#he needs Standard Character Arc and he must be A Hero | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

sage-nebula · 6 months

Text

Personally, I love that Whisper is a little messy.

I love that she is—for a Sonic character, at least—complicated. Overall, she's a good person. She wants to help and protect others. She's compassionate, and brave. She accepts others for who they are even when it might be inconvenient. (Ian Flynn clarified on a Bumblekast that when Whisper replied "I don't" to Lanolin when Lanolin asked her how she handled Tangle in the Urban Warfare arc, what Whisper meant was that Tangle is her own person and Whisper doesn't try to control her one way or the other. It wasn't her being angry.) She's usually patient and owns up when she makes mistakes. She's smart and capable, but still humble. She's determined and diligent and loyal.

But she is also traumatized, and while some of that trauma comes through in Socially Acceptable™️ ways of being sad and soft-spoken, it also comes through in less Socially Acceptable™️ ways. She self-isolates to the point where it damages her inter-personal relationships, sometimes on purpose. She is willing to commit murder against those who have caused great harm and has attempted to kill both Mimic and Eggman in canon twice each. She can be terse and is hypervigilant and sometimes violent as a result of her hypervigilance, warranted or not. (Because although we know she's right about Duo being Mimic, that doesn't give her a pass to put hands on Lanolin the way she does.) She regularly fails to communicate her feelings until cornered or she hits a breaking point. She spent the vast majority of her time in the story steadfastly refusing to heal from her grief over the deaths of her friends by saving the recording of the moment they died so she could watch it again and again.

None of this to say Whisper is a bad person. She's not. She's a severely traumatized 16 year old girl. She deserves to be given grace. But she is complicated. She's messy. Saving the body cam footage of when your friends were murdered so you can watch it over and over and keep that grief and need for vengeance festering in your heart is not a healthy coping mechanism. Self-isolating to the point where you won't even say goodbye (as she was going to do when she left the Restoration prior to Trial By Fire before Tangle happened to catch her in the act) isn't great behavior, either. And while the topic of whether a villain deserves to die for their actions is a moral quandry comics fans have wasted decades arguing about, the fact remains that the willingness to do so is rare by Sonic hero standards. In fact, it's usually only the antiheroes (such as Shadow) who are willing to do it. But Whisper shot Eggman through the heart in Urban Warfare; he would be dead right now if she hadn't been stuck halfway in cyberspace.

Yes, Whisper is soft with her wisps and her girlfriend and her friends. She tells jokes about toasters. She gets very excited to chill at the beach, and she is willing to put herself on the line time and again to protect strangers. But she is also willing to do the things she feels must be done, no matter how her friends might not approve, and sometimes her coping behaviors (or lack thereof) are awful. This wolf contains multitudes.

And I love her for it.

#sth #whisper the wolf #idw sonic #i'm a trauma survivor myself (albeit a different kind of trauma) and there have been times #ESPECIALLY in my teen years #when my behaviors as a result of my trauma were not the best #so it's nice to see a character who has not great behaviors as a result of trauma #be treated sympathetically regardless #esp a female character

169 notes · View notes

ratlesshonret · 5 months

Text

Song Analysis - And Then is Heard No More

Part 0 - The Part You Skip if You Just Want the Analysis

Hi! Its me again! Last time I analyzed Children of the City, and someone requested an analysis of And Then is Heard No More, which I've actually already written in the past.

With that said, this entire analysis was posted on Reddit about a month ago, and I'm simply reposting it here for a new audience. If there's any formatting errors from the copy-paste action, please let me know.

Part 1 - Analysis of Lyrics

If you don't already know, this song is about Philip from Library of Ruina. Its his Character Song. I assume you did know, but this is just so we're all on the same page.

Do the candles look forward to being used? Enjoy bidding adieu, adieu? Every word I have saved for you came out wrong Afterwards, so I spoke no more

(credit to tumblr user tearychildren for helping me analyze this verse)

In the first two lines of the song, Philip is wanting to be reassured. He's looking for solace, for comfort, attempting to convince himself that his life was worth it. The metaphor, with candles looking forward to being used, is meant to represent humanity. If I were to translate, I'd say he's asking, "Do people look forward to burning out and doing nothing, before dying?"

Philip wants to know he didn't waste his life. He wants to be told that all there is to life is burning out immediately. Because if he was told there's more to life, he might not be able to handle it. He wants reassurance, to be told that this is the fate of everyone.

The latter two lines refer to Philip's co-worker Yuna. In the Unstable Book of the Crying Children, Philip details a failed love confession to Yuna, which is almost certainly what this verse is about. When his confession didn't work, he likely internalized it as him just saying something wrong, and thus he decided to "speak no evil."

Would you say That someone who had every intention to be brave Was a coward?

This line speaks to several things. The first, and most obvious, is that Philip wants to know if he has been a coward. He wants to know if all his fleeing and denying of the facts makes him cowardly, even if he intended to be brave.

And this details a theme of his whole arc: Philip wants to be a hero, but he can't be one.

The second thing this line speaks about is the Project Moon universe's general question of, "Do the thoughts/intentions behind your actions matter, or the actions themselves?" Is it enough to have just wanted to be brave? Or do you need to act the part, as well?

In my opinion, Philip was a coward. He made attempts not to be, but they all fell short, sometimes for reasons in his control and sometimes for not. And I don't think his "intention to be brave" is enough to absolve him of that.

Must be great being you Power comes as second nature Must feel amazing to be longed for, longed for

Philip has this trend of blaming everything but himself. This verse starts the detailing of the dichotomy in his mind, which leads to immense hypocrisy. Philip sees himself as inherently weak, and due to this, he doesn't feel like he can be held to the same standards as everyone else. He can deflect people's criticisms of him by just playing the, "I'm weak, I couldn't have done anything" card.

It also appears Philip believes in "inherent ability." That someone can be born better than another person. But he doesn't take this idea to its logical extreme.

If other people are born better than him, and thus Philip is the only one doing the noble climb to be strong, then why isn't he strong? If he thought it through, he'd know the answer: he isn't trying hard enough. He just expects his heroic opportunity to be handed to him.

Philip almost seems to think he's the only one who has to work for his success, despite him being basically given a position that many people could only dream of.

But there's a reason he doesn't take this idea to its extreme. Because in its current state, it acts as a shield. If other people are inherently better than him, then he doesn't need to be held to their standards. He enjoys having the ability to just block out blame by using weaponized incompetence.

(I opened my eyes) Cemented excuses to my lash-line So I could see no more

At the very least, in the end, Philip seems to admit that he's just making excuses. At every turn, he finds reasons that he couldn't have done more. In every situation, he manages to blame someone other than himself for what happened. But deep down, he knows that his friend's deaths and the killing of three other people he went to for help is his fault.

In Philip's foolish quest for vengeance and heroism, he got three innocent people killed.

And this is where I want to detail the second part of this dichotomy. Philip claims everyone is better than him, sure, but he also thinks he's some legendary hero. He uses this idea that he's some heroic figure to ignore the guilt for his actions.

If he's able to go into the Library with Wedge Office and strike down the ones who killed his colleagues, then it'd all be worth it. That was probably his rationale for dragging those three into the library with him. If he can get vengeance, he'll be the hero. And if the people of Wedge Office have to die, then he'll make that sacrifice if he can get his epic final battle.

And in this battle... if he dies, he doesn't need to worry anymore. And if he wins, he'll be a hero.

Which is why he gets neither.

Philip has to face reality. He isn't a hero. He isn't just some unfairly tortured soul, waiting for his chance to be written down as a legend in the history books. At the end of the day... he's just Philip.

Not to say he doesn't try! In the Philip fight during the Wedge Office Reception, he is very powerful, and fully intends to destroy the Library or die trying. For once in his life, he is determined to do something, which is why he's able to manifest EGO. His desire to be a hero, his desire to win, creates a sword and wings with which to fight with.

As one last aside, let's talk about Philip's EGO. He has a flaming sword, which is very traditional for heroes. The knight holding a flaming sword over a dragon's head, that kind of thing. But he also has burning, melting wings. Which calls back to the tale of Icarus, who in his excitement to finally fly, went to close to the sun and had his wings melted.

Just like Icarus, Philip, in his excitement to finally be the hero, brought three people to their deaths and compounded his own guilt because of some selfish desire to avenge his friends. That was his, "fly too close to the sun."

So which home should someone as weak as I go? (And which sky should I aim for when I've only been low?) I have only been low

Yet again, Philip is pointing out how weak he is. He wants a place to belong, a place to go, now that his friends are all dead. And he also seems to be continuing to avoid blame. He can't aim very high, because he's so pathetic that he'd just fail anything too hard. He doesn't need to try and aim higher, because he has already decided he isn't capable of anything. It shields him from the guilt of not doing enough.

Day and night, your ghosts continue to haunt me Tell me who to be

This references the scene at the 8 o'Clock Circus, where Philip distorts. When he is shown his own visions of his colleagues, they do nothing but blame him for his actions, and in some cases, his inaction.

We get a front-seat look into what Philip thinks they'd say to him.

Both of them are cruel. But he doesn't want to hear it. As they criticize him, he covers his ears and closes his eyes, not wanting to confront the fact that he made the wrong choice.

But he has to confront it. It's impossible not to. Which is why he ends up distorting.

If I went with you, will there be happily ever afters? Sipping on tea I steeped together, together

At this point, Philip seems to wish he had just died with his friends. He wants to know if he'd be happier in whatever afterlife that exists if he hadn't just continued to make a fool out of himself. Its definitely sad, how Philip just seems resigned to the idea of death at this point.

He just wants to have tea with them again.

(Read me a story of a hero born knowing the all) Read me a book of me So I could hear no more

Finally, we get to the last verse. Philip wants to know what his book says. Or, more accurately, he wants to think that when he dies, his book will be about how heroic he was. About how he was born as some tragic figure, who overcame all the negativity in his life and became a legend.

But of course, his actual book is mostly just about the times he was a coward and refused to face reality.

Not only does he want to think his book would be about his heroism, he doesn't want to hear different. He wants someone to tell him how amazing he was, until he can't hear any of the negative things other people have to say. He wants to ignore reality for his petty hero fantasy.

Philip is a hypocrite.

He's simultaneously too weak to try anything, and too heroic to be criticized.

He admits how cowardly he is, and then desires to be told he's a brave hero.

Philip is maybe a prime example of cognitive dissonance.

Part 2 - Summary

Despite all of this... I can't bring myself to hate Philip. He's cowardly, hypocritical, ignores any criticism, hides in his own fantasies, and uses his incompetence as a shield to block anything he doesn't want to hear. But I don't hate him.

Honestly, I think most people would act how he did in his situation.

I understand running for your life. And I understand the survivor's guilt that comes with that.

And revenge is just a natural human desire.

In terms of his actions, which I think is what matters, his gravest sin is dragging three innocent people into his revenge quest.

And Then Is Heard No More is, in essence, both Philip explaining how he got to where he is, and wanting to be told he didn't make any mistakes. Even in the end, he's too cowardly to own up to them.

Because that's who Philip is.

Part 3 - Final Part

So yeah, that's And Then is Heard No More. I like this song, and I like Philip. I hope you all enjoyed this copy-pasted analysis.

#project mili #mili #library of ruina #philip lor #and then is heard no more

87 notes · View notes

cloud-navi · 9 months

Text

So I finished DuckTales (2017), my thoughts:

⚠️ Spoilers ahead ⚠️

- Bradford Buzzard:

His feelings for hating adventure and chaos is valid but he should have told his grandma to fuck off and got therapy instead of trying to destroy it. Also its not his fault that Della took the Spear of Selene even if he told her about it.

You can’t have one thing without the other, there must be chaos if there is stability and vice versa.

- Webbigail Vanderquack and Bentina Beakly (Agent 22):

It was a good twist, but it makes me question where FOWL got Scrooge’s DNA to make Webby and why her exact clones (sisters) aren’t perceived as Scrooges kid like Webby is.

My theory: “The Papyrus of Binding only appears to a direct heir of Scrooge McDuck” I think it mean’s physically and emotionally. If June and May are Webby’s clones that means they are just as much Scrooge’s physical child as Webby is, except they don’t have a relationship with Scrooge. Scrooge even before knowing Webby was his kid thought of her like his Grandniece, like family, making her an heir like the boys.

For how much Beakly talked about how important and strong a family is together when getting the boys to talk to Scrooge again in Season 1, it doesn’t make much sense to have her go in alone without informing the family of what she knows of FOWL from SHUSH.

Goldie O’Gilt:

I love her so much, except in the ImpossiBin episode, there she was okay. At the end of the ImpossiBin episode Goldie calls Scooge assuming he took the fountain of youth when they agreed to keep it for both of them, (she went back to steal it for herself so she says). They made progress in the Youth Fountain episode and having Goldie call him about it being gone kinda defeats the whole purpose of their bonding in that episode. Except I understand they needed a character to tell him it was gone like the other missing mysteries but I find it defeated the whole point.

Lena and Violet Saberwing:

To me it looked like Violet’s parents adopted Lena and I’m all for that. Also love the hinted gay rep with their dads.

Magica De spell:

While it was Scrooge that blocked her spell, it was still her spell that she shot that turned her brother into a raven. Theres no reason or obligation for Scrooge to have caught him and give him to her when they were both terrible people. If anything her brother got a new chance at life as a raven instead.

I wish there was kinda a redemption arc when she was training Lena, if not for Lena a little redemption for Gladstone because I like those two.

Fenton Crackshell (GizmoDuck) and DarkWing Duck:

I like Drake with Fenton regardless if he’s Drake or playing DarkWing but I feel like he needs to accept that GizmoDuck is also a hero. Bro needs to know the difference between hero and vigilante.

Fenton is pretty bbg too <3

Launchpad McQuack:

Giant himbo and I love him so much.

Daisy Duck:

Love her, not much else to say. She had standards, that was clear when we heard what she said while driving away from their second date except she still fell in love and was willing to put up with Donald enough to go rescue him and keep going out. Overall a girl boss <3

Huey, Dewey and Louie:

While Dewey should have come forward earlier about looking for Della I understand his intentions more then Huey did when he found out. Louie was right, its not okay, but in the beginning Dewey was just trying to find if she was alive or not, not where she was. He was sorry because he ‘got caught’, he was genuinely sorry. It’s difficult to want to tell someone you’re finding all this stuff about someone you all seek when none of you know if they’re even alive or not. Dewey didn’t want them to lose hope that Della may be alive even if he found out she might not have. Yes he should have told them but I understand he didn’t want to them to be more hurt that she’s unalive instead of just missing. Also they aren’t even teenagers and communication skills are ass with teenagers what makes you think they’ll be any better as 10 year olds?

Again, their anger is misplaced when they’re mad at Scrooge for building a Spear of Selene.

Scrooge McDuck (sugar daddy?):

I like his character and I feel theres a bit of development through out the show with him and the kids, to be a teacher you need to be able to learn from your students.

While yes, he shouldn’t have built the rocket right there he also didn’t tell Della about it. Not his fault she left. Also the audacity to find out it wasn’t really his fault or the fact he nearly went bankrupt looking for her and they didn’t apologize at all.

Donald Duck (DILF):

Literally the best man in the whole show. He put his family first the whole time even when he should have taken breaks except he stepped up. We know that he had some form of falling out with Scrooge because of Della but even so he stepped up to take the kids and stayed in DuckBurg instead of moving anytime in the 10+ years they lived there. I have a feeling they stayed because he knew deep down that he could somewhat still count on Scrooge if not Beakly. Why else would he have stayed and gone to Beakly to watch the kids, granted he didn’t want to talk to Scrooge, Scrooge still took them in and watched them while Donald was off getting a job.

Donald may not be their bio-dad, but he is no way a fucking Uncle. He raised those boys by himself for 10+ years, through their formative years and until they were old enough to know he wasn’t their bio-dad. He stepped in to be a parent because Della chickened out and chose to go to space even when he told her she shouldn’t so she can be with her kids.

Donald Duck, not an uncle, a father.

Della Duck (cool-ish weird Aunt):

My opinion has not changed, she still isn’t a mother to me. Della is an estranged aunt that comes by and is the ‘cool aunt’. She willingly, without obligation, without threat, consciously CHOSE to leave her kids. Regardless of if she knew she would get killed or stuck in space, “there were too many variables” -Huey. She had a fight with Donald that specifically told her that it was a giant, dumb fucking idea with kids on the way. The idea that anyone would accept her back as a parent so blindly is so dumb. Yes she’s their egg-layer, but there is no way in hell she is their mother. A MOTHER would never choose to leave their children unless they positively fucking had too (obligation for safety). Whether or not she regrets it holds no power because she still chose to leave for a stupid reason.

Season 1 finale: “Get away from my kids” by Donald Duck will forever hold more power and significance then anytime she ever says it because she gave up parent rights before they were born. No parent would willingly, without valid cause like their safety (not fucking exploring space for funzys) would leave their child.

Over all:

Scrooge and Donald are DILFS and Della can get bent.

88 notes · View notes

saintsenara · 7 days

Note

always wondered how Snape never clocked that the diary/ring/Harry was a horcrux (other than the plot needed him to remain in the dark). Doesn’t add up that teen Regulus knew what it was and the 38 year old Dark Arts expert and professional double agent who has seen Voldy fail to die never worked it out

honestly, anon? same.

although i think we can work our way around this with a bit of canon-wrangling...

we can probably justify snape not clocking that harry's a horcrux during order of the phoenix, on account of the fact that he's presumably the only human horcrux in existence.

dumbledore says in half-blood prince that using animals as horcruxes is unusual because it's inadvisable, because the behaviour of a sentient horcrux can't be predicted or controlled [and it may, i suppose the implication is, therefore destroy itself, thus defeating the purpose of making it] - and snape is certainly taken aback by dumbledore asking him to keep an eye on nagini.

this could, however, be interpreted as snape being surprised that voldemort - who is highly-strung even by the standards of people who might encase their souls in inanimate objects - would have made an animal horcrux, even though he knows voldemort is able to control nagini through virtue of being a parselmouth.

connected to this, snape's understanding of the attack which harry witnesses on arthur weasley is that voldemort was mentally present in nagini when the attack took place:

“You seem to have visited the snake’s mind because that was where the Dark Lord was at that particular moment,” snarled Snape. “He was possessing the snake at the time and so you dreamed you were inside it too...”

voldemort is canonically known to be able to possess people - ginny weasley chief among them - and also, by his own admission in goblet of fire, to possess snakes. the assumption snape is making is that voldemort's control over nagini is one of the "standard" possessions the dark lord is capable of - and he must also assume, as mad-eye moody does and as the rest of the order accepts moody's account of, that harry's visions are the result of voldemort possessing or attempting to possess him.

indeed, there's an interesting sense in canon that many of the adult characters don't understand that harry's visions don't resemble what possession typically looks like - which is a genre convention which is in keeping with the overall narrative arc of the series as children's literature. the child-heroes need to be able to work everything out and the adults need to be, at best, politely disinterested - and this manifests itself throughout the seven-book canon in the fact that the child characters understand voldemort considerably better than any of the adult ones.

after all, the only person who points out that harry's experience isn't standard possession is also a child:

“Well, that was a bit stupid of you,” said Ginny angrily, “seeing as you don’t know anyone but me who’s been possessed by You-Know-Who, and I can tell you how it feels.” Harry remained quite still as the impact of these words hit him. Then he turned on the spot to face her. “I forgot,” he said. “Lucky you,” said Ginny coolly. “I’m sorry,” Harry said, and he meant it. “So... so do you think I’m being possessed, then?” “Well, can you remember everything you’ve been doing?” Ginny asked. “Are there big blank periods where you don’t know what you’ve been up to?” “No,” he said. “Then You-Know-Who hasn’t ever possessed you,” said Ginny simply. “When he did it to me, I couldn’t remember what I’d been doing for hours at a time. I’d find myself somewhere and not know how I got there.”

from snape's perspective, then, the idea that nagini and harry are simply being possessed by voldemort - rather than that they're sentient horcruxes [and that harry is a unique type of sentient horcrux, and that voldemort could have been stupid enough to intentionally make his child-enemy who hates him into a receptacle for his soul] - is the result of him applying the principle of occam's razor: that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one.

snape does, however, acknowledge that harry and voldemort's mental connection is unusual:

“The Dark Lord is at a considerable distance and the walls and grounds of Hogwarts are guarded by many ancient spells and charms to ensure the bodily and mental safety of those who dwell within them,” said Snape. “Time and space matter in magic, Potter. Eye contact is often essential to Legilimency.” “Well then, why do I have to learn Occlumency?” Snape eyed Harry, tracing his mouth with one long, thin finger as he did so. “The usual rules do not seem to apply with you, Potter. The curse that failed to kill you seems to have forged some kind of connection between you and the Dark Lord. The evidence suggests that at times, when your mind is most relaxed and vulnerable - when you are asleep, for instance - you are sharing the Dark Lord’s thoughts and emotions. The headmaster thinks it inadvisable for this to continue. He wishes me to teach you how to close your mind to the Dark Lord.”

obviously, we know that the connection forged between harry and voldemort is that harry's a horcrux. but it's also the case that harry doesn't have the ability to see into voldemort's mind before voldemort is corporeal again. if we assume that dumbledore keeps harry's visions from the earlier parts of goblet of fire secret from snape - and there's no reason why this wouldn't be the case - then snape's understanding of the mental connection between harry and voldemort is presumably that it was caused by voldemort using harry's blood to resurrect himself.

after all, snape must know about the blood protection established by lily's death, since not only the full order [moody mentions it in deathly hallows] but the death eaters also know about it. he will also know that voldemort used harry's blood for the ritual because voldemort did this in order to show off - he's proud of the symbolism, and you can tell he was dining out on it right up until it spectacularly backfired...

the question then becomes whether snape truly deeps what dumbledore's saying when he tells him - during the half-blood prince timeline, but not revealed to us until the end of deathly hallows - that:

“On the night Lord Voldemort tried to kill him, when Lily cast her own life between them as a shield, the Killing Curse rebounded upon Lord Voldemort, and a fragment of Voldemort’s soul was blasted apart from the whole, and latched itself onto the only living soul left in that collapsing building. Part of Lord Voldemort lives inside Harry, and it is that which gives him the power of speech with snakes, and a connection with Lord Voldemort’s mind that he has never understood. And while that fragment of soul, unmissed by Voldemort, remains attached to and protected by Harry, Lord Voldemort cannot die.”

snape realises, without dumbledore prompting him further, that this means harry has to die. which means, i think, that we can justifiably suggest that snape has twigged that harry needs to die because - in order for a horcrux to be destroyed - the container needs to be damaged beyond all repair...

and - let's be frank - his little argument with dumbledore after this revelation makes perfect sense if he knows that dumbledore is speaking about harry as a horcrux:

“I have spied for you and lied for you, put myself in mortal danger for you. Everything was supposed to be to keep Lily Potter’s son safe. Now you tell me you have been raising him like a pig for slaughter - ”

snape's beef is that dumbledore secured his cooperation as a spy on the pretence that he could atone for his role in lily's death by protecting harry from voldemort, while dumbledore knew all along that this was never going to happen [snape does not, of course, know that dumbledore reckons harry will be able to return]. clearly, he would have preferred dumbledore to have just smothered harry as a baby, destroyed the horcrux, and saved them all the agony.

and so i think that it's canonically impossible that snape doesn't understand - eventually - that harry's a horcrux.

and i also think that it's canonically impossible that snape doesn't clock the others well before this.

after all, voldemort states in goblet of fire that the reason he's so pissed off by the death eaters who pretended to have renounced him after 1981 is because they knew he couldn't die:

“I was ripped from my body, I was less than spirit, less than the meanest ghost... but still, I was alive. What I was, even I do not know... I, who have gone further than anybody along the path that leads to immortality. You know my goal - to conquer death. And now, I was tested, and it appeared that one or more of my experiments had worked... for I had not been killed, though the curse should have done it. Nevertheless, I was as powerless as the weakest creature alive, and without the means to help myself... for I had no body, and every spell that might have helped me required the use of a wand... “I remember only forcing myself, sleeplessly, endlessly, second by second, to exist... I settled in a faraway place, in a forest, and I waited... Surely, one of my faithful Death Eaters would try and find me... one of them would come and perform the magic I could not, to restore me to a body... but I waited in vain...”

[he is hamming it up so much here. the man understands camp.]

what he means by this - clearly - is that the fact that he'd made at least one horcrux was common knowledge among his minions, which provides the explanation for why regulus knew what was going on [which i've gone into more detail about here].

which makes sense - voldemort actually tells us in canon that his safeguards aren't that nobody knows he created the horcruxes [and also, if that's what he'd been going for, he'd almost certainly have killed slughorn.]

the section is too long to quote, but if you look at the bit in chapter twenty-seven of deathly hallows when he's panicking that harry and dumbledore have figured out his secrets, the thing he's afraid of isn't that they know he's made horcruxes, but that they've worked out what the objects are and where they might be hidden, something he was certain nobody other than himself would ever be able to discover.

the ring - for example - could only be located by someone who knew voldemort's full birth name, who knew that the name "marvolo" was associated with the gaunts, and who knew where the gaunts had once lived.

the locket - as voldemort understands it, since he assumes kreacher is drowned by the inferi - could only be located by someone who knew that voldemort had, as a child, been taken on an outing to the coast and had lured two children into a cave to torture them.

the diadem could only be located by someone who knew that it wasn't actually lost, knew that helena ravenclaw could be manipulated into revealing where it was, and knew how to open the room of requirement - which voldemort canonically believes is impossible for anyone other than him [even though this makes absolutely no sense to me - there's furniture everywhere, babe?].

the cup could only be located by someone who managed to bypass gringotts' famously tight security, gain access to the lestranges' vault, pick out the cup from among all the other objects stored within [which would also require them to know that a shop-boy called tom riddle stole it from a woman called hepzibah smith] and then not get crushed to death by a rising tide of molten metal.

the diary is much less closely guarded - although voldemort evidently believes that lucius malfoy can be trusted to keep it safe until he tells him otherwise. but this - as dumbledore tells us in half-blood prince - is because voldemort wants it to be used, so that the chamber of secrets can be reopened, and that he's therefore prepared to take the risk of it being destroyed because he believes that his other horcruxes are so secure that the loss of the diary won't matter. this is also, i suspect, his view of nagini - which is why him moving to protect her is taken by both dumbledore and harry as the signal that no other horcruxes remain.

snape must know, then, that voldemort has made horcruxes, because voldemort must, however obliquely, have told him so.

and he must figure out that the diary and the ring are horcruxes specifically. he's clearly the source of dumbledore's information that voldemort's fury when he discovered the diary had been destroyed was "terrible to behold".

and he must be the person who prompts phineas nigellus black to drop the info that dumbledore used the sword of gryffindor to break open the ring. harry and hermione assume this is something black lets slip without knowing its significance, but we know from the prince's tale that he visits them at snape's request in order to find out how the horcrux hunt is going.

[on the sword of gryffindor, snape's statement - "and you won't tell me why it's so important to give potter the sword?" - has to be taken as asking why the sword is so crucial to the destruction of a horcrux that he's being forced to go to great personal risk to give it to harry in order for this overall argument to work... but i think this reading is plausible - not least because voldemort knows that harry was left the sword in dumbledore's will, since wizarding wills are examined by the ministry, and could undoubtedly find out very easily if he wanted to that the sword snape places in the lestranges' vault is a fake.]

the reason that snape doesn't participate in the horcrux hunt in any more specific way relates to the point about genre conventions and child-heroes made above.

the reason that the horcrux hunt takes the form it takes isn't because horcruxes themselves are magic so arcane and unknowable that only the trio, dumbledore, and voldemort are aware they exist. it's because harry - even more than dumbledore - is the only person who knows voldemort well enough to figure out what the horcruxes are made from and where they are.

[this is why i don't vibe with stories which assume the hunt goes quicker if snape - or sirius or anyone - helps the trio. the point is that nobody but harry could figure out that voldemort would be seething about not having a vault at gringotts, or that he would have hidden the diadem the night of his failed job interview.]

snape appears to know the adult voldemort reasonably well, but there's no evidence at all that he knows anything about his life prior to c.1970 - either from dumbledore or from voldemort himself. this means that he would be absolutely no help when it came to guessing what the horcruxes were - the diary, ring, cup, diadem, and locket all presuppose the knowledge that voldemort was once called tom riddle, after all.

which makes him useless to harry when it comes to hunting them down. by the time dumbledore dies, harry knows with near-absolute certainty what five of the horcruxes are: the diary, ring, cup, locket, and snake. he knows for a fact that two of these have been destroyed, he and dumbledore believe they've just got their hands on a third, and he knows where a fourth is [nagini, next to voldemort]. the location of the cup - and the form and location of the sixth horcrux, the diadem - is something only harry has the ability to work out. the seventh - harry himself - is information dumbledore has ordered snape to keep hidden until the appointed time.

meaning that snape clearly does know what a horcrux is - both in theory and when four [diary, ring, nagini, harry] of voldemort's own are put in front of him - but that this knowledge is sufficiently incomplete as to be irrelevant to the quest harry's engaged in which takes up the narrative's time.

#asks answered #asenora meta #severus snape #horcrux nonsense for fun and profit

17 notes · View notes

kitkatopinions · 6 months

Note

When Blake had Sun by her side she was strong willed, capable, and motivated while fighting for what she believes in. Now that she's with Yang? She's like a totally different character and not in a good way.

I think there were a couple of contributing factors in the big Blake change.

One of them was definitely the relationship with Yang. People have pointed out that Yang underwent some changes too, they leaned into her more aggressive hotheaded tendencies and made her more 'butch' than she was before, and made her concern for her family secondary at best and near non-existent at worst, and meanwhile Blake got meek and cutesy and shorter than she had been and in need of saving more often than not. I'm not trying to say that they shouldn't have gone with the bees as a ship, but the way they did it, it almost feels like they felt like they had to change them to conform to some standard queer girl couple stereotype, and Blake suffered the most from the change.

But on top of that, I think that a lot of the change came about from how wildly they mishandled the Faunus-racism arc and their desire to get distance from it. They always did use Blake as a mouthpiece, whether it was in the early seasons when she was calling out Weiss but letting her get away with never apologizing or when it was season five and they used her to say their 'faunus on faunus crime' bit where she told the Faunus that they should be helping their oppressors fight off the bad civil rights group. So it really isn't surprising that when they were trying to make everyone forget about their mess ups and move on and see Adam as nothing but an abuser, they made Blake suddenly not care about or bring up Faunus rights at all, never mention her parents, Ilia, or Sun ever again, and made her suddenly 'the perfect palatable abuse victim.'

Even in V5 when Blake was wrong (because the writers were being awful, I have a hard time blaming the character for how the writers misused her,) she still cared and she was still passionate and would talk about the injustice of how the Faunus had gotten shuffled off to Menagerie. But they couldn't have Blake still care about the issues and be willing to fight the powers that be in V6 onwards, because that would remind everyone of how the writers screwed up the Faunus-racism thing. And meanwhile, she has to be 'the perfect palatable abuse victim' to make Adam look as bad as possible so that everyone will unquestioningly hate Adam and forget about how misused the Faunus and the White Fang and he were. So if Blake is a sad, flinching, wide-eyed, meek person who can't stand up for herself, fans will say "see what Adam did to her!" And not "Why did the writers make the only pro-Faunus rights group featured in the story a group of evil terrorists that our heroes must fight." Fans will say "Poor Blake went through so much at Adam's hands, how can anyone say such a vile abusive monster ought to have been portrayed differently?" And they won't say "Why did Blake's abuser have to be a leader in a pro-Faunus rights activist group and why did he have to have a cattle brand on his face indicating the hate crime he suffered?"

Blake stopped showing the 'less palatable' side affects that could be traced to her abuse, like a hot temper and her obsessive tendencies and her difficulties getting close to people and her more cynical side, and it's just a little hard to not think that it was purposefully taken from her to make her more palatable and pitiable so that more people forget about the injustices Blake and her people have suffered, and instead more people would think her only problem only ever was Adam, and focus more on how he hurt her than how the society they weren't interested in dissecting and putting effort into had hurt her and they'd focus more on Blake personally getting better and not in the society itself getting better. Whether or not this was done intentionally, this is how Blake's transformation feels. And just to clarify, I'm not saying that Blake's journey as an abuse victim and her path to getting better wasn't important. I think it was very important, but the writers actually haven't done a real 'Blake heals' story first off and as I've pointed out she actively feels less healthy now than she did in the first five seasons, and second off, it clearly wasn't the only important part of Blake's story and the rest mattered too. But they wrote out Blake's care for the Faunus and her activism, and heavily emphasized her role as an abuse victim while changing everything about her character to make her closer to Snow White from the 1937 Disney movie than she was to her V1-5 self.

So yeah, I think the relationship with Yang was definitely a contributing factor, but I think their attempts to move on from and deflect from their mishandling of the Faunus-racism allegory was also a really big contribution to Blake's character change.

#rwde #canoncrit blake belladonna

22 notes · View notes

lycankeyy · 1 year

Note

What are your pokespe gold thoughts

Stares at you with my autistic eyes . I have too many as Gold is probably the character I think about the most aside from Green and Red and he was our Longest Had Blorbo so . I will pick some thoughts out of a hat

Okay first of all it has been A While since I read all the way through gsc so if I say anything the second half of that arc contradicts what i say um . Aheem heem whimper .

Anyway something I see said about Gold a lot is that he's an inconsistent/weirdly written character. I have Thoughts about this.

A theory I have is that the reason why Gold's characterization is the way it is is basically "Pokémon GSC was supposed to be the last Pokémon games, so the pokespe team thought GSC was going to be the last arc". The arc was probably mostly written and half-published by the time Ruby and Sapphire started development, and I think this accounts for a lot of the "weirdness" GSC is usually associated with. The extent of stakes, the writing decisions and all that all make sense for a manga that wanted to end with a high-stakes fight and assumed these characters would never be returned to again. Buuut that second part obviously didn't happen LMAO

I think what we have with Gold is character that was written to be a one-arc protag and eventually had to be molded to fit a larger role in a much larger story. Gold wasn't really the emotional core of GSC, Silver was (and Crys for a bit), and Gold acted as Silver's (and Pryce's, later) foil. In fact Gold doesn't really have a lot going for him aside from "the opposite of Silver and/or Pryce" until towards the end of GSC, and by the time the arc is over, he doesn't really... have a reason to be Silver's foil anymore? And I think that's what throws people off a bit. Gold becomes substantially more fleshed out in his later appearances, but I think this next part is where people get especially tripped up.

Compared to Silver, Gold doesn't have an incredibly deep Character Motivation. His surface-level motivation is wanting to kick Silver's and eventually Pryce's ass, but beyond that, he initially doesn't have much; until around the end of GSC, where his deeper character motivation is revealed to be insecurity. But I think to some people this reads as odd, because Gold was not originally written to seem insecure. The earliest possible hint we get of this - him being insulted when Professor Oak won't give him a pokédex - reads less like he's insecure and desperate to prove himself and more like he's angry he's not being handed what he wants on a silver platter. There's some hint there that he there might be some level of pride involved, but he seems like a generally prideful person. So from a critical perspective, it might be a bit hard to understand how we got from that to this

"I must have something, don't I? Something to be proud of?!"

Or this;

After spending the whole arc talking about how Gold and Togetaro are practically twins and heavily implying that Gold is projecting onto Togetaro. These are very clear indications that Gold does not believe he's as capable as he claims to think, that he's desperate to prove himself and needs external validation.

If you ask me, this character trait suddenly being taken much more seriously is a result of the shift of Kusaka realizing Spe was going to be going on for much longer than originally thought, and these characters were not going away any time soon. Gold needed some semblance of actual motivation, and I believe this was chosen because it helps him fit in with the other two Johto dexholders, who both hold themselves to impossibly high standards. Gold craves to be the hero, to be universally popular, to receive all the attention and admiration he can get out of people, and that all being because he craves validation makes sense - but since it's hard to believe this was originally what was in mind for his character, where this comes from is unclear. Silver and Crys are both obvious results of their respective upbringings, but Gold is implied to have had a really happy childhood. Some people can extrapolate that his mother might be neglectful based on the joke that he gets his carefree attitude from her, but I think that's a stretch. On an analytical level, I highly doubt that's how it's supposed to be taken, and I doubt we're meant to think about it as hard as we do Silver or Crystal's pasts.

It is interesting to think about, though! I thoroughly enjoy Gold angst and h/c, if it wasn't obvious, and I like hearing other peoples' headcanons on the matter.

... hopefully that was enough thoughts for you! LMFAO

#mailbox #ty for the ask!!#long post tw #pokespe #trainer gold

71 notes · View notes

inkstainmuses · 5 months

Text

STOLEN like the thief I am. TAGGING @nightmarefuele (Joker) &. whoever wants to do this.

A VERY DESCRIPTIVE PROFILE OF YOUR MUSE. Repost with the information of your muse, including headcanons, etc. if you fail to achieve some of the facts, add some other of your own!

NAME: Sylverian Estellon Thornewood NICKNAME: Syl TITLE(S): Lord AGE: Appears to be between 28-31, but is significantly older (verse-dependent); 100-600 years old NATIONALITY: Vanya; Half-Eladrin; Light Elf of Alfheim; Fae INTERESTS: Fashion, High-Society Gossip, Parties, being the center of attention PROFESSION: Spoiled aristocrat

BODY TYPE: Tall, lithe. Very graceful. EYES: Bright green-aquamarine, slightly iridescent and shimmering in hues of green and blue depending on the light. HAIR: Luscious, long locks that cascade down his thighs like molten gold, softly curling towards the ends. He has two braids on each side of his head, held back with a golden clasp or hairpin. SKIN: Fair but with a healthy, golden glow, warm undertones. Blushes easily. Will get nervous hives on his chest and neck, and the tips of his elongated ears will be bright red if he is agitated or embarrassed. FACE: Oval with chiseled but delicate features, high-cheekbones, long lashes, and groomed arched brows that are a few shades darker than his hair. Shapely lips on the thinner side; often decorates the lower lip with a golden lip cuff with matching gemstones (those fancy ones that have pendants or additions on the lower part). Straight nose, sharp narrow jawline. POSTURE: Regal and proud, chin held high, walks with grace and natural flowing elegance in his step. HEIGHT: 187cm VOICE: Melodic, soft; diva drawl (on occasion).

SIGNATURE OUTFIT: Usually, you will see him coming from a mile away. Iridescent robes adorned with gold and opals. His travel clothes are a little less flashy but no less elegant and luxurious, consisting of light beige trousers and a matching brocade vest, a long emerald, slightly iridescent overcoat with golden ornate shoulder pauldrons, arm bracers, and fine leather boots adorned with, you guessed it, more gold. His golden jewelry with matching gemstones is always a MUST (tiara, earrings, rings, whatever goes with his outfit).

SIGNIFICANT OTHER: Single and ready to mingle COMPANIONS: A small, winged animal that looks like a lilac baby dragon. Very cute.

ANTAGONISTS: ???? Heavily verse dependent

STRENGTHS: Cheerful, charming, great taste, knows all about what's going on in high society. He can be a very fun person to be around. He's like that friend you call when you just want to go out and party or when you need someone to gossip with while doing each other's nails. He has a warm, kind heart, but he still needs his "character arc".

WEAKNESSES: Arrogance, pride, prejudice, vanity, shallow, naive, overly sensitive and emotional, easily offended, dramatic, very comfortable in his bubble of gold and glitter. He is easily bored and has no interest in politics, science, swordsmanship, or anything that isn't fun and bright and sparkly. Perhaps his disinterest stems from his insecurity because he believes he will never live up to his parents' high standards; his mother is a brave war hero, his father a powerful Archfey and mage. He doesn't want to try and fail, so he doesn't even try at all.

FRUITS: Strawberries dipped in chocolate and gold dust DRINKS: Cherry mead ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES: Mead, wine - preferably sweet wines SMOKES: A little bit of pixie weed every once in a while. DRUGS: Aside from pixie weed? Well... not on a regular basis. DRIVER'S LICENSE: He can ride various mounts, if that counts. But usually, he's chillin' in the back of his "Cinderella carriage" pulled by two huge, white Frisian horses. Also, in some verses he has Faerie wings.

#muse: sylverian thornewood #&. ❛ 𝐌𝐈𝐑𝐑𝐎𝐑: sylverian aesthetic *#muse info: sylverian #* sylverian: musings &. hcs #other tags:#critical role rp #exandria unlimited rp #fantasy rp #dc rp #marvel rp #multifandom rp #oc rp #elf #fae

2 notes · View notes

nicklloydnow · 8 months

Text

“What is it about King’s writing that appeals to so many people? Clearly, King’s readers — many of whom seem to get hooked on him when they are adolescents — don’t care that the sentences he writes or the scenes he constructs are dull. There must be something in the narrative arc, or in the nature of King’s characters, that these readers can’t resist. My sense is that King appeals to the aggrieved adolescent, or the aggrieved nerdy adolescent, or the aggrieved nerdy adult, who believes that people can be divided into bad and good (the latter would, of course, include the aggrieved adolescent or adult), a reader who would rather not consider the proposition that we are all, each of us, nice good people awash in problems and entirely capable of evil. King coddles his readers, all nice, good, ordinary, likeable people (just like the heroes of his books), though this doesn’t completely explain why these readers are so tolerant of the bloat in these novels, why they will let King go on for a couple hundred pages about some matter that has no vital connection to the subject of the book.

(…)

Why, I wondered again, do some people in the literary business regard this extremely successful writer of genre fiction as a first-rate writer of literary fiction, a “major” contributor to American literary culture? How is it possible that a novel as bloated and mediocre as 11/22/63 is can be deemed by the New York Times Book Review as one of the five best books of fiction of the year? Do we fear being labeled “elitist” or “liberal” if we don’t reward commercial success in other ways (as if an enormous advance and a river of royalties are not reward enough)? Or do we believe that commercial success on the King scale signifies, almost by definition, quality, the way a 20,000 square-foot house supposedly signifies to passersby that the owners must be important?

(…)

By bestowing rewards on writing that is not all that good, has not the literary establishment lowered standards and pushed even further to the margins writing that is actually good and beautiful? If you ask me whether it is worth your while to read Stephen King instead of (or even in addition to) scores of other better contemporary writers you may have never read (and should hurry up and read before you die), I would say no, unless you are maybe fifteen and have made it clear to your teachers and everybody else that you aren’t going to touch that literary “David Copperfield kind of crap” with a ten-foot pole.”

“Director Daphné Baiwir gathers these guys — more than 20, it’s a convocation — and clips from their handiwork to build a monument to King’s importance. Few of these testimonies address King’s literary quality, only his cultural impact (from Cujo and Stand by Me to Needful Things, which spawned the non-King streaming series Stranger Things). Baiwir correctly begins with irony: King’s literary reputation comes from movie adaptations. “It all started with Carrie,” says Mick Garris (the TV adept who directed small-screen versions of Bag of Bones, Desperation, Sleepwalkers, The Stand, and The Shining). “The book was not well known until [Brian] De Palma’s movie came out. The movie blew me away. It was so great.” Frank Darabont concurs: “It was the movie that really brought a lot of attention to Steve’s work.”

(…)

King’s popularity straddles both film and literature and has done so for a long time. (Scott Hicks raves, “He’s like the Charles Dickens of the 20th and 21st century.”) This could be the basis for a good argument in favor of democratic art — folklore made by Maine’s most famous author — although Baiwir’s opening sequence foolishly imitates a film set in “King world,” where backwoods eccentrics drink “American Grain” whiskey, referring, I guess, to William Carlos Williams’s In the American Grain. It’s a stretch, and Baiwir’s strained pretense eventually snaps. No one at the convocation remembers Edgar Allan Poe, Nathaniel Hawthorne, Herman Melville, William Faulkner, or Flannery O’Connor. Instead, the most worshipful filmmakers indulge King’s own real-world politics — especially when paying tribute to The Dead Zone and Children of the Corn.

Encomiums start with “he loved common people, folksy people, he’s got that down pat.” They go on: “He doesn’t condescend to middle America, and I think that’s very important. In many ways he’s a man of the people.” But they fall for King’s junkiness: Ignoring how the warring duo of Misery resembles a feminist-revenge version of Robert Aldrich’s mature, complex What Ever Happened to Baby Jane? It gets worse when The Dead Zone appeals to their current political paranoia: “Nations go insane.” They equate King’s anti-religious fantasies (It, The Stand) to George Romero’s racial zombie allegory in Night of the Living Dead. The fanboys make typical Hollywood-liberal partisan analogies, decrying Donald Trump’s populism, then hysterically anoint King as a political visionary: “Like Bob Dylan, [he] is a dreamer of America. He contains the entirety of it and sort of dreams in the language of the chaos of America.” Garris warns, “When you apply fear — paranoia, aggression happens. The veneer of civilization gets ripped away very quickly.” He praises The Stand as “a counter myth to the Rapture.” Tod Williams crowns King “prophet of the apocalypse.”

It’s silly, yet appalling, that schlockmeister King, always threatening to be taken seriously, should be seriously regarded by unserious, unthinking people. King on Screen platforms naïve fanboys who embellish their own childish superstitions.”

#stephen king #art #national book awards #politics #armond white #mick garris

4 notes · View notes

mysticdragon3md3 · 2 years

Text

Golden Deer fans: (freaking out at Claude's characterization changes in 3Hopes)

Me, a Golden Deer and Code Geass fan: Naw, I love him even more now. lol

You call this devious? This is baby stuff lol By Code Geass standards, he's still a goody goody.

And just kidding, about loving 3Hopes Claude more than FE3H Claude, because I'm fine with Machiavellian, but I love admirable good and altruistic more.

But also, he's still the same Claude.

I'm kind of confused by people in the Claude fandom freaking out over 3Hopes Claude being more devious than in FE3H. But he always had that potential, and I respected him EVEN MORE for having the capability to be ruthless if that is what it would take to protect the world/hope/people that he dreamed about, yet knowing to hold back on being devious until it was actually necessary. Someone once posted that Claude always having the potential for doing devious things, even citing hinted warnings in his canon dialogue from FE3H, proved that all us Claude fans who loved him for being benign, were all just naive and completely misjudged him. Apparently, Claude fans "didn't know who he really was", so they must have been "hero-worshipping an imagined altruistic pacifist from their minds", projected onto Claude von Riegan. But I say, Claude contains multitudes! He is both meme lord and advocate of important ideals! He's also both the guy who spends several canon scenes and Supports convincing people who disagree with him, to understand his perspective, through persuasion, patience, and a growing openness, as well as the guy who is setting up poisons, prepared to cheat, and uses mind game banter on the battlefield. The important factor being that he will TRY to solve problems through negotiation, understanding, and non-violence, and save the violence, death, and war, until it's unavoidable. Realizing now, how much self control Claude held over his capabilities to be more underhanded, makes FE3H Claude even more admirable to me. He is both good/altruistic/benign AND practical enough to be ruthless, but only when it's absolutely necessary. And he will TRY his darndest to make ruthlessness a far necessity. He will sit patiently through negotiations, meet antagonism with good humor, still calmly explain his arguments, and put in the realistic work it takes to make people understand/compromise with each other, rather than solving disagreements with violence. He holds hope in everyone's capability/potential to become their best selves, selves that will accept diversity and diverse ideas, because that hope and his defiance against the world trying to prove otherwise to him, is his motivation for surviving. He NEEDS to prove to himself that the world/people can be good to each other, so he keeps believing in it and working towards it. A person like that---a character like that, I can't help but admire. Because regardless of what he or the world/people are capable of in their potential, he still stives for realizing the good version of it all. And I think that essential part of Claude is still present in 3Hopes, as well as FE3H. ...3Hopes Claude just stumbled a bit so his character arc would be more obviously visible this time. But he got back up.

EDIT 1:53 PM 9/1/2023: After being reminded of canonical 3Hopes quotes, backed up by screengrabs of Claude, I sometimes think about deleting/Privating this post. It's embarrassing to think about how I said that FE3H Claude was the same as 3Hopes Claude---even if I was JOKING. Because joking often requires simplification, that can easily be taken out of context. And I was not looking forward to that possibility, especially now that my opinions have evolved after more solid proof, filling in the holes of my fragmented, chronologically mixed, and incomplete experiences of 3Hopes' Golden Wildfire story. But there are lot of tangents from this post that I want to keep public on my blog. And whenever I remember this post, I do also remember that when I said "Claude is still Claude", I primarily meant his signature, more casual personality. And since his warm personality was a major reason why he became my favorite character, it was all that was important to me. Delving deeper into his FE3H Verdant Wind character, quickly built him into a favorite, but it was all started on that foundation of playful warmth, that I think didn't disappear from 3Hopes Claude. …It was a little tarnished, but 3Hopes Claude does feel familiar to FE3H Claude.

FE3H Claude is still better though, in so many ways. From his emotional maturity, to his character apotheosis, to his uncompromised ideals, and the execution of his dream. I think I need to state that.

This post is almost as embarrassing as that time I reacted to a Tweet that said Edelgard was committing genocide, and I posted that we should be criticizing her for her actual flaws instead of straw-man stuff. …Then I recently found out she wanted to also kill Seteth and Flayn, in addition to Rhea, pretty much genociding the Nabateans. (But aren't there still some Nabateans from the paralogues, who refuse to take human form? Unsure. But isn't the climax of those paralogues, trying to kill them to obtain items? Unless I'm remembering incorrectly again, I thought the only reason some still live by the end, is because they turn out so much stronger than the POV characters. Seems like they survive by luck, and the player tries to and expects to kill them.) So many Edelstans jumped on that old post of mine, to Like it, that it creeped me out, and I Privated/deleted it right away. All they heard was "don't criticize Edelgard", instead of "hey, let's criticize the large amount of bad decisions she made, instead of this one thing that---at the time---I thought was just a made-up criticism". I did not want to feed the Emperor's blind-following, and I still do not. Yikes.

#fe3hfuukasetsugetsu #claudeVRkhalid #characterization #reactions #fanboying fangirling #code geass #And jk about loving 3hopes claude more than FE3H claude bc I'm fine with machiavellian but i love admirable good and altruistic more #elredeaglescrit #embarrassing #reminicing #musoufuukasetsugetsu

7 notes · View notes

choppedcowboydinosaur · 2 years

Text

What your favorite comic book writer says about you:

John Byrne: When you say you wish comics would go back to the 80′s and 90′s this is what you mean. Also, you like to forget he went nuts on a forum once.

Mark Millar: You are a walking contradiction. You love really fucked up edgy stories and you like good stories with good morals as well.

Garth Ennis: You are the edgelord supreme. You also like war stories and the Punisher.

Frank Miller: You are one of two people:

1.You are an edgy 14 year old who just discovered TDKR. You proclaim him to be the greatest, edgiest writer. You also like to pretend his post Sin City work doesn’t exist.

2. You’ve read his other work besides TDKR and can appreciate how he can go in depth with some characters. This is before he went nuts btw.

Pau Dini: You are a chad with good taste.

Dwayne McDuffie: You like great well written diverse characters. You use him as the gold standard of writing diverse characters.

Jason Aaron: You have shit taste.

Ta Nehisi Coates: You are black, and you love being black, and tell everyone the first chance you get how black you are.

Alan Moore: You are 1 of 2 people:

1. You either have only ever read Watchmen and think he’s the greatest thing to grace comics ever and everyone must bow down and worship him. and believe Watchmen should be the norm.

2. Or you have read his other works and like his depth to comics but also understand he is not a god to be worshipped but just a writer. And that watchmen should not be the norm and Tom Strong is a much better embrace of superhero comics.

Grant Morrison: You are an alt chick in her 20′s that likes weird, trippy esoteric stories with a deeper meaning.

Kurt Busiek: You love fun straightforward super hero stories that are very well done.

Geoff Johns: You have great nostalgia for Barry Allen and Hal Jordan and silver age nostalgia. You like fun, expanding stories but that’s all you like. You cannot write philosophical stories to save your life.

Mariko Tamaki: You really like social commentary despite how dull and poorly done it is. Also, you obsess over food a lot.

Jonathan Hickman: You have the patience of a saint or you have nothing going on in your life.

Greg Weisman: You love well written planned out organic stories and you love Shakespeare.

Christopher Priest: You like well written stories alongside being black. And in depth character arcs that kind of peter out at the end.

Gail Simone: You love her earlier works and pretend her post 2011 works are still good even though they’re not.

Chuck Dixon: You love gritty crime stories, action stories and espionage. You are also probably a conservative.

Larry Hama: You love military adventures and are obsessed with ninjas.

Charles Soule: You love incorporating how the legal system works into your stories. Otherwise you are pretty good compared to your contemporaries.

Vita Ayala: You are woman in your 30′s who thinks she’s hip with the kids but is not. You desperately cling onto your youth. You use Twitter way too much.

Tom King: You are a masochist. You and Tom King desperately need to see a therapist.

Nick Spencer: You like smaller street level character stories. You cannot write event titles and social commentary to save your life. You should stick to street level stories.

Mark Waid: You like fun wholesome stories. You also cannot write social commentary to save your life.

Chip Zdarsky: You are competent at super hero writing. You maintain this equilibrium of being good but never great.

Gene Luen Yang: You like Chinese mythology and the “Asian American Experience” TM. In fact that’s all you seem to like.

Brian Michael Bendis: You are 1 of 2 people.

1. You love his older work and how he handles street level characters. You also acknowledge he went to shit as a writer once he got to work on the Avengers.

2. You blindly read his work no matter what. Even though he has gotten worse as a writer. You believe dialogue is more important than visuals. You love his walls of text to the point you would read a novel by him. But you are too insecure to read novels because that’s for grown ups and you are still mentally 14 years old.

Warren Ellis: You like stories that are fucked up but also have something poignant and deeper to say. Also, you like to say the word, “fuck” a lot.

84 notes · View notes

villainsandvictimsalliance · 2 years

Text

Okay, leaving aside my hatred towards Endeavor for a moment, I must admit I love his existence in the narrative as a character who makes everything around him more complex.

I have some meta about him prepared, but unfortunately I based all of it on a non-official translation of the manga. What I'm gonna do is rewatch the anime and take it from there, but in summary, it's a total show to see how he sabotages himself over and over by not listening to what people tells him and only following what he thought they said, not what they meant.

(I ended up writing a LONG post about this anyway, lol. I'd appreciate if you keep reading).

His approach to trying to make up for all he did to his family was to pressure himself to be the best hero of the world. A hero good enough to make his children and his wife proud. When actually, what he family needed and needs is for him to fulfill his duty as a father and a husband. They need Enji Todoroki, nor Endeavor. They don't need him to become stronger or faster or win even more prizes. They need him to talk and share about their day, to cook and clean the house, to watch TV together and go places together.

Enji is so focused on the narrative he made in his mind that he's unable to understand where is he wrong, which is extremely selfish being honest. The reason why he suffers so much and makes others suffer so much is because he is unable to communicate efficiently. This is a constant in the bnha narrative, a theme that is in every plot and arc. Whenever a hero or a villain finds themselves trapped, they soon realize is because they've closed their minds and hearts and let others out, so they can't receive suggestions or advice, nor try new ways others can see but not them.

Endeavor is the embodiment of the tragedy that comes with not opening your mind and heart and letting people change you. It is the tragedy of the old generation of pro-heroes, in fact. That's the reason why the UA kids have evolved so much through the manga, but the pro-heroes haven't changed that much, with a few exceptions.

Let's analyze how it relates to Endeavor's quirk, shall we? When fire gets released, it generates heat and light and sound; it is energy. Endeavor most noticeable trait is his excess release of energy. He's always on fire, shouting and using his strength over the top. He does what I could call a total waste of his resources.

He works excessively, to the point his own light blinds him. The moments Enji is relaxed, truly relaxed, are few on the manga. He lives in a constant competition. Do you know what happens to any object that is continually pressured? It wears down, it breaks. Or in other words, what is constantly burning without rest will soon enough burn out and fade away.

He held his wife to his standards and then his kids. He forced them to keep a rhythm that broke all of them, just because he felt a failure himself. I don't know y'all, but if the man I admires calls himself a failure, with all he does, and I want to be like him and I'm unable to even reach a piece of what he is, I'm gonna feel fatal myself. That's what happened to Touya. He took everything his dad threw at him. The problem is not that Touya couldn't resist, the problem is that he learned too much from Enji. He copied every trait and behavior, his recklessness and his self-centered view of the world, his insane standards and perfectionism, his ignorance in terms of how much he could stand and his desperation to be enough, be more, please everyone.

Rei ended up in the hospital because she tried to keep up to Enji. The stress was too big and she made a mistake, burning her younger son and marking him forever. And Shouto also tried to keep up, with almost results in him becoming just as blind as his brother and father, if it wasn't for Deku. And what about Fuyumi and Natsuo? Well, we saw how Fuyumi took up the role of the mother of the house and how Natsuo, who has for me the healthiest reaction to it all, distanced himself and rejected all the pressure. But deep down, Natsuo trauma is more related to what he let his dad do to his family than anything else. He thinks is partially his fault what happened with Touya and Shouto, with Rei and Fuyumi. He got caught in the middle, feeling useless and helpless, like a ghost.

It could all have been avoided if only Enji stopped for a while, reminding his family that they were perfect as they were or that he was already proud of them. The issue with this type of family dynamics is that they didn't need a meteor to fall from heaven or a god to point the way, but rather they lacked the little things, the daily things. A kiss in the forehead and a story for the night, a picnic and a trip to the beach. Endeavor was too worry about the big picture that he forgot everyh paint is made with tiny strokes. But he didn't have time, he was too busy for a family he forced to exists. He wanted them, didn't him? Then why he was never truly there if he wanted them so much?

When he was there, they were filled with fear. Did he notice it? Or course he did. It's impossible to miss the type of stares Touya and Rei had in their faces, the cries of Shouto, the trembling of Fuyumi and Natsuo.

As I see it, Enji is facing a simply but not easy (for him) decision:

If he really wants to redeem himself in front of his family, he needs to devotee his days to being with them. He needs to make up for all the time he wasn't there, for all the wrong he did, he needs to take in flesh and soul the consequences of his actions.

And it'd be hard to do so if he is the number one hero in Japan, knowing he's gonna be busier than ever. Now that he has what he wanted so much, is it worth all the trouble? Touya and him are mirrors in that sense. If Dabi makes his family suffer and kill his dad and then dies himself, could he call that a victory? Would he feel okay or just less miserable? Now that Endeavor has what he wanted, did it fill his life like he thought it would?

Does he prefer to lose his family but be Japan hero number one or give up the title in order to take back the life he sacrificed for his dream?

For me, that's the core of Enji's conflict right now on the manga. You can see it by how he went to fight AFO and not Touya. Again, he picked his hero duty over his family, making Kotaro quiet right. After all, heroes hurt their own families to save total strangers all the time, don't they?

#bnha #mha #my hero academia #boku no hero academia #Endeavor #Enji Todoroki #Shan's mha opinions #Shan's bnha opinions #Bnha spoilers

39 notes · View notes

thimbil · 3 years

Text

Having some thoughts about the references and inspirations used for the Bad Batch’s designs.

So Boba Fett is my absolute favorite character and Temeura Morrison was perfect casting. I went to see the 2008 TCW movie in theaters because I was so excited to see him again, even if he was animated. You can imagine my disappointment. Whoever was on screen was not Temeura Morrison. You could sort of see a resemblance if you squinted and didn’t think too hard about it. They replaced Temeura with Racially Ambiguous G.I. Joe. If I didn’t know better and someone told me the animated clones are space Italians from the moon of New Jersey I would buy it. One Million Brothers Pizzeria and Italian Bistro. Not that there’s something wrong with being space Italian, I just don’t think it’s the right choice for the Fetts. The design got slightly improved by season 7 but it still bugs the hell out of me.

I did eventually get into the show later and (of course) got invested in the clones. Unfortunately, they were largely sidelined by the Jedi storylines. Out of the two new main characters created for TCW, Ahsoka definitely got more development and focus than Rex. When they announced The Bad Batch, I was excited to see a show specifically devoted to the clones… at least that’s what it said on the tin. We have all seen what lurks beneath those stylish helmets.

Jango Fett, you are NOT the father.

So who is?

Based on interviews with Filoni, it sounds like the Bad Batch was a George Lucas idea. And like all his ideas, it’s super derivative. The original trilogy directly lifted elements from sci fi serials, westerns, and samurai movies, more specifically Kurosawa films like The Hidden Fortress. For The Bad Batch character designs, the influence is obviously American action and adventure movies.

Now let’s get specific. Bad Batch, who’s your daddy?

Hunter

Sylvester Stallone as Rambo in First Blood 1982. That bandana has become an integral part of the iconic action hero look. You see a character wearing one and it’s a visual shorthand for either “this character is a tough guy” like Billy played by Sonny Landham in Predator 1987, or “this character thinks he is/wants to be a tough guy” like Brand played by Josh Brolin in The Goonies 1985 or Edward Frog played by Corey Feldman in The Lost Boys 1987.

Hunter’s model is closest to the original clone base. If you look closely you will see the eyebrows are straighter with a much lower angle to the arch. His nose is also not the same shape as a standard clone like Rex, including a narrower bridge. It’s certainly not Temeura Morrison’s nose. Remember what I said about space Italians? It didn’t take much to push the existing clone design to resemble an specific Italian man instead of a specific Māori man. The 23&Me came back, and Hunter inherited more than the bandana from Sylvester.

Crosshair

The long narrow nose, the sharp cheekbones, the scowl. That’s no clone, that’s just animated Clint Eastwood. Not even Young and Hot Clint Eastwood from Rawhide 1959-1965. With that hair, I’m talking Gran Torino 2008. The man of few words schtick and family friendly toothpick in lieu of cigar are pure Eastwood as The Man With No Name from Sergio Leone’s spaghetti westerns A Fist Full of Dollars 1964, For a Few Dollars More 1965, and The Good the Bad and the Ugly 1966.

In a way, this is full circle because the actor Jeremy Bulloch took inspiration from Clint Eastwood for his performance as Boba Fett in ESB.

Wrecker

In an interview Filoni lists the Hulk as an (obvious) inspiration for Wrecker. Ever seen the old Hulk tv show from 1978? Well take a look at the actor who played him, Lou Ferrigno. Would you look at that. Even has his papa’s nose.

You could make the argument that Wrecker was influenced by The Rock, an appropriately buff ‘n bald Polynesian (Samoan, not Maori) man. But look at him next his Fast and Furious costar Vin Diesel and tell me which one resembles Wrecker’s character model more.

Tech

Tech is a little trickier for me to place. If he has a more direct inspiration it must be something I haven’t seen. That said, his hairline is very Bruce Willis as John McClane in Die Hard 1988. His quippiness and large glasses remind me of Shane Black as Hawkins from Predator 1987. In terms of his face, he looks a but like the result of McClane and Hawkins deciding to settle down and start a family. Although, Tech’s biggest contributors are probably just everyone on TV Trope’s list for Smart People Wear Glasses.

And finally,

Echo

Oh Echo. Considering he wasn’t created for the Bad Batch, he probably wasn’t based on a particular character or movie. But if I had to guess, his situation and appearance remind me a lot of Alex Murphy played by Peter Weller in Robocop 1987. However, Robocop explored the Man or Machine Identity Crisis with more nuance, depth, and dignity. Yikes.

The exact tropes and references used in The Bad Batch have been done successfully with characters who aren’t even human. Gizmo from Gremlins 2: The New Batch 1990 had a brief stint with the Rambo bandana. I could have picked any number of characters for Defining Feature Is Glasses but here is the most cursed version of Simon of Alvin and the Chipmunks. Suffer as I have. Marc Antony with his beloved Pussyfoot from Looney Tunes has the same tough guy with a soft center vibe as Wrecker and his Lula (also a kind of cat). Hell, in the same show we have Cad Bane sharing Cowboy Clint Eastwood with Crosshair. I actually think Bane makes a better Eastwood which is wild considering Crosshair has Eastwood’s entire face and Bane is blue.

So we’ve established you don’t need your characters to look exactly like their inspirations to match their vibe. So why go through the trouble and cost of creating completely new character designs instead of recycling and altering assets they already had on hand? Just slap on a bandana, toothpick, goggles, and make Wrecker bigger than the others while he does a Hulk pose and you’re done. Based on the general reaction to Howzer it would have been a low effort slam dunk crowd pleaser.

But they didn’t do that.

So here’s the thing. I like the tropes used in The Bad Batch. I am a fan of action adventure movies from the 80s-90s, the sillier the better. I am part of the Bad Batch’s target audience. Considering what I know about Disney and Lucasfilm, I went in with low expectations. I genuinely don’t hate the idea of seeing references to these actors and media in The Bad Batch. I don’t think basing these characters on tropes was a bad idea. If anything it’s a solid starting point for building the characters.

The trouble is nothing got built on the foundation. The plot is directionless, the pacing is wacky, and the characters have nearly no emotional depth or defining character arcs. They just sort of exist without reacting much while the story happens around them. But I can excuse all of that. You don’t stay a fan of Star Wars as long as I have not being able to cherrypick and fill in the gaps. This show has a deeper issue that shouldn’t be ignored.

Why do the animated clones bear at best only a passing resemblance to their live action actor? In interviews, Filoni wouldn’t shut up but the technological advancements in the animation for season 7. So if they are updating things, why not try to make the clones a closer match to their source material? Why did they have to look like completely different people in The Bad Batch to be “unique”? Looking like Temeura Morrison would have no bearing on their special abilities and TCW proved you can have identical looking characters and still have them be distinct. In fact, that’s a powerful theme and the source of tragedy for the clones’ narrative overall.

Here’s Filoni’s early concept art of Crosshair, Wrecker, Tech, and Hunter. (Interesting but irrelevant: Wrecker seems to have a cog tattoo similar to Jesse’s instead of a scar. Wouldn’t it have been funny if they kept that so when they met in season 7 one if them could say something like “Hey we’re twins!” That’s a little clone humor. Just for you guys 😘)

None of these drawings look like the clones in TCW, much less Temeura Morrison. Let’s be generous. Maybe Filoni struggles with drawing a real person’s likeness, as many people do. But he had to hand this off to other artists down the line whose job specifically involves making a stylized character resemble their actor. Yet the final designs missed the mark almost as much as this initial concept. Starting to seem as if the clones looking more like Temeura Morrison was never even on the table. It wasn’t a lack of creativity, skill or technical limitations on the part of the creative team. I don’t think there is an innocent explanation. They went out of their way to make the final product exactly how we got it.

This goes beyond homage. They could have made the same pop culture references and character tropes without completely stripping Temeura Morrison from the role he originated. It was a very purposeful choice to replace him with more immediately familiar actors from established franchises and films. It wouldn’t shock me if Filoni, Lucas, and anyone else calling the shots didn’t even think hard or care enough about the decision to immediately recognize a problem. And I don’t think they believed anyone else would either. At least no one whose opinion they cared about. Those faces are comfortingly familiar and proven bankable. They are what we’re all used to seeing after all. They’re white.

Lack of imagination, bad intentions, or simple ignorance doesn’t really matter in the end. The result is the same. Call it what it is. They replaced a man of color with a bunch of white guys. That’s by the book garden variety run of the mill whitewashing. There’s no debate worth having about it. For a fanbase that loves to nitpick things like whether or not it’s in character for Han to shoot first or Jeans Guy in the Mandalorian, we sure are quick to find excuses for clones who look nothing like their template. Why is that? If you don’t see the problem, congratulations. Your ass is showing. Pull your jeans up.

#star wars #the bad batch #unwhitewashtbb #wrecker #crosshair #tech #hunter #echo

252 notes · View notes

redphlox · 3 years

Text

How Touya can be Saved

I’ve talked before about why I think Shouto will save Touya, and now I want to talk about how. No doubt saving the eldest Todoroki child will be a combined family effort, but I want to specifically talk about Shouto’s role in this because it will be the culmination of his character arc. I also want to tie in how Dabi can make himself seen and understood by crying tears of blood in front of his family. Finally receiving validation after desperately needing it his entire life will be the key to his salvation.

As of chapter 298, Shouto already empathizes with Touya; he feels Touya’s hate and even recognizes Dabi is the person Shouto himself was before the Sports Festival. Shouto is extending his empathy and understanding to his brother the same way he reacted to Iida during the Stain arc in chapter 53, “Todoroki to Iida.”

Having empathy for Dabi’s resentment is only the first step in reaching him, though. That shared rage doesn’t completely validate Dabi’s pain as an abuse victim, which is something Shouto has yet to recognize about himself. Shouto’s anger has always been about how Endeavor abused Rei to the point she had to be institutionalized and not how Endeavor isolated him, physically abused him, and robbed him of his childhood. Shouto probably hadn’t stopped to think about how the other Todorokis perceived their family situation because, like most families in this situation, no one talked about the abuse - Shouto even expresses surprise and agreement in 192 when Natsuo confronts Endeavor with the entire family’s pain. Shouto thinks back to the memory of wanting to play with his siblings and realizes that specific day didn't only stay with him but that his siblings remember it and were impacted by it, too.

Like Natsuo, Dabi knows the root cause of their family’s dysfunction was Endeavor, and while he had a problem with what he perceived as each individual member’s blindness to their abuse, he ultimately doesn’t blame the victims and instead assigns all the blame onto Endeavor. Even 10 years later, he still calls Rei ‘okaasan’, Fuyumi ‘Fuyumi-chan’, and Natsuo ‘Natsu-kun’ because he still cares about them and recognizes all of them as victims of a corrupt hero who never set out to be a husband and a father and only used them.

However, Touya's own victimhood has never been validated - in 301 and 302, it was seen that he was the scapegoat for his family, and no matter how much he tried to earn back his father’s approval or call his father out on his unfair treatment, no one was ever on Touya’s side. His mother told him to look away from his father as an example instead of standing up to Endeavor for herself and her children, and Fuyumi and Natsuo were too young to understand and couldn't relate to what Touya went through as Endeavor's prized heir. Touya needs validation that he was abused and neglected. He always has. He still does.

The person in the perfect position to understand what it’s like to be on the receiving end of Endeavor’s impossibly high standards, obsession with surpassing All Might, and quirk training is Shouto. But in order to fully empathize with Dabi and show his brother that he can relate, Shouto needs to acknowledge that he too was a victim. In 292, Dabi basically asks Shouto to validate the pain and suffering Dabi had just exposed in the battlefield, but his question still stands unanswered.

To reach Touya, Shouto also has to show Dabi what kind of person he is - as in, Shouto has to separate himself from Endeavor’s shadow and establish that he too has been holding Endeavor accountable for his actions. We as readers know that Shouto’s entire character arc has been about asking himself, “Who am I?” Often, children who grow up in abusive households struggle with their identity and Shouto is a perfect example of this. This is why he chose his hero name to be his name: Shouto. He’s learning who he is after years of trying so hard to not be his father and becoming exactly like him - cold, distant, tunnel visioned, hateful. It wasn't until he met Inasa that he realized this and wanted to right his wrongs.

Like Inasa, Dabi doesn’t know Shouto at all. Both Inasa and Dabi knew Endeavor and assumed Shouto would be just like him. Inasa had a valid reason to think this of Shouto of course, because Shouto was standoffish and dismissive during the UA entrance exams, but at the time of the provisional license exam Inasa hadn’t learned that Shouto had recognized this toxic side of himself and had begun working towards the kind of person he wants to be. Shouto had to show Inasa the real him, and in a similar way, he will have to prove this to Dabi. Dabi hasn’t seen Shouto struggle with his identity like we the readers have; Dabi only sees his usurper making headlines and willingly interning with Endeavor. He probably assumes Shouto is proudly training to carry their father’s legacy. Dabi isn’t privy to the nuanced relationship Shouto or their siblings have with their father. All Dabi knows is that Endeavor is seeing and paying attention to Shouto and Shouto seemingly submitting. Dabi has no idea THIS is how it really is:

Showing others who he is is a way for Shouto to process his own trauma and establish his identity. As the son of the #2 hero, Shouto has always had to prove himself to others - that he’s not his father. He’s even had to prove this to himself by accepting his fire side and making it his own in spite of his father repeatedly calling him a creation or a masterpiece. Not being like his father is such a defining trait for Shouto that he feels compelled to tell kindergarteners during the re-licensing exam his life story and his trauma. He literally bore his heart out to these kids because he knew he wouldn’t get through to them unless he was genuine. I think he’ll apply this concept to Touya, too.

The thing about Shouto is that, while he hasn’t reconciled with his own status as an abuse victim, he sees himself as a survivor. He sees himself as someone who managed through a difficult situation and wants to help others get through their struggles too. That's why getting through to these kids was so important to him, why he took it so seriously. These were problematic kids, and instead of calling them brats or trying to intimidate or manipulate them, he tries to get down to their level and relate. Notice he emphasizes how much he struggled in school at first, how his relationship with his father is strained - in his mind, it's something these kids may be able to relate to.

Shouto is someone who sets out to understand and make others feel seen and understood. It's what makes him kind. Shouto probably understands why his father abused the entire family - Endeavor's reasons don't excuse him or earn his children's forgiveness, but it's a reason that humanizes him to Shouto. He himself was a cold, bitter person who now believes people can change if given the right opportunity and self-awareness because this is a lesson he's learned from Midoriya and Inasa. This is also something Shouto can grant Touya: understanding, a listening ear, space to be wrong, and a chance to be seen.

Touya wanted and still craves to be seen, and he has to see in return. He has to realize Shouto isn't his father's puppet. He has to relate to Shouto much like Shouto is relating to him. Shouto will have to pull the same move he pulled on those kindergarteners and tell Dabi his struggles, and then show him he’s making his own path different from their father’s and that the family isn’t blindly following Endeavor anymore or letting him do what he wants. Natsuo has stood up to him, Rei has stood up to him, Fuyumi has admitted to herself she had been trying to play a happy family instead of fixing the internal mess - they as a family will have to show Dabi all of this, and he’ll have to wrap his head around it. He has to realize that his family is different from how they were 10 years ago. This is what I mean by allowing Touya space to be wrong - it’s okay for him to be wrong in assuming all these things about Shouto. Shouto won’t judge him for it.

I've talked before about how the narrative framing as of chapter 309 has set up that a person must express their feelings in a socially acceptable manner before they can be a candidate for saving, and that means crying. As soon as Midoriya saw a glimpse of little Tenko crying, he switched his mentality from "I'll never forgive you" to "I want to save that crying boy." When Toga ran away from Ochako crying, Ochako became concerned and curious. Following this pattern, it makes sense that Dabi also has to show his emotions, but it’s complicated because he can’t cry due to his burnt tear ducts. Every time we’ve seen him cry tears of blood, he’s been alone - he’ll have to cry in front of Shouto and the family for it to sink in that all of Dabi’s destruction and hate stems from deep-seated sorrow and feelings of abandonment. The family does not yet know how the fire that killed Touya started, and they have no idea that Touya’s emotions are linked to his fire and that he died because he was feeling overwhelmingly forsaken and sad. Once they find out, however, they’ll fully understand Touya (hopefully) and recognize they haven’t been understanding him at all. Saving Touya will be difficult because he has to be vulnerable and that's not something he's done as Dabi, but that's where the Todoroki family arc is headed: healing as a family.

As a side note: I’m not saying that the message the manga is giving is the correct one (how you express yourself shouldn’t be a determinant of the help you receive) but it’s what we have to work with. I also think saving Touya will be more complicated than this and will also involve Natsuo, but that’s a meta for another day! ;]

#bnha #dabi #touya todoroki #shouto todoroki #my meta #inasa yoarashi #bnha spoilers #Bnha meta #Mha #mha spoilers

405 notes · View notes

scrawnytreedemon · 3 years

Text

Victor Frankenstein and Frustration: a Not-Essay, because I can’t structure for shit.

Alright, I’ll try to keep it as clean and concise as I can, but at the end of the day this is a sorta-heat-in-the-moment thing I’m writing while all the ideas and motivation are in me yet. I will be jumping around alot of topics, as this covers alot of ground, but I can’t say I’ll do it with grace: for this, I apologise.

I’ve noticed a trend in online lit fandom, not just on Tumblr, to condense Victor’s character to something roughly following “arrogant, ineffectual and selfish weenie who failed horribly at parenting, who ought not to be taken seriously in any significant way, largely in-due to his constant whining“ --In other words, a right twat.

And here’s the thing: largely, I agree.

However, what I take issue with, I suppose, is largely how this is all framed.

See, fandom has a tendency to sort characters into boxes, and then pick favourites or bête noires from that selection; this is helpful for the largely memetic(as in, shareable,) nature of online spaces; but where I think this thinking falls short is that it tends to divide casts into More Good or More Evil, with little room for nuance.

I think you can see where I’m going with this.

Victor Frankenstein, by all accounts, is an incredibly frustrating character to witness; he gets way in over his head, isolates himself from his loved ones, leaving them worried, deems those ambitions failed, hides from them, then when shit starts hitting the fan, he takes initial actions to try and mitigate the consequence, hits a roadblock, either stops their or chooses an even worse option, someone else gets hurt, he whines, rinse and repeat until the final act of the book, as the stakes get higher and higher and his mental state deteriorates more, and more, and more. If you look at this entirely from an outsiders’ perspective, as you, the audience, being subjected to his moaning time and time again, it can wear on you and your sympathies-- Needless to say, I Get It™.

I think, however, it needs be remarked that Victor is also just some guy.

What I feel is often missed, is that even before Victor goes to university, he has just suffered the loss of his mother, with little time to recover, and that all of this is being told in hindsight, on his deathbed.

When Victor took on, all by himself, at twenty-two years old, not even letting anyone else know what he was up to, the monumental task of creating life, and then finding that life horribly botched, he did not have the perspective that what he created was equivalent to a newborn child-- For all he knew, he might have animated an actual demon. It isn’t until two years later, after the death of his little brother at the hands of said demon, the he’s even remotely made aware of this.

Victor had worn himself out over the course of several months, physically and mentally, to this one task. He was not equipped to deal witht he consequences. I do not say this to downplay the weight of his actions, or the horrible mess of events that come afterwards, but to state perspective. Victor does not have the hindsight we have at the time of this act. I cannot stress this enough. As much as I enjoy Deadbeat Dad Vick jokes, I get the feeling many people actually view the story from this lens, and hold Victor up to that standard.

Then there’s the trial of Justine: a horrible, useless, unneeded and avoidable affair that ends in even more senseless death. This is where alot of people’s sympathy for Victor runs out-- For more than understandable reasons. He failed to act accordingly, to share the information he had, deeming it to be either dismissed instantly or for himself to be put under scrutiny; it’s clear he’s passionate about Justine’s innocence, but he cannot push himself past his fear and doubt, and ultimately, it ends in her death.

It is a horrible, horrible moment, and one that cements the tone of the story from there on out.

These are two key events that largely colour this image of Victor so prevelant online; and it certainly doesn’t help, what with fandom being almost aggressively left-leaning at times, that Victor comes from a place of privilege; he is almost tailor-made to push all the buttons of fandom sensitivities.

Let me elaborate.

A key feature of Victor’s character is his complete and utter inability to ask for help; no matter how dire the situation. Victor feels, that, despite and even because of his incompetence, that it is his cross and his cross alone to bear. Any inolvement from others, such as Clerval when he heads to England, is hesitant and highly discouraged, even when he wants nothing more than to partake in the company of his loved ones, after all he’s been through. While it is also heavily coloured by the anguished sentiment that borders on self-absorption so much of the time, I think it is also worthy to examine this too.

Victor’s tendency to indulge in self-pity and self-loathing is nigh, if not entirely, all-consuming; it pervades the narrative to a painful degree, particularly as it comes from his recollections; it is often exhausting to read through, and nigh unbearable if you already hold a disdane from his previous actions; but here’s the thing I think most people miss,

Victor is depressed.

I don’t mean “ooh, he’s so sad, leave him alone 🥺,“ I mean the guy is fucking depressed, stuck in a constant cycle of attempting to make do but failing, hating himself even more, letting it consume him because he at once feels like he deserves to be consumed and it’s the only thing he can do then and there to soothe to pain as shit gets worse and worse.

Victor Frankenstein’s internal monolgue is a prime example of deep-seated, far-gone depression, and I say this because I myself have experienced and do experience this. Depression is fucking soul-sucking, man; it turns you in on yourself, makes you feel entirely undeserving of love and compassion, leaves you feeling like you must, have to, deal with this entirely by yourself because it is your cross to bear.

Depression is so often self-flagellating and pointless, leaving the subject drained and often largely unable to experience the world outside their own miserable little bubble.

Victor is so wrapped up in this soul-sucking guilt, attempting to fight his own ineffectuality and in doing so only furthering his own ineffectuality, refusing to ask for help, that he ends up putting the ones he’s trying to protect in further danger as he tries to scramble a hodge-podge solution to the problem he created and couldn’t have even begun to forsee its consequences at twenty-two years old. It is a painful, painful example of how if only he reached out, if only he told someone, was honest, all of this could have been avoided, or at least mitigated.

And I think that’s the thing with Victor.

He’s a kind of banal evil-- If such continuous stumbling can even be considered so --He is an example of every day self-isolation and refusal to let anyone else in ballooning to such a degree it ends in distaster.

People are far, far more willing to forgive Adam for his transgressions-- And I say this as someone far more sympathetic to his plight, what with the absolute abandonment he faced at the hands of humanity --Despite their far more horrific consequences; in many ways, they’re attributed to Victor’s failing; which isn’t entirely untrue,

But I have to wonder, if alot of this also comes down to the fact that Victor’s wrongdoings are so human; leaving someone in your care behind; not speaking up in cases of injustice; being self-involved; again, the constant whining. In a way, it’s the sentiment that in stories a horrible person is often far more bearable than an annoying one.

That doesn’t even begin to touch on how much of the bemoaning might largely be and often is directly post-hoc regret colouring all his previous actions. This, above all else, is a cautionary tale to a fellow idealist in the hopes that Robert Walton doesn’t Fuck Up the way he did. Victor stresses his regret and his failings and his misery time and time again because he wants to protect Robert from a similar fate; a fate that ultimately ends in his death.

Victor Frankenstein is a study in frustration; in audience frustration, self-frustration, narrative frustration; it seeps into every corner of the story.

I am not trying to defend Victor Frankenstein as a person; he is flawed; and he’s meant to be flawed. Victor, at the end of the day, is a deconstruction of the Byronic hero-- Of Great and Powerful Men on the Fronteers of History™-- And most importantly, I think, a deconstruction he himself undergoes. Victor eventually alerts someone, a Genevan magistrate, is doubted just as he feared, and then runs off to take revenge into his own hands.

It takes the death of Elizabeth Lavenza to do so.

Victor is a flawed, miserable man, but not an evil one. That doesn’t mean he deserved to have his life crumble around him.

He could have done better. Should have done better.

And he knows this.

His entire arc is about how he knows this.

Victor dies knowing this.

Him being unlikable doesn’t make him a bad character. Him being unlikable is part of the character; and in a meaningful way.

God, I don’t know how to end this. I’ll probably come back and edit this many, many times.

I guess I’m just tired of people flattening characters just because they’re not particularly endearing.

#frankenstein #scrawny speaks #scrawny rambles #analysis #victor frankenstein #there's probably even more i want to say and will regret failing to touch on #and believe me i do see the irony in a thinkpiece about victor frankenstein so laser-focusing on him #i really do #but it's kinda all the energy i have for #point is i don't think victor is a particularly good person #or admirable in any way shape or form #but that doesn't mean his character doesn't have worth #and i guess i'm tired about all of this just getting... tossed out the window #fandom is fun but also exhausting #he's a weenie yes but he isn't j us t a weenie can we please acknowledge that?#he's a guy. some fucking guy who fucked up. like alot of fucking guys who fucked up.#i wonder how much of this is also The Protagonist Complex #wherein we insert ourselves and go 'i would have done this better!'#because BELIEVE ME i hope i'd be far more empathetic and far more... Less That #but i don't know and i won't pretend to know #and i do wonder if some of this comes down to people not wanting to sympathise with a Bad Person because then it means they could be Bad #spoiler alert: yes. all of us have the potential to be miserable weenies.#none of us are safe.#i want to stress *potential*#please don't leap down my throat #ughghjg i'll stop. hopefully this was... Okay. i guess.#long post

112 notes · View notes