#analyzing a bad character =/= a reflection of someone’s personal beliefs | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

leportraitducadavre · 10 months

Note

I've never seen someone hate or dislike Kakashi before, but looking at your Kakashi posts (which I later realized were "anti Kakashi" posts), I feel like these make some people talk shit about Kakashi for no reason and it also gives me the feeling that even though you read the manga you're just blinded as a defender of Sasuke and that you don't understand Kakashi's character at all, almost always the posts are one-sided, making Sasuke look poor or the only one misunderstood and you make Kakashi look like someone bad or that he liked to manipulate people, you even make him look pro Konoha when many times the anime/manga shows Kakashi disobeying the orders of the Hokage...

I'm not saying this to talk shit about your post, but for you to read more objectively, since I love Sasuke and I don't think Kakashi is bad at all (either in writing or as a character)

Hello,

You know, I'm a little weirded out by this ask, because your blog has no posts, no likes, and follows no one; so you are either using a side-blog to send this as you don't want me to know who you are... or you created this blog with the sole purpose of communicating with me. Both options are equally weird to me.

Are you honestly making me the sole responsible for some people not liking Kakashi? Do you really think I hold that much power over people's views? I provide images of manga panels in order to support my arguments, so you can easily access the panels and pages that led me to my reasoning.

and it also gives me the feeling that even though you read the manga you're just blinded as a defender of Sasuke and that you don't understand Kakashi's character at all

If you like Kakashi's character and you think my judgment of him is unfair, you can easily write your own post analyzing him, I'm not obligated to fit your tastes as I do believe I'm fair in judgment, as I not only write what he did wrong but also the reasoning behind his behavior. You can still think that everything he does is redeemable, but that doesn't reflect my personal beliefs.

almost always the posts are one-sided, making Sasuke look poor or the only one misunderstood and you make Kakashi look like someone bad or that he liked to manipulate people

What are you talking about? Have you honestly read all my posts about Kakashi? Can you back up anything you say with some evidence? I never stated Kakashi likes to manipulate people, I specifically said he does it as it's a tool used by the shinobi system that he was taught and he later on naturalized as a genuine way of communication. The fact that he was a victim during his formative years doesn't mean he isn't perpetuating the same system that oppressed him and others. He's just as guilty as those who wronged him in the past.

you even make him look pro-Konoha when many times the anime/manga shows Kakashi disobeying the orders of the Hokage...

The anime isn't canon, If it happened in the anime but not in the manga, then it makes absolutely no difference to me. Anything you say to me that isn't backed up by a manga panel is nothing but mere talk, and I won't take any of it seriously. Show me some evidence for your claims. Also, even if Kakashi did "go against" the Hokage's decision, did he truly go against Konoha's interests or did he argue against his leader somewhat? He was always faithful to the Hokage and Konoha.

I'm not saying this to talk shit about your post, but for you to read more objectively, since I love Sasuke and I don't think Kakashi is bad at all (either in writing or as a character)

I'll reiterate, if you don't agree with my analysis of him you can easily write one of your own, I don't have to cater to your tastes.

#anti kakashi fandom #anti kakashi stans

26 notes · View notes

egg-emperor · 1 year

Text

I don't get why some people genuinely have to relate to character one to one or they don't like them, especially in terms of morals. like fair enough if that's your preference though I still don't get the appeal but if you change all the character's morals and other aspects of their personality to suit your preference/make it more like your personal ones, don't get mad when people don't want to do the same and keep it accurate and faithful. And especially don't treat them as bad of a person as they perceive and write that character to be themselves because you think it reflects it somehow.

Because I can't relate to Eggman being a selfish evil monsterous war criminal terrorist dictator and abusive murderous asshole who has no moral limits holding him back from doing anything no matter how fucked up and destructive to get what he wants (though some people try to act like I am for writing him as such lol)- but how different he is to me is actually specifically compels me. Sure I can relate and even be inspired by some small assets of him but he's still a very evil fucked up person and that sets us apart. It makes me want to explore his mind and find out how he ticks and his wildly different perception and views.

That's usually a huge part of why I love characters ranging from jerks and assholes to totally evil irredeemable monsters and Eggman is my favorite ever for being both, while also having a funny side that makes him interesting, badass, funny, and most importantly, entertaining. Relatability doesn't matter as long as it's entertaining. It's made me sad how it seems in recent years people can't seem to enjoy what they can't relate to and demand that from creators and get angry and accuse them of being terrible people if they don't. It's a close minded way of viewing fiction.

Purity culture and the idea that all characters must do the right thing or come from a place of believing they're doing the right thing instead of genuinely being a bad person and being happy with that is killing creativity. Fiction is made to explore anything we want and that includes anything and everything that we can't relate to as well. In fact, by not always relating it's more realistic because it focuses on how different we all are as people and we might not all understand each other but we're still all human- and regardless of everything else will always be able to relate in at least that one way.

Not every character needs to be a role model teaching you a moral lesson. How different a character can be and analyzing their thoughts, feelings, motives, morals, personality, and behavior without projecting in every area, instead embracing them for what they are and challenging yourself to write someone so different to you is a great thing and necessary skill in writing so all your characters aren't exactly the same. There are many ways to be both good and bad people and actually bad evil people as characters are just as important as good ones in storytelling.

I don't need Eggman to do all the things I would. I don't need him to be a good person, I don't need him to have my thoughts, feelings, and beliefs. If I did, I'd write a self insert. He's a very different person and it's cool and interesting and makes him a blast to write and watch, to see him doing cool entertaining evil badass stuff I wouldn't do in real life- which I also shouldn't be accused of wanting. But I shouldn't be surprised that groups of people stuck in hiveminds would forget that people are different and that variety and differences are cool and appealing without being able to relate :P

Storytelling is a way to write characters we can't relate to just as much as ones that we can and I value that a lot. I will always enjoy writing, analyzing, and appreciating Eggman for just how different he is to myself and the creativity and the deep thinking to still try to understand him without being able to relate, the little things that I can such as his passion, creativity, and determination is nice but all the things I can't relate to interests me too. I like the challenge it gives me to capture it accurately and faithfully and not let too much projection or bias take over- it's really fucking fun.

Characters being different and challenging your perspective, real life morals, and preferences is a great thing. I'll always love writing Eggman doing things that interest me for being so different and even stuff that would disturb me in real life, just as much as the things I can relate to and see in him and even be inspired by in some areas. A character with the complexity of pulling off all at once is a sign of a very well written one and inspires a lot of creative thought. I'm sad that purity culture is sanitizing and removing everything that makes them interesting to make them all the same. I won't follow.

#dr eggman #eggman #dr robotnik #dr. eggman #my post #important #rant #eggman is evil

22 notes · View notes

shai-manahan · 1 year

Note

Hollowed Minds, as a story, is like a mirror that reflects the complexities and contradictions of human society, exposing its flaws with honesty and clarity.

It is interesting to me to see a story where the author doesn't hold back in showing the raw reality, without holding back. Showing how the darkness of the reality and society surrounding an individual with ideals and hopes for the future, tries every single day to extinguish that light of hope inside of them. How it tries to destroy them. How it tries to alter their personality, ideals and beliefs.

It shows how the mentality of "Public glory and fame" can corrupt a person. How the public opinion can make a person a beacon of light and a model for society, only to drag that same person's reputation down, damaging even their career. How the public opinion does not care about the evidences that prove the claims thrown in the media, but just accept them as if they are the absolute word of God. The same thing happening to MC at the start of the story.

On the other hand, it also shows how good and dangerous idealism can be, through the Ripper and Wesley. A duo who in their past did many good deeds for the people, but who can be so much influenced by idealism that they fail to see the consequences of the actions they take in doing good deeds. It can result in someone getting harmed. Their judgement can be clouded, making them fail to see reality for what it is.

Then you have the classic "We are all doing this. It's not good to be a snitch on your colleagues for breaking the law. You are a bad person if you go against the flow" shown in the Ripper's workplace where they are treating them not with the respect they rightfully deserve just because he exposed the corruption happening in that place. But such is expected from a society that has been turning a blind eye to crimes. In public they may tell you "We want justice and the criminals behind bars" but this is true (and they will support you) as long as you don't touch their interests/benefits.

For the sake of the ask not getting too long, I'm going to stop here with my ramblings, but I just wanted to say how much I appreciate the fact that you have chosen to share this story with us. I love the characters, with all their virtues and flaws, and I love the way how each time I go and replay the demo, new things are discovered. I hope you keep writing this story until the very end and that you take good care of your health💛

Hey, anon, this is probably the highest form of compliment I've ever gotten on this platform, and honestly? I've been reading this over and over for the entire day because I just felt so seen.

You've shared some thoughts here I never expected to see this early in the story, and I'm so grateful you made the effort to type it all out and send it to me because I've definitely been second-guessing myself in how I'm portraying certain scenes.

I mean, I'm autistic. It's hard for me to make my thoughts clear, and it's a lot harder for me to figure out if the readers are getting the information I want them to have and the conclusions I want them to form. And when I do make an effort to do just that, I get the realization that I begin to describe too much.

It's a flaw of mine that I'm confused what to do about sometimes, so I cannot emphasize enough that seeing my work be so clearly understood, so deeply analyzed, is really just, I don't know, I feel like gratifying is not enough of a word for this, but it might be the closest.

I also want you to remember what you yourself said about the idealism that Ripper and Wesley had, because that one paragraph now made me confident that a future revelation would not be wasted on at least one person :') It's... a nice feeling, to be honest.

I might just end up crying here if I keep going, so I'll stop here. Thank you again and I hope you'll have a good weekend! I hope you'll also see this through the end!

#OKAY I LIED AT THE LAST PART #I'M WAY TOO EMOTIONAL ALREADY #interactive fiction #interactive novel #hollowed minds series #cyoa #hollowed minds #choicescript #interactive game #wip #if wip #writing #hosted games #hollowed minds book one

33 notes · View notes

leonafalconer · 1 year

Text

Defining the Human Good

The determination of one's morality is, at its core, a subjective process. Defining the human good can look different depending on which moral philosophy you prescribe to: consequentialism, deontology, or virtue ethics.

Consequentialism is an outcome-based theory. It focuses on the consequences (outcomes) of an action to argue whether that was a morally good or bad decision. To a consequentialist, a good outcome warrants justification of that action/decision being morally correct. Vice versa, a negative outcome means the action was morally incorrect and not to be repeated. For example, committing a murder brings about jail time and ruins your life – thus it is a bad action.

Deontology theory categorizes good and bad actions based upon duties; there are certain moral rules and societal laws to follow. If an action is morally wrong, it should not be done. For example, committing a murder is against the law, as well as a sin, and is viewed as a negative action to a deontologist.

Virtue ethics instead focuses on the inherent virtue's of a persons character. The focus lies on human behavior and analyzing which traits constitute the human good. This theory stems from the base of a person's moral character, with their actions coming as a secondary piece to reflect this character. Someone with a steady moral character will exhibit consistent signs and actions of their inner virtues. For example, if someone commits a murder, virtue ethics doesn't focus on the consequences of this action or even the action itself. Virtue ethics would hone in on the flawed moral character and sick mindset that allowed a person to commit this crime.

At first thought, all of these theories seem fairly straightforward (even if you don't necessarily agree with them). Virtue ethics presents as the most logical and earnest of the theories, with a focus on the innate quality of a person's virtue. It doesn't fall back on bendable moral rules or random consequences to ground its belief.

However, all three of these theories can be challenged by the slightest morally ambiguous decision. Not all actions are as cut-and-dry as a murder. Life is incredibly complex, especially in our modern world with many different interpretations of good and bad, moral and immoral. Depending where you live, what religion you believe in, and the community environment you surround yourself by, these guiding principles can look very different. What if you murder someone in self-defense? What if it's an accident? What if they were a bad person? Very quickly, it becomes impossible to deliver an exact verdict on 'good' or 'bad' in this type of situation.

It simply isn't realistic to define the human good based upon one exact theory or definition. Morality is not black and white, but rather an ever-changing arena of opinions and virtues.

#deontology #consequentialism #virtue ethics

7 notes · View notes

hvmelander · 2 years

Note

How can you be a leftist and also write / like Homelander? Not trying to be rude I just don't get it

im gonna assume this is being asked in good faith and respond in kind. i don't think its a bad question, and clearly you read my rules if you know that i call myself a leftist.

first off, I think the show comes from a leftist perspective. people say it "makes fun of both sides" but i don't agree. it makes fun of American liberalism and conservatism (& as a result the far right), but its not making fun of leftists. liberalism =/= leftism. there really is no leftist American political party. there's a liberal centrist party and a conservative and increasingly far right party. the boys are basically antifa. kimiko is actually my favourite character, and she's basically an antifa super soldier. one of the first lessons hughie learns in s3 is that working within the American government system is not going to lead to any structural changes. the problems are systemic, they are social, they are not going to be solved with government oversight and by playing within the rules of American liberalism. when the show makes fun of what people call "woke" stuff, its making fun of corporate appropriation of social justice issues, not the issues themselves.

as for homelander, i don't like him in the way that someone might like starlight or kimiko or hughie. i like him as a villain, and as a critique of power and American hegemony. he's a critique of patriarchy, conservatism, toxic masculinity and male fragility, of the way white people in power will align themselves with literal fucking not-sees because it benefits them, and of fascists and conservative grifters. i think he's really well written and given very understandable explanations for why he is the way he is without excusing his behaviour. as someone who is not from the US, he comes across as the way america comes across on the world stage a lot of the time especially since 2016. showboating, aggressive, bigoted, but extremely powerful and using that power to maintain control of others.

i write him because i think he's psychologically fascinating and because i've always found myself drawn to villains, fucked up guys. i think he's extremely interesting and has a very unique character voice that i enjoy trying to wrap my head around. also, i only do this because he isn't real. while i don't think you can divorce most things from the real world, from the historical & political context of when they were created and who created them, i especially think that's impossible with the boys. it's so inherently political in what it wants to say. when it comes to rp specifically and fiction generally, though, i find some level of separation between reality and fiction is necessary. to me, the political beliefs i hold re: leftist politics, feminism, antiracism, etc inform how i analyze him but don't contradict with me enjoying a fictional tv show that i, personally, think reflects a lot of important issues and has its critique rooted in leftist perspectives.

#* out of character #political discussion cw

4 notes · View notes

dendrite-blues · 3 years

Photo

For a relatively short exchange, this scene is jam packed with characterization for Loki.

It’s also our first reliable look into what Loki was like before Thor 1. Not as described by others, but first hand and from his own mouth. I think that deserves a closer look, to see what we can learn about Loki and how he thinks.

This scene is significant because it tells us what Loki’s personality is like when he’s not running for his life. It tells us who he was before his trauma and what his core beliefs are underneath those layers of humor and bravado.

Better yet, since he’s alone we can assume that every line in this scene is presumably true, or at least Loki believes it to be true since he has no audience but himself.

The dialogue centers mostly around the statement “You deserve to be alone, and you always will be.” I’m not going to focus too much on the “alone” motif since I already dedicated an entire meta post to it.

What I think is more interesting about this scene is actually the looping, and the stages Loki goes through in trying to deal with it. There’s a lot of really interesting character traits on display in that progression.

Loop 1: A Warm Bath and Glass of Wine

The first loop entails Sif lecturing Loki about cutting her hair, kicking him in the balls, and storming away. Loki kneels on the floor and he gives us this great line:

“A bad memory prison? How quaint. Some punishment. I remember exactly what I did after that. I went and had a nice, hot bath and a glass of wine, and I never thought about it again. Because it was just a bit of fun.”

So we can take this to be Loki’s default reaction to pain and criticism. When put into an unexpected conflict without any forethought or outside influence, this is what he says/does.

1) Downplay the damage/threat. How quaint. 2) Dispel/soothe the emotion. Nice hot bath. 3) Minimize the impact. Never thought about it again. 4) Deflect responsibility. Just a bit of fun.

Keep those in mind as we move forward, since we’ll be using them to make sense of what else Loki says in this scene.

Loops 2 and 3: Okay, Sif, Hang On

This bit is about Loki realizing just how bad his predicament is.

L: Okay. Okay, Sif. Hang on. S: No, you hear this. You deserve to be alone... And I always will be. L: Alright, I get it. Listen. You are a reconstruction of a past event created by the organization that controls all of time. So you need to trust me and you need to help me escape. Yeah? S: Pathetic. (she kicks him again) L: (winces and groans)

As we all would expect from him, Loki’s first impulse is to try and talk his way out of it. What he says to achieve that goal is pretty revealing though. Because he doesn’t try to ease Sif’s upset by apologizing or explaining or offering to magic her hair back.

Any of these would have been more likely to save his nads in the given circumstance, right? The present threat is Sif, and she’s mad about what Loki did to her hair. But Loki doesn’t really see that. Rather, he treats her as a means to an end.

“So you need to trust me and you need to help me escape. Yeah?”

To me, that choice reveals something of a blind spot Loki has to the feelings of others. Even if he doesn’t actively like hurting people, he does prioritize their problems below his, and quite shamelessly. And at least on his first impulse, he doesn’t seem to feel much remorse or empathy for them.

Usually in fanon we attribute this callousness to his trauma. He’s learned that no one can be trusted and no one cares, and so he doesn’t allow himself to care for others.

But between his Loop 1 sentiment of “It was just a bit of fun” for an event which caused real hurt to Sif, and his Loop 2/3 behavior of “you, stop being mad and help ME” I think it’s reasonable to say that selfishness/low empathy are traits Loki possessed pre-trauma.

Loop 4-????: Happens Off Screen

It’s unclear how many times Loki loops while the camera is following Mobius, but the implication is clear that it was been many, many repetitions. Somewhere in this his denial and deflection must break, because we come back to a much humbler, more pleading Loki.

The Final Loop: I Crave Attention

S: You conniving, craven... L: Sif. Sif. S: ...pathetic worm. L: Please, please, no more. Please, I beg you. I'm a horrible person. I get it. I really am. I cut off your hair because I thought it'd be funny. And it's not. Uh... I crave attention... because I'm... a narcissist. And I suppose it's... It's because I'm scared of being alone.

HOOO BOY, so this is quite a tough bit to analyze. There’s a lot of interpretations you could make, and a lot of topics to delve into. For the sake of focus, I’m going to ignore the narcissism question. That one really needs an entire post, and I want to focus on something else here.

That being, Loki’s way of processing conflict/punishment.

I’ve always found it strange how Loki takes such pride in being called a liar and cheat when he simultaneously has this chip on his shoulder about how nobody likes him.

Those two traits don’t seem to play well together, and I always scratched my head over how they coexist in his character. If he wants people to be nicer to him, maybe he should stop antagonizing them? Yeah?

Well, here we’re finally given a clear reason. Loki craves attention, he hates being alone. So how does he avoid it? Pranks and mischief.

Fair enough.

But then, if all his pranks lead to this outcome--outrage, retaliation, insult--why doesn’t he ever learn? How is it that after 1000 years of this behavior, he hasn’t found a better way to get the attention he craves?

Loop 1: Downplay, dispel, minimize, deflect. He accepts zero accountability for the impact of his actions, and doesn’t think at all about how they affect other people. Just a bit of fun. I had a hot bath and a glass of wine, and never thought about it again.

The only reason he reaches the level of self awareness on display in the Final Loop is because the looping forces him to contemplate his actions and the impulses within him that lead to that behavior.

This is projection on my part, but to me he acts as though this kind of deep reflection is a new thing for him. He sounds like someone sharing a revelation that he’s just had about himself. We’re being shown that Loki is a man of action. He will always move forward if he can, possibly because looking back to so painful that he can’t bring himself to do it.

Circling back around to the pride Loki has for his knavery, let’s suppose that he’s been on this negative reinforcement cycle since childhood. He’s always acted out to get attention, then received retaliation and insults for it, and then pushed the bad feelings out of his mind with creature comforts and mental gymnastics.

What happens over time, when you’re being constantly told that you’re a pain in the ass and no one likes you? Most of us would take it to heart, but Loki doesn’t. He has a big ego, big enough to resist that constant barrage of hate coming at him.

So how does he marry these two conflicting realities?

He turns it into an identity, the God of Mischief.

In his head, Loki excuses himself of blame by shifting the culpability to his moniker. It’s not that he’s immature and petty, he’s just a “trickster.” It’s in his nature to cause trouble, so he can’t help it. You wouldn’t dangle a steak in front of a tiger and blame the tiger for striking, would you? And if other people can’t take a “joke” then that’s not his fault, that’s on them for not having a sense of humor. It was just a bit of fun.

Here we see the union of these two halves of Loki, the lonely ice runt and the mischievous scamp. (And a little bit of the original Loki who Thor accused of being incapable of growth!)

By refusing to think about others, and excusing himself from responsibility, Loki successfully preserves his self worth and insulates himself to most of the negative emotions he experiences.

Pain, embarrassment, and grief aren’t pointless emotions though. They are vital feelings that serve to regulate our behavior, and that push us to conform to the ways of our social circles. Without them, we annoy and upset others. Be annoying for long enough and you will eventually find yourself, well, alone. As Loki is.

Thus “Mischief” is a self-defeating loop, and Loki is just as caught in it as the cell Mobius trapped him in.

In order to be free of both traps, Loki has to stop running. He has to take a deeper look at himself and realize how much he is getting in his own way. The entire scene is one big parallel between these two “loops.” Pretty neat, huh?

Sadly these kinds of thought loops are really difficult to break, they’re buried so deeply in our personalities and habits that we usually don’t notice them until life forces us to address them.

The cell is Loki’s wake up call, and thankfully he does seem to rise to the occasion. He tells Sif quite clearly what his problem is, and he does it with beautiful, painful honesty.

Which is why it’s so fucking awesome for Mobius to acknowledge that, and to finally give Loki a taste of positive attention.

You don’t deserve to be alone. I believe you can be anything, even something good. Whatever you two did, it was powerful enough to bring this whole place down.

It’s a beautiful scene. Well written, meticulously acted. The clarity of vision in the pacing and shot selection, it’s really something special.

#loki spoilers #loki #mcu #mobius #meta #discussion #discourse #scene study #long post #sif #time loop #tva #character study

546 notes · View notes

munku-collar · 3 years

Note

This is your open invitation to infodump about an opinion you've been wanting to share. Go off, friend 💙

Actually had a convo about this with my gf today that a lot of people fundamentally misunderstand Demeter as a character which I've def complained about before but specifically when it comes to her sense of fashion or appearance in human AUs.

For some reason there's this tendency to make her dress modestly or somewhat plain, to make her look like a goody-two shoes, which is not the case at all. At face value Demeter and Bombalurina are the "sexy cats" of the show. Their makeup is the most human/least cat like and designed specifically to make them attractive, and the choreo in the macavity number oozes sensuality and the song itself hints at a very active sexual and dark side of Demeter which she shared with Macavity.

Yes, she knows the things he's done are terrible and left him behind and now can offer warning, but there's nothing to say she didn't also enjoy things with Mac when they started out, which I always talk about whenever I mention Demecavity. It's a direct parallel to Grizabella honestly, in that they both were out in the world doing things that were perhaps morally questionable in pursuit of either romance, fame or belonging, and neither situation worked out. That's probably essay worthy in itself, but I'll leave it there for now.

Anyway, the fact that Macavity is obsessed with Demeter and wants her back is a direct indicator that Demeter has a naughty side or has an edge to her, because Macavity would not fall in love with a run of the mill goody-two shoes who just fawns over him. There was something in Demeter that he related to and found exciting and attractive, and it certainly wasn't because she is the type of person to wear sweater vests and modest dresses or even casual wear with sneakers.

Design-wise her appearance is more wild compared to some of the other queens and some productions push this really far with her wig. She's one of the handful of cats to wear a spiked collar and there are some parallels between her eye makeup and the trad goth fashion movement. See examples here.

(2nd photo on the top row is of the lead singer of Siouxsie and the Banshees which is a band featured on my Demeter playlist because their music just Screams Deme.)

Yes, she is a very loving character, and is sympathetic, especially towards Grizabella, but there's an underlying strength in her and even a hint of darkness compared to a lot of the other cats. It's even in her color scheme: she's got white on her chest over her heart, indicating a sense of purity, which extends to gold, making her attractive and "valuable" or covetable, but the gold is shrouded in black, which suggests that she's tainted by encroaching darkness, regret, and in my eyes, anger. These details in her appearance are directly transferable to her personality, which a lot of people misread.

There's a tendency to make Demeter this fearful, defenseless creature in order to make whichever character she's shipped with, whether it be Munk or someone else appear stronger or more capable and caring, which I don't understand. She is shown to be very alert throughout the show, warning the tribe of potential danger every time and she isn't afraid to use her voice. She participates in all the activities, doesn't hide away(in some productions she does which is an intentional change but on the whole she's Involved in the tribe) and she is the one to reveal Macavity's deceit. She is the one to physically attack him first. Demeter is not demure and incapable of taking care of herself or others. She has to have a sense of fire or strength in her for the story to work. Like I've said, there has to be a reason Macavity wants her back so bad.

And women, contrary to popular belief, are 3 dimensional, so yes she can have moments of vulnerability or anxiety, but that is not all she is. She's capable of experiencing a range of emotions and presenting herself in more than one way, which many people tend to forget. And this happens with several characters, in every single fandom I've ever been in, where people reduce a character to a handful of emotions or quirky traits in order to ship them, or turn them into props for other ships, or because they simply don't put in the effort to analyze a character. I'm not sure why it happens but it's something I've consistently noticed and it irritates me to hell and back.

So how should Demeter be presented in AUs or drawings where cats are wearing human clothes? Simple and goth or grunge leaning. Black clothing with hints of brighter colors mimics her fur pattern. Perhaps a gold shirt or dress. Goth inspired makeup(whether full goth or a more subdued look) directly parallels her facial markings. Black leather jacket. Tall boots or heels. The collar. The collar should always be there, whether it's her actual collar or a similar dramatic necklace. Obviously she can wear a range of things depending on the situation, but the overall vibe should be the same: Trustworthy with a hint of edge.

The goth umbrella is very large and filled with many fashion motifs and movements including anything from leather to lace, and of course Deme can lean outside of a specific type of fashion too, but the overall style should be a mixture of grungy, sexy, and casual, in line with her characterization. Low necklines but long sleeves. Short skirt but long boots and oversized jacket. Something that indicates that she seems like trouble, but is very in control of her self presentation, and most importantly, her clothing isn't performative. She doesn't dress for anyone else's happiness, she dresses for her own.

For a character with such apparent trauma who has, for the most part, found happiness, her clothing should be a form of armor or a form of visual storytelling. She should look comfortable in her clothing, because she's become comfortable in her own skin again, and should wear it with pride, as she wears the title of Jellicle. This is moving into character design territory, which I'm not going to go into too much even though I could (art degree 🤪) but yeah.

I suppose I'll leave off with some outfits I would put her in, if I wasn't too lazy to draw. Some of these are more on the tame side, indicating that she's found a sense of easy confidence and honestly, rehabilitation, but they all share visual traits. You can imagine they all are in her wardrobe/belong to the same person. A sense of coherency is a must when picking a style for a character, and these looks, combined with either subdued trad goth or full trad goth makeup accurately reflect Demeter's character much more than something like pastels and lots of florals, or sweater vests, or a simple graphic t-shirt and jeans.

No shade to anyone who draws her like that, because people make beautiful art, but in my eyes it's not the most accurate representation.

Lastly, don't come arguing. This is my blog, my opinion, and quite frankly I don't care to read any differing ones 🤪 This is a very personal topic to me and it's my blog so I'm always right. Don't agree? Keep scrolling ✌

#my shit #asks #demeter #cats demeter #demeter cats #cats 1998 #cats the musical #JH #macavity #grizabella #demestrap #demecavity #no this is not going under a cut cuz yall WILL read this #get educated

56 notes · View notes

cirrates · 3 years

Note

☕ knuckles the echidna

he is so fascinating to me I love to think about him. last month alone I just started infodumping abt him in 2 different discord servers nobody in those servers even cares abt sonic but well.

I love his unwavering belief in the inherent goodness of others its so strange that despite it being one of his consistent core personality traits it never gets explored that much. bizarre. his extreme sense of personal responsibility is so fascinating too and especially how surprised he gets when someone else doesnt share it (which is a large part of where his conflict with sonic comes from) and on a related note him being a loner less out of choice and more out of feeling that he doesnt have a choice. that because he's been able to get by for so long on his own that accepting help from others feels like a personal failure to him. not to say that hes not just shy or never just prefers to be alone because he is and he does but he also puts up walls around himself I think.

I think his relationship with sonic is so interesting simply because it says so much about him. the way he both disapproves of him just because "dont you know better than to act like that?" and envies him (sonic) because he (knuckles) has to be responsible all the time as the master emerald guardian. the way he gets so frustrated when sonic does everything "wrong" and things still work out for him. their friendship once they grow to understand each other is lovely but just thinking about their personalities and the source of their initial conflict is so so interesting to me I never analyzed it before because I didnt care about their relationship before they became friends but now I love to think about it so so much it deeply fascinates me.

I LOVE to think about him and silver as parallels to each other despite their extremely similar circumstances their response once out of said circumstances is so different. silver loves to rely on people and never wants to be alone again whereas knuckles as said before has been able to get by on his own for so long that accepting help from others feels like a personal failure. I think they could understand each other if they talked to each other I think it would be good for both of them to have someone whos been in a similar position who can really understand what theyve been through I think.

I love the way that his sa2 level themes let you see into his mind unlike any other character's. not necessarily in a deep way all the time (though theres lots to analyze in some of them if you wanted to) but they just reflect his thoughts in a cool and amusing way. its awsome.

also I like that once knuckles kind of comes out of his shell and becomes just a regular part of the cast and not a rival or anything hes just really funny. I like that. I like him. I also like that he likes fruit thats so cool I like fruit too.

also this is about people who make like long posts analyzing in detail the trauma and insecurities that each sonic character has so we are both already taking funny animal game too seriously but I feel like people tend to like. skip over or ignore knuckles' issues. and the intricacies of his personality. in a way they dont for other characters. like one does not get abandoned at birth and live in isolation for years and come away unscathed (as I have just detailed. already.) and I feel like people (people who are already taking the funny animal game too seriously not just normal people who wabnt to play funny animal game and go wow that animal is funny :)) dont take him seriously as much. as the others. theyll make long 10 paragraph posts analyzing sonic and every single event that couldve been even slightly hard for him (I realize the irony in what I am saying I promise just bear with me) but then ignore everything knuckles has been through just to treat him as a joke and call him dumb. like all of the characterts get bad mischaracterizations but it feels like for knuckles its most prevalent. or maybe I just notice it more because I like knuckles. idk.

apolocheese that this is so long but well you asked abt knuckles and well. you know how it is with knuckles.

#answered asks #chaotix #thankyou.

23 notes · View notes

sweetsassymusic · 3 years

Text

The Long Kaz Rant I Told Myself I Wouldn’t Write, But Here We Are

This is probably an unpopular opinion. And I hope it doesn't come across as confrontational or anything because I don't mean it that way. But I've always been super confused by the way Kaz is accepted, basically across the entire fandom, as either morally gray or straight up villainous? He doesn’t really seem like either of those things to me. On a surface level, obviously there are things he’s done that are normally considered evil. He’s stolen, he’s killed, he threatened a child, he gouged out someone’s eye. And that’s all pretty bad, right? But it completely ignores the context given in the books. (More after the cut because this got too long...)

There’s a difference between doing something evil and doing something that’s shocking, “dark,” or difficult to watch.

Before I read the books, I heard fans discuss all the horrible things Kaz does. And the way people talk about him, I was expecting him to be… Feral Kaz – someone who delights in doing horrible things because he’s just so twisted and angry. The author herself even referred to him on her blog as being utterly despicable. Wow! This guy must really go out of his way to hurt innocent people, huh? So when I sat down to actually read it, I was so surprised. Most (if not all?) the killings were done on some level of self-defense. His “murder victims” were actual evil people trying to kill him or someone he loved. And the reason he threatened a child was because the only alternative was killing her – something he would never want to do. You know, because he’s not evil.

I don’t know if I just have very different definitions of these terms than most people? But to me, the idea of Kaz being “utterly despicable” should not even be on the table to begin with (Leigh Bardugo, you good?) and even the idea of him being “morally gray” is questionable.

When I think of a morally good character, I don’t think of someone who never does anything questionable or always perfectly makes the correct choices. I think of someone who is on a mission–either to protect the world, a loved one, or simply pursuing a personal goal–who at least tries to conduct his mission in a way that either does no harm to others, or (when that’s not possible) does as little harm as necessary to get the job done.

Whereas, when I think of a villainous character, I think of someone who has no regard for others at all. Someone who either relishes in harming the innocent, or pays zero consideration to whether he harms innocents while pursuing his goals (which are usually, in themselves, harmful to innocent people).

And finally, when I think of a morally gray character, I think of someone directly between these two. Someone who is a little bit evil, a little bit sadistic, but not entirely evil. He’s got a few good points too. Maybe he’s someone who keeps switching sides, unsure if he wants to be a hero or villain. Maybe he has hurt a lot of innocent people unnecessarily, but he joins in with the good guys for personal gain, and people don’t mind him there simply because he doesn’t interfere with the protagonist’s goals. Or maybe he’s the “Bad Cop” to someone else’s Good Cop: someone who uses more violence than is necessary, just for fun, but still helps the good side in some capacity, so everyone chooses to look past it.

Under these definitions, Kaz (to me) seems more like a good character. While pursuing his personal goals, he protects people he loves, and yes, he does do “dark” things. But he doesn’t relish in doing them (despite his reputation in-universe of being a chaotic sadist. His reputation is not accurate; he invented it for his own protection). He does them because he has to. If he can get the job done right without hurting anyone, that’s the route he’ll take. But that option isn’t always available. And he’s not the type to lie down and die just to avoid getting his hands dirty (nor should he, imo).

Again, maybe I just have a different idea of what constitutes being morally gray. But I always thought it was meant to be a judgment on the choices you make when you actually HAVE a choice? A morally gray character has the choice to be good or evil, and they choose to do both (which one depending on how they feel that day).

Whereas, if you do something “bad” because circumstances force you to do it–because you or someone you love will die otherwise–that’s pretty much the same as having a gun to your head. You’re not morally gray. You’re doing it under duress. It’s survival, not a reflection of where you stand on moral topics. Like, if you trap a vegan in a room with only a piece of meat, and you leave them there for days, weeks, that person doesn’t suddenly become a “fake vegan” if they eat that meat to avoid literally starving to death. You forced them to do it. When it comes to their moral beliefs, they would still be a vegan if they had the freedom to make that choice. You just put them in a situation where those choices aren’t available to them. Your lack of freedom in a situation shouldn’t define you.

The same can be said for placing a starving, homeless orphan boy alone in the dog-eat-dog world of Ketterdam. The option of being a sweet little law-abiding citizen is not available to him. So is it really fair to define him by something in which he had no choice?

I’ve come across so many GrishaVerse fans who, while sipping on their Starbucks in the comfort of their own home, go “Ugh, Kaz. He’s so DARK, so EVIL!” (Fun fact: while my mom was watching the show, she said Kaz is evil because “he seems to always have a plan.” Oh no! Not PLANS!) “He must be some kind of monster to be able to do the things he does and still live with himself! I could NEVER do those things!” Well…you’ve never actually had to do those things? Your life has never depended on it? Idk, to me, it’s just a very privileged take. And I’m not trying to make this into a big social issue. It’s not like criticism against a fictional character is anywhere near the same level of importance as the issues marginalized people are facing in real life. I’m just saying, it’s very easy to condemn activity you’ve never been forced to engage in for your own survival.

One of the biggest reasons people have given me for why they think Kaz is evil is that he is “for himself.” Even the author said she thinks Kaz is worse than the Darkling (who, I’ve gotten the impression, she believes to be irredeemable) because the Darkling has communal goals (he wants to bring positive change for other people/the world at large) while Kaz’s goals are just personal (he wants to bring positive change for himself and only himself). And for one? It just isn’t true: many (if not most) of the things Kaz does is either for his Crows or for his late brother; he just disguises it with supposed self-interest for the sake of his reputation. And second? It’s…not actually wrong to have personal goals or to act in self-interest. Bettering your own life is a valid desire. It’s not the same as being selfish. Not everything you do has to be for other people.

(And, tbh, this is something Leigh Bardugo seems to have a problem with in general, not just in this scenario. I could write a whole separate rant about other characters that were demonized in-narrative for engaging in “too much” self-care, and how her unforgivingly black and white morality ruined the Shadow and Bone trilogy for me. Worst of all, she even seemed to imply recently that the only reason real-life antisemitism is wrong is because “the Jews didn’t fight back”? [Like, if they had met her criteria of “fighting back”, would that make antisemitism somewhat justified to her? What? Idek, but she should really clarify.] Basically, she seems to take “non-selfishness” to an extreme. I don’t know her personally, I don’t want to make assumptions, I don’t have anything personal against her, and I’m not trying to get her cancelled or anything, I promise. But please, when you read her books, please don’t accept all her ideas at face value, because there’s some Weird Shit™ in there sometimes.)

Anyway, another reason people say Kaz is bad or morally gray is that he wants revenge. “Revenge is a bad coping mechanism! You should want JUSTICE! Not REVENGE!” And again, this argument is wild to me. I mean, yes, there are situations–especially in real life, modern, western contexts–where revenge is a bad coping mechanism someone has developed, and transforming their anger into a desire for justice is a way for them to overcome that and express their anger in a healthier way. But that’s a very specific scenario. When we’re talking generally, the line between revenge and justice is a lot thinner than people think (and in some scenarios, there is no line at all).

For example, real life victims and their families often say they can’t wait to see the perpetrator rot in prison, even wishing (sometimes even fantasizing) that the guy gets abused in prison by fellow inmates. For them, justice and revenge are wrapped up together in one big court-issued sentence. And while some people find that disturbing or take issue with it, it’s…generally considered valid outrage? This guy is evil and hurt them, so it’s okay for these people to want him to suffer. And most importantly, these people called the cops instead of taking matters into their own hands, therefore they’re Good, right? They’re good citizens who obey and rely on the established authority, therefore they are handling their anger in an Acceptable™ way?

But in the world of Ketterdam, if someone has victimized you, or is trying to kill you or someone you love, you can’t just call the fucking cops (and let’s be honest, looking at irl cops, it’s a questionable idea here too sometimes). If we’re analyzing Kaz’s outrage and how he handles it, we have to analyze it in the context of where he lives, not where we live. We have options in our lives that Kaz doesn’t have. So we have to ask, what are the most productive steps he could realistically take in his world?

I see activists and bloggers on websites like this, publicly fantasizing about gouging the eyes out of certain politicians and right-wing figureheads. And they would probably do it for real if they could. On Tumblr and Twitter, this is generally considered righteous anger. The politicians are evil, so it’s okay to hurt them, right? That’s how the logic goes, anyway (I know some will disagree, but it’s a common take here). Well, imagine if, instead of just being a bigot, one of these evil people personally stabbed–possibly killed–your girlfriend. And there were no cops to call, no news stations or social media to turn to, to show people what this guy did. No authority or community on your side. No way to ensure this guy faced consequences for his actions. There’s just you, your dying girlfriend, your helplessness, your anger. What would be the appropriate way to handle this situation, so you were acting out of justice instead of revenge? What does “justice” even mean in a world like that? It’s a world where either you hurt others or you lie down and just let others keep hurting those you love (which, in itself, would be evil). I can’t think of any “appropriate” response Kaz could take. Which, for better or worse, is probably why he just went for the eye. You probably would too in that context. Are you morally gray? I doubt it.

It’s really weird to me how people seem to hold Kaz to this high standard of absolute Moral Purity, but they don’t hold other characters to it. Like, was the dad on Taken being “feral” or “morally gray” when he told his daughter’s kidnapper that “I will find you and I will kill you” and then pursued him with fury? His motivations were personal and not communal. He was coming from a place of revenge, just as much as justice. But most people consider him a hero. He’s not controversial or “dark.” There are plenty of other heroes who do terrible things (sometimes to innocent people! Even when it’s not even necessary!) for the “greater good” or just because it’s convenient. People call them a “badass” and then turn around and say Kaz is just “bad.” Idk, it just seems really arbitrary the way people draw these lines.

If we’re expanding the definition of “morally gray” to include anyone who’s ever done anything questionable, made a mistake, been forced to do something they wouldn’t normally do, done something for personal reasons instead of for the world at large, or wanted revenge for something, then there literally are no heroes in fiction (except maybe a few cardboard cutouts) or in real life.

(Ironically, the most morally gray thing Kaz does, imo, is something most people don’t even have a problem with: the fact he runs a gambling house to “take money from pigeons.” And even that is really mild [no one is forcing the “pigeons” to gamble their money away]. But yeah, that’s one of the few instances I could think of where he actually hurt innocent people unnecessarily. That and the time, as a kid, where he stole candy from that other kid...and even that might be mostly-but-not-entirely excused by the fact he was starving to death. But yeah.)

#Kaz Brekker #Shadow and Bone #grishaverse #tw: antisemitism #Grisha #my meta

16 notes · View notes

roachliquid · 3 years

Text

A brief primer to spotting fascist/imperialist dogwhistles in manga & anime, since I’m here

if it wasn’t obvious from recent posts, one of my ongoing hobbies is putting way too much time and effort into analyzing things that most people would either dismiss as ‘popcorn entertainment’ or insta-toss as being trash. recently I’ve been on a Digimon kick and I have learned so much stuff. like that everyone involved with Digimon is a huge nerd and that’s why they have multiple characters just shamelessly lifted from Chrono Trigger.

I’ve also picked up a couple things about identifying when anime writers are being imperialist chodes, so I thought I’d share some warning signs.

(note that most of these on their own are not guarantees - context matters, and one single element on its own can mean something quite different from several of these concepts working together. also, this list is not exhaustive, so make sure to use your own analysis skills on the stuff you watch & read!)

Characters having German names/culture. This is one of the less indicative, since Japanese writers have plenty of innocent reasons to enjoy the trappings of European culture, but it’s also one of the easiest to spot. If nothing else, treat it as an signal to turn on your critical reading skills for the next few chapters/episodes.

Heavy focus on the military or combat as a solution to problems. If an anime/manga acts like decisive military action is the solution to every major problem, chances are high the creator believes that in real life. As you may have noticed, real-life Japan is not exactly swarmed with enemies trying to conquer it at every turn. Japanese writers gun for the military because they want to go a-conquering. Also watch how the writer deals with the absence of military might - “we gave up our power in the past and now we’re a bunch of useless weaklings!!!” is pure imperialist rhetoric, no exceptions.

Relatedly, a mysterious aversion to dealing with the harsh consequences of war. Not the consequences of being attacked - everyone agrees those are bad - but the effects that even a “just” war has on its participants, from people being killed (or permanently traumatized) in battle to nations having to spend fucktons of money to keep the fight alive. A popular variant is when the show acknowledges this but blames the loss and devastation on the characters not going to war fast enough, or acts as if it’s all their enemies’ fault.

Focus on a “chosen one” or someone uniquely qualified to lead. “Great Man Theory” - the idea that historical accomplishments are made by people who were born with innately ‘leaderly’ qualities - can only lead to totalitarianism. A story based on the premise that certain people rise to power because they are simply more skilled than literally everyone else is making the argument - however innocently - that some people are innately more deserving of leadership than others, and that it’s everyone else’s responsibility to follow them and make sure they can lead as much as possible (unless they got their power “illegitimately”, in which case, be sure to follow whatever qualified person inevitably appears to usurp them).

A general attitude of “the ends justify the means”. Evil (or just unlikeable) protagonists aren’t necessarily a reflection on their writers, but pay close attention to how the narrative treats them when they do horrible things. If they never cause or get into serious trouble - or, more overtly, are consistently rewarded for their actions (either directly, or through positive/necessary changes occurring as a result of their behavior), the author probably just agrees with the awful shit they’re pulling and thinks their audience should, too. (This absolutely includes characters written as villains - it’s about the actual consequences much more than the narrative framing.)

That’s all I got for you tonight. Like I said before, this isn’t exhaustive - and really, no list can take the place of actually learning about shitty political beliefs and analyzing media for yourself. You don’t have to do it for fun or even constantly - goodness knows if I worked myself into a tizzy over the political implications of Digimon Savers I’d never get any sleep - but it’s worth it to tread a little more carefully, be on the lookout for warning signs, and if you spot any, pay a little more attention to what messages the work is trying to send. ‘Cause you know, then you can tell everyone on the Internet about it and they can yell at you for ruining their favorite shows. :P

#anime #media analysis #fascism #imperialism #manga

8 notes · View notes

goodshipsherlollipop · 4 years

Text

Self-interview (but not really)

When I heard about @sherlollyappreciationweek hosting a self-interview event, I thought it would be fun to participate, so people could get to know me better as an author. But, instead of doing a self-interview, I approached some of my readers and asked them to pose questions for me to answer.

I’m not aiming at making this about me personally. It’s all about me as an author. If you want to know about who I really am outside of my writing, feel free to chat with me privately.

The name of the person asking the questions will precede each section. As this interview is rather long, I will do it in two parts.

MossRose10

Q: What personal experiences or skills (in broad strokes), besides your faith, have influenced what you write about for your characters?

A: I know I see Molly differently than most people, in a more wholesome way. When I look at her character on the show, she doesn't seem the type to have a long sexual history, but instead, seems to be someone who has devoted her life to becoming the best pathologist she can be. I adore her character, and to be honest, I put a lot of my own traits into her - including her love of singing and faith. My post TFP Sherlock has had his true nature restored by the events of Sherrinford. Thus, he is emotionally stable and able to love Molly deeply. I can write him that way because I happen to have a romantic, loving husband (lucky me!). A lot of times in my married stories, I draw on experiences I've had that I have fictionalized for the characters. I usually refer to these in author’s notes. I also love writing about their children, and put a lot of thought and personal experience into writing for them from watching my own daughters grow.

As for the other characters, I just write them the way I feel reflects their personalities best from what I’ve observed in the show, working on fleshing out their characters more as I’ve continued 3 years worth of storyline beyond TFP. For example, my version of Mycroft has mellowed a lot and married Lady Smallwodd, and John has also become a Christian and is remarried with a son.

Q: What kinds of characters do you find most challenging to write, and what strategies do you use to write them?

A: I don’t think I necessarily have a lot of issues in writing the canon characters because I have watched the show so many times I feel I know them personally. Probably the most challenging thing is writing for OC’s or peripheral characters I may have brought into a story that we haven't seen a lot of (like Billy Wiggins or Philip Anderson). I must admit, I have written very little about Moriarty, because most of my stories take place after his death.

dmollyc

Q: What character is hardest to write?

A: I kind of addressed this one in the above answer, but I do think I'd find it difficult to write for Moriarty because I'm not sure how well I could get into the psyche of a deranged madman!

Q: Do you get any nasty reviews?

A: Thankfully, not many. Most of the negative ones are people reacting to a story out of context. They will read a story in the middle of my chronological timeline and then complain that the characters are OOC. When I write my continuing stories, I assume that people are familiar with the characters as I’ve written them already, so this can cause confusion.

Because of the Christian themes, I have lost readers who object to the theology I present through my characters. Obviously, I will not please everybody.

But generally speaking, people are very kind about my work when they review it, and I especially love the reviewers who immerse themselves into my world of Sherlock and Molly and embrace my post-TFP version of them.

Q: What do you like best about your stories?

A: Probably what I like best is that I've found a unique niche in the fandom in creating a whole Christian theme, and writing a lot of different stories with the same theme. I've not seen anyone else doing that (although I'd love to see it done by others).

I enjoy writing my own continuing post-TFP happy ending for Sherlock and Molly, expanding their universe and that of the other characters from Sherlock as well.

Also, I enjoy showing Molly as someone with a belief in saving herself for marriage. It's not going to be a popular idea for the general population, but I know many Christians can relate to that desire to keep sex for that special someone rather than experimenting with every boyfriend they date.

I also think I do a pretty good job in writing love scenes that are steamy, but still clean, although I’m aware that some readers are more sensitive who find them too steamy. I write using my own inner guide for how far to take things in the bedroom. Some stories are definitely steamier than others, but there are certain graphic terms I will never use in my writing because I feel they cross the line of my own comfort zone.

Chelseamh98

Q: How have you overcome the challenges of your vision impairment?

A: This is definitely an ongoing process for me. When I began writing, my proofreading would just consist of looking over the chapter a couple times to try to errors. I have issues when typing on my iPad because of the flat keyboard surface. That means I often type a word incorrectly. To help compensate for that, I have hundreds of words in my “text replacement” section, so that certain words I often mis-type automatically correct to the right word. I have a bad tendency to hit the M instead of N or vice versa, for example. A few months after I began publishing, someone suggested I use a text-to-speech app to help me identify incorrectly spelled words. That did help. I copy a chapter into the text-to-speech app and watch my chapter in a split screen as I listen to the words. That has been a big help. Then, this year, I discovered a free website called prowritingaid, which I now use as another editing tool, and it identifies even more spelling and grammar errors. So now I find myself writing, proofreading as I go along several times as I write. When the chapter is finished and I am ready to publish, I do another visual read. Then I use the prowritingaid site as another editing step. After that, I use the text-to-speech app and listen as I read. Finally, I copy the whole thing into Google Docs, add italics and bold type and glance through the chapter again to see if Google Docs has discovered any more errors. It's a very long process, believe me, and it takes so much longer to do the editing and proofreading than to write! For me, the writing part is easy!

Q: Does it (visual impairment) affect the way you write?

A: Physically, yes. I cannot use a computer, because I need to be inches away from the screen to see what I am doing. Sometimes I will sit at a table and write, but usually, I put three cushions on my lap and sit my iPad on top. Over time, that method has caused me to have pretty severe tendonitis, but I have no other way to write, and it's worth the pain to keep writing! Currently, I am also dealing with frozen shoulder as part of the physical issues.

Also, I have to enlarge my text to write. I use the Colored Note app for my chapters, set to the maximum size of 36, and when I go into Google Docs, I set the size to 25 so I can read it.

Q: What part about writing do you find the most challenging? What’s the easiest?

A: As I mentioned above, the most difficult part is definitely the editing/proofreading process because I have to work so much harder than a normally sighted person, and it takes up a huge chunk of time.

Also, I am very particular in trying to write realistic fiction whenever possible. That means a ton of research. For example, in my story where Molly was shot, Confronting Evil and the Truth, I researched a lot about gunshot wounds and how to care for them. In A Honeymoon Journey, my characters went to Stratford-upon-Avon, and I researched that location thoroughly for many of the chapters. In my latest COVID-19 series, I have followed the pandemic closely in the UK and have added many real situations that have happened there. Research, research, research!

The easiest part is definitely writing the story itself, especially dialogue. I can hear the characters in my head telling me what to write. I rarely suffer from writer’s block, unless I am trying to think about how to write a mystery or crime and how to resolve it.

Aslan's Princess

Q: Where do you find inspiration? Is it something specific? Or multiple things?

A: I find inspiration mainly in two areas. First, from watching episodes over and over and analyzing them. Second, I also find inspiration in my own life, in bringing in real experiences I am familiar with (such as pregnancy and childbirth). Occasionally I will read a story or a review where someone tells me something that sparks my imagination. My current WIP, The Good Book, was actually inspired by a gif-set one of my readers, Penelope Chestnut showed me. It got me wondering what would happen if Sherlock suddenly discovered the Bible (shown in TBB) in his bookcase and decided he wanted some answers about the meaning of life.

Justwritebritt

Q: What drives you to keep writing?

A: Certainly, one of the most motivating factors is hearing from readers who enjoy my work. Readers generally have no clue what kind of power they possess when it comes to encouraging a writer to keep going. A pat on the back is always a good thing. I wish more people could understand that.

Aside from that, though, I feel a calling from God to keep writing. I like sharing my faith through Molly (and Sherlock). My hope is that people will find my stories inspiring and encouraging.

Q: What/Who can you absolutely not write without?

A: I cannot write without my iPad. I use it not only to write, but to research and to watch Sherlock on Netflix. it's my all-in-one resource!

Q: What is your favorite story you've published so far?

A: I will always love A Journey to Love, Faith and Marriage, because it is the “mothership” from which all my other stories spring, but my writing technique was not great at the beginning; there’s an obvious improvement in later chapters. But, I am also very fond of Sherlock’s Dream of What Might Have Been. That one tells a story of Sherlock and Molly meeting in uni, and then jumps to the canon, inserting a secret relationship (and child) throughout the series canon. I put a lot of thought into filling in Season 4 backstory as well.

Q: What (in vague terms) story are you looking forward to telling next?

A: I have a few stories in the pipeline that I am looking forward to sharing. One that steps away from the overt Christian themes is a Pretty Woman AU. I haven't seen anyone attempt an AU for that movie, and I look forward to sharing it. Perhaps it will spark interest with a few more readers because it isn't heavily weighted on the Christian theme scale, but is merely one of my more whimsical, creative story ideas. It is the first story I have written that combines elements from both a movie and the Sherlock narrative.

I also have a couple of one-shots that I will publish in the timeline of my WIP Journey to a New Home, one,that deals with the topic of divorce using a Biblical perspective, plus one that sheds light on the subject of depression.

End of Padt 1.

#sherlollyappreciationweek #sherlollyselfinterview20 #interviews20

12 notes · View notes

ronanvespertine · 4 years

Note

I think I lean more about a person from their view of Hawks than I do about Hawks XD because one inevitably reveals their personal sense of justice in the discussion, in laying down what lines he crossed and where. Everyone’s lines are different. And also what they think should happen to him after his to make things fair, good things or bad things or neutral things. It’s a weird kind of study almost ^_^

OH MY GOD, I WHOLEHEARTEDLY AGREE!!! XD

You explained it so well. I feel like our sense of justice/morals gets projected onto what we think of Hawks. And since our justice/morals are a really personal thing that we all believe strongly in, everyone has varying reactions to other people’s versions of Hawks. Additionally, I feel like our own histories and philosophies get mixed in with Hawks. My history and beliefs definitely influence everything I write, and they especially influence how I characterize the characters.

If I were to summarize what my version of Hawks is, I think of Hawks as someone who hopelessly gives his whole self to the world because he wants to bring everyone a better world. As for what Hawks thinks of Endeavor, I think Hawks looks up to him because Endeavor gave him some kind of hope in a hopeless world. And he wanted to be that kind of icon for others, because that hope Endeavor gave to him meant so much. So he wanted to pay it forward and help other people.

But giving everything you have to the world is exhausting. And it’s just not realistic or reasonable. Regardless of how selfless someone is, people run out of things to give. Because they HAVE to keep something for himself. Hawks had gone his whole life giving his everything to everyone else, that he’s starting to reach the point where he’s hitting the bottom of the barrel. And he’s either going to lose himself, break from the weight of his resolve, or finally realize that he deserves to take care of himself, too. That even if he gives everything to the world, there’s only so much he can do.

(I’ll probably evolve my version of Hawks as we learn more about him. Even now, I’m not entirely sure if this is really Hawks hahaha!)

All of that is really reflective of my own history. I had a strong resolve, but I broke from the weight of it. I want to give good things to the world because some people supported me in strong, meaningful ways and I’m so grateful to them and want to repay that by doing the same kindness to others. While struggling with myself, I slowly realized that I deserve selfish things in life and that I don’t need to give myself away for the benefit of others. There’s only so much I can do, and sacrificing myself will just bring misery and negate the effects of what I’m doing. So all we can really do is our best, give as much good as we reasonably can to the world while keeping ourselves whole and healthy because we deserve to be put-together and happy so we can keep going and make an impact on other people’s lives.

If we were going to analyze other people’s versions of Hawks, I find a lot of interest in seeing where they put the concepts of self-worth and forgiveness. What kind of action should Hawks take if he were to care more about himself and what he wanted? Some people think he’d join the League. Others think he’d continue to be a hero. Still others think he’d retire altogether and step away from it all.

And as for forgiveness, there are a lot of different perspectives, too. Some may think Hawks would lose all respect for Endeavor after finding out about the Todoroki drama. Others believe Hawks would continue to believe in Endeavor’s perseverance and expect him to support his atonement. Still others think it would hit personally for Hawks and he’d feel betrayed to find out Endeavor was not only the complete opposite of what he thought he was, but the very embodiment of what Hawks was “saved” from. (stemming from the theory he was abused as a child, though that’s only a theory for now) And a good amount of people think Hawks’ image of Endeavor would just lose it’s idealized sheen and he’d start looking at Endeavor as a flawed human being like the rest of them.

There are also the many different concepts of freedom for Hawks. My concept of freedom is Hawks’ ability to choose. While he is bound by duty and resolve, he still has the power of choice. I just think he doesn’t realize that. For others, Hawks’ freedom is not having wings and thus no longer being bound by duty or the HPSC or whoever/whatever they think chains him. Maybe some people might think his freedom is the opportunity to be a hero, to be able to influence the world with his actions when he might’ve been powerless before. (That’s also something I kind of believe in.) And again, maybe some people think retirement will be his freedom, and maybe some think he’ll never be free. And, of course, there’s the popular thought of Hawks becoming free from the HPSC. And for those who like Hawks with the LOV, their concept of freedom may either be him fighting back against the system as a villain or throwing it all away to become Keigo again. (I’m not really informed on the LOV side of things hehe)

I think this is a really interesting thing to explore, so I’m gonna tag some people and give them the opportunity to give their thoughts as well. Of course, you’re not obligated to. You can just ignore this if you’re not up for comment. You’re welcome to tag some other people, too, if you feel like they’d want to talk further. I could tag a whole bunch of people, but I don’t really know those blogs well, sooo.... XD

@officially-dumb @scarletrain1724 @prince-liest @transhawks (I could tag more, but I either don’t know those people well or I think they hate me LMFAO)

ALSO! If you want to comment on this, feel free! I like hearing everyone’s thoughts and opinions! most of the time lmfao jk jk i love you all

#ronan answers #bnha hawks #takami keigo #bnha spoilers #mha spoilers #manga spoilers #bnha manga spoilers #mha manga spoilers #hopefully the read more works yikes #anon

19 notes · View notes

princeasimdiya12 · 4 years

Note

That anon is an asshole. Why do you hate Shuichi? I think he fits the theme of truth and lies, but his character development is a complete joke as he has zero struggles after his waifu dead. He never once second guess his actions in class trials and doesn’t even think of major consequences (killing the de facto prime minister and not noticing a serial killer is amoung them). His stans over analyze his actions and try to justify everything he does.

They were quite a jerkhole. I can imagine that most stans would be protective of their favorite characters if anyone were to express disapproval.

And thank you for giving me the opportunity to express my personal feelings on the matter anon. And those are some interesting reasons to dislike him but I have some other reasons.

My answers will be hidden under the “Read More” because they’re long answers. But these are my thoughts and reasons for why I hate Shuichi Saihara.

Reason 1: The Protagonist Switch was Lackluster

Right off the bat, I personally dislike that we were promised a unique and compelling protagonist like Kaede only to switch her with a generic insecure protagonist like Saihara. The use of the protag switch isn’t a bad plot twist and it can be clever, it’s just that the result of switching Kaede for someone like Saihara left a bad taste in my mouth.

I loved Kaede because she was unique as a DR protagonist. Along with having a colorful design and talent, she was assertive, confident and willing to take charge. She was actively involved in the story by stepping up as the group’s de facto leader and trying to motivate them. She was also flawed in the sense that she was quick to butt heads with others and she didn’t completely trust others or practice her own beliefs of trusting in friends. And personally, I’m not even upset that she tried to kill someone. It’s still considered something different for a DR protagonist to do, especially if it was for the greater good.

But when we get Saihara, he continues the trend of being a generic sad boy who feels insecure about his talents and wants to be stronger. Most of his screentime is spent moping about his problems and how he doesn’t feel good enough. He doesn’t have the same presence as Kaede and just stays in the background while the rest of the cast move the story as much as they can.

In all honesty, if they had introduced Saihara as the new protagonist, or at least make it so that his predecessor wasn’t as compelling as Kaede, then I wouldn’t have been too upset. At the very least I wouldn’t have gotten my hopes up for a protagonist who was actually different compared to the past protags.

Reason 2: Waifus In Refrigerators

For those that don’t know, fridging is the concept of (brutally) killing off a fictional female character in order to create an emotional impact for her male love interest and his character development.

Kaede’s death and how it impacted Saihara is textbook fridging.

I strongly detest fridging since it robs a female character of her agency and role in the story. It treats her as a tool meant to motivate her male love interest to either avenge her death or grow as a person. Kaede’s death along with her final wish is what pushes Saihara to try and beat the killing game. And from then on, Saihara will take the moment to reflect on Kaede’s tragic end and how he inspired him with her kindness. Kaede loses her identity as a complex leader who was willing to commit murder for a greater good. Everyone just remembers her as Saihara’s innocent dead love interest who inspired him to keep on fighting. It’s also worse in the 6th case when it’s revealed that Tsumugi took advantage of Kaede’s trap to kill Amami which further pushes Kaede into the image of an innocent angel that did no wrong.

And it’s also frustrating since this isn’t the only time that the Danganronpa series has killed off its female characters in order to develop their male love interests.

In SDR2, Peko dies trying to save Fuyuhiko which in turn motivates him to stop acting like a jerkhole and be more cooperative with the group.

In DR3 Future Side, Chisa is the first victim of the killing game which pushes her boyfriend Munakata to become a more direct antagonist towards Naegi for protecting the Remnants.

In the same series, Kyoko allows herself to be poisoned in order to protect Naegi. It’s through her death that Naegi decides to confront Munakata in a final showdown. And while Kyoko does get brought back to life at the end of the show, it should be noted that she was only brought back just to be part of Naegi’s happy ending package. She loses her agency and is brought back just to be his newly revived girlfriend.

In DR3 Despair Side, Chiaki is brutally killed in order for her classmates to become Remnants of Despair. But it’s her final heartwrenching moments with Izuru that inspire emotion inside of him aswell as deciding to turn against Junko.

So Kaede being killed for Saihara’s development is the fifth fridging example in this series and it sucks that Kodaka and his crew rely on this trope throughout Danganronpa.

Reason 3: The Narrative Forces You To Like Him

Another issue that I found irritating about Saihara is how everyone began praising him.

Just after the first case, everyone constantly praises and coddles Saihara for being such a great detective and for growing so much. For me, that praise feels undeserving since he barely did anything to earn it. Thinking back to each of the past protagonists, they didn’t have everyone’s respect in the beginning. They each had to work had and face adversity throughout their stories in order to earn their praise and respect. Even Kaede, who despite being a confident leader, had to deal with people frequently judging her leadership and actions. So I find it questionable that Saihara already earned everyone’s respect after solving only one case.

By having all the characters praise Saihara, the narrative pushes you to accept him as the new protagonist and recognize how awesome it is to have him. But for me, it just makes me dislike him even more. I refuse to like something just because everyone else does and it won’t take away my admiration/love for Kaede.

It’s also jarring since anytime a character has the spotlight, it somehow has to involve Saihara.

“Wow Himiko! You’re much more expressive now than before. Just like you Saihara!”

“Man, it sounds like you had a harsh life growing up Harumaki. Just like you and your detective work, eh Shuichi?”

The narrative can’t help but force Saihara to be around and praised by the people around him despite the spotlight not being on him in that given moment.

Reason 4: He’s Not a Good Detective

While Saihara’s role as a detective may fit the theme of Truth and Lies, that doesn’t mean he was good at the job. My issue being that he was unproductive and biased for the role.

While he did set up that trap in Chapter 1 to catch the mastermind, he doesn’t do anything as proactive in the later chapters. He spent most if not all of his time going to training with Kaito and moping about his problems. It goes on like this for 4 chapters and it takes Kiibo threatening to blow up the school before he actually gets to work on solving the mystery of the killing game. As a detective, you’d think he would put more effort into actually solving the mysteries of the killing game or try to put some thought on who the mastermind could be.

The biased part comes with how he interacts with others and how he’s more critical of people based on how they treat him. Saihar has a tendency to be very judgmental towards the students and doesn’t look at the entire picture.

He writes off Ouma as the embodiment of lies and doesn’t bother trying to learn more about him or his true motivations.

And on the opposite side, he openly praises his friends while blatantly ignoring the problematic things they’d done throughout the story.

He considers Kaede to be an inspirational role model despite how she betrayed him and wanted to commit murder behind his back.

He worships Kaito and treats him as a perfect hero despite never noticing his ongoing illness or the fact that Kaito didn’t trust his friends enough to reveal his own insecurities.

He deems Maki a reliable friend despite the fact that she went behind his and everyone’s back in order to kill Ouma and was willing to gamble everyone else’s lives if it meant taking revenge on the supreme leader.

Shouldn’t a detective be more persistent when presented with a mystery while also acknowledging all the sides (both good and bad) of a given person? If his personal bias was treated as a flaw by the narrative, then that would actually give his character significant depth. Especially if he worked on managing his biases and learning to acknowledge all the sides. But it isn’t treated as a bad problem.

For me, the fact that he’s supposed to be a detective who “grows stronger” and is so good at his job despite all of this really rubs me the wrong way. If anything, it shows me that he’s really bad at the job.

Also, I would like to bring up that I don’t count him investigating the murder cases as being a good detective. Why? Because Hajime and his class in SDR2 were able to solve their class trials without a detective figure. Being a detective, or having one, doesn’t make solving the class trials any easier.

Reason 5: An Unnecessary Cliche

Personally, I really see no reason for why Saihara’s character needed to be the generic insecure protagonist for this particular installment of Danganronpa. It’s the same cliche storyline featured in a grand majority of anime and light novels. It’s repetitive and irritating knowing that so many stories focus primarily on a sad generic boy who doesn’t feel good enough and wants to be stronger.

It’s also worth mentioning that in comparison, the past protagonists at least had narrative reasons for why they were generic and insecure in the first place.

For Naegi, he was the first protagonist of the installment and his normalcy was meant to contrast the extremely talented and radically different students he’d be involved with. As the game progresses, he uses his normalness to bond with the students and rally them together in the name of hope.

For Hajime, he’s treated as a deconstruction of the generic insecure protagonist. It’s because his feelings of inferiority and longing to be special that he decides to accept Hope’s Peak’s experimentation and become Izuru Kamakura: an incredibly talented super-being who lost his humanity.

For Komaru, she was regarded as an ordinary girl that had the potential to lead others which is recognized by the adult resistance and Monaca. So throughout the game, both sides were pushing her into becoming either the next symbol of Hope like Naegi or next symbol of despair like Junko. But she ultimately decides to be neither of them and wants to be her own person.

There were reasons for why each of these protagonists were considered generic and insecure as it contributed to the narratives. But for Saihara, there’s really no solid reason for why he’s the only normal one of the V3 cast. And everyone is more than happy to praise him as the best one out of the cast despite doing so little to earn it. At most, Tsumugi reveals that Saihara being an insecure boy who grew stronger thanks to his friends was for the sake of a fictional storyline. Obviously it was meant to mentally break him but it honestly feels like a weak reason to keep the trend of a generic insecure sad boy. Not to mention there are other reasons for why I believe this doesn’t work.

The setup for the “Danganronpa is a fictional TV show” twist didn’t have enough buildup so it doesn’t make the cliche that strong.

Saihara still continues the role of the insecure boy who grows strong and saves the day. While Tsumugi states that his role was written for him, Saihara still continues the tropes of his archetype by saving the day. It’s ultimately because of him that he’s able to convince his friends and the viewing audience to give up on Danganronpa. It was the writer’s way of having their cake and eating it.

If the reveal was meant to be a shot at how it’s become a cliche, then why not live up to it? If they wanted to show how Danganronpa was running for too long or how it’s cliches were getting old, then why not commit to those ideas? Instead of having everyone praise and worship Saihara, make them question if they’re really going to depend on a generic guy to save them. Instead of being just a cute quirk, actually show the negative sides of Saihara’s anxiety and depression and how they would hinder him from participating in trial discussions. Maybe even have Kaito lose his temper at Saihara because of how much he mopes around.

There’s so many ways they could have gone with deconstructing Saihara’s stereotype or showcasing how it’s become old and stale. So it feels disappointing that they never went that far.

And another reason for why I dislike his characterization is because it brings to mind Ryota Mitarai from the DR3 anime. Just like Saihara, Mitarai is a main character who’s described as generic, insecure and spends most of his time whining about how useless he is. Despite this, he manages to survive the killing game since the other more unique characters are killed or move the events of the story. I personally found Mitarai to be a frustrating character. I detest characters who constantly whine about how useless or miserable they are as a means of getting sympathy from the audience. So having to deal with Saihara who more or less shares multiple characteristics with Mitarai felt very exhausting.

Conclusion

So those would be my reasons for why I hate/strongly dislike Saihara. I can admit that alot of these reasons weren’t so much because of Saihara or his actions but how he was written throughout the story. He still did alot of things I didn’t like don’t get me wrong, but alot of fault can be traced to the writers and how they decided to write him and Kaede’s characters. I still find his archetype as a generic insecure boy who mopes around to be an unappealing archetype but I’m sure most of his fans would suggest otherwise.

If you’ve managed to read everything here, I’d like to thank you for taking the time to do so. I can’t imagine many people would want to read a critical post targeted towards one of the most beloved characters in Danganronpa. So thank you for doing so.

And as always, if you agree or disagree with anything I’ve written, you’re more than welcome to reblog this with your comments. I’m always up for friendly discussions.

#dangan ronpa #danganronpa #ndrv3 #new danganronpa v3 #dr critical #anon #analysis

29 notes · View notes

basicsofislam · 4 years

Text

ISLAM 101: Muslim Culture and Character: Embracing The World: Faults in Belief and Fellowship

Question: Feelings of fellowship between people can be damaged because of some unexpected behavior, and thus good will towards one another can easily be weakened. Is this situation a result of a fault and immaturity in our belief? How can we attain true perfection in belief and how can we maintain it?

Answer: Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, prayed that his community not be completely eradicated from the face of the earth, that they not suffer from pervasive famine, and not be attacked by an enemy which could destroy the great majority of believers; he said that his wishes had been granted. Working from this hadith, we can say that his community will not be subjected to general destruction, nor will they remain under the sovereignty of others permanently. However, the Prophet also reported in the same hadith that a similar prayer that he made for God’s prevention of bloodshed and mischief among his community was not granted (Muslim, Fitan, 19/20).

As to why this last prayer was not accepted, it can perhaps be argued that what was asked for lies within the capacity of human willpower. Humans are blessed with reason and mental capacity. It is not congruent with human dignity to be herded to and fro or to be gathered here and there, against their will. Human beings can exercise their volition and seek the possibility to live together with others peacefully.

“We try (test) people through one another”

By mentioning repeatedly in a number of verses (An’am 6:53) that people will be tested through one another, God warns the Muslim community of this grave threat that might loom over them. God Almighty puts us in trial in a variety of ways; sometimes with illness, sometimes with misfortune, sometimes through our worship, and at other times with our vulnerability to sins. Trying some of us through other people is another means of testing. Every individual person is unique; God created each of us like a separate species in and of itself. We all have different personalities; no one is like another person. By creating every one so different God reveals the manifestations of His beautiful names and glorified attributes and thus puts us through a trial with a promise of a reward for those who are successful. This test requires acknowledgement of these differences in the nature of each person; it is with this awareness that everyone should seek ways to coexist, despite all our differences.

It is reported that Bediuzzaman Said Nursi once praised one of his students and his good skills in his writing to another of his students. He said: “His writing is better than yours.” Upon this, which was also a kind of trial, his student remarked that he was pleased to hear this; he showed no sign of discontent. Bediuzzaman realized that this student was truly sincere in his words. It may not be possible that everyone has the same level of ease at heart in the face of such a situation; we should not expect such a purity of conscience from all. Yet, it is still in our hands to control our behavior.

We should also never forget that a person who displays bad behavior is not necessarily a bad person in all their aspects. Labeling someone thus, especially if that person is an observant believer, is a distorted perspective and reflects one’s own contempt. Moreover, discrediting another believer in such a way means that the discreditor is actually the one who is on the wrong path; he or she might suffer a blow from that person, or a severe dispute might occur. So, instead of making an immediate judgment about another person, it is always best to think of a way to resolve the dispute and to come to terms. The person who takes the first step and apologizes for what has happened can be considered to be a hero. Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, also points out that when two people are angry with one another, the virtuous one is the one who makes the first greeting (Bukhari, Adab, 62). The following verse in the Qur’an enjoins believers as follows:

Goodness and evil can never be equal. Repel evil with what is better (or best). Then see: the one between whom and you there was enmity has become a bosom friend. (Fussilat 41:34)

In contradiction of divine commands

I deeply regret and sometimes feel great sorrow when such weaknesses and lack of integrity surface, despite the above-mentioned divine instructions and warnings. It is not uncommon to come across two people, who normally meet each other at spiritual gatherings and discuss issues related with belief, becoming involved in a dispute. This means that such people are unable to perceive the resentment and hatred that is directed towards believers, and the plots that have been devised by antagonist circles obsessed with enmity; these can obstruct many good services. If these plots against and resentment towards believers are trivial matter, then what is significant for them, that their honor and pride were not regarded? So for us, is it truly the case that the denial of God and His Messenger is not a major issue, but a word uttered unfavorably on our behalf is more important?!

What do we value most? We should be aware of the attention that we give to frivolous matters which we unnecessarily overvalue at the expense of many issues of greater magnitude. God has blessed us with reason, and even beyond that, with belief and the ability to comprehend. So, it is imperative that we analyze how people fall out, albeit they share countless common denominators in belief and values. They believe in the same Creator, the same Sovereign, the same Lord, perhaps even follow the same Messenger and religion, and turn in the same direction for prayer; they may even live in the same country and are committed to the same lofty goals, treading on the same path… Hundreds of shared values should unite people, but we may still fall in dispute over matters that are as insignificant as the wings of a fly. If someone curses me, this does not give me the right to respond likewise. For Bediuzzaman, retaliation is a cruel principle.

“If for God the world was worth the wing of a fly, unbelievers would not be allowed to drink even a drop of water” (Tirmidhi, Zuhd, 13). The world is so insignificant that the unbelievers are allowed to drink. If this is the real value of the world, then what significance can some repugnant worldly issues have for friends who fall apart? Can this ever be reconciled with reason?

It is also reported from Hafiz-i Shiradhi that “the world is not a commodity worth disputing.” I believe that no one would consider this to be an exaggeration. Yet, how much are we reflecting this truth into our lives? Thinking over all these, I cannot help but ask myself “for what purpose are we reading, keeping ourselves busy with the Qur’an and the practice of the Prophet, or with the analysis of marginal matters?” Why are we wasting our time quibbling over such matters if they do not help us reach human perfection?

I am sorrowed by those who do not forgive

All of us need rehabilitation; we need to reflect on our integrity and revise our humanity. This is necessary for all of us. It is easy to overemphasize trivial matters and start the gossip that lies at the tip of our tongues; minds and pure hearts are tarnished with the tar of gossip.

Let me give you an example of how important this issue is: if a friend gets up from their seat and leaves the room, and if I infer in my mind or comment openly on this, saying, “I think he is overwhelmed by sleep too much, so he leaves the gathering to sleep somewhere else” he might be hurt if he were to hear this. What would befall me is to ask for his forgiveness the very first moment I came across him. Gossip is a grave sin. Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, says that gossip is worse than adultery on the grounds that God can forgive the adulterer if he repents and is determined not to commit the sin again. Nevertheless, a gossiper has to ask forgiveness from the person he or she has gossiped about as well as from God (Bayhaqi, Shuabu’l-iman, 14/255). Gossiping about a person who has a large following might result in a grave sin, for it violates the rights of all those people who admire that person. This is a very delicate matter. Unless we deem what God Almighty enjoins as significant as being significant, then many trivial matters will replace them.

We have serious faults in our belief; it is certainly imperfect. We have huge gaps in our commitments to the basic tenets of belief, both at a personal and social level. We seem not to possess perfect belief in the existence of God and His all-encompassing presence, nor in the fact that His will is superior over all other things, nor in the Hereafter where we will account for all we have done in this world.

I am disappointed with and deeply sorrowed by behavior that does not suit a true believer; indeed, for any weakness in this regard. I am heart-broken by my friends who are unable to forgive one another, by those who seek the errors of others, and by those who keep record of others’ sins like the Angle Scribes, and by those who ignore the good deeds performed by others.

Let us not allow any feelings or thoughts that might damage fellowship to enter even our dreams. If we believe, then let us be prepared to honor even the evil-doers and embrace those who have turned their backs on us. Let us make it our life principle to be without hands against those who strike us and without speech against those who curse us.

7 notes · View notes

jewpacabruhs · 5 years

Text

bruv im still jus. wow. theres so much to say but. do u kno how good it feels... to be jewish, to accidentally fixate on one eric cartman & love him more than any other fictional character for almost seven years now, and then to see him in a little yarmulke, standing at kyle's side while he recites from the torah? do you know how validating that is?

i gotta get personal for a second here. idk how, but in the last few yrs my relationship with my own jewishness has been deeply influenced and intertwined with south park, as ironic and ridiculous as that sounds. i grew up secular, completely nonpracticing; as a child, i was only ethnically jewish, and saw jews as strictly an ethnicity, and a popularly hated one to boot. and it scared me. ive talked about it before, but as a child hearing about the shoah and about antisemitism, i couldn't understand. i thought it was looks for a while, which confused me, because ive got blonde hair and blue eyes and all my family that got caught up in nazi europe did/do too. i remember thinking as a second grader that i would've been spared for that reason; why didn't a good chunk of my family? but i grew up in a mormon neighborhood, with plenty of other blonde kids, and they stayed away from me like i had a disease. this was before puberty, before my hair got a little frizzier and my nose got a little bigger, when i looked just like any of them. but already, at age 8, i was an outsider. i wasn't one of them and i never would be, and they wanted me to know that.

and then i started to get it. it clicked even more once i got to high school and got called a kike every other day - but prior to high school, you know what i found, and you know what really pushed me towards understanding what being a secular jew in america meant? south park. and as a dumb little sixth grader with no critical thinking skills, you know what shaped my opinions on my own people? south park.

and that's good and bad. good because i do sincerely think kyle broflovski is excellent fictional representation for jewish people, maybe one of the top few ever shown on television. he gets on my nerves at times, but he's good through and through, he's well written and multi-dimensional, he's not a walking stereotype but he still has prominent jewish features that jewish viewers can look at and see in themselves, his morals and viewpoints and beliefs are obviously deeply influenced by judaism, hes deeply proud of his heritage and culture... and that all means a lot to me. and by the amount of jewish sp fans that adore kyle, it means a lot to them too.

the bad thing is, yeah, i can't deny it, during older seasons, cartman's treatment of kyle probably taught a lot of young and dumb viewers how to view jews in real life. have i, as a kyman shipper and cartman stan, justified that within a fictional and narrative context? yes. but it doesn't change the real-world effect; south park, but specifically cartman, since he's the mouthpiece, likely did cause some easily-influenced people to pick up antisemitic beliefs. did this contribute to the rise of the alt-right? debatable, but to some extent, possibly. was that m&t's intention and should south park be canceled and denounced? fuck no, i'll always love it lol, and fuck censorship. but it is something that should be taken into account.

matt and trey clearly regret that, and understand that it's no longer acceptable or fitting or needed in today's sociopolitical climate - or, okay, maybe they don't even regret it; they just understand that when fiction becomes reality, the fictional jackass isn't necessary when there's one right there in real life, sitting in the oval office, yeah? old cartman doesn't deserve or need a voice, not when real, awful people actually have one right now. and m&t are actively trying to change cartman for the better and really, really backpedal on his bigotry, while still doing it in a way that makes sense from a story-telling perspective. it's not a complete uncharacteristic change of character; it's shifting with the times and writing it into the character's arc so that it's a logical and plausible development in cartman's story.

cartman's behavior in the last few seasons is consistent character development. m&t themselves are pushing it, and clearly it's sincere; cartman's not faking. unless they're building up a surprise twist over the last, what, three to four seasons, that he was faking the whole time! woah! if so it better be a damn good pay off, because that's a lot of time invested. though that seems more forward-thinking than sp tends to be. they're intentionally stuck in the short-term, aren't they? plot-wise. but their character development is pretty long-term, and right now, cartman is consistently decent, and if it comes across as faking, it's because cartman's over-dramatic in how he speaks, and trey does that intentionally.

that's a tonal thing, and it's hard to say in a fictional character, but as someone who struggles with empathy myself, empathy and sincerity don't go hand in hand. you can lack empathy while still caring enough to sincerely and wholeheartedly apologize for something and mean that apology. not feeling remorse doesn't mean you can't apologize genuinely; the two don't go hand in hand. you can be mentally ill in any capacity, even a psychopath, and still deeply care about things or people, just not in the way someone else might. so you can headcanon that cartman's still a psycho/sociopath, though right now that's actually kinda going against canon, but don't rain on other's parades if they're happy he's exhibiting healthy growth. besides, and i repeat: what could cartman exploit out of faking sincerity for several seasons? nothing, so why bother? he wouldn't, unless it's literal in-show subconscious growth.

does that mean he's magically developed empathy? no. is it becoming less probable he's a legitimate sociopath/psychopath (while still possibly having better-disguised antisocial tendencies)? yes. does he seem to have better coping or anger management skills? somehow, yes! he seems to be legitimately healthier. does this mean he's no longer accountable for his past misdeeds, and even his present, less-severe ones? of course not! and you can still hate him all you want, but modern cartman is not the same as older cartman, and shouldn't be treated as such. because is this growth? absolutely.

he's clearly healthier, even happier. he's less angry, he's still a little shit but he no longer relies on bigotry or cruelty or anger to get the negative attention he thrives off, rather he gravitates towards being simply annoying. you know why he called ice? pettiness, immaturity, a little bit of spite, and a need for silly revenge. he's being intentionally petty, but going about it in a sly but no longer psychopathic way. less hannibal lector and more, idk, regina george, lol. extremely different on the antagonist scale. and cartman's been both.

and maybe it's personal bias on what type of human is worse within fiction, someone unstable and bizarre with violent tendencies (which is how he's come to be viewed in pop culture & some of the fandom, as a result of eps like scott tenorman must die), versus someone inclined towards pettiness and more silent and, i dunno, social-status-and-pride-driven types of revenge (cartman in general when he's not being particularly awful, tbh)... but i think it'd be pretty universally agreed that the latter is at the very least more tolerable, manageable, and even likeable - and certainly more redeemable. let's put it this way; if cartman continued on the path he was on, he'd be one of those tiki holding fucks, wearing a confederate flag hat, and he'd treat kyle soooo much worse. instead, m&t have turned him into a hypocritical false-woke ignorant dumbass - but that's strongly less problematique than it's counterpart, and it works.

because cartman simply serves a different narrative purpose now. and that's not sloppy writing; it's well-timed evolution of a character that stepped into a pre-9/11, pre-trump, pre-social media world! so much has changed, and south park is reflecting that in its characters, most notably in a character who was stuck in the, what, 1960s with his beliefs? that was fine way back when, but matt&trey are smart dudes - they understand that sometimes things have to change. besides, they love cartman, too. he's their favorite. but they understand that when real people act like him, it's not so comedic or satirical or funny, & they don't want to look at cartman, at their creation who they've invested twenty-two years in, and see the all-too-real hate of modern radical white america.

i think we know enough about matt&trey's social stances these days, and the empathy they've seemed to develop after having kids, to understand that they're no longer in their "apathy is best, everyone is stupid" phase. current south park is left-leaning and admittedly preachy at times, but i wouldn't want it any other way. g-d knows it's better this way than if they'd embraced and decided to appeal to their right-libertarian following instead. cartman's evolved in a progressive and positive way, and it's fucking dope, especially to us cartman stans who so badly want him to be good. and he is good right! he's doing so good!

and i know im up my own ass rn but yall know how much i myself have campaigned for jewish kyman/cartman and how much i just deeply and truly adore it, and to see it actualized in a canon episode to some extent? that meant the world to me. i couldn't believe my eyes. i was tellin lai - that's the most genuine, pure, almost violent happiness ive felt in my soul in years. that was like a straight shot of serotonin to the heart. that simple little scene made me so fucken happy yall dont even know. & theres a lot to be said about the political commentary and plenty of other people are analyzing that, but im a simple jewish kyman & cartman stan and boy ive been fed good fjskfkdkdkfk!!!

#in other news #sickly jew shay had her vision white out at school today and almost fell down the stairs #my grandpa has been given a week to live #AND the anniversary of the most important person in my life's death is approaching #and i turn fucking 19 soon and i always have birthday crisises #so fucken superb!#in happier news family guy airs soon and it's unfortunately still a fixation of mine so im unjustly excited #lissen stewie's worn a yarmulke twice in fg canon and i cried then #i love cartman approximately... 50x more than stewie jus bc of longevity and. nostalgia and favoritism #i was in legitimate hysterics #sp continues to be my light at the end of the tunnel jfkskf #mine #txt #sp spoilers #theres so much here im sorry i ramble sm #i struggle w wordz and usin em ironically

79 notes · View notes