however he is occasionally called upon to be a body double for somebody who's off ill or for a principal who wasn't called for a rehearsal because all they would have been required to do was Lie Upon The Ground because their character was dead. no less he has, like, surprisingly arts snobby opinions on the best operas.

the stage director is fitzjames. this is really just a vibes-based thing because he is All Vibes. but he of course came from straight plays where there's no real need to be able to carry a line and therefore has little respect for Breath Control. occasionally he starts getting Regietheater Ideas, and on those occasions crozier threatens him with the baton. otherwise he's very popular with everybody. (apart from crozier.)

dundy has my Operatic Performance Backstory. which is that he had a mis-spent youth of gilbert and sullivan and one day heard somebody say the word "basingstoke" as though it was in and of itself a joke for the last fucking time, snapped, and started doing actual opera. i don't know if he's a tenor or a baritone but if he's a baritone he was pigeon-holed into patter roles and fucking hate[d/s] them. (this is just how i feel about gilbert and sullivan. as i said, dundy has my opera performance backstory.)

regardless of voice type he fucking loves doing real opera (especially if he's a baritone; if he is then he's counting down the days until he gets to do iago). but if he's a tenor he at times misses playing the dickheads that are afforded to tenors in the gilbert and sullivan canon. (he eventually sucks it up and campaigns for a production of yeomen, plays fairfax, and loves it.) if he's a tenor he eventually specialises into don josé-type roles because he finds them more fun than the sappy loving boys.

little is in charge of everything that involves not getting near a performance space. if he could then he would never actually go into a theatre and would work entirely from home. but crozier, unfortunately, does not allow him this luxury and does not believe in work from home. he has an "office" in the theatre that is basically just a ludicrously luxuriously-sized broom cupboard.

being (in his own estimation) extremely uncreative is not insulation enough for somebody who would much prefer to make a very complicated spreadsheet and who can do just about every excel formula from memory. he can read music and is secretly one of those "can look at music and just immediately sight-sing it perfectly" types. crozier knows this, so sometimes he is dragged unwillingly out.

irving is the other person whose office is in the glorified broom cupboard because he's actually the company's accounts guy. this is in keeping with the real john irving, who was, in fact, a Maths Guy. but of course he is also a musician, perhaps surprisingly: as i've already said he is one of the two types of Church Music Lifer. (he is the sort who knows everything and takes it all extremely seriously -- in other words he is a dec tenor.)

irving also brings hodgson, who is the other type of Church Music Lifer, along. they're both tenors in the same choir but on opposite sides of the church and on the rare occasions that little gets drafted in (which he likes, surprisingly), he sings bass on the same side as irving. little is the Purported Third Type Of Church Music Lifer, who doesn't believe any of it and is just saying the words (when he does say the words) recreationally and understands none of it.

this whole bit has really been an opinion for one specific person other than Me. i will therefore continue it by saying that hodge is, as he was in The Real World, the son of a priest (and therefore couldn't escape it). he... i cannot explain this better than he has the Church Organist Personality. and while he does occasionally play he is muuuuch more useful as a singer than as an instrumentalist.

in the opera company he's the rehearsal pianist (and he is extremely good at it, which surprises a lot of people). otherwise, he understands all of the church music stuff, but mostly so that he can make very niche jokes about it. this is the sort of thing that cracks him up. that being said, he does also Get irving in a way that very few other people are able to because of this. (also the lieutenants, who all live together for... what are by now probably obvious reasons, are definitely all Animal People. irving has a dog and hodge has a cat. little has something odd like a lizard.)

finally, hickey is usually in the chorus. however there was one (1) occasion where somebody didn't turn up for a concert because they were ill and crozier gave him a single solo line. this went to his head immediately and he has yet to stop thinking about it.

#ollie considers

19 notes · View notes

jheselbraum · 5 days

Text

The Yiga Clan read to me as a group of people who, at one point, had legitimate grievances against Hyrule, but over the century of them... Basically winning? Like age of calamity be damned they didn't actually canonically have much of a role in the Calamity, but. The guy they were rooting for won, so that's something. And in the century that passed since their guy won, they came under the control of an underqualified nepo baby and became the banana loving fools we know and love today.

Like everyone always talks about "addressing the problems with Hyrule" in botwtotk and I understand why some folks would prefer a dark and edgy completely serious Yiga Clan that addresses those things, but you know what character actually fucking does something about Hyrules government sucking ass? Zelda. Zelda and Link are our focal characters for addressing Hyrule's bullshit and for some reason that doesn't seem to... Count. Which is weird, because where else is this criticism supposed to come from? She's one of the only people left who fucking remembers it, the central government of Hyrule hasn't existed for a century, not even the Hylians really give a shit about it in game! The Sheikah are chilling in their village, the only other race that regularly interacts with Hylians at all are the Gerudo, and the Gerudo are very much in charge of that interaction since they still have their government. The Zora and the Gorons interact with Hylians so infrequently they often forget basic human anatomy and while the Rito are a bit better in that regard, Revali is our focal point for Rito opinions on Hylians so that's covered.

Like the Yiga Clan dont have a Hylian government to oppose in botw! Why would they stop and talk about how shitty it is? It's gone! It doesn't exist! It hasn't existed for a hundred years! They fucking won! They have their status quo in botw and are fighting to keep that status quo. And in totk they're... Building robots that Ganondorf doesn't want BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY they're specifically on a revenge quest to get Links ass and they're trying to get back into the swing of things with the whole "oh wait our guy might... Lose" thing and now that they're getting serious they're much more formidable opponents! But even then, whe one could argue that they have more of a Hylian government to oppose in totk, a) you'd have to argue that what Zelda is doing is establishing a central government at all and not just managing shipping logistics and supervising archaeological digs between sidequests, b) totk practically drills it into our heads that everyone loves Zelda to the point where Ganondorf has to disguise himself as her to get anything done because Zelda's whole thing is not subjecting anyone else to the bullshit she went through. Like six of the seven major people groups in Hyrule actively support Zelda's "y'all do whatever" style of monarchy, if it can even be called monarchy because let's face it, Zelda is only the princess because her pronouns are "the princess," Dr who style. And finally c) botw and totk both establish that Zelda is fucking chill with tech so aside from the "killing her" part the original fucking issue that caused the Yiga Clan to split off from the Sheikah is solved with Zelda in charge anyway.

I dunno, I think that, while fun and therefore the correct choice, Kohga's inclusion in Age of Calamity cheapened the Yiga in a lot of people's minds because they can't recognize a story choice to ignore basic logic that was made in service of including a fan favorite character in a game where the selling point is you get to play as your favorite characters. Like, like no we see people who were alive during the Calamity and barring Purah's laser induced lolita bullshit they're all old as fuck, I'm sorry but Kohga was not in charge of the Yiga Clan pre-calamity, the ruthless Yiga Clan assassins who almost took out Zelda in that one cutscene are not the same Yiga Clan that we encounter in the actual botw gameplay they are a century removed from the source of their sociopolitical motivations

The Yiga Clan aren't vessels through which to critique the Hylian government, Zelda does that just fine, and I think while it's fun to explore what that would've looked like it distracts from what they actually are.

The Yiga Clan are a death cult that got what they wanted, and I think that's way more interesting.

3 notes · View notes

fearthhereaper · 8 months

Note

not to mention that f&b is all about historiography and the reliability of resources. mushroom’s perspective is often perverted and the writing of aegon mirrors his writing of daemon and Rhaenyra, pointing to it likely being evidence of mushrooms disgusting desire for underage girls (and also grrm’s tendency to include way more rape of children than artistically necessary in supposedly being soooo against it). Mushroom was not in Kings Landing when Aegon supposedly did this, making his account less reliable. Ultimately, we can’t know for certain if aegon did it (I lean towards not believing it), but at least we can all agree on the immorality of it. In the show, it really does a disservice to the story telling by adding more sexual assault of women (we already had that shot of Viserys and Alicent) and completely stripping the civil war of any nuance. People do not want to support a canonical rapist, therefore discussions of the dance are shut down on the basis of this black and white morality which has been imposed by the writers decision. It’s especially strange when the show canonically shows daemon to also be a rapist, yet we don’t get a scene of the young virgins he buys crying.

this! This! THIS!

Everything said is the same way I feel about the subject.

As much as I hate that they use mushroom's version of the stories I can't say that they aren't allowed to, it's just the selectiveness of using it that bothers me.

I sure hope that grrm was properly criticized for making every character way too underage and unnecessarily so. I would never dare say that an author supports everything they write about but I read somewhere (it might be untrue) that he made Daenaera Velaryon so young because it was "unrealistic" to him that she could have 5 kids past a certain age (mind you I believe the post said past 25 years of age). So that really irked me, and made me question his choices a bit more. But then again, can't judge an author based on what they write because that would be like accusing Vladimir Nabokov of being a pedophile for writing "Lolita"

I hate when shows use rape as a sort of gotcha-ya moment. One that especially bothers me is Larys because that scene with Alicent was so stupid and ridiculous, it was just there for more shock value because women suffering to them is just that - a shock value. That scene of Viserys and Alicent at least had a purpose of making the audience see that she doesn't want him and that she's being maritally raped.

They made Corlys and Rhaenys be close in age, when it's a well-known fact that she was 16 and he was 20years older when they married, just to make him a better man.

Daemon is a grooming child predator yet the show glosses over it while Aegon's rape of Dyana will probably be expanded (if the rumors about Dyana's actress being in s2 are true)

So once again, did they simply just have to make Aegon a rapist? It just screams "we want to make sure you are all rooting for who we want you to."

9 notes · View notes