#and there's nothing inherently wrong about relating to him either

[five-of-cr]

here's the thing about matthias: he isn't the honorable, reformed hero some of the fandom seems to see him as.

yes, he was raised by a tight-knit family of comrade soldiers and decides to betray them in the end. of course that took incredible strength. i don't deny that. but we also need to recognize that the drüskelle are not just some rogue cult. they are a core part of the fjerdan government, who is trying to wipe out the grisha because they are seen as dangerous. that's literally just genocide. however indoctrinated someone is, this is something that is evil from every angle, even if the character can't or won't see it.

and look, i love a good redemption arc, but matthias is such a passive actor in his. he falls in love with nina against his will. she changes his attitudes toward grisha because she's beautiful and kind so all grisha can't be bad, right? this a classic example of the trope of separating the "good ones" from the rest, where you cherry-pick specific individuals to point to as exceptions to a group's nature, which is still implied to be evil. you have to do a lot more than fall in love to truly unearth and address the roots of bigotry.

tbh, this is my biggest critique of the books as a whole. i loathe the "love conquers all" trope that pairs together a character from the oppressed group and one from the oppressors, letting the one show the other through the power of love that being bigoted is not nice. it puts all the responsibility on the former to prove their humanity, and gives all the credit to the latter's ability to be persuaded to recognize it. and then it inevitably leads to forgiveness, because the character has "earned" it by changing their views, once again making the victim seem like the villain if they don't absolve the oppressor of their past "mistakes". also, it's incredibly unrealistic for someone to fall in love with a person who actively hates them and considers them sub-human. in real life, people have to work on their bigotry before that happens, not use the relationship as a plot device for character development.

i think the idea of writing a character like matthias is neat. i think portraying someone's struggle to throw off the suffocating, hateful dogma they've been fed all their life is a story we need more of. i think personal growth of this variety should be celebrated, because otherwise people would never change. but i don't think the people, fictional or real, get to do this without facing profound consequences. it is not enough to feel sorry. it is not enough to apologize. it is definitely not enough to fall in love. and i think writing that lets people off the hook like this grossly oversimplifies power and oppression, and ends up being a feel-good way to romanticize people who cause a lot of harm.

a last note: my opinion is 100% influenced by my being bipoc. matthias is a classic aryan supremacist, even if being aryan isn't the thing he's being supremacist about. my gut reaction to that type of character is always going to be mistrust, both because people in real life have given me reason to be mistrustful and because characters like these are often written in a way that makes you sympathize with oppressors. i don't think matthias earns that trust, and i don't see why i owe him my affection as a reader.

#i know i'm usually a 'haha silly little textpost' blog (and don't get me wrong i still am) but this has been on my mind for a while #to be clear i don't think you have to hate him as a character to be a morally upstanding person #and there's nothing inherently wrong about relating to him either #but i do think we as a fandom (a very white one at that) need to acknowledge this #especially because it carries over beyond fiction #stories are powerful and the messages we take from them stick with us even after we close the book #plus even by the end he still is very bigoted #and i realize that he would have had more time to work on himself if he hadn't... y'know #but that's why i like fanon matthias a lot better #he's usually further along in his unlearning process or he actually has to experience that process in a realistically painful way #in fact i really *like* matthias fanon where he actually grapples with his hatred and comes out a better person for it when it's done well #i.e. when he isn't simply forgiven by everyone (especially nina) because he says sowwy #i am thankful to leigh bardugo for creating this universe AND i think she fumbled the matthias redemption arc #nuance!! it exists!!! #ok rant over #also absolutely NO calahan hate on this post #in this house we do not equate characters with their actors #soc #soc spinoff #matthias helvar #helnik #nina zenik #sab #six of crows #save six of crows #save shadow and bone #shadow and bone #crooked kingdom #grishaverse

[wherevenusholdssomeofficespace]

Why the Llama Incident works

The noodle incident is a trope done in A LOT of shows (PNF has a whole TV tropes page dedicated to its noodle incidents). Technically getting disowned and raised by ocelots is a noodle incident in pnf... we never do know what gets him officially disowned and how he ends up in the care of the ocelots). The noodle incident is meant to just showcase that this character has a history of some sort.

Generally speaking, explaining a noodle incident is a bad idea because the unknown has infinite potential. The intrigue is part of what makes it interesting. People can come up with ideas that are absolutely out there themselves. Usually, coming up with something that will live up to the hype is impossible because the hype of the event has built it up to impossible levels.

Emphasis on the usually.

They literally called it a llama incident. They knew what a noodle incident was, and were purposefully playing with our expectations that it would be an unrevealed event. And, as I said before, PnF has already dealt with its fair share of noodle incidents that go unexplained.

And as a noodle incident it served its purpose. Generally a noodle incident will provide context on what the status quo is without spelling out the details. In Rollercoaster the Juggling Monkey's noodle incident tells us that this is not the first time Phineas and Ferb have had a Big Idea (in fact we never do get what Phineas and Ferb's first Big Idea was). In Milo Murphy's Law the Llama incident tells us that Milo and Melissa were getting into Murphy's Law shenanigans long before Zack came into the picture. Showing us that they're so familiar with each other that situations that might require more context to another person doesn't.

Now bear with me as I go on a bit of a tangent that I promise is related.

The main cast of Milo Murphy's Law is a trio, and one of its members is defined by being the new guy. Zack is kind of an audience surrogate. Melissa is Milo's childhood friend and Milo has lived with this all his life. Generally, they don't need to explain anything to each other, nor do they need to explain anything to their class who is already at least passingly familiar with Milo. But they do to Zack.

I don't necessarily think MML NEEDED the audience surrogate character per se. Quite frankly I think audience surrogate characters are rarely necessary. You can always just start with a group of friends and fill in context via implication. I think it's just significantly harder, because you run the risk of alienating your audience by not allowing them to get settled in what is going on or having your characters talk about things like they don't already know what is going on.

But I don't think its at all an inherently bad storytelling method. I personally find outsider POVs delightful, and a good audience surrogate character is an outsider POV, at least at the start. Zack being new to the whole Murphy's Law allowed him a story about choosing to engage with the hazardous kid, winning him loyal friends and a set of skills he never would have dreamed of before. We get to see him grow, and we wouldn't have seen that if he was Milo's friend the whole time.

On the other hand he also has a bit of a wild background, as the former lead singer of a locally famous lumberjack themed boy band. Which gives Milo and Melissa the chance to join a band. Or for Milo to have a real birthday party. A change in status quo provides opportunities for growth and change, for the whole cast, which is useful in more overarching stories... like MML. It's not NECESSARY of course. Zack could have been a classmate that had always kept his distance before he accidentally got tangled up with Milo and decided he was cool. But there's nothing wrong with him being straight up new either.

And at the most basic level, Zack's complete unfamiliarity provides a nice contrast to Melissa's familiarity and Milo's day to day life. Zack is starting from 0 while Milo has been dealing with this every single day of his life.

So Zack isn't going to know what the Llama Incident is. And while noodle incidents being unexplained is fun for the audience, it isn't going to be so fun for someone who is constantly living with people who know what this Llama Incident is. Of course they could have told Zack the noodle incident off screen, it would have made for a good gag to cut into the story with Melissa and Milo finishing telling Zack the story. But instead, we are treated to an episode that has Zack really beginning to slot into his life as Milo's friend.

Back to the main point.

MML is one of the only shows with enough sheer chaotic energy that it could actually pull off making a group of seemingly unrelated references into a cohesive genuinely interesting story. The whole show is things that could feasibly be noodle incidents, which makes it easy to get a baseline for what could have happened. Milo uses stuff in strange ways all the time, getting tangled up with weird animals and ending up in strange situations. There's no REAL reason to feel like we're missing out on too much. It sounds like a normal Milo situation, just with only him and Melissa... and the fact they keep bringing it up.

And really, if you think about it, its just Planned in Advance Meapless in Seattle. Meapless in Seattle was meant to be a bunch of unrelated clips meant to be a noodle incident of sorts. We wouldn't know what exactly would go down in that fake episode. But they managed to bring everything together into a really fun episode that made sense and honestly lived up to the hype. (At least for me). I mean. They somehow made it work. That's a feat in of itself.

The episode "Llama Incident" starts out implying a completely different noodle incident. We never learn how the kids end up on that branch. That's not important. That stuff happens all the time. Is the Llama Incident more interesting than the other stuff Milo gets into? Not particularly, but it DID involve him using more stuff he didn't normally use.

And the Llama Incident is told in the format of a story. Changing up the format of the episode is always a good way to make an episode feel fresh. I mean, look at The Remains of the Platypus. It's just an episode told backwards but its delightful chaotic fun. Or Delivery of Destiny. Really the only difference is the day follows the perspective of a delivery guy, but we get all our normal plot beats. But both are some of my favorite Phineas and Ferb episodes. If you remove their gimmicks they're pretty basic. Phineas and Ferb build a cheese themed amusement park, and Doofensmirtz's plan is only slightly more novel with brainwashing Perry. Phineas and Ferb building a ride and Doof juicing city hall are pretty typical of them, but Paul's semi-outsider POV (and being one of the closest characters we get to having the full picture of the story we the audience see), makes it feel fun and fresh. It makes the Llama Incident feel special. Even if it isn't my favorite unique episode format, it's still something fresh and fun.

So Milo and Melissa sort of tell the story a bit out of order, because they forget what pieces Zack would and wouldn't have context for or would or wouldn't find interesting. And, again, it's told as a story to Zack, so he asks questions. It's told while they are hanging from a branch, where they cut back to every once and a while to remind us that hey, the group is in the middle of a whole other Murphy's Law incident. We're getting two for one today.

But through the episode we get a bit of a Zack character arc. We've already established that Melissa and Milo are used to this, even if you weren't aware the way they were casually rating it at the beginning of the episode should tell you all you need to know. But Zack isn't completely used to this yet, so he's just nervous. He spends the episode using the story as a distraction, but being genuinely invested. In the end, the story acts as an inspiration to Zack, and he's able to help the group get out of the situation. AND for his trouble, he gets his own mysterious incident to reference. After half a season, he's truly part of the group now. He will continue to grow of course, trying to become braver and cleverer, and he's already made strides since the first episode. But even if Zack isn't really any less part of the group before or after its still a significant moment in Zack's character arc.

And then the Llama Incident comes back the next episode. The date was memorable to Milo, even throughout all of the other chaos in his life. And sometimes that's just how life is. And he uses his knowledge of the event, the way it stuck in his mind, to save him, Dakota and Cavendish from Pistachion's in Missing Milo. What we thought was going to just be a noodle incident, a running gag that functioned to establish just how used to this stuff Milo and Melissa were, turned out to be a plot point. To be fair we didn't NEED to know what the Llama incident was for Milo to choose to go there. We didn't need to know about the Llama Incident to know it was typical Murphy's Law shenanigans. It could have just been more out of context llama stuff. But now we the audience are in on the joke, so when Cavendish and Dakota express confusion, we can revel in the fact we know something they don't. Especially about two characters who themselves were slow revealing information about themselves to us... sure by that point we know their deal but at one point they were as mysterious and out of context to us as the Llama incident. And now we know what the Llama Incident is, and what their deal is.

The Woodpecker incident also is vaguely referred to later with the woodpecker whistle. We may not know the full story there, but it is still satisfying to see Milo's adventures giving him the skills and tools to deal with bigger, actually hostile, threats.

And at the end of the day, even if the Noodle Incidentness of the Llama Incident is ruined, it was immediately replaced with the Woodpecker incident. Which admittedly is never mentioned, but it doesn't need to be. The point of the Llama Incident was to draw attention to a specific incident to make a gag out of it. But they have incidents all the time. And we're privy to most of them. We sometimes get references to other incidents that we never fully get the context for. But we don't need context. We know how it'll go anyway because we have a whole show of effective noodle incidents.

#mml #milo murphy's law #zack underwood #I talk a lot about him specifically so he gets special mention

[raven-at-the-writing-desk]

One small pet peeve I have about Chapter 7 is that it's making Maleficent look like "a victim." This is a personal thing but I always considered the Evil Queen to be Disney's most evil villain, but the title has Maleficent being considered "evil incarnate." And I understand, she has powers and transforms into a dragon. What a cool thing. But on several occasions I feel that content creators who partly work for Disney do not respect that she is an evil being and end up softening her character, either giving her a tragic background or making her a mother. Going back to TWST, the part that bothers me the most is right at the beginning of the chapter, when Yuu dreams about Maleficent and the only option to choose implies that they feel bad for Maleficent for not being invited. And it's like WHAT? Didn't you see that she cursed a baby? Or better yet, why didn't you feel bad for the other villains? And seeing the theories of the most recent update, with the inclusion of the senate and seeing that almost the entire fandom hates them, it makes Maleficent's descendants seem more like victims (which they partly are). Sorry, this is something personal that I wanted to share with someone. But in conclusion, no other medium outside of the original film can well portray Maleficent as the embodiment of evil that she is supposed to be. And yes, I know the Draconia family is not Maleficent but they are still related.

Disclaimer: I’m coming at this from the POV of someone who has no attachment to Maleficent as a character and is frankly confused as to why she’s the Big Bad that Disney chooses to promote as their villainous icon 🤡 so take my opinion with a grain of salt!🧂

To quickly correct something before the discussion: Malleus being a relative or a descendant of Maleficent is NOT canon. It is a popular headcanon, especially during the early days of the TWST fandom when we didn’t have a lot of lore about the Draconia family. From the way Malleus speaks about the Thorn Witch, she is considered a separate ancient entity and not someone he personally knows or has blood ties with.

Knowing that, it somewhat detracts from the points made in this ask 😅 since it seems like the Anon was trying to draw a parallel between Maleficent and Malleus… Conflating Maleficent with Malleus may be the result of mixing up the dreams with the differing mediums and presentations of Maleficent and Malleus in the context of their own works. I feel they can be treated like two entirely separate cases, and with different intentions behind them.

Maleficent has been written as a tragic antihero in the live action movie(s) of the same name. That is one interpretation of her, just as the Descendants Maleficent is much goofier in attitude. They are Disney’s properties and so they are free to twist Maleficent however they wish to suit the circumstances or to chase a modern trend of redemption, even if it’s different than the “mistress of evil” she was introduced as. In my opinion, there is nothing inherently wrong with this (although that doesn’t mean you’re obligated to enjoy or to agree with every iteration of Maleficent or the new direction she’s being led in). This doesn’t automatically make her a “victim” (for lack of a better term) either, she feels more… “girlboss” to me, if that makes sense?? Tragic things do happen to her, but they don’t define Maleficent as an individual (if I recall correctly, she acts on her own and rises up + regains power in spite of humans hating her). I think it’s just a different way to spin a story. However, I can see why maybe this doesn’t bode well to some people who like her for being evil and not for being redeemable.

Malleus is the “final boss” of a gacha game. The intention behind his design is to endear the players to the character so they’re willing to roll for him. That’s why Malleus in particular has a “special” role compared to the other boys, and why they try to establish a friendship with Yuu early on in the main story. He is treated differently in the narrative because of that. We may not necessarily like it or find the method effective, but that’s the design TWST went with. (I’m personally not a fan of this either, it grants Malleus specifically a lot of grace and favoritism that I’m not on board with 😅)

I also want to point out that when the other villains were introduced in Yuu’s dreams, it’s not really in situations that would immediately warrant sympathy. The Queen of Hearts is unreasonably mad, the King of Beasts is plotting against his brother, etc. It’s not that Yuu doesn’t “feel bad” for the others, it’s that the others didn’t give Yuu anything to “feel bad” about right away. For the dream with Maleficent, it’s different: Yuu first learns that she is “unwanted” and THEN she casts her magic. Yuu then fixates on the reason behind Maleficent’s curse (because at this point in the story, we’ve seen 6 cases of how one’s motivations and past fuel one’s actions in the present). The other villains don’t get similar scenes or lines to show off the potential reasoning behind their behaviors (no showing of how the Queen of Heart’s rule benefits her people, no jeering at Scar, etc.) so of course Yuu won’t be as gracious about them.

We should also consider that each of these dreams is prophetic and ties back to the current OB boy’s troubles. In Malleus’s case, loneliness is a huge issue and he’s been Yuu’s “friend” since book 2. These will naturally play into Yuu feeling more sympathy towards Maleficent, who resembles Malleus and is left out like he is. The other OB boys didn’t have this “special” connection, and their issues don’t center so strongly on wanting companionship. If you refer back to Yuu’s dreams of each villain, Yuu’s reactions to each reflect the ongoing dilemma of each boy and their dorm mates, such as wondering why the card soldiers don’t intervene and not understanding why Scar used the methods he did.

That being said, I’m not sure if I agree with the use of “victim” to describe the Draconias. The term’s definition varies by person (and I’m not sure what the asker’s own definition is, so there may be some disagreement here), but personally I see “victim” as a binary. It puts one person in a weak and passive position—with them being the one acted on—and the other person in a position of power—the one doing the acting. It creates an easy “us vs them” narrative. I don’t believe this is the case for any of the TWST characters; to call them “victims” implies a lack of agency to act and a clear good vs evil worldview.

Back to the Draconias. Yes, bad things have happened to them and some of those bad things were the result of the senate’s decisions. That doesn’t make the Draconias (or even Maleficent, in my opinion) “victims”, and certainly not “victims” to the senate alone. There are so many other factors to consider in Malleus being isolated and turning out the way he did. These include, but are not limited to: Maleficia being too busy to spend time with him, his parents being absent, Malleus still managing to meet and interact with Lilia anyway, Malleus himself being so powerful/high status he scares his servants and peers, royals having duties to tend to and thus limited freedoms, previously existing tensions with humans, etc.

TWST does do a lot to make you feel bad for and to pity Malleus. From the moment we first saw him, the “loneliness” of Malleus was a major part of his character. Many factors outside of his control compounded as an unfortunate situation that… wasn’t very conducive for him to grow up feeling normal and loved. It’s not that he was just now made a “victim”, it’s that we’re now getting all the context for why his character is the way it is—and it’s a whole slew of traumas and personal experiences. I would argue the same happens for all the OB boys; this isn’t something exclusive to twisted Maleficent, Malleus. TWST is trying to present these issues with more nuance than the classically evil G7 they were inspired by; the OB boys in general they aren’t defined by their “victimhood, but rather how they respond to and cope with those experiences.

#twst #twisted wonderland #Malleus Draconia #disney twisted wonderland #disney twst #spoilers #notes from the writing raven #Maleficent #Yuu #Lilia Vanrouge #Scar #Queen of Hearts #Maleficia Draconia

[pinkcrocss]

On Jordan's pronouns..

So the show has openly referred to Jordan as "Bigender" not necessarily "non-binary" (not to say that only non-binary people choose to use they/them pronouns) and we've seen Jordan's friends and loved ones use she/her, he/him and they/them pronouns without any corrections from Jordan.

From that, I think it's clear that Jordan is comfortable with all three pronouns being used. I would go further and say, when using gendered pronouns, Jordan seems to prefer them to mirror how they are presenting.

So more or less, he/they when they're in their masc form and she/they when they are in their fem form. Which is reflective of the experience of some of the genderqueer/gender fluid people I've known irl.

In fact, the only instance of true misgendering we see towards Jordan is in episode 3, from their parents. Essentially, their dad intentionally ONLY uses he/him pronouns, regardless of Jordan's form. And in that instance, there is the added context of the fact that Jordan's father openly rejects Jordan's fem identity.

I bring this up to say, that there's a very annoying behavior I've noticed where anytime someone refers to Jordan using a gendered pronoun, people either jump down their throat or rudely correct them to *they, as if they are intentionally misgendering Jordan.

To some extent, I understand the desire to come to Jordan's defense because the majority of the world is very transphobic, and people want to nip any potential misgendering in the bud.

But I think it is also harmful.

I've seen a lot of discourse about the inherent transmisogyny of people who exclusively refer to trans women and other binary transpeople by "they" pronouns only, as a way to still not acknowledge part of their identity.

There's nothing wrong with using "they" exclusively for Jordan (I do that in my fics too. Just cuz it's easier), but the whole point of pronoun discourse is to get people to actually take the time to respect people's chosen pronouns and understand how it relates to their identity. And when people are genuinely trying to do that in good faith, but people are jumping down their throat and insisting they only use a blanket "they" because of the off chance that you're assuming they're trying to misgender a fictional character, I think it's actually less progressive than people think.

Like yes, call out misgendering and point out when people are actively trying to assign a specific gendered identity to Jordan; but actually take the time to figure out if that is what the person is doing first.

I've been seeing a growing backlash towards Neo-pronouns and any identities outside the gender binary, and I feel like this level of over-correction directly feeds into that sentiment.

Has anyone noticed the same thing? Or maybe have a different interpretation of Jordan's pronoun usage?

TLDR: Since, some people have misunderstood the point of this post-

Jordan uses multiple pronouns.

It is okay to use gendered pronouns for Jordan as long as it's done with proper discretion.

Use context to figure out if someone is actually trying to misgender Jordan before aggressively correcting their pronoun usage.

Forcing people to use a blanket "they" pronoun for a genderqueer person/character, who uses more than one pronoun is *not* progressive.

#gen v #jordan li #lgbtqia #pronouns #bigender #genderfluid #limoreau #please be respectful in the comments

[atticustimestwo]

do you mind sharing a bit more about your analysis of heart,,,

i'd love to!! (i assume this is about the heart critique piece i did a few months ago, but please correct me if im wrong!)

in terms of the "a critique on the treatment of hearts characterization" piece, i wanted to visually explore some frustrations i have had with how the fanbase seems to fall into some unfortunate patterns when it comes to hearts character.

frequently, i see heart infantilized - this either comes across as him being a kicked dog unable to help himself because he is too weak, a baby angel who did nothing wrong, or a feral gremlin child. i think flattening his character down to any/all of these is, for lack of a better word, a bit problematic?

; one reason being it just defeats the idea of emotions being a visceral, intense thing. heart is meant to represent emotion in its purest form; i feel woobifying him takes away from that concept because it shows having emotions as being inherently weaker or less mature. i think a lot of people kinda forget HMS aren't just tv show characters. they represent greater concepts that near everyone feels and feels uniquely - theyre more sensitive than your typical character. thats not saying treating them as characters is bad! everyone relates to them differently because they are so personal, they make them their own and i think thats really awesome!! ; but boiling them down to these really generic tropes and making heart a baby kinda defeats the idea that emotions are a real, visceral, multifaceted concept. ; another reason i think it can be problematic is that it sometimes unintentionally comes across really ableist? a lot of these 'fandom-y' tropes are already rooted in ableism in some way, which is bad on its own, but theres also the important addition that heart is frequently portrayed as blind.

ive seen people time and time again fall into stereotypes with heart that his blindness makes him weak/helpless/childish. truthfully I dont think people do this intentionally, but its still internalized ableism showing up. i recognize that a lot of the people who woobify heart tend to be on the younger side, so they dont really recognize that theyre flattening him down like that- not out of malicious ignorance, but because theyre kids who havent really had the life experience yet to grasp the full concepts of the album or realize they might be implying harmful stereotypes; that doesn't necessarily mean its okay, but i think its just them being uneducated cause theyre kids and they have yet to learn that stuff. ; all that being said, im not trying to police people on how they portray characters. im not any authority on this fandom/album by any means imaginable - im just a fan like everyone else here! like i said before, characterizing HMS is not inherently a bad thing at all ! its fun, and its what this fanbase is built on in the first place! its so great that everyone can interpret and relate to HMS so personally, i think chonny really hit it off with the concept for the album and the execution is stellar! seeing all the fanart and different interpretations of it and the characters is such a beautiful thing, no matter if its joking, lighthearted, or deep! ; at the end of the day, theres no wrong way to interpret this album, and theres no wrong way to characterize heart. more than anything that critique piece was built up frustration turned to a call to action for people to stop and think deeply for a moment about how they portray heart - to open eyes if someone might be unknowingly flattening or adding problematic ideas to their characterizations. and to just be mindful of that going forward! 💜 

#cj heart #chonnys charming chaos compendium #cccc

[buryyourdoves]

Writing Jewish Characters (what not to do, according to one jewish gal on discord) (a probably incomplete list):

(For reference, because I say it a few times: goyische = not Jewish, or relating to non-Jewish things/culture/etc)

Preface:

Many of these are things that some Jews do irl for various personal reasons, and that is 1000% valid and fine!! This is in no way dragging any Jew’s life choices whatsoever. When it comes to representation, there is a huge skew in one direction: the Jew-ish, bacon cheeseburger-loving, Xmas-celebrating, modern Jew whose nagging, kvetching Jewish family comes up for a special holiday or life event episode and is never heard from again. The implication is that Jewish traditions don’t fit modern people/society and that a non-Jewish audience can’t connect with a Jewish character who remains close to their cultural roots. All that to say, this piece is all about representation, not necessarily irl accuracy.

Primer:

Jewish characters don’t have to be “religious,” and definitely not in the way you might conceive of a religious Xtian character. But being an irreligious Jew doesn't inherently mean they won't follow any Jewish rituals or holidays. It’s a culture as much as it is a religion, and there are a million reasons an atheist Jew (not an oxymoron!) might follow any of these rituals/rules, including but not limited to cultural heritage, community, and religious family/friends <3

Eating treif (aka never-kosher food like pork and shellfish):

They don’t have to keep kosher (altho that would be a very welcome change just one (1) time ksdjg), just don’t make them actively not kosher. I know it feels super innocuous to talk about Erik Lensherr grabbing a bacon egg and cheese from the bodega, but it sticks out to me every time because it is, in itself, a statement. If that's a statement you want to be making, think about why. What are you trying to add to this Jewish character by giving him bacon, or shrimp, or a cheeseburger, etc etc. And is it something you think is a positive addition, or is the implication just that not eating bacon is silly, or outdated, or only something super duper religious Jews could ever want to do? If so, maybe skip the shrimp. It’s a tiny thing that can really make a big difference.

True bonus points: actively have the character keep a semblance of kosher. A simple, 2-second choice for a character to turn down a bite of their coworker’s pork fried rice because they’re Jewish feels SO NICE to read in an ocean of Jewish characters eating treif.

A lot of media codes Jewish characters by drawing attention to the fact that they’re eating bacon, even though they “shouldn’t.” Very little media codes Jews by having them leave the cheese off their burger.

(And if you do write them eating non-kosher, a friendly reminder that Jews who don’t keep kosher don’t think about how disappointed their mother would be everytime they bite into a piece of bacon. They just eat it lol.)

Interfaith parents/“half-Jews”:

I feel it necessary to reassure with this one in particular that there is nothing wrong with this, and both matrilineal and patrilineal Jews deserve representation. This is common enough irl and if they identify with the Jewish side of their heritage to consider themselves Jewish, that’s great! Variety is the spice of life. Once again, I want to emphasize that I am not making any judgments on irl Jews in any of these complaints.

This is only up for representation discussion because this feels like another trend in media and fandom, where it seems like one parent is Certified Not Jewish™️ almost as an excuse to…have Jewish characters not have to be Jewish except in name. Interfaith families are almost always shown mainly celebrating Xtian holidays, with a tiny nod to Judaism: agiant Xmas tree with a menorah to the side, or an Easter episode with a throwaway mention of Passover (if anything). Mainstream media especially will do either this, or have both parents be Jewish and the main character be such a ~disappointment~ to their parents for being less so, and of course falling into lots of icky stereotypes along the way.

Basically just, don’t not write interfaith characters, but be careful with them. Please don’t use interfaith characters as your reason excuse to let them do the Goyische Stuff, like celebrating Xmas. And speaking of…

Christmas (derogatory):

My opinion on Jewish characters celebrating Xmas, my prayer hands and shameless begging, is just…please don’t do it. I get it, plenty of irl Jews participate in Xmas activities or even celebrate it with their friends and extended families, that’s fine, absolutely no judgment. But without getting into the whole shebang of christian hegemony and the myth of secular Christmas, that’s already EVERYWHERE. Almost every tv show, every movie that has Xmas in it, if there’s a Jewish character, there’s a solid 98% chance they celebrate Xmas too. Maybe even LOVE it. Maybe there’s even a confused goyische friend going, “aren’t you Jewish?” and the Xmas-loving Jew happily informs them why that doesn’t matter, or how actually only their dad is Jewish (and he loves Xmas too so woo!) so they get to do the whole Xmas shebang and maybe have a lil menorah off to the side for the token representation.

Jews who participate in or celebrate Xmas exist, but this is a reminder that those who don’t also exist, and they are not remotely uncommon. And we don’t feel deprived for not having had Xmas, I promise. Go against the grain! For lols you can even have your Jewish character be half clueless about Xmas traditions because he never had them! Ben Grimm who has no idea what a garland is and at this point he’s too afraid to ask. There’s so much you can do with it and have fun with in a way that still keeps your Jewish blorbo unassimilated <3

There Was Only One Jew:

Most content has one (1) Jew and that’s that. It’s almost like there’s a rule that there can only be one (1) Jew per friend group. If you have more than one Jewish character, then slay! More Jews are always welcome, and the more you have, the more leeway there is, imo. It feels less egregious for, e.g., a Jewish character to loooooove shrimp if you’ve got another in the story who’s never touched it in his life and never plans to. (Although, when deciding which characters to do this with, consider making the more observant one your main, instead of relegating them to the background and/or parental characters.)

In Summary…

Thanks for reading!! There’s no one way to write Jewish characters, but I hope this helped give you something to think about! I’m always happy to answer questions if you want to learn more. You can also check out the Jewish and Judaism tags on the Writing With Color blog if you want to hear opinions from other Jews. (Not affiliated, just love their blog, haha!) These are just my thoughts on these things after reading a lot of Jewish characters (canon or headcanoned) in fic. 😊

B’hatzlacha! <3

#writing tips #jewish representation #writing jewish characters #jumblr #judaism #writblr #writing #representation #writing resource #jewish characters

[livinggeekchic]

I’ve been thinking a lot more about Harvey on my most recent reread of Purple Hyacinth. He is set up as this kind of bumbling but good-natured kid, whose death hits us hard—only for us to later find out that he was a spy for the Phantom Scythe all along. And we, like Lauren, feel betrayed.

But we are given clues that everything is not as it seems. To start, Bella tells Kieran that Harvey was eliminated because he wasn’t useful.

That got me thinking about this set of panels. March and Hermann are having a conversation about Lune. This is surely information that the leader would be interested in hearing about. Harvey is in the perfect position to listen in, walking by with a stack of papers. But instead, he hightails it out of there. If you zoom in, you can see the “spinning” of his feet, he’s booking it so fast out of there.

So while he was a spy, he either wasn’t a very good one, or he didn’t really want to be one. We also see Harvey mentioning that he has to do his best for his grandpa--is it possible that his grandfather needs money, and that's why he's doing it? This is just one possibility of many. Kieran says as much to Lauren, after she tells him that Harvey was a mole. Kieran knows there are many reasons someone might join the Phantom Scythe, but Lauren is still thinking in black and white--right and wrong. While it makes sense that Lauren feels betrayed, she's failing to grasp the nuance of the situation.

Nothing showcases this better than Harvey’s funeral. We see Harvey’s grandfather violently sobbing, obviously devastated. He says “you didn’t need to try so hard.” (Another indicator that Harvey was likely making choices for his grandfather’s benefit.)

And how does Lauren react? Her expression here doesn’t look like one of sympathy, or even pity. She looks shocked and almost affronted. She’s so consumed by her hatred of the Phantom Scythe, for what happened at Allendale, that she can’t even see Harvey as a person. She can stand by and watch his close family member grieve, and all she thinks is, “they don’t know what I know.” But regardless of what misdeeds Harvey committed, he was still loved. He still deserves to be mourned.

She calls him a traitor. She’s almost disgusted by the fact that everyone is mourning him. But was he really a traitor? How much information did he actually give the Scythe? He was "useless" after all. Even if he did help the Scythe stall the APD's investigations, we know he wasn't this inherently evil character. He was genuinely concerned for his coworkers' safety. Lauren tells us that he never lied or showed any signs of being part of the PS. She sees this as evidence that she was blind to the truth, but I think she's actually blind to the fact that not everyone in the PS is "the enemy." Their motivations can be complicated.

In S1, Lauren views Kieran similarly. He’s an assassin, and therefore, he is reprehensible. She can’t understand why it's so important to him that he kills only when ordered or when it's the only solution. She doesn't really attempt to unearth his reasoning for wanting to take down the leader, beyond asking about it just once. She is inflexible, and rigid in her thinking: good people don't work for the Phantom Scythe. But of course, we come to see that it's more complicated than that.

A lot happens in S2 that helps open her eyes to this, which I won’t go into now. But I will leave you with a quote from Kieran in episode 93: “all these years within this wretched organization have taught me…it’s not a monolith. Not everyone agrees nor is aware of what is truly going on.”

Perhaps Harvey truly didn’t know the half of it. Maybe he was given a chance to provide for his grandfather and took it. Maybe he was told that the Scythe was helping the poor, and he related to that struggle. Maybe he was told they would only use the info he gave them to protect themselves from the APD, and wouldn't ever go on the offense. Ultimately, we don’t know. But what I do know is that if Harvey was outed as a spy in S3, I think Lauren would try harder to understand.

#purple hyacinth #lauren sinclair #ph reread #webtoon #kieran white

[warpweighted]

I have so many feelings about luo bingge hes supposed to be the ultimate power fantasy clearly to the extent that even he does not recognize how fundamentally empty his life has become. he was very open-hearted until Shen Qingqiu pushed him into the Abyss, at which point he reforged his fundamental worldview into the same one Shen Qingqiu ascribes to, which is: there are two types of people in the world, those who get hurt and those who do the hurting (optional type 3: women and children who are mostly innocent of either, by virtue of having someone do and/or receive the hurt on their behalf), and the only way to move from the first category is to place yourself firmly in the second. he does, I think, try to make himself better than SQQ, by maintaining his position only by hurting people who have already done harm (for whatever his threshold of "harm" is), but he definitely does not reject the worldview. because that would require him to be vulnerable! and look where that fucking got him the last time he tried it! it got him in the Abyss is where it got him!

which does not leave room for things like "love" or "care", but does ensure that he is extremely secure in his position (power fantasy) and that he will always have people to do whatever he wants (power fantasy) and that he will have every single one of his physical needs taken care of (power fantasy) and that because he is the most powerful person in the entire world, he will never be hurt again (power fantasyyyyyyy). which, given the entirety of his childhood and young adulthood, is understandable! I dont think he's ever been able to dream something more for himself than "I'm warm and I have enough to eat and no one hurts me." I doubt he thinks there is anything more than that. from all possible angles he has more than achieved his wildest dreams. what could there possibly be to be unhappy about? If he's discontent, that's just because he's gone too long without a conquest (a conquest of what type? take your pick).

But he is never satisfied with what he has, and he has no one who will treat him as a person to be loved rather than a lord to be appeased. which is by design! someone who treats him like a person is someone who is close enough to hurt him, and as long as there is some new power to be grabbed there is some avenue by which he is not yet all powerful, and therefore some way in which he can still be hurt.

which means that meeting SY!SQQ shakes the very foundations of his worldview, because here is a Shizun who cared for him. Hurt him, yes - in most of the ways that his own SQQ hurt him - but cared for him nonetheless, and is currently trying his best to care for him entirely and hurt him not at all, and who expects the same of Luo Bingge Binghe. This world's SQQ rejected the premise that avoiding harm necessitates harming others, and this world's (weak! vulnerable!) LBH also rejected this premise and somehow managed to live by it? symbolized very blatantly by having somehow managed to hold on to his mother's guanyin pendant. and this LBH is satisfied, he's happy despite having almost nothing at all, only one spouse and not even a quarter of the treasures LBG has and he fucking shattered Xin Mo, he hasnt taken out hardly any powerful enemies and there are still people in the world who can hurt him and somehow he's the one who got the genuine security and the loving relationship even though he's done nothing at all to deserve it -

And confronting all of that is going to require he internalizes that he did not deserve what SQQ did to him, and that the relations of power he thinks of as an immutable foundation to the world are not only not inherent but are actually wrong, and that all the security and safety he has acquired over his lifetime will not be what actually makes him happy, and actually being happy requires taking on the risk that he will be hurt again. which has got to be terrifying to him, but theres no way he can un-pop that bubble and go back to not remembering how it feels to receive a loving touch.

#svsss #aiden.txt #it is significant that LBG never figures out abt TLJ or ZZL! doing that might allow him (a) people on his own level to relate to and #(b) to start to heal from his first trauma (being abandoned by his birth mother). airplane cant allow that in pidw!! its not edgy enough!!! #good god the cycles of violence... bingge vs. bingmei extra Relay (Fiona Apple) amv i make up in my head save me... #good god when the monster is beneath it all a hurting child...

[bikiniarmorbattledamage]

How do you feel about the character design of the spirit from dead by daylight? Her back story implies that her age is high-school or younger and the outfit, if you could call it that, makes no sense with it either. Another game that is fun but feels like it's being ruined by consistently sexist skins for other female characters.

From a more general perspective, the bigger problem with The Spirit, aka Rin Yamaoka, seems to be deliberate under development so that they can employ as many tropes and gimmicks as possible, without doing more than scratching the surface - and the general conflicts of what media is and isn't comfortable with.

Specifically a lot of it seems to be hung up in the idea that while men can be inherently evil or selfish in their violent motivations in infinite ways, women who become horrors generally conform to narrower tropes that almost always portray them as a victim.

If we want to move past this in horror and related genres, we need to not just support fictional women's rights, but also their wrongs.

Rest of the post is below the cut both because it is long, but also because it contains some disturbing imagery - however I think it's worth also just juxtaposing the promotional in-game depiction of The Spirit with the other very Japanese original horror creature in Dead By Daylight... The Oni.

I should also cover, there's probably a whole thesis worth of interesting discussion that could be had about the attempt to import Japanese horror into this game... but I'm really not qualified to speak on that in any meaningful way.

-wincenworks

Looking into it, her backstory makes it very ambiguous since her lair seems to be a house from an era where traditionally unmarried women would live with their parents well after the age of majority.

And the image that accompanies her lore seems to support this:

And if they'd stuck with that, she had the potential to be very cool in the same way that Hisako is. Unfortunately, they did not do the deep dive into that and instead... well.

I can completely understand why people would conclude she is high school or younger since they decided to dive into the Japanese Schoolgirl trope as well:

Which creates a lot of issues with the default design which is less bikini armor and more... she's supposed to be naked but that won't fly so she's got convoluted bindings on instead. I don't think anyone is supposed to fap to it, I think it's supposed to emphasize she was a vulnerable girl who has become a monster due to horrific wrong that was inflicted upon her. There lies the double standard.

Becoming evil due to having evil inflicted upon you is a staple of the horror genre, often in a manner that is very critical of the society it was created in but just as an exploration of potential or imagined evil. However, how its portrayed is often different for male terrors.

For example, Jason Voorhees has the victim of childhood bullying (culminating in being drowned at a school camp) and being raised by a very disturbed parent, he is the manifestation of rage and he looks like a buff blue-collar guy in a hockey mask. But like... he's in a different game so lets look at an example from Dead by Daylight.

Leatherface is, like Rin, both victim and perpetrator. He kills because his family commanded it, because he is scared of what will happen to him and because his life was shaped such he feels he has no choice to in order to keep living. This is what he looks like:

Nothing about this design projects his status as a victim, because for male slashers victimhood is supposed to be the twist, the unbelievable backstory - for female slashers its the rule, and the mandatory backstory.

Men can be the full range from victims to pure evil, women must always be victims who started with good intentions.

-wincenworks

#the spirit #dead by daylight #the oni #the cannibal #leatherface #rin yamaoka #horror #bikini armor #character design #ask #cooking-with-scorpion #commentary #video games #Bikini Armor Battle Damage #BikiniArmorBattleDamage #BABD

[thegreenleavesofspring]

How do you tear yourself away once you created a hole of sin for yourself? I'm trying to stop sinning- especially with what I ship (I won't go into details but it's bad) I want to go back to christ and I don't know what to do

Me personally? Usually several weeks to a month of combination beating myself up and sulking before I break and end up ugly crying on my bathroom floor or under my couch or somewhere else weird while sobbing out prayers. It's not a process I actually recommend, however.

More seriously, though. There are a few things to keep in mind:

He actually really, really wants you to talk to Him again. He wants to restore that broken relationship. He is not standing ready with a rod - those stripes already fell on another back. He is standing ready with a hug and immeasurable love.

No matter how filthy you feel (and I speak here from experience) His blood is sufficient to wash it all gone. Say the word and repent, and it'll be gone. One of Satan's favorite tactics is tricking us into beating ourselves up over something that the very God of the Universe has obliterated from His memory.

(This is a lesson that I'm still learning.)

That part is, once you can screw yourself up to it, easy enough. It's easy enough to repent. It's breaking the habit of the sin that is oh so hard. Not backsliding right back into it all. And I'm sorry, there is no quick and easy fix for that. (I really wish there were.) It's a teeth-gritted drawn out process. I do some of the usual recommendations - a bit of Bible reading every morning, forcefully turning my thoughts into other directions, thinking of what He suffered for our sin - this can make you lose your taste for it, at least right then, very abruptly; to think of yourself pounding in the nails - any sort of distraction to pull one's mind away from the immediate temptation and back to God.

That said, I'm going to be presumptuous and make some guesses and assertions based on you saying the problem is your shipping specifically. And I'm going to guess that maybe you've got some unhealthy relationships with relationships in general, or will. Or maybe not! But maybe look into that.

That aside, it might be useful to look into what, exactly, about the ship or ships draws you in. If it's just straight-up perversion, yeah scrap that for good. If there are other elements, however, deconstruct it and pick out what exactly it is that you like. Is it the characters' personalities? Backgrounds? Chemistry? Something else? If you can take the elements that aren't sinful and apply them elsewhere, you can start realigning your own preferences into something healthier.

That's the thing; all relational and sexual perversion is Satan's twisting of something very, very good - something designed specifically to mirror Christ's relationship with His Church. There's nothing inherently wrong with shipping as long as it's done right, or liking two compatible characters. I've seen a lot of people do genderbenders to make M/M or F/F ships M/F; I've got no personal opinion on that either way.

But ultimately: pray. Pray pray pray pray pray pray pray. You can't do this. Straight up? You can't do it. Not by your own power. You have to want to. You have to be willing to strive to. But you'll never, ever do it alone. You can't. He's got to do His work in you. And you have to ask Him to.

You can't tear out of that hole. The only way to get out of that hole is to just suck it up and go "Hey. God. I really messed up, I messed up so much, and I need You to do something about it." Pride is a big fat horsechoker pill going down (speaking from experience) and it can make a body squirm to go crawling back feeling absolutely filthy (speaking from experience) especially if it's instance 3,257 of the exact same sin you've been trying to kick for years (speaking from experience) but it is, in the end, the only way out. You've gotta ask Him to throw you a rope, and the only way to do that is to start praying. Some denominations have you Confess it to either a priest or a member of a congregation, but ultimately you're going to have to pray about it anyway. (Speaking from experience.) No matter how much your flesh really, really, really doesn't want to.

I know the guilt looks like an impassable brick wall. I promise it's not. It's an illusion. He's got a wrecking ball that can shatter those bricks into nothing and He's waiting for you to ask Him. Doesn't matter how many bricks, how high, how thick. That Blood can wash it all away.

TL/DR: Pray. Especially if you don't feel like you can or should.

I'm praying for you, Anon. ❤

#fandom anon

[lakesbian]

i reject alec having body-jacked bodyguards & soldiers as canon. wildbow was wrong. not because he would have moral qualms with it but because it's impractical. he would be more efficient than that. he doesn't have anywhere near taylor's level of multi-tasking ability nor inherent access to knowledge and/or training people he bodyjacks have beyond their muscle memory. and his power wears off if he sleeps or is, y'know, knocked unconscious. it would be safer and easier to simply use his Supervillain Money to pay for a full squad of hired guards thru coil and then allow those guards to utilize their training to do their jobs instead of putting 24/7 time and effort into doing their jobs for them while fully aware that if they get loose they're either going to run away or try to kill him. alec vasil will always find the path of least resistance and the past of least resistance is absolutely not sitting there being two guys watching a door for him for eight hours. what does he even do when he goes to bed does he have to lock them up or something. what is the point of security guards if they can't guard you while you're asleep. what happens if someone invades and conks him out and he loses control over the guards. wb puts them there in cherish's interlude as like. presumably a method of preventing her from just making them immediately kill his ass and/or for the sake of making alec look Fucked Up And Sucks. so i get it i get why the writing decision is made. but he wouldn't do that. he would probably include a "i get to bodyjack you JiC you try to betray me and i need to :)" clause in the hiring process but he would NOT be using his power on mundane shit 24/7. on a tangentially related note it's funny how he's just like. sitting there doing nothing in cherish's interlude like an npc or some shit. just waiting for her to walk up and press F to start dialogue. if i ran the world she would barge in on him while he was playing video games and he would be really pissed at her for interrupting his match and they would have a 40 second dumb sibling argument about it before getting into the formalities

#worm spoilers

[practically-an-x-man]

For the character thing. Warren Worthington, Viktor from Arcane, and... the Corinthian

Ooh okay!

Send Me A Character and I'll Give You....

Warren

1: sexuality headcanon - oh he's very much bisexual. I'm surprised they haven't made it canon yet tbh 2: otp - canon-wise, him and Psylocke. Though is it wrong to say my own OC too? 3: brotp - I like the idea of him and Kurt making up after the fight and eventually getting to be really good friends 4: notp - I see people shipping him with Bobby and I don't really get it? No harm to those shippers just not my cup of tea 5: first headcanon that pops into my head - hates hospitals and gets severe medical anxiety after what his father put him through in his childhood. Thankfully his healing factor is usually strong enough to avoid it though. 6: favorite line from this character - "Sometimes I feel unimportant, like all I do is catch those that fall. But I look like an angel. People call me an angel. And though I'm not taking names, I'm the one who is most visually saving lives. I'm doing alright, and dammit, I'm an X-Man" 7: one way in which I relate to this character - only one? uhhhhh how about all the rampant unexplained medical issues that first sprung up at age 12 and had me locking myself in the bathroom? among a lot of other things 8: thing that gives me second hand embarrassment about this character - there's one moment in the comics where he's kinda misogynistic towards Jean? It's from one of the very first X-Men runs from the 60s 9: cinnamon roll or problematic fave? - both, and I mean that genuinely. Un-brainwashed he's a bit more of a cinammon roll, but then there's everything in the Apocalypse arc...

Viktor (fair warning I haven't watched Arcane in a while)

1: sexuality headcanon - gay, possibly ace or demi 2: otp - him and Jayce I guess? I don't really have one tbh 3: brotp - Don't really have one of these either. I guess it could be fun to see him and Jinx make friends, since they're both kinda inventors and that could be interesting 4: notp - none? Look After is literally the only Arcane fic I read right now, so I don't really know who he gets shipped with to begin with 5: first headcanon that pops into my head - uhhh everyone has chronic lung problems from the pollution in the Undercity but it affects him worse because he's prone to asthma/bronchitis/other lung conditions 6: favorite line from this character - "We lost ourselves. Lost our dream. In the pursuit of great, we failed to do good." 7: one way in which I relate to this character - Joint problems babeyyy 8: thing that gives me second hand embarrassment about this character - none? Been a while since I've seen the show, don't remember any specific moments 9: cinnamon roll or problematic fave? - Cinnamon roll

Corinthian

1: sexuality headcanon - not a headcanon but Neil Gaiman's confirmed he's pan and I like that 2: otp - again, do my OCs count? Nothing compares to Prometheus 3: brotp - don't really have one, but I want him and Hob to dish about Morpheus being a little bitch (/j) 4: notp - Corintheus. I get that it's popular but Dream's technically his creator and that just... gets weird to me. 5: first headcanon that pops into my head - he's got a soft spot for kids and genuinely doesn't want to hurt/scare them, it's the adults he gets fed up with 6: favorite line from this character - "You ever notice that people only ever use your name when you're in trouble? 'Get over here, Jed!'" (it's not the most impactful line of his but I think the delivery is really fun) 7: one way in which I relate to this character - on a simpler note... general Southern-ness I guess? But also the themes of being neglected/seen as inherently flawed by a parent (which... may be a repeat trend for me, just look at Warren lmao) 8: thing that gives me second hand embarrassment about this character - In the comics, when he gets remade the first time and is first relearning about the Dreaming and what happened. It's a great scene overall, there's just something about the way Dream and Matthew talk to him that feels a little weird to me. 9: cinnamon roll or problematic fave? - Problematic fave, no doubt

#my friends!!! #answered asks #ask game

[humaudrey]

In the comics, we see that the Powerpunk Girls are created in an alternate universe by Oppressor Plutonium.

And while there's nothing inherently wrong with that, I'd like to propose another idea that does away with the alternate universe route to keep things simple by giving them a creator who exists in the Powerpuff's universe.

My suggestion? Dick Hardly. He's one of the few scientists that manages to get his hands on Chemical X and due to his ineptitude, him accidentally creating the Powerpunk Girls could be plausible (plus he was already making counterfeit Powerpuffs for hire/profit).

I just imagine him in his office or whatever, cleaning his desk (maybe to impress a woman), and he hurriedly throws away some salt packets, a half empty, expired bottle of vinegar, and every other vulgar thing he'd might have lying around. Maybe a glass vial of Chemical X falls out of his lab coat and into the trash can and then BOOM! The Powerpunk Girls are born!

But he hates them! They're nothing like the originals, they're mean, selfish, rebellious, with a dangerous destructive tendency, and he has no problem reminding them about their failures, that they're failures. They're toxic assets ("At least the rejects are obedient"), but he needs the muscle so he keeps them around as his lackeys. The Powerpunks hate the comparisons, and their resentment toward the Powerpuffs begins to form, as well as their weird, complicated relationship with their...boss. Sure, they can't stand him either but it'd be nice if they were treated with some respect as individuals of their own right.

They witness Professor Utonium pleading with Dick to let his girls go from afar. Before anything can be done, Dick meets his demise (or does he? 😉) while the Powerpuffs get their perfect, happy ending. This leaves the Powerpunks wanting closure, leaving their thoughts on Dick to be even more convoluted. Are they angry that the Powerpuffs ultimately caused the death of their father or are they angry that the Powerpuffs beat them to it? Not even they know.

They flee from Townsville, away from anything related to Dick or those girls, living a carefree, crime ridden, crazy life of their own. Years later, they're approached by a certain someone who hates the Powerpuffs just as much as they do and are in the market for three new superpowered siblings with a insatiable appetite for destruction, since the last trio before them defied him.

#this might be an idea i have for a fic so teehee #the powerpuff girls #ppg #the powerpunk girls #dick hardly #him #the rowdyruff boys #rrb #cleaning out my drafts

[light-lanterne]

ur mexican right? do u have an opinion on argyle's portrayal in the show?

hello ! you're unfortunately asking the wrong person, friend :( i could talk to you all you want about how unfair it is that argyle is given a grand total of 0% of backstory (he doesn't even have a last name), or how he's decidedly playing a stereotype (with the slight subversion of him being actually very smart emotionally and when it comes to finding solutions to their problems, but that gets treated as a joke nonetheless), or how he's treated more as a plot device than anything (the duffs needed a way to get the byers + mike out of california).

but that's as far as my insight goes :(

i do not live in the us. i was born and raised in mexico and have lived here my whole life and thus, my experience is inherently different from that of the people who lived in the us in the 80s (like argyle) and even today. i have no context of what it's like to live as a latin american individual in a country that inherently assumes you're there illegally. i do not know the mockery that would come from having a heavy accent or slipping into spanish terms and slang from time to time. i do not know what it's like to have others immediately assume you fit into the stereotypes argyle showcases. my experience with all of these factors is second handed and as such, i can't offer anything to the conversation that others haven't pointed out already (other than maybe offering a reminder that these are the things argyle would be going through in the background).

not only that, but i don't even look like argyle in the slightest so i can't relate to that either. i've been mocked, bullied and harassed my whole life for a variety of reasons (speech impediment, hearing impairment, queer, trans,,,) but never because of the colour of my skin; never for having specific facial features attributed to latin american people (even if my heritage is not too different from that of your average mexican). other than some random girl who used to call me a vampire in high school (which i obviously took as a compliment because vampires are cool), no one has really ever had anything to say about my appearance and while racism / xenophobia is not just about looks, it's the first thing icky people notice and focus on and, in my case, not something they would initially pick up on.

now, my brother does look a lot like argyle. he has a similar nose and eyes and his skin colour is almost the same (if not a shade or two darker) so maybe he'd have something to say about seeing himself represented on screen in such poor quality. but a) he doesn't watch stranger things so he's got nothing to say about any of that, and b) he's the type to not mind stereotypes or jokes made at our expense.

beyond a slight eyeroll at silly, exaggerated portrayals, he (and most of the people in my city, so it's almost a cultural thing) really has nothing to say about seeing aforementioned stereotypes on screen.

so uh, yeah. nothing to add to the conversation beyond a reminder to listen to people who can actually relate to argyle's experience (whatever it is, because we didn't see any of it x.x) because of his features and his experience living in the us as a latin american individual.

the one thing i can say that we can all agree on is that the duffs don't know how to write bipoc characters, particularly black people (who have onscreen been subjected to implicit and explicit racism and violence and gotten nothing as a result, not even acknowledgement let alone some form of catharsis or justice -_- ), and that argyle was an afterthought brought only into the show to have some comedic relief, move forward a few plot points, and pay homage to whatever 80s californian films the duffs grew up watching >.<

(which again, anyone could tell you so this whole word salad is technically for naught u.u figured i owed you a nuanced response, though, so here it is)

anyway, apologies that my answer is lackluster and doesn't bring up anything of substance to the current debates people are having about the show :( hope you have a great day or night ~

#💕 #💡 #🧸 #argyle

[gothamcitycentral]

☕️ Batman adaptations

Batman adaptations inherently fail if they rely on “reimagining” Batman in a more gritty and ~realistic~ world. Batman is always at least a little silly on a conceptual level. Why would I be interested in a version of a character embarrassed by what it’s based on?

Furthermore, a ~realistic~ Batman abandons his martial arts skills and his gadgets. He dresses in militaristic body armor. He’s meant to be an action hero so he’s denied any detective skills. Yet he’s still described as one of the most intelligent humans on Earth despite doing nothing to prove it. This leaves a Batman who’s only power is spying on the general public and being a cop that acts without consequence. He breaks a man’s spine while shouting “WHERES THE GIRL?!”. He follows Batman’s no killing rule but this only means he hospitalizes people on the street instead of killing them. He tells the audience “See? Wouldn’t it be so much better if cops didn’t have to worry about a disgusting criminal’s human rights?” This a Batman who is only an advertisement for a police state and a power fantasy fulfillment geared towards men.

The only Batman adaptation that I think reimagine Batman and his world well is The Batman of 2004. This show doesn’t make changes in a need to be different but a desire to feel distinct. This Bruce isn’t made with distain for the original, but rather he’s a younger Batman who needs time to grow into his predecessors. The villains are often drastically different to their usual portrayals but I never roll my eyes and say “I can’t believe they got this wrong” because the show knows. It knows these characters and therefore how to deviate from them.

The show before this was Batman: The Animated Series. I could not possibly overstate how important this show is the general state of Batman. The cultural idea of Batman is derived from this one. Every Joker is either based or a deliberate divergence from this Joker. It was even the show that invented Harley Quinn, now one of the most iconic Batman related characters.

Going back to my first point, despite their tonal differences, The Lego Batman Movie and The Batman 2022 feel like a beautiful criticism of these Batman adaptations.

The Lego Batman relishes in the real world culture of Batman. He’s famous, he’s beloved, he’s been through every adventure Batman has gone on. The movie references other Batman media as canon history of this world. When doing so, it shows a lot of Batman’s more recent adaptations. These being… the grittier Batman, Batman v Super or The Dark Knight. When it does reference the campy Batman movies (like Adman West) in this montage, it brushes them off. This isn’t meant to mock these movies, but rather tell the audience that the former media is going to characterize this Bruce.

Bruce wallows in his own misery. He can’t move past the death of his parents. However, if Bruce Wayne is a facade and Batman works alone, then is it not Bruce that is dooming himself to his own miserable isolation? We see this when he refuses to believe he sees Alfred as a father figure. We see this when he rejects how important the Joker is to him. We see this when he refuses to consider Dick Grayson his son.

While Batman is characterized by the darker, ~realistic~ versions of himself, both the Joker and Robin are based on the most goofy versions of themselves.

The Joker is extravagant, he’s funny and excitable, he carries himself like a cartoon supervillain, and he’s vulnerable. Nothing about this Joker is derived from the edgy and dark portrayals that so often accompany the Batman this Bruce is characterized from.

Robin as a concept is often seen (by both fans and creators) as something that could never exist in a grounded Batman world. Robin was born in the most campy and light hearted of Batman media. While I wouldn’t call this Robin a particularly good show case of Dick Grayson’s character, I would call it an excellent showcase of Robin.

It doesn’t seem like coincidence that Bruce’s central arc revolves around him embracing these two characters as a part of him. It’s the very thing that saves Gotham. When he accepts them, Batman becomes brighter, happier, cartoonish even. When Bruce offers himself to go to the Phantom Zone, he accepts that Batman isn’t about how cool or powerful he is, how important, but rather the responsibility that Batman carries.

The Batman first characterizes the titular character as intimidating, silent, and something that evokes fear. The first interaction he has with a civilian isn’t awe or thanks, but them begging Batman to not hurt them.

When we see Bruce as Bruce it becomes clear, he is a mess. Not for comedy, but because that’s how this character will be portrayed. He isn’t silent and broody to seem cool, intimidating, or because he doesn’t feel anything, but because he’s feeling a hundred different emotions at once and he still doesn’t understand how to process or articulate them. He feels unable to live up the legacy of Thomas and Martha Wayne but he still  desperately tries to uphold it.

Both critics and supporters of this Gotham City’s dark and gloomy atmosphere describe it as an  aesthetic choice. But no, this is very clearly a narrative choice. This Gotham City is a cesspool. It’s filled and controlled by greedy politicians and dirty cops. It drags down and damages everyone who lives there. 

The Riddler is someone damaged by Gotham. He believes it be unsalvageable. He’s angry and hurt by city officials that took and took from the city instead of trying to help it.

But in the end, it’s him who is damaging Gotham out of his own egotism. He become so hellbent on delivering justice to Gotham’s destroyers that he organized and rallied to murder the mayoral candidate.

Yet, this is the politician who plans to truly try to help Gotham. She has true intentions to restart Thomas and Martha Wayne’s plans to help the city. She would be good for Gotham. The Riddler is too blinded by his own pain to see that. He floods the city, he kills civilians, he becomes the very thing he hated.

The Riddler represents who Batman could become. Someone so resentful because of their pain that they tear the city down in their mission to save it. Someone who believes themselves to be a champion of justice yet hurts the people they swore to protect.

Bruce doesn’t allow himself to go down this path. He stops being a symbol of fear because he knows Batman has to be a symbol of hope to help Gotham. His first interaction with a civilian may have been of fear but his last was him holding a woman’s hand as she was carried on a stretcher. His final moments with Selina wasn’t some hollow romance ending but him choosing to help Gotham. He gives up a happy ending with someone he cares about because he knows he has a chance to save his city and, therefore, the responsibility to try.

#my asks #bruce wayne #batman #batman movies #long post #the batman 2022 #the lego batman movie #the batman 2004 #batman the animated series #thank you for the ask bestie and the chance to ramble

[charcoal-zone]

Rant ahead about the controversy of Eggman's characterization in Frontiers.

I have noticed that the Sonic community, or more specifically the Eggman fan community, are pretty split down the middle in terms of how Eggman is characterized in Frontiers. This isn't aimed at one person specifically, just points I've seen brought up by multiple people.

I'm not trying to say that people are wrong for disliking Eggman being written with a more sentimental side. But there's this idea that people are pushing that writing Eggman with a sentimental side is inherently wrong in itself, and will go as far as to say that people who enjoy this characterization of Eggman "ignore his true character and don't like him for what he is."

I find this absurd for several reasons. First of all, throughout the many pieces of media that Sonic and the gang have appeared in, different writers have taken different approaches to their characters. The characters are pretty simple at their core. It's up to the writers to take their simple concepts and build onto them. Different people are gonna have different ideas about what that character should be, and sometimes other writers might borrow their ideas. And, as the Sonic Twitter said, "Everything is canon" so technically speaking, none of the characterizations in any comic, game, or film has been "incorrect."

Secondly, people always want to know more. They always want to see more. Dr. Eggman is a pretty mysterious character in a lot of ways. The series never really answers where he came from or why he is the way he is. Some people would say "he's just a dick" but others might say "he must have had a tragedy in his past" which, usually, when a character has a tragic past, they're gonna have a vulnerable side. So most people who believe Eggman's selfishness comes from trauma are gonna believe that there's a hidden side to him. As I said before, his past has never really been explained in the series (at least in the games.) So there's a lot of room for imagination not only for fans, but for writers. And some writers might want to explore this idea. When an official media comes out that points to Eggman having a more vulnerable/sentimental side to him, of course those people who interpreted him that way are going to be happy. Yes, nothing in the game canon has ever stated that Eggman could have a tragic past or a vulnerable side, but nothing about Eggman's past has ever been stated in the first place. People will fill in the gaps and they're not wrong about that.

People also just tend to like villains they can relate to. If there's something about Eggman that they relate to, they're gonna be all over that shit.

I just think neither idea, either "Eggman will never care about anything other than himself" or "Eggman can learn to care for something else besides himself as long as it supports him and everything he does" should be treated as inherently correct or incorrect. Someone believing the latter does not mean they don't understand Eggman as a character, they've just come to a different conclusion about him based on what we DON'T know about him. It also doesn't mean they want Eggman to be a weaker villain. Personally, I don't think it would weaken him at all or take away from his villainy.

TL:DR Stop acting like your take on Eggman is the only correct one and saying the people who like his characterization in Frontiers are wrong or not true fans of the character. It's really gatekeepy. Everything is canon and people are gonna have different ideas about what he should be.

#sonic the hedgehog #sonic frontiers #sonic frontiers spoilers #eggman #dr eggman #rant #long post