#despite the fact that she's there as an antagonist point of view from the beginning | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

the-far-bright-center · 1 year

Text

There's a very annoying trend I am seeing on tumblr lately where people are calling Padme 'crazy', 'insane' or even 'a freak'....all because she chooses to be with Anakin. I'm sorry, what??? Padme is not crazy, nor is she a 'freak' for falling for him. To claim so is to totally misunderstand Padme's character and her love for Anakin. She is not somehow 'turned on' by his flaws and she doesn't view him as some kind of 'bad boy'. Nor does she just pretend he's not flawed simply because she finds him attractive. She sees his flaws quite clearly...but she ALSO sees his good qualities, and GENUINELY LOVES HIM.

Is someone ‘insane’ or a ‘freak’ for loving a flawed but good-hearted person? Is someone 'crazy' for being compassionate and forgiving towards them? Not only is such a mentality deeply unfair and dismissive, but it also stems from fandom completely misunderstanding Padme’s character, motivations, and the development of her feelings for Anakin in the first place. I get the sense that people want to oversimplify Padme in their minds into some kind of ‘yass queen slay’ girlboss (simply because she’s a fashion icon who cares about democracy), and thus the fact she ‘strays’ even slightly from this imagined ‘girlboss-hood’ can only mean one thing…that she must have totally lost the plot, become unhinged, or gone insane. (Feels so insulting to even type that out, omg.) In reality, Padme is simply a young woman (she is 24 in AotC) who finds herself in a position of great responsibility, and who has been living with the weight of her entire world on her shoulders since she was a CHILD. She had originally planned to retire from public service after her time as queen was over, and only continued to serve in a political capacity because her successor, Queen Jamillia, asked her to. While she certainly cares about the Republic, deep down she wishes she could start a family of her own. All of this is already on her mind before she even reunites with Anakin at the beginning of AotC. Despite the fact that Anakin and Padme come from very different backgrounds, they are both in very similar positions at the beginning of that film. Both have commitments/careers in which they are expected to serve the Republic, and yet both are feeling that something is missing in their lives. Deep down, they are both longing for love and family. And while they care about each other’s respective careers and are supportive of one another, they also wish to be together. And on top of it all, there’s the fact that...Anakin genuinely loves Padme. She senses the depth and sincerity of his feelings, and this is one of the reasons she ultimately decides to be with him. She knows that he truly sees her, and loves her for herself, not just for her position.

If that is seen as ‘unhinged’ on Padme's part, then that is a very depressing indictment of how hypocritical fan attitudes can be. Somehow fandom can understand and accept various other characters in Anakin’s story as being able to love him, but not Padme? It’s also baffling because fictional stories are FULL of examples of compassion towards monsters, villains, and antagonists, and yet somehow Padme loving Anakin (who is neither of these at this stage in the story) is beyond people's comprehension. Anakin Skywalker is a tragic hero. And as such he has both positive qualities, as well as flaws that lead to his downfall. But the point is that he is not without positive qualities. People need to realise that their view of everything that happens in the Prequels-era is coloured by dramatic irony. We, the audience, know what is going to happen. We know that Anakin will become Vader. But the characters don’t know any of this. They are just reacting to their immediate situations, circumstances, and interactions with one another armed only with the knowledge of the present moment. So even Anakin’s flaws and mistakes are not something that overrides the rest of his positive qualities from the perspective of someone like Padme, who genuinely loves—and is loved by—him.

#padme amidala #anakin skywalker #anidala #fandom completely misunderstanding Padme and Anakin...what else is new #fandom's all about shipping Anakin with certain *ahem* other people #but Padme's the only one they think is 'insane' for loving him??#even though Anakin and Padme are canonically each other's one and only true love???#side-eyeing tumblr sw fandom so hard right now #padme is not insane tag

244 notes · View notes

greenerteacups · 5 days

Note

Would LOVE to hear more re: Lily Evans as the bolter of you want to share more about that idea

Ogh god I have So Many thoughts about Lily and the Marauders in general because I had to basically do a full outline of the Backstory in order to have context for the living Marauders' backstories, but here is my official Harry's Mom Was A Player dissertation:

I like the idea that Lily grows up with relatively few people around (we only see her with Petunia and Snape, which you could read as a function of Snape's perspective, but I prefer to read it as Lily and Snape being "those weirdos in the corner of the playground making Potion in the dirt" buddies). From that, she becomes pretty closed-off emotionally, and despite having general charisma and kindness, she's pretty hard to connect with. Nice, but a little brusque. She's glad to help you with your homework, but when you invite her to Hogsmeade, she'll smile and make a vague excuse, and you'll never hang out again.

This would also explain why she and Snape remain friends for five years, despite being in different houses and having a lot of political differences: he's one of the few people she's vulnerable with. So we're picturing this Lily who's beautiful, charismatic, clever, but also very closed-off and hard to find. I.e. 100% the kind of person who attracts a lot of admirers, but doesn't actually get close to any of them.

My headcanon for her is a long series of two-month relationships running from around fifth year through sixth, none of them very intense, and petering out around the time that the other person starts asking for labels or commitment. Because (a) she's Busy, but (b) she's not really comfortable with any of them. And so she gets a bit of a (slightly mistaken) reputation as an ice queen.

We know Lily and James started dating in seventh year, after he "stopped being an asshole." ACCORDING TO SIRIUS. This is his account of his best friend's love story. A lot of the read here turns on (1) how much you think James told Sirius about him and Lily, and (2) how much of that Sirius wants Harry to know, as someone trying to protect James's memory.

"He was a cad" is obvious big James energy, especially since we know (1) he's an unserious arrogant jock for most of his Hogwarts career, and (2) she would have absolutely no reason to take him seriously if he expressed interest in her, because — he's a dumb kid! And a bully, from her point of view.

Because they're not close, verging on antagonistic, I tend to think that his interest in her actually was superficial to start with — based on her looks or her reputation (or both). Which, of course, plays right into her issues with intimacy and not being really Seen by anyone. And the ritualized game of his pursuit only contributes to her disbelief in its sincerity.

So basically, by seventh year, you have these two incredibly desirable, successful, popular people who are both in fact really locked-up and struggle with sincerity, but have the beginning of real feelings for each other, and are freaking out about that.

And then you get a great Player4Player love story about intimacy and the mortifying ordeal of being known.

#this is much different from the lily in the climb whom i sketched to suit the contours of that universe #but that's the beauty of the multiverse baby!#the bolter => the alchemy pipeline. you get it. you see my vision #jily #lily evans

28 notes · View notes

literary-illuminati · 11 months

Text

Book Review 23 – Remote Control by Nnedi Okorafor

Okorafor has been on my to-read list for a long while, but this is the first work of hers I’ve actually gotten a chance to sit down and read. Happily, despite it being a couple years old I went in entirely blind and with absolutely no idea what I was in for besides ‘sci fi novella’.

The book is about a young girl in a near-future Ghana who, discovering a strange meteor fragment and/or seed underneath a tree in her family orchard, becomes infected by a sort of deadly alien light. It tries to protect her by blazing and killing everyone around who might be hurting her, and before she begins to learn to control it she accidentally kills everyone in her village. The story follows her travels wandering in search of the seed and the man who took it from her, her only constant companion a strange fox who seems to be the only thing unharmed by her light.

Though even if that’s the ostensible plot, it’s not really what the book is about. It’s really more of a series of vignettes, about how the culture around Sankofa makes sense of her and of the places and people she ends up passing some time with. Much of the story has a real fable-like tone, and all the myths that grow up around her are a big part of that. She’s known as Death’s anointed daughter, wandering the earth on foot and fed and clothed as an honoured guest wherever she might want to rest for a couple days, offering instant and total euthanasia to those who ask for it and reducing anyone who puts a hand on her to ash.

Okorafor’s prose does an excellent job keeping the prose feeling mythological or fable-like through the whole book as well. I’m like 90% sure the fox and a dozen other things are references to mythology or folklore that flew entirely over my head, honestly. The close focus on Sankofa does too – we never zoom out or get a bird’s eye view of the world, or even of Ghana. Almost everything’s mediated through the perspective and experiences of a particularly traumatized adolescent girl, brought up only when it’s relevant to her.

The book’s Ghana is – you know the one Gibson line, about ‘The future is already here – it's just not very evenly distributed ’? There’s miracles of high technology brushing against the edges of the screen, but those who have them have been very careful to make sure that most of what makes it to rural west Africa is scraps with strings attached. The embodiment of that is the LifeGen corporation, an American conglomerate that offers cheap drugs (apparently prototypes in need of testing, or else supplies with side effects they just need to get rid of) and the drone network used by the eponymous RoboTown to keep the streets safe and traffic orderly (in exchange for all the date the network happens to gather as it does so). While never exactly a direct threat to Sankofa, their interest in the seeds and their light makes them the closest thing to a consistent antagonist in the book as well.

Sankofa herself is a great protagonist, by which I mean she’s a densely packed bundle of trauma, guilt and moral injury who spends years of her life wandering on foot in pursuit of a goal picked in large part so she had a goal to focus on and didn’t have to sit and think for too long. Her internal monologue's really very affecting at points, and so is the contrast between the mask of supernatural authority she puts on at points and the fact that she’s is very much still just a kid.

The actual plot beats are usually pretty predictable and well-worn, but honestly my only real complaint about the book is that, having finished it, I still have no. Fucking. Idea. Why her power is called ‘remote control’.

#book review #sff #remote control #nnedi okorafor #novella

62 notes · View notes

2010s-nostalgia · 2 months

Note

List the facts on why Frozen isn't great!!! I think it still counts as nostalgia!!!

Okay so I'm gonna preface this by saying I don't mind Frozen. I think it's a fine movie, and I really liked it when it came out. However, after every viewing of it I like the film a little less. Call it aging, call it obsession, call it high expectations, but I don't think it is great in any capacity for these reasons (please don't hate me for these):

For a movie that is meant to be about The Snow Queen, it wastes the original story. Elsa could've easily been the antagonist she was originally written to be while also being redeemed in the end. Keep everything to do with their parents, but give her anger; give her resentment. After years of holding on to keeping her powers hidden, and seeing the angry and scared faces of her citizens when she finally breaks, make her anrgy. Then there would be REAL stakes in Anna going up the mountain by herself to talk Elsa into unfreezing the city; make Anna slightly afraid of her and you've made it even more satisfactory when they reunite in the end.

Anna. Lord do I not like the way Anna was written. She's like if Rapunzel's personality was cranked up 100% and made boy crazy. If I'd written Anna, I'd have kept her sense of humor, but thrown away the adorkable bullshit. Make her funny, rough around the edges, desperate for affection, and slightly resent Elsa due to the perceived favoritism of their parents. These are two sisters who should dislike each other in the beginning while also missing what they once had.

Kristoff and Anna's relationship takes up too much time in the movie that could've gone to Elsa and/or her and Anna's relationship. If the message of the movie is that romantic love isn't the only kind of love we should seek, then why in the world is there a song, and almost marriage sequence, about Anna and Kristoff getting together after having known each other for only a day or two? I mean, Kristoff's only point in the movie is to help Anna up the mountain, and that's all he really does for the plot. (Besides introducing her to the trolls but honestly their whole point is to just say "ice in the head not great, but ice in the heart bad" so remove or rework them too)

I actually like Hans' role in the story, but he didn't have to be a twist villian. It could've been foreshadowed early on that he only wanted Anna for her potential power, and his betrayal would've been even more impactul because we would've seen as the movie went on how much Anna wanted to be loved.

Now this might just be me nitpicking, but the setting design is just sooo . . . I'll just say I've seen better castles and towns in Barbie movies. I mean, if you had the choice, would you rather go to Arendel's castle or the Beast's Castle? Plus the character design is also not great. We've all seen that post pointing out that Elsa, Anna, and their mother all look identical with their barely there noses and round heads.

My final point, bringing back my issue with wasting the source material, is that in the original story a girl goes on a quest to get her friend back from the ice queen, despite him having turned into an angry, bitter, and mean person. She believed he was still the person she loved under that magic, and she risked her life to get him back. That is not the story Frozen tells because Elsa is rarely shown to have those ugly emotions.

#i have points about olaf too but this was getting long XD #oh god and the music #honestly I could write a ten page essay #asks

12 notes · View notes

girlactionfigure · 7 months

Text

The Proper Objectives of the Campaign in Gaza

At this moment, the IDF is poised to begin a ground invasion of Gaza. The objectives of the campaign, however, have not been spelled out with sufficient clarity by the political echelon, other than by saying that Hamas will be eliminated as a military threat and sovereign power in Gaza. The following are my ideas of appropriate short and long-term goals for the IDF.

The first and highest-priority objective must be the restoration of Israel’s honor and power of deterrence in the Middle East. This is the part that is the most difficult to understand for the West, particularly by the elites in the US and Europe, but it is an existential condition for the survival of our state. A person or a nation without honor will not live long in this region. What was done to us, what we allowed to be done to us, was so shameful that today we stand naked, a target for anyone who wants to kill us, to invade our country, to take our property, to defile our women, to enslave our children.

You can say that this point of view is atavistic and uncivilized, and perhaps it is when compared to the (supposedly) morally evolved West, but we live in the Middle East, not in Europe or America.* The law here is not the post-1945 international law of the West, it is a code that has evolved in the harsh conditions of the region over millennia. It has been impossible until now for our own Israeli elites to internalize this, but one hopes that the viciousness of the attack on us – the worst since the founding of the state and the worst massacre of Jews since the Holocaust – will shake them out of their dream of living in a villa in the jungle.

So what does this imply for the IDF’s short-term objectives? I see it this way: all important Hamas leaders, wherever they are, and every commander, soldier, and civilian that took part in the terrorist attack should be killed. Not “brought to justice,” not captured and tried for war crimes, not imprisoned. Killed. Overall Gazan casualties will need to reach a level of ten times more than the number of Israelis murdered and violated. There are other important objectives for the invasion, like the rescue of hostages and the destruction of weapons and military infrastructure, but the recovery of honor – revenge, if you insist – must be top priority. Only thus can the appropriate message be sent to all the players in the region, and the rest of the world.

The long-term objective must be to ensure that this cannot happen again. And from a strategic standpoint, that implies that Israel must either implement a military occupation capable of controlling the population and preventing the rise of a new terrorist regime, or she must force a change in the population to one that will not become a threat. Most of our leadership believes that an occupation is untenable. It would tie down a large part of our army, be very expensive, and provide a focus for continued terrorism and insurrections. But at the same time they shrink from the alternative.

Population transfer is anathema to the West, despite the fact that they’ve done it countless times in the past. But the tribal nature of humans implies that it is often an absolute condition for peace. Antagonistic tribes must be separated by natural barriers that make predation difficult or impossible. The Gaza Envelope – the location of the Israeli communities next door to Gaza – is not viable for Jews unless the hostile Arab population is removed or somehow prevented from attacking them. Israel built a barrier above and below the ground at a cost of a billion dollars. Sophisticated sensors above ground and hundreds of tons of concrete below were intended to provide a sense of safety to the people on the Israeli side. But like all Maginot lines, simple and inexpensive ways were found to bypass it, and Hamas brought death and destruction to the Jewish farmers who had trusted their leaders to protect them.

Some of our leadership seems to believe that we can sail peacefully between the Scylla of occupation and the Charybdis of transfer. The Americans are promising that they will help us bribe the Palestinian Authority to take control and that will solve the problem. The foolishness (or malevolence) of this plan is so obvious that only the most deluded or corrupt Israeli could accept it. As if the murderous Fatah would be a better neighbor than the murderous Hamas!

No Jew will return to live in the Gaza envelope while Gaza remains populated by Arabs. Not one. Are we prepared to give up the Negev? That is, in essence, what the Americans are asking in return for their ammunition and diplomatic support.

On Friday I explained that Israel should force the major part of the Gazan population into the Sinai, where they will become the responsibility of the international community, which created the problem in the first place. The area should be secured by the development of Jewish settlements, and ultimately become a part of Israel. And for the sake of justice, land in Gaza and financial aid should be provided to the descendants of those Jews who were so cruelly expelled from their homes there in 2005.

Abu Yehuda

#Israel and Palestinian Arabs #Terrorism #US-Israel Relations #War.

19 notes · View notes

sociopath-analysis · 1 year

Text

Sociopath Profile: Emperor Belos

Real name: Philip Wittebane From the animated series The Owl House (2020-2023) Voiced by Matthew Rhys (main form), Alex Lawther (Philip), and Fryda Wolf (child)

The main antagonist of the show and responsible for many of the conflicts of the show. Considering the tyranny of the Boiling Isles he holds, he shows a lot of traits of a sociopathic dictator. And it only gets worse with the more that is revealed about him.

[SPOILERS BELOW]

From the beginning, he was dedicated to witch-hunting and would do anything he could to make sure they'd all be exterminated. He's been going through the long game for over four centuries and was willing to work with a horrible monster to do exactly that. And through all this time, he has never developed a sense of empathy for anyone else. As Philip, he was willing to throw his exploration companions under the bus when trying to find a way back to the human realm while writing them as unfortunate accidents that he had nothing to do with. Despite creating Grimwalkers to replicate his brother Caleb, he is the one responsible for his death because he found out Caleb fell in love with a witch. With all the hallucinations he has about it, he ignores them as if he has no guilt about it.

To ensure his rise to power, Belos had to be very manipulative as well. As Philip, he had enough superficial charm to look like a friendly man just looking to get home. This is how he convinces people to fall into his traps to get what he wants. It doesn't exactly work on people once the residents of the Boiling Isles catch on to his tricks, but it manages to trick Luz and Lilith when they time-travel to the time of his journals. As she continued to go through the Isles, he built his profile as Belos to begin the crusade against wild magic by pretending to speak to the spirit of the titan. All to set up his extermination plan. Despite being very oppressive, he still held enough power to keep people under his thumb. Lying to Hunter about his goals and gaslighting him shows the extent of his manipulations on a personal level.

The Collector was also one of his pawns. He promised to release them for the Day of Unity, but he ended up betraying them when his goal was just within his grasp. And when that fails, he resorts to possession to trick others into getting his goals. He did so to Hunter to torment him and his friends. He also possesses the doll of Rain to trick the Collector into seeing King supposedly betraying him. Even at the end, he tries to trick Luz into believing he was cursed into being as horrific as he was. However, Luz sees right through it and shows him absolutely no mercy.

All of this was for his own gratification to be the heroic witch hunter. All to come back to the human realm and become decorated as a legendary man who stopped the evils of witches - despite his views being several centuries out of date. His belief that he will be the one to save people is one that persisted throughout his exile. Despite what he says about needing to eliminate them for the greater good, there is no further ambition than making himself look better. Even if he needs to kill the people he is supposedly close to, like his brother. Even the fact that he recreates replicas of him out of Grimwalkers doesn't really show that he is all that empathetic toward him.

"That man doesn't care about anything but his need to be the hero in his own delusion. And because of that, he fears what he can't control." - King's father

And because of this belief that he is the hero of the story, he will do everything he can to justify the things he does to others. Stepping over his subjects is justified to him because they're witches anyway and they'll be destroyed soon. He seems to feel guilty about killing his brother, but because he can't be in the wrong, he rewrites the memories in his mind to make it seem like he deserved to die for being on the wrong side. Even when humans point out how messed up his plans are, such as when Luz points this out inside his own mind, he shrugs it off and says that she is the crazy one.

Belos: I'll do anything to save humanity from evil. Luz: No. You're evil! Belos: [shrugs] Can't reason with crazy.

And it's safe to say that Belos completely lacks remorse for everything he has done. None of his conspirators are in on the full extent of the plan and those that are want nothing to do with it. Since he thinks he's done nothing wrong, he feels that he shouldn't have remorse. The Collector trying to empathize with him after fusing with the Titan only ended with Belos blasting a beam at them for their genuine efforts. Even at the very end when he is powerless, he still tries to weasel his way out of responsibility by claiming that he was cursed to act the way he did.

Disney Sociopath List

#The Owl House #Emperor Belos #Philip Wittebane #character analysis #spoilers

13 notes · View notes

imaginationlandtrilogy · 2 years

Text

Ike Broflovski Analysis Project: Relationship with Sheila (2/7)

When I do these, I primarily focus on the character the analysis is about, however, in viewing Ike’s relationship with Sheila, it relies so heavily on Sheila that it’s important that I talk about her individually. This is in cause of Ike’s personality, as he’s depicted much more like a child than the other kids in South Park. Take Kyle, for example. Kyle is five years older than Ike, but he acts far more developed and less like a child as the seasons move on. Ike does as well, at times, but it’s several steps behind Kyle. If we view Kyle’s relationship with Sheila, it’s very in-depth with both of their personalities coming into play, as they’re both on that same level of emotional consciousness that it’s possible. However, for Ike, you can’t view his relationship with Sheila as you can Kyle’s relationship with Sheila… simply because there’s not enough interaction rooted in personality. Instead, there’s the relationship of a mother and child - and that is the prime takeaway of Ike’s relationship with Sheila.

Sheila has exponentially grown as a character throughout South Park’s run. In the first few seasons, she was quite demanding and strict. She was a ‘no-nonsense’ mother, even exhibiting behavior that most would view as bad parenting. The most prominent example of this are her actions in South Park: Bigger, Longer, and Uncut. Sheila’s determination and control were heavily affecting her ability to be a good parent. Sheila is an extremely motivated individual, so when she has her sights set on something, she will aim to accomplish that. In the case of the movie, it was her determination to get rid of Terrence and Phillip - as time passed, it was no longer about her initial goal, but the adrenaline of the power she had. She was so ‘in her head’ about the situation that her desire for control overpowered and consumed her. This is primarily how Sheila was presented in the early seasons of South Park. Another example would be the episode “Cherokee Hair Tampons” (S4E6) where she denied Kyle appropriate medical care due to her own misguided beliefs, and despite Kyle’s desire to go to the hospital, Sheila continuously insisted she was right. Despite these selfish decisions, as the seasons went by and the general tone of South Park began to change, Sheila did as well. She became much more mild compared to her old self, and even what some would consider a good parent. She was much more apt to gently instill beliefs in her children (an example being when she defended and explained transgenderism to Kyle in “Mr. Garrison’s Fancy New Vagina” [S9E1]) than to put forth those beliefs with an iron fist as she did in the movie. This is likely due to the fact that South Park no longer needed her as an antagonist, which was her previous role in the show - they had other characters to fill that role, so Sheila could begin to develop as a character in other ways without relying on an antagonistic role. This is where her more casual nature as a parent began to shine through. Of course, Sheila still has that desire for control and can be quite strict, but it has died down immensely from early seasons. Rather than it lying in selfish reasons rooted in her own beliefs as it did before, it now most often lies in the genuine care for her children.

Sheila’s parenting determines the state of her relationship with Ike. When she’s upset, Ike generally has a negative view of her. When she’s neutral or happy, Ike tends to have a positive view of her. Ike is still a child and is still - at times - realistically written as one in the show, so he isn’t at that point of maturity where he can view his mother as a human being with her own personality, desires, and beliefs. That’s just his mom.

It’s difficult to pinpoint what a good mother is versus what a bad mother is, as the definition of what people consider good and bad parenting can differ dramatically. We can’t outright call Sheila a bad parent, as she’s done plenty of good. However… we also can’t call her a flawless mother, as she’s done plenty of bad. It’s a double-edged sword, so what we can do is view the situations individually and move on from there.

In order to properly organize this, I’m going to divide the following into three sections: the neutral, the positive, and the negative… all in reference to Sheila’s parental behavior throughout the series and how Ike responds to it. I’m not going to label these situations through my perspective, but rather, Ike’s, in order to further understand how he views his mother in different circumstances.

THE NEUTRAL:

Ike’s relationship with Sheila would likely be much worse if he had a greater awareness of his surroundings in the early seasons where Sheila was often used as an antagonist. There’s the obvious fact that she publicly slandered Canadians in BLU, completely forgetting the fact that her adopted son is Canadian. However, this was done more subtly, as she didn’t target Ike specifically - she had no intention to harm her son, and it was only done as a result, but not directly. Ike never recognized what she did, as he was far too young to have a strong awareness of his surroundings and recognize the reason in behavioral changes. Therefore, her public outrage of Canada and Canadian people was not recognized by her Canadian son. This has no effect on her relationship with Ike from Ike’s part, however, it’s important to note that it could’ve easily negatively affected Sheila’s emotional state. There’s no blatant evidence of this in the show or movie, but given what we know about Sheila’s personality, it’s plausible. She loves her family dearly and has been known to show remorse when she realizes she’s wrong (“The End of Serialization as We Know It” [S20E10] - when Sheila realizes she was wrong about Ike being Skankhunt42, she immediately states that she’s “got to find [her] boys” likely to apologize or make amends). While her actions of BLU may not have had an impact on Ike’s relationship with her, it could have easily had an impact on her relationship with Ike, but no prominent and visible impact has been shown from either ends.

When it comes to authority in the household, it goes back and forth between Gerald and Sheila, however, both Kyle and Ike seem to view Sheila as the bigger authority than Gerald. This could likely be rooted in fear, or the knowledge that Sheila is far stricter than her husband. Nevertheless, Sheila is the parent Ike turns to more often. In “Miss Teacher Bangs a Boy” (S10E10), Ike attempts to get Sheila’s attention in order to deter Kyle from telling her about his relationship with his kindergarten teacher. He constantly interrupts Kyle when he’s speaking, babbling about Spider-Man or telling Sheila, “Mommy, I love you, I love you!” Obviously, Ike does love his mother, but his reason for saying this was not to show affection, but to prevent his brother from getting a word in. Despite the severity of the overall situation, this scene is the epitome of a sibling relationship - one sibling attempting to tell on the other and the other desperately trying to distract the parent so they don’t get in trouble. Ike likely chose Sheila to distract over Gerald because he viewed Sheila as the bigger authority in the situation. Sheila is much more firm with serious situations, and perhaps the one her children view as more responsible, so it makes sense for the boys to focus on her instead of their father.

THE POSITIVE:

In comparison to other families in South Park, the Broflovskis are much more familial and loving. Sheila plays a large part in this, as she takes on the motherly role naturally. She shows her children affection and discipline when needed, which is likely why both of her children (primarily Kyle, as he takes after her more) are such well-rounded individuals.

In “A Very Crappy Christmas” (S4E17), Sheila and Gerald let Kyle and Ike wait for Mr. Hankey in the bathroom. Sheila speaks to her children very gently and wishes them a happy Hanukkah before looking at them fondly and leaving the room. When the boys fall asleep, Sheila and Gerald return, pick them up, and put them to bed. It’s a very cute scene that really shows how family-centered the Broflovskis can be. The scene itself is a parallel to the real world and the ‘existence’ of Santa. Gerald and Sheila - the adults - believe Mr. Hankey not to be real, so after Kyle explains that he and Ike are waiting for Mr. Hankey, Gerald winks at Sheila, and they smile at each other before Sheila allows Kyle and Ike to stay up. It’s a very small thing, but it speaks volumes about how Sheila treats and raises her children. Rather than outright telling them that Mr. Hankey ‘isn’t real’, she allows them to stay up and wait for him until they fall asleep… letting children be children to keep their wonders alive.

Another holiday-focused episode, “It’s Christmas in Canada” (S7E15), features Sheila’s love for her son. When Ike’s birth parents arrive at the Broflovski household, Sheila is visibly in distress. Although Sheila’s reactions to Ike being taken away from her are heartbreaking, it tells just how much she loves and cares about him. She’s at a loss when Ike is taken away, genuinely unknowing of what to do. Kyle even tells his friends that “[his] family is devastated. [His] mom just walks around the house like a zombie, and [his] dad can’t stop crying”. It’s clear that Ike’s absence put her into some sort of depression. The reason I list this as positive despite the clear negativity of the situation is because Ike witnesses his mother’s sadness at him being taken away, therefore it shows some sort of positivity in their relationship that she would feel this way. It’s a similar situation in “Miss Teacher Bangs a Boy” and “Fatbeard” (S13E7), although those two I would likely consider negative, given that Ike took the initiative to leave his family rather than forcefully being taken away.

Sheila and Ike’s appearances in “You’re Not Yelping” (S19E4) are very brief, but still notable, as it shows Sheila taking Ike out for various activities. The purpose of showing this is to highlight Sheila’s good parenting (as opposed to Gerald’s clear neglect). Sheila takes Ike out twice in this episode - once to the park and the second to clown school. Given these two instances occurring in the same episode, it’s safe to assume she spends time with Ike frequently and allows him to participate in activities he shows interest in.

THE NEGATIVE:

I previously mentioned two episodes in which Ike purposely leaves his family: “Miss Teacher Bangs a Boy” and “Fatbeard”. In “Miss Teacher Bangs a Boy”, Ike’s reason for leaving was of his own decision with outside factors influencing him (something similar to manipulation made possible by Ike’s desire for maturity). He didn’t leave for Milan because he wanted to be apart from his family, but there’s no denying that this had an effect on his relationship with them. The fact that he was willing to leave them so easily tells that at that moment, his ‘love’ for Miss Stephenson was stronger than his love for his family. In “Fatbeard”, it’s a similar situation, but instead of Ike leaving due to manipulation, it was his own perspective of life where he thought he had it more rough than he actually did. Nevertheless, this still had a negative effect on his relationship with his family, and in turn, his mother. He made the decision to leave her, even leaving a note that closed with, “I love you all, but I have to move on”. Of course, he did return at the end of the episode with a change of heart, but much like the events of “Miss Teacher Bangs a Boy”, he was able to leave his family that easily.

Ike played a somewhat large role in the second half of season twenty. He had more screen time than usual due to his involvement in his father’s seasonwide arc. His involvement in this arc led to Sheila showing a side of herself that had not been seen in such intensity since the early seasons of the show. The behavior shown was not an exact copy of her behavior in the early series, though, as they each had different causes. Sheila did not rise to anger due to her own beliefs this time, but rather, the build-up of emotions at the ‘knowledge’ of her son partaking in immoral hobbies and her children blatantly disobeying her.

In order to understand why Sheila acted this way, we need to view things from her perspective. We’ve already established that Sheila is a strict parent sometimes prone to extremities who cares deeply for her family. Sheila was in the dark this season, unknowing of what Gerald was doing. To her, her husband was behaving mysteriously, and she was afraid he did not love her anymore (“Wieners Out” [S20E4]), already causing her to become emotional. He lies to her, although she doesn’t know he lied, and later is forcefully taken by the government out of his home as she and her children watch. While Sheila is already emotional from these situations, she ‘finds out’ her son is Skankhunt42, something she had already expressed her distaste of at the beginning of the season. To add onto that, her other son (who is often similar to her in beliefs and morals) disobeys her as well, and she continuously finds the two of them on the computer where she likely believes them to be trolling together. Sheila likely felt that she lost complete control of her family, especially with her husband being in a different country, leaving her to deal with her ‘disobeying’ children alone. Losing control of her family ultimately led to her losing control of herself. This is why she reacted in such a way.

Of course, Kyle and Ike didn’t understand this, as they had their own side of the situation - they (particularly Ike) were much more knowledgeable on it and had access to inside information that Sheila did not. I could only imagine how terrifying it must have been for those two. They’re unable to tell the truth, so their only option is to be in the path of their mother’s wrath.

Now that we understand Sheila’s behavior, we can begin to view the impact it had on Ike. I would consider Ike to have gotten the bigger fall between him and Kyle. Not only was he blamed for being the online troll, but he had been the one to go to his mother’s face, call her names, and have her chase him down the stairs so Kyle could lock her in the pantry. He had to put himself in that danger for the sake of his family. In the final episode of the season, “The End of Serialization As We Know It”, Sheila shows the most anger she has ever shown in the series. After she breaks free from the pantry, she slowly creeps into Ike’s room, hair frazzled and covered in dirt, and shakes in pure rage. It’s clear she’s unable to control her emotions in this scene, as she doesn’t say anything for a few seconds as Ike speaks obscenities at the computer. It isn’t until Ike is finished with his statement that Sheila yells his name out. Ike immediately screams in fear as Sheila continues to aggressively verbally reprimand him. I would assume Ike isn’t used to seeing his mother this way, and to be fair, neither is the audience. Sheila has certainly had her ups and downs, but a select few scenes in these final episodes of the season is nothing that has been shown of her before. This is a new side to Sheila, and given Ike’s behavior, it’s clear he’s terrified of this. As his mother charges toward him and breaks his computer, he backs away and fearfully says, “mommy!” before running away and screaming. His vocalization of his emotions are extremely indicative of what he’s feeling, but his facial expressions are also telling. Ike generally carries a neutral expression - he doesn’t emote often. However, in this scene, his mouth is open in shock and his eyebrows are tilted upwards in distress. Ike has been through so many wild situations throughout the series that he didn’t emote to, so the fact that he emotes so strongly and for such a long time speaks volumes here. He is genuinely terrified of his mother’s behavior and what she will do if she catches him. This becomes more evident when he immediately runs into Gerald’s office where Kyle is and hides behind his brother. He went to Kyle for safety, and from the way Kyle’s arms were out to shield Ike, it’s clear Kyle was terrified too, but he still wanted to protect his brother over everything. The scene ends with Kyle trying to explain to his mother how she doesn’t know the full story, but she quickly shuts it down with telling him to shut up. She denies listening to their explanations and only seeks to punish them. Sheila is too caught up in her own rage that she just wants to simmer in it instead of alleviate it. Perhaps this is her own way of regaining control of the situation. She continuously told her children not to use the computer and believes them to be disobeying her, so it’s as if her emotions took charge, and this pure, seething rage is her way of gaining control of the situation in an attempt to feel less powerless.

Sheila’s negative behavior toward Ike was not long-lasting, as she soon learned that her children were telling the truth and Ike was not the online troll. She immediately showed regret, stating that she had to find her sons to make things right. Given this statement, it’s extremely probable that she did make amends with her children and apologize for doubting them. Her relationship with Ike in the episodes following season twenty seems to have gone back to normal, just as their family dynamic had. Due to this, it’s safe to assume that there was no lasting bad blood between Sheila and Ike. The impact her anger had on her relationship with her children was only at that moment, so luckily, everything turned out alright between them.

To close, Ike’s relationship with Sheila relies heavily on her, as Ike is still too emulative of a traditional child to have a relationship with his mother beyond familial. Therefore, the majority of his relationship with his mother relies on her parenting. There have been ups and downs throughout the series, especially with the rise of complicated situations, but overall, Ike has a healthy relationship with his mother. She cares about him greatly, and he cares about her.

#☆#south park #ike broflovksi #sheila broflovski #this is probably the hardest thing i've had to write for this fandom. that's why it took so long to do!! 2 weeks!!! it usually takes a day!#the problem was that i had to talk about sheila waaay more than i had planned in here. i prepared very well to talk about ike #but with sheila it's like i had to do my own research that i would've already had done if this had been about her. so this is pretty much #a mini sheila analysis within a part of a big ike analysis... and i kept having to delete and rewrite so much... but i'm just happy to have #it done now #now onto the next one <3 as a little treat to myself #meta

20 notes · View notes

leiogerio · 1 year

Text

^ it's a crime that episode 11 wasn't assigned

Warning: spoilers for anyone who hasn’t watched the whole series.

After finishing the Psycho-Pass, I have to say that the ending goes wild (in a good way). Still, I don’t think the beginning was very strong because of how episodic it is. The show only gets good when the main villain is introduced, and the main characters are solving crimes for a greater purpose. It was also interesting how many other works are explicitly referenced in the shows, including things like Gulliver’s Travels and even the panopticon itself.

Personally, I think most of the main characters are a little boring, but Akane’s arc is handled quite well. She starts off as a naive recruit but becomes jaded after confronting the Sybil system. In the final scene of the last episode, she has to help train another new recruit, which is parallel to the first episode. Speaking of the last episode, I think it is an extremely strong ending in how everything comes full circle. There are still many plot points that must be resolved, such as Kogami’s disappearance and the fact that the Sibyl system still reigns supreme, but those are likely tackled in the later seasons. Unfortunately, I hear that seasons two and three are pretty bad, so I probably won’t watch them.

I think that the strongest part of the series is the villain: Shougo Makishima. The fact that the panopticon has no effect on him makes him the perfect antagonist, and he uses his inherent trait of being “crime asymptomatic” to help other people break free from the system and live true lives (although these peoples’ image of truly living involves brutal crimes). The part when Makishima holds Akane’s friend hostage in episode 11 was one of the best scenes in the entire series, showcasing how terrifying he is. No matter how much Akane wanted to shoot the dominator, it didn’t view Makishima as a threat, so the trigger remained locked; the system failed. The final confrontation between Makishima and Kogami is a climactic clash of ideologies that ends in Kogami becoming a murderer, an eternal enemy of the Sibyl system.

The revelation that the Sibyl system is an amalgamation of crime-asymptomatic minds was an interesting twist. In the end, emotionless psychopaths are the judge, jury, and executioner of humanity, and they believe they are correct in all of their choices. While I’m not sure I agree with how the show revealed who is behind the panopticon, it adds a tangible threat that looms overhead, forcing Akane to remain compliant with the system in the end, much like the ending of 1984, where Winston fails to overturn the system. Of course, the main difference is that Akane is not brainwashed.

Overall, despite not enjoying much of the first half, Psycho-Pass managed to become a pretty good show after episode 11. The show still didn’t hit that hard for me, though, because I didn’t like most of the main characters and some of the writing.

6/10 lol

8 notes · View notes

impalementation · 3 years

Text

spike, angel, buffy & romanticism: part 3

part 1: “When you kiss me I want to die”: Angel and the high school seasons

part 2: “Love isn’t brains, children”: Enter Spike as the id

“Something effulgent”: Season five and the construction of Spike the romantic

Prior to becoming a romantic interest, Spike is everything I discussed in the last section. He is an id and a mirror for Buffy, he’s prone to both romantic exaggeration and cutting realism, and his liminality suggests ambiguity. But outside of “Lovers Walk”, the writing doesn’t actually delve too deeply into Spike’s nature as a romantic. If you stopped the canon at “Restless”, you’d probably think that Spike’s love for Drusilla was intriguing, but that the show hadn’t really gone anywhere with the implications of it, and for all you knew, that might not be an important part of his character anymore. So one of the most interesting things about season five to me, is that in this season in which the writers first consciously, deliberately decide to explore the sexual and romantic tension between Spike and Buffy, they also emphasize Spike’s romanticism more than ever. The choice to define Spike by his romanticism is a choice that follows naturally from everything established about his character, but it was also not an inevitable choice. Therefore, it’s a choice worth looking at in some detail.

Consider everything that “Fool For Love” establishes about Spike, especially the things that contradict what was supposedly canon at the time. It makes Drusilla his sire instead of Angel, meaning that he is sired by a romantic connection, and as a direct result of heartbreak. It makes him a poet living in the middle of the Victorian era, an age at odds with his previous ages of “barely 200” and “126”. Meaning that the writing specifically decides to ignore its canon in order to associate him with an era in which passions would have been repressed (rather than the Romantic era of the early 1800’s or the modern energy of the early 1900’s). Moreover, the episode reveals his entire aesthetic and personality to essentially be a construct. But most tellingly of all, it reveals him to be an idealist. Spike is not just a performance artist; he yearns for the “effulgent”, for something “glowing and glistening” that the “vulgarians” of the world don’t understand. In other words, he yearns for something bigger and more beautiful than life: something romantic. Later, he chases after “death, glory, and sod all else.” Spike may be a “fool for love”, who has a romantic view of romantic love specifically, but the episode is very clear about the fact that he is also a romantic more generally. When Drusilla turns him, she doesn’t tempt him by telling him she’ll love him forever. She tempts him by offering him “something…effulgent”. (Which, in typical Spike form, the episode immediately undercuts by having him say “ow” instead of swooning romantically). The fact that “Fool For Love”, Spike’s major backstory episode, is so determined to paint him as a romantic--and in particular, a disappointed, frustrated romantic--that it is willing to contradict canon to do so, tells you that this choice was important for framing Spike and his new, ongoing thematic role.

I’ve talked in the past about how season five is all about the tension between the mythical and the mortal--between big, grand, sweeping narratives, and the reality of being human. Buffy is the Slayer, but she’s also just a girl who loses her mother. Dawn is the key, but she’s also just a confused and hormonal fourteen-year-old. Willow is a powerful witch, but she also just wants her girlfriend to be okay. Glory is a god, but she’s also a human man named Ben, and finds herself increasingly weakened by his emotions. And Spike embodies this tension perfectly. He’s a soulless vampire with a lifetime of bloodshed behind him, but he’s also this silly, human man who wants to love and be loved. He wants big, grand things, but every time they are frustrated by a Victorian society, a rejection, a chip, a pratfall, or dying with an “ow”. Furthermore, his season five storyline is all about the tension between loving in an exalted, yet often selfish way, versus loving in a “real” or selfless way.

There was a fascinating piece a ways back that discussed how Spike’s attempts to woo Buffy in season five almost perfectly match the romantic narratives of Courtly Love. In the words of the author:

The term "Courtly Love" is used to describe a certain kind of relationship common in romantic medieval literature. The Knight/Lover finds himself desperately and piteously enamored of a divinely beautiful but unobtainable woman. After a period of distressed introspection, he offers himself as her faithful servant and goes forth to perform brave deeds in her honor. His desire to impress her and to be found worthy of her gradually transforms and ennobles him; his sufferings -- inner turmoil, doubts as to the lady's care of him, as well as physical travails -- ultimately lends him wisdom, patience, and virtue and his acts themselves worldly renown.

You can see for yourself how well that description fits Spike’s arc. He fixates on the torturous, abject nature of his love, and has it in his head that he can perform deeds and demonstrate virtue, and this will prove to Buffy that he is worthy of her. But despite Spike’s gradual ennobling over the course of the season, I think it would be a mistake to see the season as using the Courtly Love narrative uncritically, or even just ironically. The same way it would be a mistake to see season two as using the Gothic uncritically. Spike is as much Don Quixote as he is Lancelot. He is a character that deliberately tries to act out romantic tropes, giving the writing an opportunity to satirize those tropes, including the tropes of chivalric romance. In particular, the writing criticizes Spike’s (very chivalric) fixation on love as a personal agony, something that is more about pain--and specifically, his pain--than building a real relationship. Over and over in season five, he is forced to abandon these sorts of flattering romantic mindsets in favor of a more complicated reality.

So at first, Spike’s “deeds” tend to be shallow and vaguely transactional. He tries to help Buffy in “Checkpoint” even though she doesn’t want it (and insults her when she doesn’t appreciate it), he asks “what the hell does it take?” when Buffy is unimpressed by him not feeding on “bleeding disaster victims” in “Triangle”, he rants bitterly at a mannequin when Buffy fails to be grateful to him for taking her to Riley in “Into the Woods”, and he is angry and confused when Buffy is unmoved by his offer to stake Drusilla in “Crush”. While these attempts to symbolically reject his evilness are startling for a soulless vampire, and although Spike certainly feels like he is fundamentally altering himself for Buffy’s sake, none of it is based on understanding or supporting Buffy in a way that she would actually find substantial. Moreover, he lashes out when his gestures fail to win her attention or affection. He has an idea in his head of how their romantic scenes should play out, and reacts petulantly when reality fails to live up to it.

But these incidents of self-interested narrativizing are also continuously contrasted with scenes in which Spike reacts with real generosity, or is surprised when he realizes he’s touched something emotionally genuine. When Buffy seeks him out in “Checkpoint”, his mannerisms instantly change when he realizes she actually needs real help (“You’re the only one strong enough to protect them”), rather than the performed help he offered at the beginning of the episode. At the end of “Fool For Love” he’s struck dumb by Buffy’s grief, and his antagonistic posturing all evening melts away. He abandons his romantic vision of their erotic, life-and-death rivalry in favor of real, awkward emotional intimacy. In “Forever” he tries to anonymously leave flowers for Joyce, and reacts angrily when he’s denied—but this time not because he wanted something from Buffy. Simply because he wanted to do something meaningful.

This contradictory behavior comes to a head in “Intervention”, the episode in which Spike finally begins to understand the difference between real and transactional generosity. Up until that point, Spike has been reacting both selfishly and unselfishly, but he hasn’t been able to truly distinguish between them, which is why he keeps repeating the same mistakes. Although he touches something real at the end of “Fool For Love”, for instance, he goes on to rifle through Buffy’s intimates in the very next episode. And so “Intervention” has Spike go to extremes of fakeness and reality. He gives up on having the real Buffy, and seeks out an artificial substitute that lets him live out his cheesiest romance novel scripts. It’s important that the Buffybot isn’t just a sexbot, even if he does have sex with her. She’s a bot he plays out romantic scenarios with the way he played them with Harmony in “Crush”, allowing him to almost literally live within a fiction. But then he “gives up” on having Buffy in a way that’s actually real, by offering up his life. He lets himself be tortured, and potentially killed, for no other reason than that to do otherwise would cause Buffy pain. The focus is on her pain, not his. For the first time, he acts like the Knight he’s been trying to be all along. He performs a grand, heroic deed that causes the object of his affection to see him in a different light, and even grant him a kiss. Yet ironically, as part of learning the difference between real and fake, he ceases to press for Buffy’s reciprocation. Through the end of season five, Spike continues to act the selfless Knight, assisting Buffy in her heroism without asking for anything in return. Which culminates in his declaration that he knows Buffy “will never love him”, even after he’s promised her the deed of protecting Dawn, and even though she allows a kind of intimacy by letting him back in her house. He proves that he sees those gestures for what they are, rather than in a transactional light. The irony of the way Spike fulfills the narrative of chivalric romance, is that his ennobling involves letting aspects of that narrative go.

In a Courtly Love narrative, the object of the Knight’s affection is fundamentally pedestalized. The Knight himself might be flawed, but the woman he pines after is not. She is “divinely beautiful” and “unobtainable”, something above him and almost more than human. This is why it’s so comic that in Don Quixote, which was a direct satire of chivalric romance, Alonso Quixano’s “lady love” is a vulgar peasant farmgirl who has no idea who he is. (Think of the way Spike asks if Buffy is tough in “School Hard” or threatens to “take her apart” despite “how brilliant she is” in “The Initiative”, followed by scenes where Buffy is acting like the teenage girl she is. Or how Giles in “Checkpoint” says that Buffy has “acquired a remarkable focus” before cutting to Buffy yawning.). Although it’s true that Buffy is beautiful, and supernatural, and profoundly moral, she is also very human, and the writing is very concerned with that humanity. Season five in particular, as I’ve mentioned, is preoccupied with the duality of Buffy’s mythic and mortal nature. Thus it becomes significant that Buffy is assigned such a heightened role in Spike’s chivalric narrative. Just Spike is at once Lancelot and Don Quixote, Buffy is at once Achilles, Dulcinea, and a coming-of-age protagonist.

And part of the “lesson” of Spike’s arc is for him to see both sides of the roles they embody. One of my favorite things about the scene in Buffy’s house in “The Gift” is how adroitly it conveys the dualities of both Buffy and Spike with simple, but poetic imagery and language. Buffy stands above Spike on her steps, conveying her elevated role, and Spike honors the way her heroic status has inspired him by physically looking up to her as he explains that he expects nothing from her. But by expecting nothing from her, and promising to protect her sister, he also honors the fact that she is a real person with no obligation to him, and a younger sister she cares about more than anything. He also honors his own duality by at once making Knightly promises, and acknowledging that he sees through his former delusions: “I know that I’m a monster, but you treat me like a man.” In “Fool For Love” he tried to acknowledge the same duality of realism and romance, by declaring to Cecily that “I know I’m a bad poet, but I’m a good man.” But at the time, he was an innocent, whose desire to be seen, and whose romantic avoidance of “dark, ugly things”, left him unprepared to understand how Cecily really saw him (similar to Spike’s insistence in “Crush” that what he and Buffy have “isn’t pretty, but it’s real” just before Buffy locks him out). Spike is a character defined simultaneously by continuous disillusionment and dogged aspiration, which is why he makes perfect sense as a character to embody a season torn between the pain of being human, and the wonder of the gift of love.

Fittingly, the season ends with Spike’s most devastating loss of innocence of all. He fails to be the hero for Buffy or Dawn (note that Knightly language he uses on the tower: “I made a promise to a lady”), and he loses the woman he loves. He may have become more virtuous, but unlike in a chivalric romance, that virtue wins him neither Buffy, nor something flattering like “world reknown.” The climax of the “The Gift” is full of romance—a god, a troll hammer, a damsel on a tower, a heroic self-sacrifice, a vampire transformed into a Knight—but the end result is that Buffy is dead, in part because he wasn’t good enough, and all that he and the Scoobies can do is grieve. Stories got Spike nothing, even when reality finally lived up to them. It is a swan song to the myths of childhood, and on the other side of Glory’s portal, Spike and the other characters will have to confront a world where those myths have been left behind.

part 4: “But I can’t fool myself. Or Spike, for some reason.”: Buffy and Spike as a blended self

#romanticism series #s5 #gen #buffy #spike #this section is deliberately focused on spike's arc #but not to worry #the next one focuses on buffy's side of things and the role of spike's arc in supporting buffy's in the last three seasons #they just needed their own sections to breathe #btvs

193 notes · View notes

inky-duchess · 4 years

Text

Lessons Writers can learn from Hamilton

Guess who finally watched Hamilton? I love historical dramas and films and now historical musicals. I am a bigger nerd than before and I can't stop singing My Shot. So what can we learn about writing from Hamilton?

Aaron Burr, Sir

I really feel for Aaron Burr during the beginning of the story. Most of us have dealt with a similar issue: working hard yet somebody is always better than you. Even though Burr is technically the antagonist by story's end, most of the audience does get his point. But the problem with Burr, both by the audience's view and Hamilton's is the fact that he doesn't say what he believes in. La Fayette wants the fall of monarchy and better equality. Hamilton wants to make a place for himself in the world. Eliza wants her family to be happy. Burr tells Hamilton to keep his opinions to himself leading to Hamilton to ask, "Burr, the revolution's imminent. What do you stall for? If you stand for nothing, Burr, what'll you fall for?" Every character should have something they fight for. It endears them to the audience and allows us to stand behind them. Without goals and principles, a character will always just remain a name on a page and a collection of actions without meaning.

A different PoV- a different story.

During the Helpless section of the story, we witness the scene through Eliza Schuyler's eyes. We see her sister Angelica crossing the room to Alexander Hamilton to get him to dance with Eliza. Eliza sees Alexander as an honourable gallant, who has stolen her heart. Then in Satisfied, we see the scene from Angelica's PoV. Angelica is less naïve. She notes Hamilton's recognition of their last name, realizing that he's out to get a rich wife. She also realises that Hamilton will never be satisfied in life and that he's not a great catch socially or financially. "I asked about his fam'ly, did you see his answer? His hands started fidgeting, he looked askance He's penniless, he's flying by the seat of his pants". By showing this scene in dual PoV, we are awaken to both sides of Hamilton, the romantic version and the shrewd politician climbing his way up. By choosing a PoV character to tell a particular part of the story, you are moulding the events to the character's preconceived notions and opinions.

Foreshadowing

Hamilton does one thing exceptionally well. It foreshadows the ending very well. Hamilton repeatedly tells us that he isn't going to throw away his shot. We think it means his shot at rising up from poverty and his chance at notoriety in the Revolution. It starts becoming literal as Philip goes off to his first duel, with Hamilton almost begging Philip to fire his weapon away from his opponent. It doesn't do Philip any good. Later on during the duel against Burr, Hamilton intentionally misses his shot just as his son had only to die when his opponent discharged his weapon, killing him. Burr even called back to Philip's duel while describing Hamilton's affect before their own duel. You only begin to realise how profound the echo of My Shot is.

Alluding to a bigger picture

Hamilton may be a musical with no dialogue but that does not mean that there is no tell in the story. The actors do a great job of alluding to a deeper story behind the lyrics. During his last corporeal scene with Eliza, Hamilton's affect tells us that he at least very much suspects that he is not going to make it back this time. Lin Manuel Miranda's subtle expressions are just masterful. His mouth is saying one thing and his eyes are saying something completely else. In another brilliant Lin moment, the scene where Alexander blows up at Washington after the very first duel, you can see how angry Hamilton is. He is shaking despite his polite, yet curt replies. We don't even have to have the "Don't call me son" exchange. Lin's face tells us everything. Hamilton loves Washington like a father and resents him for rejecting his attempt to defend his name. We do not even have to be told, they showed us. There is always a deeper meaning to what a character does or says.

Your Protagonist is allowed do shitty things

A protagonist is not perfect. Most of the stories we read are narrated by people, who are by definition imperfect. If you look at any story the narrator/protagonist is usually a good person but has flaws or has done some questionable things. Hamilton is the good guy of the story, the protagonist, the hero. He's pro-Revolution, anti-slavery and has a troubled past. Even still Hamilton has an affair. It is not his best move or even the most savoury thing. There is no redeeming reason for him to cheat but even still, the audience either forgives him outright or takes it in their stride. Your protagonist does not have to be squeaky clean. They are allowed to make dumb decisions.

Remember History has its eyes on you

The one thing I often find missing in stories and worldbuilding is the media's/public's opinion on your characters or even the world around them. Hamilton hits the nail on the head. Your characters have no say on how they are perceived by their peers or the world around them. It is an interesting component to add in any narrative. What does the public say about your characters and world? "And when you're gone, who remembers your name? Who keeps your flame? Who tells your story? Who tells your story? Who tells your story?"

1K notes · View notes

faunusrights · 3 years

Text

what is going on with all the bias on robyn hill’s wiki page, anyway? - an aside

As someone who uses the RWBY wiki with some degree of frequency - often because I’m looking for art references, or Semblance and weapon names - I’m used to... some amount of bias in the articles for different characters? Like, let’s be real, it’s not a perfect wiki! Community-maintained stuff isn’t easy to all keep on the same track! But, generally, it gives the facts well enough and doesn’t do too bad a job keeping all the balls in the air when it comes to new information from all four corners of this franchise.

Well, until you open the article for Robyn Hill, and realise it’s an absolute disaster. Like, really; the impartial voice just plain doesn’t exist for her, and almost all of her wiki is written in such a way that she reads as being an absolutely insufferable, hostile, hard-to-like character. Even if you aren’t a fan of Robyn personally, you have to admit that if you hadn’t seen the show yourself, you might very well come away from her article presuming she’s a major antagonist of Volumes 7 and 8.

Like, for instance, let’s take a look at the first paragraph of her Personality section:

Robyn has a direct and confident personality, having no trouble being confrontational with Atlas personnel, including the Ace Operatives. Robyn also seems to suffer from overconfidence and arrogance, shown in her encounters with Ruby and celebrating her election victory before it was verified. She is aggressive and hostile in nature, quickly jumping to conflict without thinking through consequences. However, she is also shown to be reasonable when the situation calls for it.

And, for good measure, here’s another paragraph from the same section:

In "With Friends Like These" Robyn displayed a rather impulsive side of her personality, when upon hearing that James Ironwood's plan to abandon Mantle and arrest those against him, she started a fight between herself, Clover Ebi, and Qrow Branwen onboard a Manta with Tyrian Callows in custody. Despite the fact, there was no order or her arrest. Her brashness led to Tyrian breaking free and crashing the Manta as well as her becoming unconscious.

(Taken from Robyn’s RWBY Wiki page. Bolding is mine.)

In every instance here, all of the “negative” aspects of her personality take centre stage; she’s confrontational. She suffers from arrogance. She is aggressive and hostile. She started the fight. Her brashness led to the crash. All of this is only compounded when her positive traits trail behind as an afterthought; she’s direct and confrontational, overconfident and arrogant, aggressive and hostile, impulsive and jumps to conclusions... but hey! As least she’s reasonable when the situation calls for it.

The way that this information is presented to the reader is quite literally on par with how the wiki presents the personalities of the actual literal villains who appear throughout the show. Let’s take, for instance, the Personality section of Cinder Fall:

Cinder is ruthless and sadistic, as demonstrated when she delivers a killing blow to a clearly defeated Pyrrha Nikos in "End of the Beginning" and when she throws a spear at a defenseless Weiss Schnee in "The More the Merrier." She is relentlessly driven to gain power and determined to cross any line to obtain it. Cinder demonstrates a cunning that shows in her successful manipulation of events and people throughout the first three volumes. Cinder is also arrogant and egomaniacal, and as such, relishes in dominance and gloating, displaying shameless pleasure in the misery she has caused others.

Or, the Personality section of Raven Branwen:

Raven is cynical, patronizing, selfish and stubborn. She believed her act of "kindness" of saving Yang's life from Neopolitan was sufficient despite having left Yang at a very young age and refused to protect her daughter when in need after that.

Raven is also very prideful and hypocritical, refusing to acknowledge her faults and always trying to justify her actions both to others and to herself, often putting the blame on others for them even if she feels real guilt about them.

It makes sense that for an antagonist, the primary faults and flaws of their personalities will come first, as to better represent them as the villains to clarify to the reader who they are and why they act as they do in their storylines. However, the fact that Robyn arguably has an even more caustic write-up then Raven, despite not being an antagonist, goes to show the lengths this writer has gone to present her in a significantly more negative light than she ever appears in the show.

If this doesn’t seem convincing, let’s look at a more direct comparison; what does the wiki say about Ironwood? He’s present in the same seasons, and has now become more of an antagonist in the latter episodes; is the wiki quite as blunt about his flaws?

Ironwood is courteous to his allies, as shown by his first onscreen interaction with Ozpin and Glynda Goodwitch. He is also far-thinking and tactical, wondering about the future, as seen when he speaks to Ozpin about Qrow Branwen's message. He also has a jovial, friendly, humorous and proud public persona, which he uses as a spokesman for the weapon manufacturers of Atlas.

However, as courteous Ironwood may appear, he can also be incredibly blunt, often preferring the direct approach. When he feels necessary, Ironwood is not afraid to bring the full might of his military command to bear, which sparked disagreements with both Glynda and Ozpin. Nevertheless, Ironwood is extremely loyal to his comrades, and however questionable his methods may be, he seems to have genuinely good intentions behind them.

Uh, no.

Instead, when his flaws are mentioned (for example, being blunt), it’s written in a significantly less... abrasive manner. It’s referred to as the direct approach, versus Robyn who is described as confrontational. Even then, his flaws are folded in to his (alleged) positive traits; he is not afraid, extremely loyal, and has genuinely good intentions, despite the fact that the show has now proven that Ironwood’s flaws greatly outweigh these. It reveals how thoroughly all of Robyn’s actions are presented as the work of an arrogant troublemaker, whilst Ironwood’s actions are presented as the efforts of a man working towards some greater good.

Also, I’ll add that in both examples, I used the first two paragraphs of their Personality sections. These are both the first two things you read about these characters, yet look at how differently they’re summarised.

What is interesting, however, is that despite this bias being extremely self-evident, the comments on her page generally chime agreement, referring to her as “overconfident, arrogant, impulsive and hotheaded to the point of being unlikable”, and claiming that she’s “literally the worse character in the show next to cinder, blake and yang”[1]. Someone mentions that Robyn has earned quite the hatedom... but why?

Broadly, my experiences of Robyn Hill’s writing in the fandom has been through a queer lens, and the vast majority of writers who’ve covered her and the Happy Huntresses have been women, or queer, or trans, or all the above... basically, the people who are usually responsible for a vast majority of fanfiction, let’s be real. These writers love Robyn, and have explored and extrapolated on her character to marvellous degree. Yet, at no singular point have any of these flaws ever been written quite as strongly as the wiki implies they are, nor have I seen much evidence of them myself in the show. For instance, let’s take one of the more serious points in her Personality section; she started a fight between herself, Clover Ebi, and Qrow Branwen [...] her brashness led to Tyrian breaking free and crashing the Manta as well as her becoming unconscious.

When we watch this scene again, Robyn did initiate the fight... because she was rightfully aware that Clover would obey his orders, even if they were wrong. Despite everything that happened prior in the entirety of Volume 7, when given orders to bring Qrow in alongside RWBY, it was clear that Clover fully intended to follow it through, which Robyn knows from prior experience with the AceOps:

[image ID: two images of Clover, Robyn and Qrow in the dark-grey interior of the Manta ship. Robyn has her weapon aimed at Clover as he stands in front of Qrow. Clover is saying “Only Qrow is under arrest [...] please don’t make me arrest you too.”]

Her knowledge of the AceOps means that she reacted accordingly; trying to stop him from taking Qrow in and obeying Ironwood’s plan the only way she knows the AceOps respond to. Her reaction isn’t unwarranted. However, my point isn’t to argue that Robyn was right or wrong, but rather that regardless of who started the fight, the way the wiki explains this specific incident is that it’s solely Robyn’s fault that Tyrian escaped and crashed the Manta, but we know this isn’t the case. Robyn and Qrow both fought Clover, and it was Clover’s good luck (or Qrow’s bad luck, depending on how you view it) that allowed for Kingfisher to break Tyrian’s bonds. Her brashness is blamed for the outcome, but in reality, this outcome could have been avoided together if Clover had not chosen to follow his orders and bring in an innocent man. Also, she didn’t crash the Manta! That was all Tyrian! The intentional tying together of these two events as her fault, however, are a neat package of blame.

In these instances on the wiki, Robyn’s personality appears amplified, focusing specifically on her flaws and exaggerating them to the extremes that, as noted earlier, matches the language used to define the very villains of the series. Yet, the people who enjoy her and the Happy Huntresses often perceive those same flaws to a significantly lesser extent, or even see those flaws as actually being boons of her character; for instance, reading her alleged arrogance as passion. So, why such division?

Before, I mentioned her “negative” traits, and I put this into quote marks because traits don’t always align nicely into good and bad. All aspects of a person can vary on how positive they are based on context - even the show proves this, with protectiveness becoming paranoia (Ironwood) or loyalty becoming subservience (Winter). Even a character that is broadly composed of more unfavourable traits can have this contextual shift; Cinder’s stubbornness to her goals makes her a fast learner and a tenacious opponent.

Yet, why did the writer (or writers) choose to highlight almost every aspect of Robyn’s character as a bad thing? Why did they frame her decisions as such? I have a suspicion it’s to do with her character at large; she’s a bold socialist politician who believes in equality and fairness for all, who refuses to stand for incompetence and obedience towards evil causes. She’s outspoken in her views, and reacts strongly to those who threaten to overturn her work. Also, she’s a woman, in charge of a group of other women, at least one of whom is canonically trans. To those who agree with her in real life, Robyn appears as a great character! We admire her work ethic and we support her ends. To those who may not... well, it’s not hard to see how they might perceive her as more of a cocky, authority-defying upstart. Of course, the core text of RWBY doesn’t quite believe the latter; RWBY has always placed Robyn as the direct counter to authoritarianism, whether it be Jacques, Clover, or Ironwood, and even the article admits that she is a potent voice for the people of Mantle. Still, it’s clear that there’s plenty of people in a vocal minority who are deeply dissatisfied by Robyn, and aren’t afraid to make their stance on the matter exceedingly clear.

So, what does this all mean? Well, here’s what we can say for sure; Robyn’s article is, and has always been, stringently biased against her character, and often misconstrues her motives and decisions. This is maybe the more obvious part, but how should her article be worded to make this less so? Likely, I’d rephrase a lot of it to be less damaging to her character; she isn’t hostile, she holds people accountable. She isn’t quick to jump to conflict, she is familiar with how Atlas responds to anti-authority with violence. She isn’t arrogant, she believes in the power of the people as being the right thing to fight for. Even this makes it clearer that her character is about resisting the oppression inherent in Atlas, and is a much clearer outline of her personality as a whole. People may disagree with this phrasing and summary also, but given her character is based on Robin Hood, it’s also not far from the mark in terms of what she should represent.

TL;DR: Robyn’s wiki page is written with a deep bias against her character and what she represents, acts upon, and chooses to do in the show; I have no doubt that in canon, this sort of language would probably be used by Jacques himself as a smear campaign, haha. Whilst I can’t speak for the author and their motives, I have a distinct feeling that this article was written, or edited, by someone who is either:

not a fan of Robyn

not a fan of a new female character

not a fan of a new female character in a position of power

not a fan of a character with socialist/communist/antifa ideals

all of the above and then some???

Even though I’m not going to edit her wiki page (I’m very shy and I’ve never done it before), I think it’s worth analysing this if only as a reminder of the inherent biases of an author even when people are trying to present a character’s information impartially. This isn’t the first wiki I’ve seen misconstrue - or even make incorrect assumptions on - facts about a character, and it won’t be the last. In the meantime, though, I leave you with this fact:

Robyn Hill slaps huge nuts and I love her.

[1] I’m not naming the users who posted these things here, because it’s unnecessary. You can find them for yourself at the bottom of Robyn’s wiki, but there’s no need to respond; some people just don’t like Robyn, and that’s fine - I’m just explaining how bias leaks into wikis like water into a sponge. It happens!

#rwby #rwde #robyn hill #murphy's thoughts and vibes on this shit (again)#is this a new tag #i haven't really written this well and it was sort of off the cuff so sorry if there's mistake #*mistakes #LMAO #i just wanted to lay my Thoughts out #i swear if even one person msgs me like 'but robyn DOES suck' im banishing you to the Spray Cheese Hell Dimension #also im tagging as rwde but its not rwde against the show (FOR ONCE??) so

221 notes · View notes

dreamii-yume · 3 years

Note

Would it be possible to have a chapter dedicated to Vil creating a poison to temporarily immobilize the reader so he can use them as a doll and fuck them however he wants to and however much he wants to~? Bonus points if he goes the extra mile and even dresses them up and does their make up like a pretty doll... I just. Mm. Can't get Vil and dollification out of my mind and I LOVE your writing!

Oh, gosh...Here we go! I hope I don't disappoint! ᕦ(ò_óˇ)ᕤ but honestly, im not proud of this at all so...

♥︎ Warnings ♥︎

♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎

One kiss and they lived happily ever after just like that? Vil had always thought that something as half-assed as that is simpy unacceptable, just plain lazy writing in his opinion. If a romantic fairytale is what the world had wanted all this time, his love story with his Darling would’ve been better. Maybe then the world would know what it’s really like to live in a happy ending.

♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎

It all started with a sip.

One sip of a seemingly harmless tea was all it took to ruin your life.

Your balance was the first to be cut off, allowing you to stumble upon your own feet and knocking the most authentic utensils off the table. You once tried to hold yourself from falling completely but even your arms had given up on trying to work. You landed on the ground with a rough thud, your heart was beating so fast in your ribcage whilst your brain was desperately processing for a reasonable explanation. You were left in cold sweat, unable to move anything aside from a few twitches here and there, even turning your head was a challenge. With your bodily functions suddenly falling so useless like this, you naturally panicked as a batch of heavy breathing escaped you.

A feeling of dread went up your spine, a poisoned tea was not the first thing that came into your mind during all of this, it didn't taste any different than the usual, and the aroma was as inviting as ever.

It was only when you heard the haunting clicks of someone's heel heading towards you that you noticed something very strange. His slender legs blocked your vision and you almost strained your neck just by glancing up at him, sweat dripping down your forehead from the tenacious effort. "V-Vil-san..." You called out his name, your friend's name. God, even your throat is uncooperative with your commands, merely speaking feels as if a thousand needles were all simultaneously poking your vocal cords open.

But really, you still find it very strange, especially now that he's looking down upon you so apathetically like this. Despite the fact that your body is clearly suffering from something that you have yet to find out, Vil seems to be awfully calm about all of this. "H...Help, please...!" But even with that suspicious trait, you still called out for him, who else could you turn to at this desperate moment? He was really the only one capable of doing so as of now.

Surprisingly, he did reach for your aching hands, clasping his smooth ones over yours as delicately as possible. "Are you familiar with the tale of the Princess who danced with Death upon eating a Poisoned Apple?" You couldn't help but be lost at what Vil had suddenly asked of you. He pulled your body up from the ground, until you were in his arms, embracing you by the waist since your legs have been practically rendered useless. "...But because of a Prince who fell in Love with her at First Sight, she was saved."

Vil sat you back down on the chair that you once resided in just a few minutes ago, watching as your body slumped down without any support. He placed your hands properly on the armchair, so that it doesn't limp on your sides. "How? You might ask. By a True Love's Kiss, of course." He said with what looks like to be a smile from your angle, you couldn't move your head to adjust your view of him anymore so you had to make use of what you can see for now. "What do you think of it? It's the perfect romantic story to tell the children, isn't it?"

Vil tucked a stubborn strand of hair behind your ear before holding your head up by the chin. There, your twitching eyes finally had a good look at his handsome features, looking down upon you with an unfamiliar emotion swirling in his eyes. "...But I always hated that ridiculous story." He confessed with a sigh, you could only stare up at him with widened eyes, wondering where he's trying to get at. "The Princess was just a naive little girl and the Prince was stupid enough as it is. Even as a child, my opinions never changed about it."

Then, you saw his other hand reaching for the unfinished tea you were drinking earlier from your peripheral vision, a spark of distress had suddenly come down upon you. With widened eyes, you glanced at Vil in hopes of finding out what he was going to do but you were met with nothing but a disturbing smile on his lips. "But doesn't it resemble you a bit?" He suddenly said, finally shifting his attention to you.

"Eh...?" You breath out, lips quavering as your body twitched in response. "What do you-"

"A naive child who writhes on the hands of the friend she thought she had upon drinking a cup of tea that she didn't know was tampered with." You widened your eyes as everything just slowly clicked by that single, meaningful sentence. Then, you gasped as Vil placed the rim of the teacup on top of your lips, the mesmerizing swirling liquid of the tea now looked so deadly when you took in consideration on its true purpose. "Similar, yes...Except for the fact that you don't have a Charming Prince that will come and save you."

"You only have me." His haunting words was left echoing in your mind as he opened your mouth and forced down the remaining liquid inside.

"M-Mmgh...! Aa...!" Gurgled sounds came out of you as warm tea flows down your throat, almost choking you in the process. Vil's hands was firmly locked onto your jaw, not allowing you to close them until he made sure that you have swallowed the drink until its very last drop. His nails were digging onto your cheeks, causing tears to escape your eyes whilst your lips quaver, a line of liquid escaping in the sides of your mouth had already dripped down and stained your cloth.

With a final gulp, Vil finally released you from his grasp, allowing your weak body to fall limp on the chair. The beautiful antagonist before you had crouched down to your eye level, carefully wiping your mouth with a clean handkerchief. "...If you think about it that way, doesn't your version of the story sound better?" He asked, but it was clear that he wasn't expecting any answers from you at all, not that you have any at the moment. "It's much more realistic and we can sweat about the tiniest little details."

Vil grabbed your body once again, resting your head on his shoulder before taking a hold of your legs. He neatly picked you in a bridal manner, gracefully turning around to transport you in a place that you can't quite see. "Come now, my Little Doll. Let's get you all dressed up." He said with a satisfied smile decorating his handsome face, as if he wasn't holding your shivering body against his arms. "After that, we'll talk and we'll play. Let's create a beautiful story for ourselves, much better than the ones out there."

"I wonder what kind of happy ending we'll get." With his heels resounding against the empty hallways of the elegant Pomefiore Dorm, Vil lovingly nuzzled against your cold cheeks, ignoring how your skin practically shies away from his touch, creating goosebumps as protection. He then stared dreamily at nothing, as if he was getting his creative side of brain to work. "But let's start from the beginning..."

"Hm...Let's see..."

♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎♥︎

Continue the Spice~?

Don't mind me, I'm just waiting for the day that the rest of chapter five comes up with Vil's official backstory and COMPLETELY debunks everything that I said in here ha h a

can i just mention how much i love writing for Vil? Yeah, that's it. Thank you for coming to Yume's ted talk-

#yandere twisted wonderland #twisted wonderland #vil schoenheit #yandere vil schoenheit #yandere #pomefiore #sinfic #spicy dream

244 notes · View notes

anzcty · 3 years

Text

Analysing Episode 6 Sylvie - her actions, her choice and a whole bunch of theories (Spoilers!)

After watching the Loki finale, I have been scrolling through Tumblr for quite a long time. I already knew that people's opinions were gonna be incredibly different but I definitely did not expect this much negative backlash. Especially when it comes to two specific topics - the Sylvie and Loki kiss and Sylvie's betrayal (/choice/actions). I'm gonna be talking about the latter, for it is another time I'll talk a lot about Sylki's relationship. (Beware that this post is also really long though)

First of all, everyone has different opinions and I respect that. I absolutely adore movies, books, TV-shows and videogames because despite what's happening within the story, each viewer has the opportunity to see something else in what they are shown (besides the obvious canon). What I mean is that everyone interprets certain scenes differently and gains the opportunity to make up theories. Therefore I want to clarify that I do, by no means, want to force my views upon others. It's nice to see people talk about the Loki Series (as long as it doesn't get too negative and hateful, iykwim) because every viewer can share their specific experiences with it :)

I'm gonna analyse Sylvie's character a bit ( because, well, I'm bored and I kinda wanna protect my beloved character that I've only had for a few weeks >:^0 AND the only thing I could think about the past day was this episode) and try to explain her actions in the finale (keep in mind: not justifying them, but explaining them).

I'm terribly bad at concentrating on one single topic point so I kinda made a 'list' with questions and whatnot that I wanted to dive deeper into. Your thoughts are also more than welcome!

I already want to apologise for grammatical mistakes, for I am not a native english speaker.

Sylvie's reason for being taken away by the TVA is still kinda unknown

You know, I've heard quite a few theories about Sylvie's nexus event by now. Some people say that she got taken away because she was playing with her toys in a way that indicates her having a good heart (playing as a Valkyrie and wanting to save someone, another hint may also be the reaction she showed towards someone else who got kidnapped by the TVA, yelling at the soldiers to "help them out"). Another theory is that she already knew she was adopted, unlike Loki who found out way later than her. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but we never got to hear the actual reason why Sylvie got kidnapped. Even Renslayer didn't say a word about it.

Now I'm gonna come up with yet another theory. What if Sylvie didn't really have a nexus event in the first place how we know it? In the final episode, Kang has said that he has planned out everything beforehand so both Loki and Sylvie would end up right in front of him. Did Kang's plan also possibly involve him getting killed by Sylvie? Hear me out: We don't actually know if the Kang we saw in episode 6 is the actual 'nice' Kang and not one of his evil variants. He has already talked about 'reincarnation', so who says that after ending the first universial war, Kang didn't reincarnate into someone with an unpure heart (aka, one of his evil variants)? That'd mean that the real Kang would have been killed and the Kang we've seen in the finale is actually an evil version that simply lied to both Loki and Sylvie. Besides that, we also don't know if Kang actually had that 'point' where he didn't know what would happen next. The show revolves a whole lot around trust, not only regarding the characters, but also the viewers. Who's to say that Kang said the truth? Maybe he planned it all out: He created the TVA, let Sylvie get kidnapped and therefore give her a reason to hunt after Kang, who in return could reincarnate if he got killed OR get killed and therefore give his other variants a possibility to conquer the universes yet again. Don't you think that it was kinda suspicious that Sylvie escaped so easily out of Renslayer's hands? The one person who's probably closest to Kang? (Even though, yes, she doesn't know who he is but Renslayer seems to play a very important role in his plan). What if the Kang we saw was the nice Kang though? Would he plan everything up to a point where another universial war would break out because he might know that there is indeed something/someone out there who could end it and therefore, possibly end Kang as a whole or create a new kind of system revolving around the universe? And therefore, get rid of the possibility of another universial war happening? Who knows. I am definitely overthinking and reaching at this point. One more thing that stood out to me while thinking about the episode again today (which kinda weighs more into my theory of Sylvie being a keypoint (or rather a puppet) in this plan): Kang has talked about his Tempad and that he knew that he would need it to have enough energy. But for what? Yes, his initial idea was to give it to Loki and Sylvie to rule over the TVA, but what if it was supposed to be used for another reason? Sylvie used it to transport Loki back to the TVA (though I kinda think he was accidentally transported to another timeline, hence the reactions of both Mobius and Hunter B-15) and therefore get rid of the only thing that could prevent Sylvie from killing Kang. The Tempad was used to secure Sylvie's path and therefore eradicated Kang's only option of safety. You can see the Tempad loosing it's glow after Kang was killed, possibly due to Kang himself being the origin of it's energy. But maybe, it only had enough energy for one specific action: getting rid of Kang's protection. I do think that Sylvie is now stuck at this place and somehow has to find a way back to Loki's reality. The Tempad clearly doesn't work anymore (at least in my opinion) and there was quite a long shot showing the Tempad up close, which is kinda suspicious tbh. Also, something regarding Sylvie's unanswered nexus event feels kinda odd to me, too.

My theory in conclusion: Sylvie (and Loki) are unconciously helping Kang with his plan (a big, big, BIG plan). They're his puppets, especially Sylvie, because she's the one who created the Multiverse to begin with. Think about Loki, who was said to be manipulated by Thanos in Avengers? It's basically the same train of thoughts.

Sylvie does not take Kang's offer into consideration

To be honest, this was something to be absolutely expected of her. Sylvie was kidnapped as a child, taken away from her home and family, and had to grow up in countless apocalypses where she could never form a real bond with anybody because she knew that those people were all going to die anyway. (Please don't judge me if I got that wrong, maybe I understood the next thing wrong? Idk, if so, I'm very sorry) She revealed that she was kidnapped way before Loki was even born (something I have to think about, too, because, if Loki is the actual Loki the other variants are based off, why did he exist after Sylvie? Wouldn't that make him a variant of Sylvie instead? Idk timelines and parallel universes are hard to understand for me :') I'm kinda stoopid ), therefore she must've had spent several decades of her life running away. She had no life at all. Her only goal was to bring down the TVA and whoever is behind it, driven by pure rage, seeking out revenge for stealing her life and basically forbidding her existence. And now that she has found said person, the only thing that'd be right for her character would be to go for the kill. As immoral as it may sound, it is the only thing that makes sense. And I am actually very happy that Sylvie's goals didn't change besides the fact that she did indeed soften up a little and has gotten someone really close to her. In contrary, it makes sense for Loki to do the exact opposite. His goals have changed. He does not act the way he did in Thor or Avengers anymore. He has found another goal for himself: to make Sylvie feel alright. He has had immense character growth and didn't take a chance to change his goals back in the Thor movies or in Avengers, (....maybe later in Thor: Ragnarok, kinda). This is exactly what I think might happen to Sylvie, too. She is at the beginning of her character arc. She doesn't take the chance to change her goal, but goes for her original goal instead. Said goal does not really have positive consequences (though, maybe it might have some? We're about to find out), which results in a so called 'negative character development', which Loki has already gone through. I think that Sylvie is gonna grow as a character in season 2 and get a positive character development in addition, just like Loki did. I highly doubt that she's gonna become the antagonist, it does not make sense at this point.

Why does she not take Kang's offer (besides her very obvious intention ofc)? That leads straight (or not so straight, pun intended) to the next thing I wanna talk about. Sylvie's distrust in everything and everyone. Besides not wanting to let other people go through what she has been gone through and wanting to let people have a free will, she also does not trust Kang with his offer of 'ruling' the timeline. And it might be because she also does not trust the one she'd be ruling with: Loki.

Why does Sylvie not trust Loki?

I don't even have a specific answer to that, except that Sylvie has an incredibly thick wall built up around her. Loki has always been portrayed as the one you should not trust because he's known for backstabbing people. Loki could have thought the same about Sylvie, but he didn't. Due to his character arc, he himself has learned to trust other people and tries to redeem himself with making himself a person others can trust (He may project that onto Sylvie, meaning that he puts his trust into a Loki variant and therefore in himself, too). You can connect that fact with both Sylvie and Mobius. They're both people who are incredibly important to Loki. He wants them to trust him. He openly told Sylvie about his mistakes and tells her that he's not that person anymore. Sylvie on the other hand does not trust that easily and is - in my opinion - a very important key regarding Loki's character development. It is incredibly hard for Sylvie to trust others (probably due to her trauma) and it therefore creates a very difficult situation for Loki, where he has to 'prove' himself as trustworthy. It's basically about 'trusting yourself' if you put it that way. It's something Loki has to learn about himself: not betraying the trust of others. Sylvie might have to learn something like this, too: learning to trust someone else. It's kinda like a two sided coin - one side is about putting trust in others, whereas the other is about gaining trust from others (and what you do with it). (Good) Relationships in general are always based off trust and honesty. So in order for them to be able to have healthy relationships with others and themselves, they have to learn about trust within themselves (I hope you understand my point, I got carried away, sorry). Loki started to trust Sylvie very easily (maybe because of love? Maybe because of something else? There are still a lot of unanswered questions) whereas Sylvie doesn't trust Loki very easily. Sylvie's character arc might (hopefully) carry on with this topic in the next season.

Was that kiss initiated due to emotional or practical reasons?

Kinda both, somehow. I do think that Sylvie used the kiss to her advantage but you can also clearly see how moved she is while hearing Loki's words. Facial expressions are insanely important when it comes to acting and both Tom and Sophia delivered perfectly. You might've already heard of the quote "The eyes tell more than words could ever say". Look at Sylvie's face when Loki tells her that he wants her to be okay. She is teary eyed, sighs even. She is indeed touched by his words and I strongly think that Sylvie also has non-platonic feelings for Loki, despite barely showing anything.

Here's a snippet out of an interview with Sophia:

(Source)

Both Sylvie and Loki are said to be people who can not trust others. They both have a vulnerable side though. Loki clearly showed that several times when with Sylvie (singing to her, the blanket scene, the comfort scene in the room of the timekeepers, the confession of wanting her to be okay) and is also shown incredibly vulnerable at the end of episode 6: there are several shots showing him, crying. Sure, we have already seen Loki cry a few times beforehand but this time, it's different. He cries because the one person he is the most vulnerable with doesn't trust him, and that does hurt like hell. By the way, if you look at the close-up shot of Sylvie after she yeeted Loki back into the TVA, you can see pain in her eyes, too. But that pain quickly shifts into rage and determination. Something that I have to admit was incredibly well executed by Sophia and the people who directed this shot. Sylvie does show her vulnerable side for a brief moment before putting up her walls again and reaching for her goal.

In conclusion: I think Sylvie initiated the kiss as an emotional response to Loki's words but also used it to distract him to be able to kick him back into the TVA at the same time. Keep in mind that it was because he was in her way of fullfilling her goal. She didn't want to kill or hurt him, so she sent him away instead. So, yes, I think the kiss had both emotional and practical intentions.

Did Sylvie betray Loki?

Even though it really felt like she betrayed him, she didn't. Let me tell you why:

Loki knew exactly what Sylvie was gonna do after reaching the person behind the TVA. Loki supported her all the way up until Kang suggested a deal to them, that's where Loki's and Sylvie's paths divided. Loki is a very smart character, he outsmarts a lot of Marvel characters and therefore I think it's very in character for him to consider one part of the deal and outweigh the pros and cons. Not because he wants the throne, no, but because he wants Sylvie to be okay. A universial war could lead to countless casualties - possibly those people close around him, so of course he would want to keep her safe through that decision. Making them both rulers over the TVA and the sacred timeline would probably guarantee a strong protection from several threats. Also, maybe he thought about the possibility of Sylvie regretting her decision (which she clearly did in the end) and wanted to protect her from even more emotional pain. But as we know, Sylvie's intention has always been laid out in front of her and it didn't change. Loki knew what choice she was going to make and merely tried to change her way - without being successfull.

I don't really know what to think about this scene though. To me, it doesn't meet the requirements of a 'betrayal' but at the same time it does feel like one. It's very difficult to explain :'D

Also, I've seen some people asking themselves how or if Loki will ever be able to forgive Sylvie for making her decision. Let me assure you one thing: he will forgive her. He has said it himself: "I know what you're feeling, I know what you're going through". He has been at Sylvie's point, too. Not only once, but several times already. He seems to have learned from his mistakes, Sylvie has yet to do so. ("I betrayed everyone I've ever loved" is a line to keep in mind now, too. Maybe it could even be projected onto Sylvie this time, because Loki is indeed very dear to her) If there's someone out there who can empathise with Sylvie the most, it is Loki.

Why would Sylvie straight up cause another Universial War?

As I already said. Sylvie's arc is a negative character arc. It does not end well and causes a lot of chaos. Think about Peter Quill in Infinity War and his rage moment on Titan. They could have had the infinity gauntlet way before but Peter got emotional (understandable) and therefore destroyed the chance of an early good ending. The same happened with Sylvie. Her decision was mostly emotional, but also practical on the other hand (giving people free will and freedom). She will face the consequences and I'm pretty sure she's gonna redeem herself and tries to help fix the big mess she has caused.

Sylvie's breakdown

Another scene that was absolutely brilliant was the scene after Sylvie has killed Kang. She backs off slowly and then slumps to the ground, breathing heavily (now that I think about it, I think she even started to cry). She has waited for this moment her whole life, but now that it's done, it kinda feels like she didn't exactly get what she needed. Hunter B-15 has already mentioned it before that Sylvie needs to hunt the person behind the TVA down, unlike Renslayer, who only wants to find out who it really is. Although Sylvie might have recognized that this wasn't everything she needed at this point. We already got to know that she didn't have a clue what to do after she's done with the TVA. She didn't have a goal beyond that. And now that she has reached the point where she is clueless, she might have recognized what she really needed beyond finishing her goal: friends, a life, literally anything that doesn't make her feel alone. And she literally just kicked that one thing away from her. Loki, the one person who has been closest to her and gave her the feeling of not being alone anymore, the feeling of having a friend (or someone more than a friend), has been pushed away by herself. I think that in this exact moment where she sinks to the ground she recognizes that not trusting Loki was a mistake this time and that revenge isn't enough to satisfy her forever.

But maybe that one thing that will satisfy her for a long time is something she's returning back to in season 2. I am so excited to see her again and find out more about Sylvie's character!

Thank you so much for reading this! If you want to add something to this list or correct something or anything, feel free to do so. I'd love to hear your thoughts on Sylvie's character in the finale and what you think might happen with her in season 2 :) see y'all, stay safe and have a nice day/night!

#sylvie laufeydottir #loki series #sylki

31 notes · View notes

route22ny · 3 years

Photo

The split-screen reality of the Trump era became all too real for Stephen Richer recently, and in a very literal way. On May 15, the Arizona election official — a Republican — was looking at two computer screens. On one was former President Trump’s claim that a key election database had been deleted, an “unbelievable election crime.” On the other screen was that very database, quite intact.

“Wow,” Richer tweeted. “This is unhinged. I’m literally looking at our voter registration database on my other screen. Right now.”

A couple of days later, he made his dismay even more explicit.

“What can we do here?” he asked in an interview with CNN. “This is tantamount to saying that the pencil sitting on my desk in front of me doesn’t exist.”

When Richer unseated a Democratic incumbent to become Maricopa County’s recorder in November, he thought he had won the most boring job in politics: maintaining the county’s voter files. But he had not reckoned on Trump, #StopTheSteal, and the most massive, audacious and successful propaganda campaign in modern American history — a campaign that has adapted Russian-style disinformation to U.S. politics with alarming success.

Fortunately, Richer and his local Republican colleagues have refused to be victimized. Instead, they have shown how to fight back.

Information warfare takes many forms, but it has an overarching goal: to divide, demoralize and disorient a political foe by manipulating the social and media environments. As Yuri Bezmenov, a Soviet intelligence defector, explained in a chilling 1983 interview, “What it basically means is to change the perception of reality of every American to such an extent that despite the abundance of information, no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interests of defending themselves, their family, their community and their country.”

One potent weapon of mass distraction is the “fire hose of falsehood,” a torrent of lies that aims not so much to persuade as to confuse and disorient. After Russian intelligence services got caught poisoning a defector and his daughter in the U.K. in 2018, the Russian government responded with a blizzard of mutually contradictory lies: Britain did it, Ukraine did it, a jealous lover did it, it was a suicide attempt and so on.

Another standard technique: conspiracy bootstrapping. First you spread a rumor. Then you demand an investigation. Failure to investigate just confirms the conspiracy, but so does an investigation with a negative finding. It’s a trap: either ignoring or debunking the conspiracy theory propagates it.

Those techniques are not new. Intelligence services and propaganda experts understand them well, and master propagandists like Josef Goebbels and Vladimir Putin have used them to powerful effect. What no one imagined was that they could be deployed by an American president and his party — and not against a foreign antagonist, but against the American public.

Pundits often say that, whatever his authoritarian tendencies, Trump is too inept and inattentive to have done much lasting damage to democracy. They are wrong: In the realm of information warfare, Trump is a genius-level innovator. It was he who figured out how to adapt Russia-style disinformation to the U.S. political environment, no mean accomplishment.

His use of the fire hose of falsehood was masterly. In his 2016 campaign, according to PolitiFact, 70% of his checkable claims were false or mostly false, a flood of untruths whose like had never been seen in a presidential campaign. He began his presidency by lying about the weather at his inauguration and also lying about the size of the crowd. By the time his presidency was over, Washington Post fact-checkers had clocked him at more than 30,000 confirmed falsehoods, with nearly half coming in his final year.

Similarly, he was a master of conspiracy bootstrapping. He retailed conspiracy theories and falsehoods on the grounds that a lot of people were saying them, although of course he was the sayer-in-chief. Truth and common decency need not apply; when a prominent cable news host criticized him, Trump peddled an absurd (and deeply cruel) lie that the host was suspected of murder.

The black arts of disinformation had the intended effect, at least from Trump’s point of view. They exacerbated the country’s divisions, commandeered the country’s attention, dominated his opponents, disoriented the media and helped him establish a cult of personality among followers who trusted no one else.

Still, he saved the worst for last. His pièce de résistance was the propaganda attack on the 2020 election. Beginning months before the election, he launched a drumbeat of unfounded attacks on mail-in voting. Pundits were puzzled. Many Republicans vote by mail, and the pandemic was especially dangerous to older voters who lean toward Trump; why discourage them from voting safely and conveniently?

But Trump was aiming for the post-election. He saw he was in electoral trouble. With the anti-mail campaign, he was organizing, priming, and testing an unprecedented propaganda network, ready for use if he lost.

And then came #StopTheSteal itself, a disinformation campaign whose likes the country had never witnessed. It mobilized the White House, Republican politicians, social media, conservative cable news and talk radio, frivolous litigation, and every other available channel to broadcast the message that the election was rigged. The Big Lie, as it was aptly named, failed to keep Trump in office, but it succeeded at its secondary goal: turning the Republican Party itself into a propaganda organ.

In April, only a fourth of Republicans believed Joe Biden was legitimately elected, and GOP politicians who insisted on truth were persona non grata.

With that as background, we can see more clearly what is going on right now in Maricopa County, Arizona’s largest. In 2020, Biden carried Maricopa by more than 45,000 votes, and with it the state. The result was certified by the Republican governor, double-checked twice by the county’s election officials, and then confirmed by two independent audits.

But in classic bootstrapping fashion, Trump and state Republican leaders seized on conspiracy theories, such as that phony ballots had been smuggled in from Asia, to launch an unnecessary recount conducted by an unqualified company whose boss had promoted uncorroborated charges of election fraud. In textbook fashion, the controversial recount drove yet more public attention to the conspiracy theories, engendering yet more suspicion and spawning me-too demands for partisan “audits” across the country.

The Arizona shenanigans will not change the outcome of the 2020 election, but that is not the point. A great propaganda campaign is cyclonic and self-propelled: once unleashed, it takes on a life of its own, heedless of any underlying reality. By that yardstick, the Arizona recount is a great propaganda campaign.

Americans have never been exposed to Russian-style disinformation tactics, at least not coming from a major political party and deployed on a national scale. We are thus dangerously vulnerable to them. What can we do? There are no quick or simple answers; developing immunity requires everything from more sophisticated journalism and better-designed social media platforms to teaching media literacy, and much more.

But here is where to start: Do what Stephen Richer did. Insist loudly, unwaveringly and bravely on calling out lies, even at the cost of partisan solidarity.

Once it became clear that the #StopTheSteal campaign was escalating instead of dying out, Richer went public with a no-holds-barred denunciation of what Trump and his enablers were up to. “Just stop indulging this,” he told CNN. “Stop giving space for lies.”

At his side were all five of the Maricopa County supervisors — four of whom are Republicans. Calling the recount a sham, a con, and a “spectacle that is harming all of us,” they declared they “stand united together to defend the Constitution and the republic in our opposition to the Big Lie. We ask everyone to join us in standing for truth.” They also wrote a blistering 14-page letter shredding the alt-audit in detail.

Propaganda attacks succeed when critical points of resistance collapse; they stumble when trusted voices expose lies for what they are. Individuals and small groups may not be able to shut down a propaganda campaign or neutralize all its effects, but they can strip away its facade of legitimacy and act as an anchor against runaway fabulism. That was why the Soviet Union struggled so mightily to silence Andrei Sakharov and other dissident voices, and why those voices ultimately brought down the evil empire.

And it is why Rep. Liz Cheney made a difference when she chose truthfulness over her job in the Republican congressional leadership. The day she was booted, she read her colleagues John 8:32: “You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.” She could not end #StopTheSteal, but she could, and did, dent its credibility and embarrass Republicans whose equivocation and silence abetted the Big Lie.

In the same way, Richer and his colleagues in Arizona laid down a marker. They risked their political standing and even their personal safety (Richer has needed security protection) to expose their own party’s propaganda and shame those who spread it.

The deployment of Russian-style information warfare has allowed Trump and his authoritarian cult to usurp the Republican Party. And they are not finished. Now that they have succeeded with mass disinformation, it will be a fixture of American politics for years to come.

Countermeasures begin, though do not end, with personal integrity: standing up for facts and staying reality-based, whatever the short-term political costs. Think of it as epistemic patriotism, and pray for more of it, especially from Republicans.

***

The author, Jonathan Rauch, is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, and the author of “The Constitution of Knowledge: A Defense of Truth.”

https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-arizona-dreaming-20210522-uyd6ivuv75hd5gof2geyd5adtu-story.html

#weaponized disinformation #US politics #information warfare #trump coup #fascism in america #orwellian #jonathan rauch

36 notes · View notes

natsubeatsrock · 3 years

Text

The Rewrite of Fairy Tail: Part 28 (Laxus)

Did Laxus truly love Fairy Tail?

Yes.

Do you not believe me? You think that I'm missing or overlooking stuff? What about him refusing to help with Phantom Lord? What about the whole Fantasia debacle?

Fine. I can do this. It's not like I plan to change Laxus. I might as well knock this one out. Craftsdwarf brought this up, so it's absolutely an argument in the ether.

Consider this both my grand return to this series AND the start of another Fairy Tail month!

Usually, I talk about characters in terms of three sections of their life. It's not as if I can't do that with Laxus. His arc fits neatly into as a member, not a member, and reinstation. However, I feel it's better to start by talking about two important moments regarding Laxus before he casts Fairy Law.

The first happens not long after we're introduced to him. Natsu and Lucy take the mission for Galuna Island, and Makarov wishes that someone will get them. Laxus is against it, and his reasoning is interesting. He believes that they're Fairy Tail wizards and should be able to take it.

Now, this isn't logic we haven't seen before. When Macao was stuck on Mt. Hakokbe, Makarov said a similar thing to Romeo. Though, it could be argued that Makarov was trying to, in his own way, get Romeo to calm down over a grown wizard's ability without trying to shame him. This was about two kids and a flying cat, one of which was a new member, taking an S-Class mission. The Strauss kids serve as reason enough to be worried about this. Mira is understandably angry about Laxus’ attitude.

At the same time, it's worth recognizing how Laxus views the situation. He doesn't believe that it's his job to stop members of the guild from doing stuff they should know better. This means extra considering Natsu's the one to do it. And, while he does acknowledge they might get kicked out over it, he believes that they should take care of it themselves. If they can't, they shouldn't be part of the guild. Laxus thinks that the guild should only have capable members in it.

The second moment is one that I'm not sure gets the notice it deserves. At the beginning of the Fantasia arc, Laxus stops by a bar and overhears people making fun of Fairy Tail as a guild. He doesn't take this lightly and beats him up. This happens before he attacks Gajeel (even the same chapter). While that moment obviously is famous for its own reasons, this moment also represents the lens Laxus sees the guild through.

I believe the best foil for Laxus' view of the guild is Erza. Her focus is on the value of individual members. No matter how prestigious the guild is, what matters is the connections between individuals. His focus is on the value of the collective. No matter what kind of person they are, what matters is that they don't make a mockery of the guild.

"But what about That Woman, Erza? Doesn't Erza get mad at Bisca for impersonating a Fairy Tail member?"

Even in that case, it was about being an imposter to the Fairy Tail guild, as opposed to ruining its credibility as a guild. She even extends an offer for her to formally join the guild. Laxus wouldn't extend a similar offer to the people mocking Fairy Tail. Gajeel made a mockery of the guild and he wailed on him the instant he saw him. This despite (if not because of) the fact was a guild member, at that moment.

This brings us to the big moment. Laxus casts Fairy Law to no effect. We all know how the spell works. (It only attacks the enemies of the caster.) Laxus has been setting himself as against the guild. He is outright the antagonist of the arc. He's casting as he's fighting Natsu and Gajeel. At the very least, they should be wiped out, if not his intended target (the entire guild).

But it ultimately fails.

I know a lot of people don't like this. How does Laxus love the guild when he's been a jerk to the members in it?

The thing is that Laxus doesn't love individuals in the guild, outside of the Thunder God Tribe. He loves the guild as a collective. In his mind, the two are separable - you could have Fairy Tail without the members he sees as weak. This moment proves to him that this isn't the case. The collective and the individual matter in Fairy Tail. Take that attitude to some other guild. (Shooting Starlight and pre-GMG Sabertooth come to mind.)

After everything that happens, he's kicked out of the guild. Normally, that would be the end of a character's time in a series. He misunderstood what the guild is about and serves as a reminder of what the guild stands for. After all, his dad Ivan has a similar purpose - even to the point of leading a guild that stands in direct opposition to Fairy Tail.

But this is Fairy Tail, after all. Villains rarely stay villains.

And Laxus' turn starts almost the instant he's out of the guild. The guild flashes their symbol as Laxus leaves. This brings back memories of his time with Makarov - the person he cares the most about in the guild. (Sorry Freed.) This is when I feel it starts to click for him that the guild is made up of individuals as opposed to a guild with individual members.

When he returns to the series on Tenrou Island, you can see the change in his views. He doesn't see Hades as an enemy for him to defeat. Fairy Tail ought to be the one to defeat him. You could argue it's splitting hairs for him to act this way. However, it's important to note that he's deciding to put the group's interest above his own. The focus of Fairy Tail's enemy matters more than settling a score with him over Makarov.

And after this, his expectation isn't to join the guild again. He knows he messed up in hurting the guild and he's not expecting to come back. Even during the Key to the Starry Sky arc, he doesn't expect to be reinstated as a member. It comes to him as a shock that Gildarts reinstates him as a member.

Once he was in the guild again, he came to care about the guild - the collective and the people in it. He fights all of Raven Tail after they antagonized members of the guild. He fights Torafuzar (twice in the anime) because of the threat he poses to the guild. He protects the members from Ajeel and fights Wahl after he hurt the Thunder God Tribe.

The thing is that Laxus' heart for the guild didn't start at this moment. He cared about the Thunder God Tribe. He clearly has respect for Mystogan and Gildarts. What happened is that he came to want to protect the guild's members, not just its reputation. I don't plan on touching this at all. I barely plan to do anything with Laxus that didn't happen in any version of the series. He might be all better for it.

#the rewrite of fairy tail #part 28 #laxus dreyar #yes i'm back after 7 months #life was busy #as for ft month...#fairy tail month: seven of these?#you know how this month goes by now

23 notes · View notes