#i don't agree with their actions but can we start accepting characters flaws instead of erasing them

[astarlightmonbebe]

the shenanigans in wedding impossible are fun and all, but impossible to truly enjoy because i cannot forget the high stakes behind them. it was bad enough when the premise was simply a contract marriage to cover up one man's secret, but now we have 'let me seduce my brother's fiance-soon-to-be-wife' thrown into a mix. jihan's actions are harmless on the surface, sinister beneath it. for all he says he cares about his brother, ajeong is right when she says he's not a very good brother (i mean, you could argue the same for dohan, which i will get into in a minute), because what brother makes a move on his brother's woman? it doesn't matter if there's no feelings yet, or if the marriage is fake - they've barely begun and they're already getting caught. and jihan and ajeong getting caught leads to dohan and ajeong getting caught out too, and so it always comes back to dohan's secret, his reason for trying to escape. i think starting off the drama we already know that dohan ultimately won't be able to keep his sexuality a secret, that it will somehow be forced out into the open, but with each episode, the stakes surrounding that reveal get higher and higher. the higher it gets, the more the fall hurts. the higher the walls, the more violently they crumble.

and, objectively, none of the characters are entirely without blame or flaws in the situation. dohan asking ajeong to marry him without consideration of the cost it could have on her (he's asking her to move to ny, lie to her family and his, possibly stall her career or risk losing it entirely, etc). ajeong lying about her career to dohan and acting as if she's rich and all that. for close friends, they are sometimes careless with one another, but we can also see them remedying that, rebuilding the gaps, such as when ajeong sincerely accepts his offer, and dohan calling her to check in. jihan's a much more volatile character. his character can be understandable when you think that he wants dohan to have happiness because he somehow thinks of himself as responsible for their mom dying, but what's the point in fighting for something for dohan that dohan doesn't even want? dohan has made it clear he doesn't want the company, but jihan has it set on him inheriting it, on marrying him off. he's not much different from their grandfather in that respect, although at least their grandfather agreed to let dohan marry ajeong instead of trying to break them apart like jihan's doing now. jihan's pushy and overbearing; dohan, in contrast, is perhaps too laidback. he doesn't seem to understand jihan's ambition or his struggles in the power balance, and he also left his brother alone with the wolves for five years. it's hard to really analyze the brother's that much, because we don't get that many scenes of just the two of them and have barely any backstory on how their relationship was like growing up (did dohan look out for jihan? what does he know that jihan doesn't, and vice versa? how was dohan's position in the family (we understand jihan is bottom rung)? etc).

still, when it gets down to the bone, the biggest blowback is on dohan, because he'll end up losing the one thing he wanted to protect. ajeong entered the game as an outsider, and she'll leave like one (or eventually be welcomed back into the family as jihan's wife at this point), although there will probably be considerable affect possibly on her career or public image as an actress. jihan could lose a lot, more so in standing, which he cares about, and public image as well. dohan gets outed to his family, and probably the greater public depending on how much comes to light (that reporter seems like he'll be an issue). so really, jihan and ajeong are playing a game and forgetting dohan is in the middle. and that's going to be a problem.

#star stumbles #wedding impossible #kdrama #my thoughts #lee dohan #lee jihan #na ajeong #this was not proofread so sorry if it doesn't make sense at certain parts. i combined two separate posts into one #oh and also. dohan does not have a support system outside of ajeong in sk at this point #ajeong has her family and friends while jihan has his coworkers #dohan really has no one. he's supposed to have jihan and ajeong but we know how that will go :/ #i want more info on the brothers though i'm really curious about the family situation #and confused about how they were illegitimate with their mom being part of the choi family but the public didn't know??? #like she was having an affair with a man and had two sons and kept it secret while being president??? i don't understand it #ep 4

[cometrose]

Exactly the only thing different is the genders, if they were reversed everyone would be on his side like you said we've seen this story a 100 times, not that there isn't a lot of misogyny in fandom spaces like all spaces and dramas still have room for improvement when it comes to female characters in general but the way fandom has changed these last few years is just crazy, no nuance no complexity nothing interesting just perfect characters or they will get eaten alive and when it comes to romance, all they want is endlessly devoted men the women and their actions don't even factor into it it's all omg he's such a green flag and she fell first he fell harder we've completely lost the ability to engage with media, everything becomes morality discourse for fake people. I don't remember how they phrased it but someone said the way these people engage with media is because the only activism they know is online they haven't done anything in real life which is why they think fictional characters and their actions are tantamount to what real people believe...

ooh this is such a good point and I agree truly.

Bullied by in-laws? Ignored by spouse? In any other story people would be rallying for HW to get on the quickest flight out of there (I mean I was lol)

There is still a lot of misogyny within fandoms and dramas themselves so I always try to be thoughtful when discussing female characters but god you're so right. We just want perfection from these characters all the time and some many people just want perfect tropes perfect characters and perfect stories all the time its exhausting.

I am repeating myself but I do like how they aren't hopelessly devoted to each other all the time. I've watched two dramas this year, Marry My Husband and Perfect Marriage Revenge, and both male leads are knee-on-the-ground, would do anything for their respective female leads and while i do like those boys I also don't mind a male lead that has contradictory emotions for his partner.

Like the biggest thing here is nuance, the truth is obvious from the beginning that Hyunwoo clearly loves Haein he has just buried that feeling under all this frustration and resentment that he can no longer recognize it. These people don't have perfectly good feelings or behaviors towards each other and I think that's fine.

Plus this is a story about an estranged married couple like how would there be drama if they were perfectly perfect partners to each other all the time? Even though they may love each other that love isn't enough to be a happy couple. Haein says that she did not write Hyunwoo in the will because she wished to marry him as soon as possible and had to get through her mother first essentially leaving him high and dry but they were so in love it didn't matter. Like noooo these complexities are interesting plus it is so common for spouses to grow to hate each other and seeing there relationship grounded in some aspect of reality is a fresh change. I welcome it.

Don't get me started on morality politics on social media, the first two eps dropped I went on twitter saw one discussion tweet and knew I couldn't stay there it would drive me crazy. People are always trying to idolize someone these days, to find some perfect thing or unproblematic item to worship unconditionally instead of just accepting some things are fundamentally flawed and discussing their strengths and weaknesses.

#queen of tears #like its so hard to talk about less than perfect characters when everyone defaults to extremes #oh hes not perfect? he must be abusive and you like abusive dynamics NOOOOOO NOOO NOOOOO STOPPPPPP #like i do wish to see if their love can overcome this situation #the situation in question being themselves #like im defending hw because this is hypocrisy! you guys would be on his side if you switched the pronouns around guys!!! #ive read too many webtoons #sheesh

[moontheoretist]

please learn how to engage in discussion without crying and screaming the minute someone mildly disagrees with you. also if you actually studied the theory that you claimed to then you'd know that statements of argumentation can only be deemed to have merit through discussion. In short, your inability to defend your point shows the weakness of your argument and the flaws in your reasoning. strong statements can and do stand up to questioning but obviously yours cannot which is why you start screaming, obfuscating, and throwing ad-hominem attacks instead of actually using the knowledge that you claim to have. also, your refusal to refer to primary sources and belief that you know these characters better than who they've presented themselves to be is textbook projecting. which is fine but don't claim to be a scholar when you clearly can't follow the basic principles of critical thinking, media criticism, or act like an adult. just own up to the fact that you're projecting and accept it instead of trying to convince yourself that you're special or totally understand these characters better than anyone else. For example: your claim that iron man's egotism is a front ignores the fact that he gains absolutely nothing from it, only pushes people away with it, and literally is only rewarded with compassion when he is earnest to those around him. and your analysis of Rodger's self-actualization as Captain America in comparison to Stark's ignores the fact that Captain America is a title that could have been given to anyone but was given to Rodgers on the basis of his merit and Stark literally named himself Ironman, had a whole press conference to announce his super-ego, made a convention for himself and tried to enforce his violent brand of peace-keeping around the world and only considered the consequences of his actions when he was given the opportunity to drag the rest of the team down with him and then abandoned that mission the immediate second that it prevented him from doing what he wanted without asking permission.

Now despite what your clear reactionary tendencies will tell you, I don't hate Stark. I don't even dislike him, I think his story was a fantastic example of a redemption arc and taught a very valuable lesson. But I actually respect the character enough to not warp it into something that it's not.

And my point isn't that Stark is a bad person, it's that he's not perfect and that should be acknowledged. There is a reason why Rodgers can lift the hammer and Stark couldn't and that reason should be recognized and understood. Your analysis displays a lack of that respect and an egregious amount of projecting and I think you're better than that.

So before you write me off as an AntiTony and conclude that you're smarter than everyone else and no one understands that fictional man like you do, take a minute to act like a scholar and actually consider what's being told to you instead of just knocking it away because it tastes bad.

Why, pray tell, should I even try to engage in a discussion with someone, whose first reaction to my post (I won't even dignify it with calling it a response) was to invalidate my intelligence and emotional maturity simply because I dared to be an autistic woman online and said something he disagreed with? And then when he was blocked, he made a new blog, just to write to me, huffing and puffing his big male brain in order to intellectually intimidate me and make me feel stupid and apologize to him for daring to protect my stance?

I won't waste my valuable time for responding to this, even though I feel the urge to go point by point (thanks autism for this) and explain to you exactly why those points are irrelevant to my points.

We agree on Tony's arc. We disagree on Steve's. Done.

I am ending this pointless “fight” here.

#ableism #misogyny #toxic masculinity #people who read my posts know #how I would respond to those points #so I feel I do not have to write it down

[ulquichaan]

Let's talk about Marinette, shall we?

Hello! Your favourite black-striped white wolf is back!

Where was I? Oh, here and there. Working on school stuff, my own little projects and looking at posts and tweets... oh right!

There blew up a big drama about Marinette as a character. That she is a bad character and bad person... And don't get me wrong, I never really liked her. Some stuff she does are making me furious, but I don't think she deserves all that hate.

Now the more I start to think about her, the more I see what a good character she actually is.

So let's have a closer look at her, shall we?

Marinette's biggest flaw

As the drama is about how bad Marinette is let's see what are the arguments for that.

One thing that I will defenitely agree on is - she is a creeper. And no, not the minecraft creeper, although her antics are as annoying.

Marinette is obsessed with Adrien and there is no doubt about that. That makes her do things that we all are cringing on. Even Marinette fans! (The example is Puppeteer 2.0. If you didn't cringe at her antics when Adrien was pretending to be a statue....... I don't know if I should respect you, or be afraid of you...)

Those actions are pulling me away from her and yes I agree, those qualities aren't the ones children should try and copy. But there is something we can do - skip the cringe. Or at least that's what I do, lol.

So yea, this is reasonable. There is no explanation for this... or is there?

Marinette is 13-14 years old girl. She probably doesn't really know what love is all about. She does what she thinks is right. The worst part? No one tells her to stop.

This isn't entirely Marinette's fault. For me... Tikki is the worst here! She is an ancient being, with great knowledge from old times! Her experience SHOULD make her wise enough to tell her holder: "Hey, this isn't how love works." or something.

Yes I know that kwamis don't know what love is. Or do they?

They do know what love is about. They Do know the Platonic Love. Romantic Love is basing on Platonic Love. Long-term relationships are thriving because friendship is the basics of them. You know that person and you adore everything about her, both strengths and flaws, you comunicate, you spend time together. Marinette right now sees Adrien as some kind of God. She put him on the piedestal due to him being nice to her one time.

And Ephemeral shows that perfectly. When she finds out that Adrien is Chat Noir, she is doubting herself, because she doesn't like the idea/reality that her notorious, pushy partner is the one she claims to love.

At first she doesn't accept him. But later on, she learns how to love him. Both strengths and flaws and I'm pretty sure the whole stalking shit stopped.

So I wouldn't blame Marinette here. I would blame those who encourage that behaviour instead, as Mari is really just a kid.

(^Who doesn't hate that scene?)

Marinette and her treatment of Chloe and Lila

Now here we go to the juicy part!

I have heard beliefs that Marinette treated Chloe and Lila badly. That she should do something else. And you know what? I don't really think so.

Let's get Chloe at the front here.

Chloe the blonde rich-kid. Absolutely spoiled brat, rude to everyone else. And that's understandable with her backstory. But. At first Marinette didn't know about that.

What's more, in Origins we actually know that Chloe and Marinette have incredibly bumpy ride! Like... spikey ride even!

Chloe has bullied Marinette for YEaRs! And as a person who was bullied and isolated by their class in primary school, I can relate with Mari here. This isn't anything nice. You feel lonely, unimportant. You are hurting. So why would you want to be nice to someone who is causing you pain?

"Treat others like you want to be treated."

Every action has a reaction and Marinette is absolutely not obligated by anything to be nice to her bully. Maybe it isn't heroic, but it's human. It fleshes Marinette out.

By that I'm referring to the whole Queen Bee arc.

Yes, Marinette should go and talk to Chloe. And she did eventually! Chloe was the brat that didn't get the information "You may never be Queen Bee again" through her tick skull.

Marinette had all rights to not give Chloe the Bee miraculous again. She isn't comfortable around her so why would she push herself into trusting her bully with her life?

Now let's get to Lila.

And ooh, that one is juicy!

So, Lila is that new girl in school. She becomes very popular for some reason. And then bam! Marinette finds out that she is lying about her superhero persona to her crush! Well, wouldn't you be furious when someone is telling lies about you? When someone would try and use you for their own gain? Exploit you maybe?

That's what all of this was about. That's why Marinette bursted out on her. Should she do that? No, defenitely not. She should confront her more calmly. But. Aren't those types of mistakes what makes everyone of us human?

We all are slaves to our emotions and sometimes we do things by impulse and don't think about consequences. If anything, this situation fleshed her out as a human being even more.

A flaw that will probably be worked on in season 5

Marinette also has another major flaw that should be worked on in season 5. Like, Mari will learn how to not be so controlling.

Season 4 was perfect example of it!

What is it?

Having control over everything. Because when you have control, you are safe.

She admits it in two episodes: Glaciator 2.0 (MariChat in cinema) and Strike Back (Final scene)

Marinette is brought out on a piedestal, being it both as Ladybug and Marinette. She is the guardian of miraculous so she needs to protect the jewels and have a constant eye on them. She is the class representative so she feels like she absolutely needs to help everyone with their problems. She has a golden heart, and thinks that she needs to solve all the problems. She is Ladybug after all! She will find solution to anything!

Marinette needs to learn letting go of the control. Trust with this to someone else (Chat Noir) and lose up a little. She admitted that already and that's first step to working on it.

Marinette is Mary Sue

Absolutely not!

Mary Sue is a character who usually has a tragic backstory, is talented in everything and they doesn't make major mistakes.

Marinette isn't really fitting in neither.

She has a normal backstory, a one that any of us can have. A loving home, friends etc. Yes she has that part with bullying but everyone have some bad things happen to them in the past. They create us and our personality too, y'know.

Marinette isn't talented in everything. Yes she is very creative and has designing talent. Is kicking everyone's butt in games. But she is for example a horrible actor! Look up Horrificator. Or whenever they do a film project, she never takes a role of an actor.

Marinette isn't perfect and there are mistakes that are major. I am not only referring to those she made as Ladybug because they were grieve. Her confronting Lila in a way she did, was a major mistake that brought her an enemy.

But she isn't a bad person either.

Marinette is a very caring person and wants to help everyone around her. She has a golden heart, and as we all know, gold is not only valuable but also it's a very soft metal.

She has passions and hobbies like any person could. She is kind and sympathiseses with people.

She is not a bad person despite all her flaws. All they do is fleshen her out and make her more of a realistic character. :)

Marinette is better as main protagonist, than Adrien

I am bringing this topic here, because I wrote a roleplay with my friend and I have seen few things.

It's very hard to do something with Adrien. He is very secluded, can't really go out and the only way for you to get him out is like in Startrain - a fieldtrip and Adrien has to rebel. Or something like in puppeteer 2.0. Or Photoshoots. Something unusual. No hanging out outside of school, really. It's hard to put new characters when your main protagonist can't really meet them in normal situation. It doesn't make the story in a way they try it to do. A normal days of a child plus superheroing.

Marinette is totally reasonable choice here.

So, that's my take on this topic. What is yours? Do you have anything to add? Maybe you don't agree with me?

I'm open to discussions as long as they stay respectful to both parties ^-^

#miraculous ladybug #mlb s4 spoilers #tales of ladybug and cat noir #miraculous tales of ladybug and chat noir #miraculous marinette #marinette dupain cheng #marinette drama #character analysis #marinette analysis #mlb rant #mlb #mlb fandom #marinette antis #marinette stans #i guess... #what else to tag

[esther-dot]

why do ppl want us to talk about sansa's flaws anyway. like, you don't see any ary@ or d@ny blogs going: hmmm. actually you know what? I think today we should talk about this character we love's shortcomings! nope. THEY can sing praises about their fave characters as much as they want without ever bringing up flaws, but sansa fans cant. yet another BS sansa stans have to face. I hate it here.

People are very anti the Dark Dany interpretation, to the point that it’s become normalized to say that Dany will burn KL, but she’s still a hero. So, when we say, “but burning people alive is bad,” they have to find a way to pushback. Sometimes they use the, “why are y’all hating on teenage girls!” approach to shame us into silence and the other method of shushing us is demanding we acknowledge Sansa’s crimes. So basically, they’re trying to make a moral equivalence between Sansa and their fav to undermine our criticisms.

On the one hand, sure, we can talk about how it isn’t right to say you wish your sister had died. Bad Sansa! How naughty! On the other, that’s within the parameters of normal little girl/sister behavior whereas Dany’s actions aren’t. They’re much darker, and I would argue, villainous.

However, I need to acknowledge that there are Sansa fans who do want to talk about Sansa’s flaws and have a totally different goal in doing so. What started all this recent drama is a self-professed Sansa fan declaring they think she was intentionally an asshole to Jon. So, it isn’t just antis who want to talk about her flaws, and it isn’t necessarily any bad feelings about the character that makes people write about Sansa in a negative way. That initial post was an expression of anger towards fans (like me!) who don’t agree to that argument and defend her against those accusations. So, not all the discussion about her flaws is anti. They typically are, typically written with ulterior motives, but that isn’t always the case.

There are longstanding interpretations and theories about how Sansa was cruel to Jon or is responsible for Arya’s insecurities or mistreated her etc etc and I do think that poisoned the well when it comes to Sansa. To the extent that if you reject those interpretations, people think you’re denying the obvious. So, instead of having a reasonable baseline, we have to push back against accusations against Sansa in order to get to the real starting point. To me, if the discussion is about what the author is saying, the evidence needs to be in the text itself, not the generally accepted fanon which is why I don’t accept those interpretations. If fans want to discuss her flaws, they’re free to do so, but there’s no moral imperative to, especially not when her tag is routinely plagued with negative takes on her. As a Sansa fan, I’d enjoy going to her tag and not seeing people saying mean things about her, I’m in no need of more! 😂

#ask dot #< tag to filter if y'all don't want to see this stuff #sansa discourse

[enderspawn]

It's alright if u don't wanna answer this cuz this argument gets people really riled up but do you think c!Techno is a tyrant or nah?

Cuz many c!techno apologists argue that he isn't just cuz he's an anarchist but I've also read a lot of essays that go against it and it'd be really interesting to see ur opinion on this

i think he, in some contexts, can most definitely be called tyrannical, yes. a tyrant? no.

to avoid spamming ppl w discourse we've all def heard before (and bc this ended up MASSIVE (like 2.3k ish), but fairly in depth bc i didnt wanna speak out of bad faith and wanted to be EXPLICTLY clear-- oops), the rest will be under readmore

so heres the thing i want to preface: i used to really LOVE c!techno. i joined beginning of s2, right when exile started, and he was arguably my favorite character. since then though i've fallen out with him a LOT, to the point i almost... actively despite him at times (though mainly in a toxic kind of way which i can acknowledge is flawed).

in short, his actions started to speak louder than his words and i lost investment in his personal character struggles because of the actions he took (doomsday was my breaking point. i get feeling angry and betrayed, as well as seeking revenge against lmanberg, but his actions went too far for me to CARE and it hurt so many more characters as well.)

so when i speak, i come from a place of disliking him but also somewhat understanding the position c!techno apologists come from: i used to be one of them myself.

NOW, do i think he's a tyrant? no. for reference in my analysis, i try to look up the definition of terms to make sure they are utilized properly. while "tyranny" and "tyrannical" can have multiple uses, tyrant itself is a more specific term. to combine the top two definitions, a tyrant is referring to "an extremely oppressive, unjust, or cruel absolute ruler (who governs without restrictions, especially one who seized power illegally.)"

techno's position as an anarchist, imo, DOES indeed make him unable to be a tyrant. tyrants are rulers with very clear power over others from a structural way. anarchists are about the lack of structure or power over others and instead viewing the people around you as equals in power.

in forming the syndicate, they very explicitly worked to not designate a leader and instead make it so that no one would have any power over the others systemically. techno may have taken a integral role, yes, but it doesn't make him suddenly "the leader", its a role that wouldve had to be filled by someone (even if it was democratic to decide who to invite, they'd need someone to hand over the invite itself yknow? like no matter WHAT there needed to be A ROLE)

one could argue that he IS a leader in the shadow hierarchy of the syndicate (which, yes, is a real and professional term used in management courses despite sounding like it comes from a 4kids yugioh dub) in that everyone CONSIDERS and looks to him a leader without him having any actual structural basis behind it, but to argue that allows him to be a tyrant is in bad faith i believe. especially because to the people he would be "ruling", he ISNT oppressive, unjust, or cruel. they are his friends and support network and critical for a lot of his personal development (since feelings of betrayal and trust issues are critical to his character and why he acts the way he does). I wish we were able to SEE this develop more, but oh well.

but like i said: tyrant is fairly specific in definition. TYRANNY, and thus TYRANNICAL are not as limited. I've discussed their definitions here. originally, i made that post because i was angry at a take i had seen that claimed that, like you said, because techno was an anarchist and not part of any government or leadership position, he couldn't be tyrannical. to which i heartily disagree.

for something to be tyrannical, they simply must have an overarching/oppressive power over someone or something. it would not be inaccurate if i were to say that something is "under the tyranny" of a concept, because what it means is that something is under the power of another thing/concept. you can frankly call anything tyranny if it is widespread/overarching and you don't like it. mask mandates? tyranny, its forcing me to act in "rigorous condition". hell, theres even such things as tyranny of the majority in which people agree too much on one thing and it gives them unfair power or tyranny of the minority where people with minority opinions have too much power (thats a very grossly oversimplified definition of both, but it covers the base idea well enough for my point)

the point im making above isnt meant to be taken as "anything can be worked to be defined as tyranny thus it is a meaningless claim", it is that tyranny (and again, thus tyrannical) are very open and nonrestrictive terms.

to make it easier to define, alongside the definitions provided i want to add an explicit clause that is (imo) implied in the original definition: tyranny is... well, bad. that is to say if someone has power over a group but literally everyone is fine with it and agrees to it, its not tyranny. thats just a group of people getting along and one happens to have power over another. a leader does NOT equal a tyrant (as discussed above), so leadership should not be equated with tyranny.

thus as an example: wilbur acting as president (before the election) may have been "unelected" with power over his citizens, but no one was upset with that power. thus, he is not a tyrant and not acting tyrannically (as well as the fact his power was, arguably, NOT rigourous or absolute but thats another topic for another time). SCHLATT however IS a tyrant, as his power was absolute (he did not consult his cabinet) and forced people to comply instead of them complying willingly, thus he was acting tyrannically.

now to finally get to the damn point of this essay: where does c!techno lie? honest answer? it depends slightly on your perspective, but it depends a LOT on the future of the syndicate.

techno is incredibly clear in his goals: no governments, no corruption. in fighting with pogtopia, he is actively working to topple a tyranny-- he isn't tyrannical for doing that.

when he strikes out on nov 16th, it is because he opposes them forming a new government. when they oppose him and disagree, he launches an attack against them. is this tyranny? maybe, but probably not. he IS trying to impose his own physical strength and power (as well as his resources) over the others to stop them from doing what HE doesn't want them to do.

however its more nuanced than that:

1. hes lashing out emotionally as well as politically. he feels betrayed by those he trusted and he believed that they would destroy the government then go (i'm ignoring any debates on if he did or did not know that they planned another government, though it is a source of debate). but typically idk about you but i dont call tyranny for someone fighting with another person.

2. he also may be acting with good intent again, in HIS EYES. if tubbo was part of manburg, whos to say he wont be just as bad? he, in his pov, is likely trying to stop another tyrant before they rise.

3. and finally, and tbh the most damning from any perspective: he gives up. he quickly leaves then RETIRES without intent to try and attack again until he is later provoked. tyranny is defined by it not just being power, but power being USED. if he doesn't use his power to try and impose any will, then he's not tyrannical.

Doomsday I am also not going to touch very in depth on for much of the same reasons. My answer is again a "maybe", depending on the weight you personally place on each issue:

1. he's lashing out as revenge for the butcher army and as revenge against tommy for "betraying" him (though this one we explicitly know he was ignoring the fact tommy did not want to go through with it, however he still did trust and respect tommy regardless so his feelings are understandable anyway)

2. he sees new lmanberg as corrupt and tyrannical (which is undeniable: house arrest for noncompliance, exile without counsel, execution without trial, etc), and thus obligated to destroy it

but also, theres the implicit understanding he's doing this to send a message: do not form a government, or else. its a display of force that also works to warn others unless they want a similar fate. phil even explicitly states that he is doing so to send that message, so one could assume techno is doing the same alongside his personal reasoning listed above.

what i just described is the use of a oppressive and harsh (physical) power in order to gain compliance from people (that compliance being 'not making a government'). does that sound familiar? exactly. it follows the definition(s) of tyranny given previously. technoblade is acting in a way that is, by very definition, tyrannical.

so the debate shifts: is he valid in doing so because he is trying to PREVENT corruption and tyranny. like i said, new lmanberg was undeniably corrupt at points. i held nothing against techno for trying to topple manburg, so does that apply to new lmanberg as well? short answer: i dont know. it depends on your specific opinion of what is acceptable. its like the paradox of tolerance: to have a truly tolerant society, you have to be intolerant of intolerance. to have a truly non-tyrannical society, do you need to have a tyranny enforcing it?

personally (and bc im a lmanberg loyalist /hj) i say it is. regardless of the corruption of new lmanberg, they are also giving a threat to EVERYONE. even those who are innocent, they are presented with the exact same threat and rule set: if you make a government, you will be destroyed.

(which, small divergence here, is part of why debating c!techno is so frustrating. so many times you end up hitting a "well it depends on your political views" situation and there ISNT a correct answer there. im here to analyze characters for fun, not debate political theory)

so: the syndicate then. this is where this debate really "took off" and i think its due to one very specific miscommunication about its goals and plans. the syndicate, upon formation, declares itself to stand against corruption and tyranny. when they are found, the syndicate would work to destroy it. so heres the golden question: what do THEY define as corruption and tyranny? if you were to go off c!techno's previous statements, seemingly "any government" is a valid answer. however, he also states he's fine with people just being in groups together hanging together.

what then DEFINES A GOVERNMENT for them? what lines do they have to sort out what does "deserve to be destroyed" and what does "deserve to exist freely"

this is a hypothetical i like to post when it comes to syndicate discourse:

i have a group of people. lets say 5 or so for example. they all live together and build together. any decisions made that would impact the entire group they make together and they must have a unanimous agreement in order to proceed, but otherwise they are free to be their own people and do their own thing. when you ask them, they tell you they are their own nation and they have a very clearly defined government: they are a direct democracy. does the syndicate have an obligation to attack?

there is absolutely no hierarchy present. there is no corruption present. but, they ARE indeed a government. is that then inherently negative? my answer is fuck no (see the whole "difference between a tyrant and a leader" thing above).

but THATS where the issue of this discourse LIES. in some people's eyes, the answer to that is YES. techno's made it clear "no government" is his personal view, but does that spread to the syndicate as a whole? do they act preemptively in case it DOES become corrupt? is it inherently corrupt because its a government, regardless of how it is ruled? the fact of the matter is because of how little we've seen the syndicate work as a SYNDICATE, we don't know that answer. so we're left to debate and speculate HOW they would act.

if the syndicate were to let that government exist, then they are not tyrannical. they are showing that they are working to stop tyranny and corruption, just like in pogtopia again.

if the syndicate were to destroy/attack that government, then they are tyrannical. simple as that. they are enforcing a rule of their own creation without any nuance or flexibility under the threat of absolute destruction.

miscommunication in debates comes, in my opinion, in the above. of course theres more points of nuance. for example:

would the syndicate allow a government like i had described with early lmanberg, where there is an established hierarchy but everyone in the country consents to said leadership? on one hand, there is no tyranny or corruption present which is what they are trying to work against. on the other hand, theres more a possibility of it occuring. perhaps they'd find a middle road between the two binary options of "leave or destroy" i am presenting, such as checking in occasionally to ensure no corruption occurs.

but if they were to destroy it without, for lack of a better word, "giving it a chance" they would be, in my opinion, tyrannical. they would be going aginst their words of opposing corruption and instead abusing their power to gain compliance.

your/others opinions may differ, again it depends on if you see it as worth it to possibly stop future tyranny or if a hierarchy is INHERENTLY a negative thing.

part of the reason so many blog gave up this debate, beyond not getting very clear answers for the syndicate, is because of the nuance present. there. is. no. right. answer. every single person will view it differently, because there is no universally agreed upon truth of right or wrong here. BUT, i hope this helps shed some light on the discussion and my thoughts on it

#dream smp #mcyt #techno #syndicate analysis #YEAH IM MAINTAGGING WHAT OF IT #also i-- idk if it should be crit tagged? i tried to be as fair and open as possible #lemme know what yall think #ANYWAY ANON IM SO FUCKING SORRY THIS THING ENDED UP 2.3K WORDS LONG #I JUST RLLY WNATED TO BE THOUROUGH AND AS FUCKING CENTRIST /HJ AS POSSIBLE FJDKSLFJ #its very nuanced and theres no right answer but you sure as hell know mine now #answered #anon #im at work rn im gonna get fucking fired for this FJDKSFJKL #/HJ HOPEFULLY IN THAT I AM AT WORK BUT I WONT GET FIRED #og post #(jeb bush voice) please clap

[gallavictorious]

I really wish people would stop excusing their favorite character's actions with convoluted theories instead of just accepting that their faves aren't perfect. Ian should not be comparing Terry and Frank. Full stop. Especially not to Mickey's face, when Mickey is in the middle of trying to deal with the complicated feelings he has about the father that raped him by proxy and tried to actually murder him. It's ok to say "yeah you're right I don't know what you're going through but I'm here" and not make it into a shitty father competition.

And I really wish people would refrain from making groundless assumptions and recognize that trying to understand a character's motivation for doing something does not equal taking a stance on whether or not the action discussed is morally sound but alas, nonnie, we live in an imperfect world.

For those just turning in, this ask was received in response to my addition to this post.

Now, nonnie, if I understand you correctly, you disapprove of what I wrote because you see it as 1, an attempt to excuse Ian's behavior because 2, he's my favourite character and 3, therefore I can't stand to have him do something wrong. You also think that, no matter his motivations, Ian shouldn't be comparing Frank to Terry. Below, I'll quickly refutate points 2 and 3, as well as detail the difference between explanations and excuses and – hopefully – demonstrate why you can't with any sort of certainty claim that the offending post is an example of the latter. I will not really engage with the question of whether or not Ian was wrong for saying what he did, because (as we shall return to forthwith) that was not the issue originally discussed, it doesn't actually interest me, and as you do not offer any sort of reasoning for your moral judgment there really isn't anything for me to work with there anyway.

Strap in, kids; it's another long one.

Let's start with your claim that Ian is my favourite. I'm not actually going to spell it out there, but instead direct you to paragraphs 3-7 of this post. A little lazy, perhaps, but I'm sure you can appreciate why I have limited time to point out the same basic flaws twice in a fairly short period of time. (Should I pin a pic of me holding up a little sign reading ”Actually, Mickey is my favourite, even though I love Ian too” to the top of my blog? Would that be helpful?)

Moving on to point 3, I do agree with the general notion that it's fine to accept that the characters we love (no matter who that character is) are flawed and make mistakes! If you had taken the time to familiarize yourself with my thoughts on Ian and Mickey – or if you had, you know, just asked – instead of jumping to completely unsubstantiated conclusions based on a single post, you might even have realized that them being fucked up and making fucked up choices from time to time is one of the things I find most compelling about them. They are messy and complicated and human, and I love that. I neither think nor want either of them to perfect, because perfection is unrealistic is static is boring.

With that out of the way, let's get to excuses versus explanations. If one confuses the two, any attempt to discuss or explain a persons behavior will be construed as an attempt to excuse it, but to understand something and to condone it are actually two different things.

For instance, I can explain and understand why Mickey acted the way he did in 3x09, but still think kicking Ian in the face was wrong. I can explain and understand why Ian called Mickey a coward and a pussy in 4x11 but still think he was wrong for doing so. Do you see? Understanding – or trying to understand – why someone did something is not the same as saying that what they did was okay. Understanding the reasons for someone's actions might lessen the severity of our condemnation (for instance, stealing is generally considered wrong, but most of use would agree that stealing bread to feed your kid is less wrong than stealing bread because you're too stingy to pay for it) or might remove condemnation entirely (hitting someone because you are angry with them is wrong, hitting someone as part of consensual BDSM sex is fine), but understanding an action does not automatically lead to declaring said action morally correct. In short, ”why did X do Y” and ”was X right or wrong do to Y” are two different questions, and the fact that our answer to the second question often is at least partly dependent on our understanding of the first does not change that.

So explanations and excuses are not the same. And yet, sometimes the reasons for doing something (or failing to do something) are offered up as an excuse; as a reason why someone should not be held responsible for their actions, or why they were correct in performing/not performing them in the first place. That neatly leads us to the question of whether or not that's what's actually happening in the post you took exception to. And the answer to that is... you can't know. What boys-night and I discuss in the post is what Ian is actually doing (is he trying to compare trauma och convince Mickey he had it worse) and why he is doing it; that is, we are trying to understand and explain his behavior. Neither of us make any sort of statement on whether or not he was right or wrong for saying or doing what he did: that's just not the topic of conversation. Now, maybe I do think his motivations means that he's morally justified in what he said; maybe I don't. My point is that you can't know that just from what you've read in the post. You might draw some tentative conclusions, and they may be correct, but you don't know, and the reasonable and responsible way to go from there is to seek clarification by asking (polite) questions, not aggressively throwing around accusations about others grasping for straws in a despertae attempt to exonerate their favorites from wrongdoing.

(And just to remind you, even if I were making excuses for Ian, it wouldn't be because he's my favourite or becuase I can't bear to have him do wrong.)

You are perfectly free to disagree with any of the points made in the post, by the way, but you need to recognize that what we're disagreeing on then is motivation, not morality.

And, oh, of course it would have been okay to say "yeah you're right I don't know what you're going through but I'm here", but that's not what Ian did. Now, if you are happy to go ”ah, Ian fucked up, he's not perfect” and move on, that's fine. You do you, nonnie, and if analysis and discussion of character motivations isn't your jam then it isn't and I'm sure no one is going to force you to engage in it. (And if they try to, you can simply say ”I don't care” and walk away.) However, to be perfectly honest I am a bit perplexed that you should be so indignant over other fans trying to make sense of his actions. Do you still feel that way now that you – hopefully – understand that trying to explain a characters' behavior doesn't necessarily mean trying to excuse it? I mean, surely you are aware of the fact that people usually have reasons for acting the way they do, even if the way they act is shitty or misguided? (Note that I'm not saying that Ian's actions were shitty and misguided. That is not the discussion we're having.) I am rather curious, actually, as to what you think Ian's motivations were? Do you imagine he was deliberatedly diminishing Mickey's trauma? Why, if so? Do you perhaps think that he is obsessed with being The Most Victim and thus takes every opportunity to list all the ways Frank sucked? Or maybe that his mouth just moves without any thought or reason and the words just randomly happened?

To be fair, it seems that Ian's motivations is not something you consider relevant: you write that ”Ian should not be comparing Terry and Frank. Full stop.” And that's absolutely a moral stance you can take, albeit certainly not the only one. Maybe Ian shouldn't have said what he said Had you given any reasons for this verdict, I might even have agreed with you because I can think of several reasons why it might be better if Ian refrained from comparing Terry and Frank, no matter his motivations. (And I might not, because I can also think of several reasons why such a comparision might be justified, even though Terry is clearly the more evil of the two.) However, we shall never know, because you fail to back up your claim. I guess that's because you deem it self-evident? It is not, and until you provide any sort of reasoning for your grand proclamation, I won't engage with the question. Not going to shadow-box with you, nonnie, or do your work for you; if you want a discussion, make your case properly. Though maybe make it elsewhere – as previously noted, passing judgement on the characters is not my primary interest when discussing them. I am much more intrigued by trying to understand why characters do and say what they do and say.

Phew. Okay, that's me done, I think. I realize that you might not be very impressed with this answer, nonnie, but I hope it may to some degree reassure you that no sneaky attempt to excuse my favourite character's actions with convoluted theories was made by this humble blogger. Not this time, at least.

#today will be a housekeeping day where i try to catch up with a few asks and tag games #sorry to spam your dashes #i have a theory by the way #and that's that the sudden influx of curious asks in my inbox is the result of my occasional andcareless foray into shitty graphics and gifs #it makes people not take me seriously anymore #okay maybe they never DID but even LESS seriously then #also it's a way to distract me from the shitty graphics and gifs #can't make them if i'm spending half a day writing this sort of stuff #so yeah i think this is the universe tell me to stay in my fucking lane #boo universe #where's your sense of fun?! #i'm gonna do what i want anyway #btw if you sent me an ask and weren't rude then NO i'm not talking about your ask #asks #shameless spoilers #11x06

[chibimyumi]

Hi

I hope you're doing well

I have questions if you don't mind

Who do like Axel von Fersen in Marie Antoinette or Axel von Fersen in 1789 les amants de la bastille and also do you like Marie Antoinette in Marie Antoinette or in 1789 les amants de la bastille

Thank you for answering my questions

Dear Anon,

I am doing well, thank you very much! I hope you too.

Hmmm, as a quick answer I would say I prefer both Marie and Fersen from ‘Toho MA’, but the full answer is slightly more complicated.

Firstly, it is almost unfair to compare them to each other because in MA they are the main characters, whereas in 1789 they are main-support or secondary-mains at best.

Secondly, MA has a far bigger focus on the characters because that is what drives the plot, while the opposite is true for 1789, which mainly sells a spectacle. I myself am more fan of subtle and deep story-telling rather than spectacular shows, so the MA versions of Marie and Fersen are more to my liking.

Thirdly, the quality of the characters also depends greatly on the cast. My first view of MA is the A-cast, and therefore my impression of the characters is that they are incredibly well written. After comparison with other casts however, I started to wonder whether it was just the A-cast being too good, and the musical itself being ‘fine’. (In short; I’m not fully sure how much I’d ‘clearly’ have preferred MA Marie and Fersen were it not for A-cast. Click here for a comparison between the two casts written by my friend @wildandwhirlingwords)

But, I shall go into more detail for both characters why MA’s version appeals more to me - someone who enjoys character writing most.

🌹Marie Antoinette🌹

M.A. 2018

In my opinion Marie Antoinette is better in MA because you see her journey and her motivations. We all know that the historical Queen screwed up majorly, but in MA we see why, and in what ways she indeed had very little other choice from her own perspective. She was a flawed foreign woman in a time and place where flawed foreign women were hated most.

In the beginning of the musical the King comes tell Marie that she’d have to live more economically. Marie is clearly not very enthusiastic to hear that, but she also never protests. She just asks ‘why’ and then accepts the answer - albeit broodingly. More importantly however: we need to keep in mind that despite being called Madam Deficit, the historical Marie Antoinette was actually quite economical at first because the Austrian court where she comes from was way less extravagant than the French. It was after her marriage into French royalty that she became more extravagant, because she was criticised for “not being a proper royal” by the French. According to the court, the 14 year old Marie was “a peasant unworthy of becoming Queen.” When you’re that young and criticised by your entire new life, you do everything in your power to make sure you can actually have a life; you adapt. So when Marie was then suddenly told to stop ‘adapting and be a proper Queen worthy of the French”, we can see why more is at stake than “Karen needs to deal with only 10 dresses a week.”

Something else that adds depth to her character as opposed to her 1789 counterpart is that as the story progresses, Marie actually grows. She becomes more mature and more serious, and you see in her how all the events have a clear toll on her. From her own perspective, she really was trying very hard, but anything she tried was inadequate to improve the situation. What she didn’t know is that no matter how hard she tried, the situation was already un-salvageable before she was even born. The populace AND the court had already decided to hate her for being an unintelligent foreign woman from an enemy state, after all. This is an insight most historians nowadays agree on.

In a later scene where Margrid confronts Marie, she asks the Queen: “what makes you think you are better than us?” Marie confirms nor denies, but replies: “I am merely Queen as I was appointed by God.” When she adds: “All I know is duties, you are free,” there is also a clear sense she genuinely doesn’t know why she was appointed by God, but as she is now, all she can do is her best. She is still ignorant, which was a genuine problem about her. She does not know the hardships of not being from the top rank, allowing her say something as insensitive as: “at least you’re free.” But again, despite her ignorance, her feelings are sincere. From all the unfair expectations she was made to live up to from age 14, you really do see why ‘a life without duties’ seemed so much more appealing to her.

1789 - The Lovers of the Bastille

Marie in 1789 is more of a side-character, and the musical itself just is not very character/story driven as MA is. 1789 has the tendency to take the tropiest of tropes and stay on surface level with the characters. Ouki Kaname is an incredibly good actress and she tries her best; but she cannot do more than the script gives her to work with.

In this musical Marie is not portrayed in a very relatable or sympathetic light. She is extravagant because she has escapist fantasies, but we don’t really see what she’s escaping from. The sympathy from the audience is supposed to be drawn from the tragedy that she’s married to the King but is in love with Fersen. Oh, and she has a son but he’s mortally ill. Meanwhile however, you don’t see how her life is so bad she needs to escape... and you also don’t see Marie really being worried about her son than an occasional: “Oh Ill again? Sucks I guess. Gotta cry my eyes out on my lover’s lap, AHHH FERSEN 💗” It was not until her son had already died that Marie woke up, but the lack of portrayal of Marie’s perspective and the pacing really makes one legitimately wonder whether the child did not just die of Marie’s neglect. And about the forbidden love ...we’ve seen enough love triangles with star-crossed-lovers... I don’t know about you guys, but I am numbbbbb to this “problem”.

When Marie receives message from Olympe that she finally gets to meet her lover after a long separation at the Palais Royal, one of the first things she says is: “is that not the place where revolutionaries and prostitutes are gathered?” This immediately sets up an empathy-barrier between her and the common people. This Marie clearly views herself too good for people who do anything to get by; why would you care about her then? Because Marie’s story is not fleshed out you don’t see parts that can make you go: “oh, the revolutionaries really hate her for reasons beyond her control, she is in danger.” Or “she was raised by a puritan society, making her hate on sex-workers; that’s part of her character flaw.” Instead it’s just this Diva being quite judgemental.

Ouki was trying very hard to make the focus about her own safety, but with the script being what it is... she’s still a mostly unsympathetic character who is a martyr of forbidden love.

There is one scene where we see her take on a much more mature and responsible role. That was the first time I personally felt like Marie from 1789 is an actual human being with feelings and personal difficulties. But in great part this is Ouki’s acting... (the other cast didn’t do much for me). What is also important is that Marie was ‘humbled’ because her son died. Marie did not have much of a personal growth, and then she changes to a more sympathetic person because of an external factor just... feels less earned.

In the finale Marie appears again in her execution clothes, and the way Ouki appeared really felt like a punch in the gut. She sings “as a recompense for our griefs, people have learnt forgiveness.” However, the story skimped over the characters so much I was left to wonder: “who learned to forgive whom?” Do you think the people forgave you? Or was there somebody you hated but now learned to forgive? What was your grudge? Do you understand the angry mob’s grudge?

The finale of the musical treats like after the heroic sacrifice of the protagonist (Ronan) the oppressive monarchy was replaced by a good democracy, and a Reign of Terror will DEFINITELY not happen under Robespierre or something. But if you’ve had a BIT of European history you just know it’s a blatant lie. So the finale just feels too simplistic, and this simplistic feeling was in part presented by Marie’s very empty, lip-service-y line.

⚔️Hans Axel von Fersen⚔️

M.A. 2018

Fersen is a bit harder to compare which version is better, because honestly, depending on who plays Fersen in MA, Fersen is either the most generic Hollywood sweeping-lover-hero, or a diamond mine to excavate. In the same post linked above by my friend, she explains in detail the differences between TashiroFersen and FurukawaFersen. K-musical fans, don’t @ me, but from what I can tell, the Korean Fersens are also very... typical.

In this post I have discussed Furukawa’s Fersen in great detail, so I shall skip over these for this post. But to summarise, when portrayed by Furukawa at least, Fersen in MA is very nuanced and restrained. Even if we do not fully credit Furukawa however, then at the very least the script allows enough space and material for an actor to flesh him out so phenomenally well (I think Tashiro and some other actors just.... really missed out on the potential).

Fersen in MA incredibly memorable because the main atmosphere of the imminent doom awaiting everyone is carried by him in a way nobody else does. The moment Fersen enters you feel the tension that the musical wishes to tell. Fersen has seen revolutions, he’s seen the power of anger; he knows shit is going to hit the fan because he’s familiar with this trajectory. 

Fersen has excellent self control because he knows how a lack thereof would hurt Marie’s reputation and escalate the growing chaos. You can see very clearly how Fersen does want the intimacy, but to him duty and the grander picture has priority. In all the small actions from Fersen you see how he is a savvy intellectual through and through. (More about reservation later).

In contrast to 1789, we also get to see so much more of Fersen in MA because he is the narrator and a main character. Throughout the musical he’s been trying to de-escalate the chaos and even though his plans were actually well thought-out, the problems were just simply too big for any one person to solve. When Fersen mourns Marie there is a clear sense that he is not really surprised, just really upset that things had to come so far. Instead of singing something accusatory to the angry and hungry people, he sings: “fate, why did you give her everything, only to show her hell in the end?” Fersen truly understands why the people were duly angry, but that not taking away his sorrow of losing Marie who he knows is a better person than people make her out to be.

Also in great contrast to 1789, the finale of MA is rather grim. It does not suggest hope or that all problems will eventually disappear. The story for these people have ended, but the problems and the world will continue to our days, and days far beyond ours. It gives a feeling that the world of MA is so extensive that we - the audience - are part of it. In the finale when we see Fersen again, he also stays in tune with this feeling. “How can the problems of the world be solved, what is true justice? We remain clueless” he sings, and the way he looks into the unknown distance is almost a reminder to us that nobody has reason to stop worrying and fight for justice.

1789 - the Lovers of the Bastille

Now if we were to compare MA’s Furu Fersen to 1789′s Fersen, we see a stark contrast between the two. Where Furusen was incredibly reserved and hyper aware of everything, 1789′s Fersen is just the over-romantic lover who had been pining for his love. For a moment Marie realises she probably should not be cheating on her husband and backs away. Fersen however, is the one to make further advances, actively pulling her back to his side.

When he embraces Marie you see how he is just dreaming and indulging, something Furusen would never do. Furusen might hug Marie, but not without sh*tting 50 colours. 1789′s Fersen is the sweeping Romeo that most of history makes him to be, and little more. But again, Fersen plays but a very small role in 1789, so it is also unfair to compare him to MA’s Fersen.

Regardless of whatever nuance might or might not be there however, it is also just quite hard to like this Fersen because he is ‘just another privileged aristocrat who is just needy’. When making out with Marie in Palais Royale they find out that Ronan fell asleep there drunk. Ronan simply complained that Marie was too loud and woke him, and Fersen immediately shuts him up, and then draws his sword at him for ‘speaking rudely’.

First of all Fersen and Marie, if you’re gonna do a clandestine meeting, you CHECK your surroundings. Second of all, FERSEN Ò.Ó, this peasant is untrained and weaponless; you can’t just unleash your high-ranking martial arts at him with a shiny sword. This is EXACTLY the reason the revolution happened; the people were sick of the suppression of the powerless by the powerful. UGHUM. It truly is mind-blowing to consider how 1789 Fersen and MA Fersen are both...Fersens.

This Fersen is not very involved with the revolution from either side. He just proposes to help Marie and the King escape once, but got dismissed immediately. The following time we see him it is in the finale.

There he stands, a knight in shiny armour singing a really hopeful phrase to a relatively upbeat and hopeful music: “do not rely on force, but seek for hope and courage.” Here again unlike with MA’s Fersen, you don’t really feel like this Fersen has experienced anything. It was like he was an employed special guard, told by his boss there’s nothing he needed to do, his boss is dead, and oh wellll, moving on!

Conclusion

Because Marie and Fersen in MA are main characters whose stories are fleshed out, it really is very unfair to compare them to their 1789′s counterparts in a race of ‘who is better’. In the end of the day, 1789′s aim is to sell a spectacle, and it realllly is a phenomenal piece if you’re there for the spectacle. The choreography, songs, stage, everything is masterpiece-level. So if you’re there for the spectacle you get exactly what you went there for. The story and characters however... not so much. If one is more drawn to a direct, glittery spectacle with hands-down-amazing-songs however, they’d probably find Marie and Fersen from 1789 more enjoyable. If you’re into first and impressive impressions, the MA counterparts might demand a BIT too much attention and patience to get into.

Related posts:

Introduction and character analysis Fersen ‘MA’ 2018

Comparative commentary on MA Cast M and Cast A

#Marie Antoinette #Hans Axel von Fersen #Fersen #MA #1789 #comparative commentary #TOHO #musical #1789 les amants de la bastille

[vendeavendea]

How Entrapta Has Become My All Time Favourite Autistic Representation in Media: Long Version

Just so you know what to expect, this is more of a very long and boring personal post and less of a character analysis. By "very long", I mean "very long". Also, half of it was written at night when I was supposed to be sleeping (like, right now), so some parts might not even make sense. Don't say I didn't warn you.

Just days before I started to watch She-Ra, I answered a question in a writer group where someone asked what are the do's and don'ts of writing an autistic character. I've been told a couple of times in my life that I can’t be autistic based on the fact that I'm not really interested in or good at science, so I think special interests of autistic people are something that definitely has to be presented better in media. So I advised this person to make their character have a special interest that's NOT related to science, technology, space or computers, because it's a very common misconception that people on the autism spectrum are always into these stuff, and there are so many autistic fictional characters based on this stereotype that I feel like we absolutely don't need any more.

And then I saw Entrapta.

I didn't know she's canonically autistic until a much later episode, but it didn't surprise me when I was told she is, because my autism radar went off like a hundred times while watching System Failure and all her other season 1 appearances (so did my ADHD radar, by the way, but as far as I know, this hasn't been confirmed by the creators, so it's just my headcanon). And she looked like the purple ponytails princess version of the autism stereotype that I didn’t want to see any more of. The genius who is into space and robots, knows nothing about human relationships and keeps driving everyone nuts with her long and impossible-to-follow scientific monologues. Also cute and funny, yeah, but still, as someone on the spectrum who is super artistic and has nothing to do with science stuff, my first reaction was "dang, not this shit again." Just for once in my life, I wanted to see an autistic representation that's not just that typical weird tech-lover but a character that's at least a tiny bit more like me. Seeing her only in her first episode, little did I know that Entrapta's character has an incredible depth and her whole arc was going to be hair-raisingly personal to me (I know I'm not funny, but pun intended).

First, let’s talk about robots, because we can't talk about Entrapta without talking about robots. Entrapta builds robots just for fun, because technology is her thing, but there's actually a lot more behind this. Starting from as early as her debute episode, we see through the whole series that she creates robots with different designs, abilities, personalities, very similar to real people, as a sort of substitute for the human (or whatever species) company she'd wish to have. She even gives them names. She programs them to like being around her, to understand her, something that she hasn't really experienced from real people, which is sad enough on its own, but even sadder if we consider that she actually has human staff working at her fortress. She pretty literally makes friends, and she does it with the help of her special interest. And this totally reminds me of my primary school years when I had zero real friends and used my special interest, which was writing fictional stories and creating worlds/universes/languages in my head, to make up imaginary characters that could be my "friends" so that I wouldn't be that lonely.

Then, her interactions with other characters, especially with Hordak. Entrapta consoling Hordak in Huntara is a very powerful scene to me, not only what she says, but also how she says it. When Hordak starts venting about how he is a failure and all, Entrapta's first immediate response is to provide a practical solution, to design an armor for him, and comforting him with words is only a secondary action. She's helping in her own way, with technology, because that's what she's the best at, but she also wants to make sure he understands that fixing imperfections isn't always the solution, embracing them is. I also love how it's hinted with the "loved" crystal that Entrapta's love language may be acts of service (and probably quality time as well), which is another thing we have in common. And there's another thing in that scene I found very relatable: that part when she stops consoling him and starts to talk about herself being a failure instead. In real life, most people would read that in a negative way. I've been in many situations where I've tried doing something similar to people who were venting to me, and normally, they're like "ew, I'm the one complaining now, stop making it about you." But Hordak's reaction is different, all he does is try to tell her she's not a failure before she shushes him, then he just listens. He understands what Entrapta means by saying all those things about herself isn't "hey, look, my life is also horrible, so I get to complain, too" but rather "I feel you, we're the same". For a person who thinks and acts as differently from average people as Entrapta does, connecting with someone through similar experiences and feelings is a huge thing, and this is so relatable to me that I cried like a baby while watching that scene. Also, kudos to Christine Woods for making Entrapta's monologue sound so factual and casual. It really gives the impression of someone who is fully aware of her own strengths and weaknesses and accepts herself as a whole with all her flaws. The way she lists all the things that make her feel like a failure right after saying "imperfection is beautiful" is just... wow. But seriously, this whole "imperfection is beautiful" thing in general is such a cliché that it's not even supposed to work on me, but hell it does, because it's so well-presented that it's actually one of the most powerful moments of the whole series. Entrapta giving me self-acceptance lessons is all I've ever needed in my life (Hordak probably agrees, lol).

Speaking of self-acceptance, I also love how Beast Island shows that it's a long and difficult process with its ups and downs instead of just a door you walk through once in your life and then stay on the other side forever. Even if I accept and love myself the way I am, it's still totally normal to have low points with thoughts like "I'm not suited for friendship" or "everyone leaves me behind". And it's very nice and uplifting to have someone's love and support when I'm in a bad mood with stuff like this on my mind, but personally, I often find it easier to deal with if I have something related to any of my special interests around that I can focus my thoughts on. My "we flew here on an ancient First Ones ship, do you wanna see it?" would be something like "do you wanna create some characters and then write the shit out of them?" and before this show I've never actually realised how neurodiverse it is to use a hobby or interest for self-care like this. The "definitely the ship" part called me out so hard, and I just adore how the writers were able put so much meaning into a single joke line.

Back to interactions, there's also something painfully relatable in the way the other princesses treat Entrapta. Even in the beginning in No Princess Left Behind, but mostly in season 4 and 5. In most cases, Entrapta is only considered to be worthy enough to not be left behind in situations when her skills are useful. Other characters "liking" her isn't really about herself as a person but her tech knowledge. Just like when you go to school and the only reason your classmates want to make friends with you is because you always do your homework and let others copy it, or you're good at explaining stuff and are willing to help people getting prepared for tests/exams. When I was in grammar school, my classmates ignored me or mocked me for liking animation and comics, but every now and then they did the bare minimum of treating me like a human being and expected me to do their arts homework in return, because I was the only one in my class who was good at arts. When I studied linguistics at the uni, I was really into phonology and historical linguistics, and those were the compulsory subjects most of the other students were struggling with, so many people wanted to hang out with me just to make sure they could get my notes before the exams. The same people kept calling me nerd and making fun of me behind my back. I also had a few genuine friends, which I'm grateful for, but I still know what it feels like to be needed only for a specific skill while not being noticed and respected as a person, and Launch portraits this experience in a very clever way. It's so amazing to see how the princesses realise who Entrapta really is and start to treat her as someone who just thinks differently instead of someone who's a deliberate bad person. They finally get to see that she's not just an unwary tech nerd, but also a determined, caring and loyal friend who gives others so much love in her own geeky way and deserves love, too. But I shouldn't even be surprised, I mean, we're talking about a show that teaches us "you worth more than what you can give to other people," and it's great how this message applies to other characters as well, not only to Adora. And the best part is that this whole conflict is not presented as something black and white, it's not like Entrapta is the poor misunderstood autistic person and the princesses are the evil allistic bad guys who mistreat her. It's simply a miscommunication between neurotypical and neurodivergent individuals, and while the other princesses get to understand that they hurt Entrapta by their actions and that they should be more respectful of her, Entrapta also realises that she's made mistakes and hurt people, becomes aware of her own bad habits and makes efforts to get rid of them in order to save Glimmer. Plus I also love the faint implication that most of the princesses never really, genuinely, 100% make friends with Entrapta even after this scene, because sometimes people just don't resonate with each other enough to become close friends, but they learn to accept her differences and treat her with respect, nonetheless. This episode is so full of realistic interactions and character development it blows my mind every time I rewatch it.

I could just go on and on about all those tiny relatable details such as "I've waited years for someone to ask me about my theories!" I think this was the line that first made me fall in love with Entrapta's character. I mean, if someone from the crew wrote this line, that means they might know the feeling, too, so I'm not the only dork who feels this way every time someone asks me a question about my hyperfixations. And it's just so reassuring. Entrapta has many lines of the kind, they're not even important plotwise, but still super relatable and validating.

Now that we're here, and I know that I probably should have said this at the beginning of the post, but I'm too lazy to rewrite the first paragraph accordingly, I'd like to note that these are all my own interpretations and reflections on Entrapta's character based on my own experiences. This whole thing is totally personal, and I don't want anyone to think that this is how Entrapta is supposed to be seen by the whole fandom. So yeah, that's pretty much it for now.

#She-Ra #She-Ra Reboot #SPOP #entrapta #autism #personal

[class1akids]

Hi! I followed you recently and I wanted to ask you a couple of questions,if you don't want to answer it's totally ok though! so,what do you think will be the future relationship between bakugou and deku?and in your opinion which character was more important for bakugou's development between deku and kiri(or if they both had the same importance)?I like to read meta about these topics because there are very mixed opinions in the fandom(mostly 'cause of ship wars)and so I wanted to read yours too!

 I’m not Midoriya, so I cannot give you percentages of influence. Also, they are just very different relationships and play very different roles in Bakugou’s arc. 

Deku is the closest thing Bakugou has to a sibling; he’s someone who has been there for his entire life, even when they didn’t get along, even when Bakugou wanted to push him away, he always stuck around. But despite this familiarity, they didn’t understand each other in fundamental ways. Bakugou felt threatened by Midoriya, and misinterpreted his helpful gestures as being looked down on; Izuku admired Kacchan for his quirk and his potential, but never understood his fears or his inferiority complex. Their ingrained dynamic was mimicking the larger society around them which viewed Midoriya as defective and worthless, while treated Bakugou as amazing and high potential. 

Their relationship couldn’t change until all of these false paradigms and Bakugou’s overblown ego were broken down - and Izuku played a huge part in this, but he was not the only one. Here are the main milestones:

Sludge monster: Izuku ran in to save Bakugou f, when the pro-heroes on the scene hesitated. Before this incident, every time Izuku tried to help, Bakugou didn’t really need his help. But this time he did. And Izuku, quirkless as he was, didn’t hesitate. And clearly Bakugou felt like he owed Deku (even if it was just to run after him and tell him that he doesn’t owe him anything - but he stopped hurting Izuku - and sometimes actions speak louder then words)

Entrance exam: They both got into UA - so maybe Bakugou wasn’t all that special, if Deku of all people could get in - but at least Bakugou got the highest points, so he was still ahead of the curve

Quirk assessment test: Bakugou realizes that Deku does have a quirk and an awesome one at that, that him threatening Deku will not be tolerated by Aizawa, and that he’s ranked below Momo and Todoroki - the two recommendation students he wasn’t measured against during the entrance test.

First battle exam: Bakugou loses to Deku in an extremely humiliating way, with the entire class and All Might watching. But not only that, Momo picks apart all his mistakes in front of everyone with ease, and freaking Todoroki wins his own match-up single-handedly totally effortlessly. Bakugou realizes he’s not the strongest in the class, he’s not as special as he was told his entire life. The next day, Aizawa calls him out in front of the class for being dumb and wasting his talent.

This is the first big wake-up call - Bakugou realizes that he needs to do better, work harder to succeed, and he is a hard-worker (even if nobody ever credited or praised him for it). But at this point, he behaves like a cornered wild animal, pushing everyone away, focusing only on his own improvement.

Sport Festival: Todoroki challenging Deku, Deku drawing out Todoroki’s fire are are main event - anything Bakugou does pales in comparison to the display of power in their match. His win feels empty, and he is put on display chained and muzzled.

Kamino: He’s kidnapped because the villains think he’ll join them, then he has to watch All Might use up the last of his power against All for One. The crushing guilt sets in that he’s the cause of it all.

Provisional Licence exam: Bakugou fails, for nothing but his own arrogance and stupidity, when almost the entire class, including Deku passes. 

The breakdown process is complete - Bakugou went from top student admitted to UA to the rock bottom. His ego - built on years and years of empty praise focusing on solely the strength of his quirk, and misconceptions about strength and what makes a hero - is shattered. 

Yet, he doesn’t break, because in the meantime there was another, opposite process underway as well. As much as UA was a blow to Bakugou’s ego, his new experiences also started to build his true self-worth, on a different, healthier basis and Kirishima has a crucial part in this process, but he’s not the only one:

USJ attack - Kirishima acknowledges Bakugou for his battle sense and his fast reflexes, and when Bakugou explains his reasons of going after Kurogiri instead helping the others, he convinces Kirishima. He follows Bakugou not out of threat or wanting to gain something, but simply because he agrees with Bakugou’s reasoning. I think this is kind of a breakthrough for Bakugou in terms of earning respect with something that’s separate from his quirk, something he can actually control - his great tactical sense. 

Sport Festival - This is a mixed bag for Bakugou but Kirishima plays a positive role here too. Bakugou is clearly at a loss when it comes to assembling a cavalry team, not having paid much attention to his classmates. So Kirishima volunteering not only to team up, but also displaying understanding of Bakugou’s goal comes as a relief. It exposes Bakugou to wider team-work and while both Sero and Mina push back at Bakugou’s name-calling, but are willing to follow his lead for his drive to win. Kirishima also gives Bakugou a decent 1 on 1 fight - and we see how he respects his opponents who go all out against him. I think the Sport Festival solidifies Kirishima’s special status in Bakugou’s eyes, and because Kirishima is friends with pretty much everyone in the class, he also connects Bakugou to the others to in the class (the Bakusquad should rightfully be the Kiri-squad).

Mid-term exams - Bakugou is tutoring Kirishima (!) Something like this would have been unimaginable before, but it’s important to their bond. Kirishima could have gone with the Momo-group, but he chooses Bakugou instead. Again, it builds in Bakugou this sense that his academic skills are respected, but also exposes him to the idea that helping others or seeking help is not a terrible character flaw, but something normal friends do for each other.   

In the practical exam, there is also a breakthrough with Deku. Up until this point, Deku was one of the people who praised Kacchan for his amazing quirk. This is the first time Izuku fights back against Bakugou’s unacceptable behaviour, but also helps Bakugou to reaffirm his self-perception - as the ultimate winner.

Kamino arc - There are some interesting things here. Bakugou experiences some crucial positive reinforcement from Aizawa, who speaks up for him publicly, when the media is turned against him. And the group who goes after him - Deku, Todoroki, Yaoyorozou and Iida - are people who had a part in crushing Bakugou’s ego. Kirishima is the notable exception, and I think it’s a great development here both for Deku letting Kirishima take the key position in the save, and for Bakugou accepting the help. Kirishima functions as a bridge between Bakugou and Deku here. 

Provisional Licence Arc - Not only Kirishima, but Kaminari also teams up with Bakugou, and Bakugou at this point is actually a decent team player, cooperating with his teammates. It’s also interesting that when Bakugou fails the exam and Kirishima passes, it doesn’t seem to sour their relationship. 

Deku vs. Kacchan 2 - This fight is crucial for Bakugou. All his worst fears are confirmed about Deku being the special one, All Might’s favourite, earning a quirk with a potential even better than Bakugou’s… By all rights he should be bitter and jealous. But instead, he’s mostly in pain - because of the guilt he feels about All Might’s fall. All Might plays a crucial role here; exonerating Bakugou from the guilt, acknowledging his strength and him as part of the All Might-legacy, and admitting that his focus on winning is not wrong - it’s just not the full picture. Also, All Might extends his trust to Bakugou by telling him the full story and making him part of the secret. Bakugou can feel equal with Deku and they can start building a new relationship.

Remedial arc - This is clearly a mortifying experience to be one of only two students who failed, but I think that it helps that the other is Todoroki. They pull each other through it, and somehow the experience brings them closer. Bakugou doesn’t want to care about him, but by the end, he does - they even get to the point where he calls Todoroki by name and Todoroki thinks of him as a friend (this will be important for the Endeavor internship arc). They also get to make a splash with their hero-debut and are officially all caught up with the class.

Joint training arc: The entire Bakugou-team follows his lead and they get a decisive win. He feels more confident than in ages, and even tries to help Deku in his mastery of Black Whip. 

Endeavor internship arc: I wrote a lot about this in different meta, but this arc solidifies the three-way rivalry between Bakugou, Deku and Todoroki; which has become more cooperative and mutually supportive. They try to get better by pulling each other along. Watching Endeavor also gave Bakugou more food for thought. 

TL; DR - to me it feels like both Deku and Kirishima are incredibly important in the two processes that needed to happen to break down Bakugou’s overblown false ego, but start building his true self-worth. But they are not the only important people in the process. Aizawa, All Might and Todoroki also have important roles, as well as the whole class. 

As for the future of BakuDeku:

I can imagine quite different outcomes for future Bakugou and Deku, depending on how things will go down with the villains and in school; but also how their relative powers develop. Based on the hints and foreshadowing, I think they will open an agency together and work as a team.

One of my favourite type of endgame for them in fics in terms of dynamics is where they remain rivals, are still capable of endlessly annoying each other, and each of them has a different circle of best friends, but when shit goes down, they know that they can 100% count on the other to help and be there for them, and everyone knows they’d die for each other without hesitation. It’s the type of relationship where they prefer to hang out with others, in public they seem like they barely tolerate each other (though everyone sees through the BS) but at the great crossroads of his life, Bakugou shows up at Izuku’s doorstep in the middle of the night, yelling “Dekuuuuuu!” because he knows that sometimes Deku knows him better than he knows himself; while nothing can cut through a crisis of confidence for Izuku than some words of encouragement from Kacchan (which sound like insults, but Izuku is fluent in Kacchan so he knows the difference…).

Of course, it’s possible that they become best friends or more… What I cannot imagine is them ending up like All Might and Endeavor - there was a chance at some point, but not anymore. I think Bakugou being in on the secret of OfA and how he reacted to that makes things very different. He’s accepted the challenge of trying to surpass Deku, but at the same time he has enormous respect for All Might and his power, so in a way he’s also invested in helping him succeed.

Masterlist  - BNHA meta

#bnha #bnha meta #bakugou katsuki #midoriya izuku #kirishima ejirou #bakudeku #todoroki shouto #aizawa shouta #all might

[whitewolfofwinterfell]

Can you do one of your metas on Elena, her strengths, flaws and why you (and I!) still like her despite the fact that many understandably don't?!

Yes! Thank you so much for sending this in. I love any opportunity I get to talk about and defend Elena, because I think she’s such an unfairly hated/disliked character.

I actually wrote a very in-depth meta about Elena before here, but since I did it a couple of years ago now some of my opinions and thoughts have changed since then. What I speak about in the sections about Elena being a Mary Sue and her strengths and weaknesses are still what I think, so it’s particularly worth reading that, because that’s relevant to this question.

The thing is with Elena is, yes, she’s a flawed character, but characters should be flawed because human beings are flawed. Elena’s flaws are exactly what make her relatable and real. Based on what I’ve seen in fandom over the years the main reasons people seem to dislike Elena are because she’s selfish, a Mary Sue or undeveloped as character. In my previous meta I explained why she’s not a Mary Sue, and I stand by that. As for the selfish part, I agree with it wholeheartedly. Elena is selfish, but who isn’t? I don’t understand disliking or hating on a character based on their selfishness because selfishness is a natural human trait that is instilled in all of us. In fact, most of us have to actively try to not be selfish and to be more considerate of others, because we’re naturally hard-wired to think of ourselves first. I would argue that Elena isn’t anymore selfish than any other character on the show and that rather than selfishness, it’d probably be more accurate to refer to it as self-centredness. And you might think those two words mean the same, but to me, selfishness is actively choosing to put your own well-being above others at the detriment of those around you. Self-centredness is a tendency to think about yourself first and to be oblivious to the impact that has on others around you. So, I’d say that Elena was self-centred rather than selfish. She had a tendency to think about how she felt and how things affected her and wasn’t always able to see how others around her were feeling or how they may be affected. The claim that Elena was undeveloped is also a valid argument. I like Elena but even I’m not blind to the incredibly poor characterisation and development she had. I understand the writers intentions with Elena, but unfortunately, it didn’t really work. It felt like Elena never really went beyond her original character profile. It’s like the writers sat down in a room and decided the core traits they wanted her to have in the pilot episode and season 1, but they never really went beyond that. So for me, a big part of the reason I like Elena is because of the potential her character had and the fact that I feel like she’s unfairly hated, as I’ve already mentioned.

Overall, I really don’t think Elena was that flawed, except for her self-centredness and indecisiveness. The biggest flaw of her character was the inconsistent writing that failed to fully build upon her as a character or explore her nuances and sacrificed her characterisation and development for the sake of her romantic relationship. I think that over the years people have exaggerated her flaws in open rebellion against the writers who plugged Elena as this wonderful, selfless heroine whom everyone worshipped and adored. Whenever there’s a character like that people deliberately search for their flaws. This kind of writing also tends to turns people off the character and instead they start to root for the ‘underdog’ or the character that is sidelined (in this case, Bonnie and/or Caroline). So a big part of the problem with Elena’s character comes from the writing and the way in which the narrative constantly centred on her, put her on a pedestal and tried to push her as being special, which people begrudge.

Ironically, the reason I love Elena is because I don’t think she was special. She was just a very normal girl who wanted what most teenagers want - to get through high school, have fun with her friends and live some semblance of an ordinary life with happy moments in between. She wasn’t perfect, she wasn’t special, she was just a girl that tried her best in impossible situations. She didn’t always make the best decisions and she wasn’t always the embodiment of empathy and compassion, but she showed amazing strength and resilience in the face of adversity. Time and time again she experienced tremendous traumas but she dealt with them as best she could, and in the process remained an optimistic and kind soul. Her resilience was undoubtedly her biggest strength. It still astounds me that Elena was able to overcome so much pain and trauma. 

When people criticise Elena’s character, I think they fail to consider that although we’re not explicitly told it Elena consistently exhibited signs of depression. She explicitly said that after her parents death she didn’t want to live, she stopped enjoying her hobbies such as writing and cheer leading, but most significantly, she displayed reckless behaviours and suicidal tendencies. Unfortunately, her suicidal tendencies have been brushed off as being acts of “sacrifice” to save those she loved. I’m not saying they weren’t sacrifices, but her willingness to die was not normal for someone with a healthy mindset. I would die to save someone I love, but it wouldn’t be an easy decision. And perhaps that makes me sound like a terrible person, but I don’t want to die. I have a strong desire and instinct to live and sacrificing my life for someone I love is something I’d do, but I’d be absolutely terrified and heartbroken. However, when Elena was faced with the possibility of her own death, she didn’t seem to care. She passed it off as “I’m doing it to protect the people I love”, but whether that was true or not it doesn’t change the fact that she was going to die. The way Buffy reacted to finding out she was going to die is exactly how I would expect a teenager to react to receiving that kind of devastating news (x). Elena never reacted like this at the prospect of dying. In fact, when she died in 3x22 she seemed at peace, as though she was okay with the fact that she was dying. Afterwards when she woke up in transition she literally said, “I was ready to die”. It’s strange, because I always accepted that Elena didn’t want to be a vampire and that she was heartbroken at the start of season 4, but on reflection it doesn’t make sense. Elena has been around vampires and she knew that although it has it’s cons, she could still have a relatively normal life. Plus, she had a support network around her, particularly Caroline who had literally gone through the process of becoming a vampire two years previously and who had adapted to it brilliantly. I look back now and the only explanation I have for Elena’s reaction to becoming a vampire is that she wanted to die. Lets not forget that a few episodes later in 4x06 she tried to kill herself. She was under the influence of the Hunters curse, but all the curse did is bring her own self-loathing and suicidal thoughts to the forefront. And notice how in her relationships with Stefan and Damon she made some sort of reference to how they provided her with a reason to live. About Stefan: “After my parents died I kind of felt like I didn’t know how to live anymore. Like I didn’t want to. But then being with Stefan, somehow I just figured it out. And that’s what love should be. You should love the person that makes you glad that you’re alive.” About Damon: “ I’m not sorry that I met you. I’m not sorry that knowing you has made me question everything, that in death you’re the one that made me feel most alive.” Elena actively searched for something to live for in her relationships with Stefan and Damon, which just demonstrates to me that outside of those relationships she felt she has no reason to live. That’s hardly healthy and also explains why her relationship with Damon became so intense in seasons 5 and 6 to the point that she described him as being the one that defined her and felt that she couldn’t live without him. 

I could continue assessing this aspect of Elena but it’ll get too long. The point is that Elena endured a lot of hurt and trauma and people crap on her for some of the shitty decisions she made (none of which are really that bad, they’re just generic incidents of self-involvement that we’re all guilty of) without taking into account the context of her character or her mental state. Even the fact that she entered into relationships with vampires as a human is indicative of self-destructive tendencies. Regardless of the humanistic qualities Stefan and Damon had, the fact that they were vampires was obviously only going to bring strife to Elena’s life, but she disregarded that and chose to be with them anyway. Elena had a lot of deep-rooted emotional issues that she didn’t really ever get to deal with because every time she tried to make progress and heal something else traumatic happened to her. People don’t want to accept that Elena was a victim because the narrative placed her as the victim, and it pisses people off, but whether you like her or not she was a victim. Almost everything that happened to and around Elena was as a result of what she was (the doppelganger) or who she was connected to (Katherine, Stefan and Damon primarily) rather than her own decisions or actions.

She was also a victim of the writing. I don’t want to bring ships into this too much because that’s a separate issue, but Elena’s entire characterisation was sacrificed for the benefit of her relationship with Damon. The writers had to change her in certain ways to make that relationship work and instead of Elena having the kind of development we generally expect characters to have (whereby they change for the better), she actually regressed as a character. Elena’s entire character was built around the idea of her being compassionate, empathetic and nurturing, and being a good friend, girlfriend and sister, but all of that immediately became null and void when she got into a relationship with Damon. How could we believe that Elena was compassionate and a good friend/sister when she willingly entered into a relationship with a man who abused and raped her best friend (Caroline), murdered her brother in front of her and kidnapped and threatened him later on in the series, brutally attacked her other best friend (Bonnie), murdered Vicki and turned her into a vampire and killed Aaron. Those are just the bad things Damon did to Elena’s friends and family that I can recall from the top of my head. And this is also a core aspect of Elena’s character that people have a problem with - her entire characterisation no longer stands when she gets into a relationship with Damon. No matter how much the writers tried to tell us post season 4 that Elena was a kind, selfless and caring person, friend and sister, being with Damon automatically invalidated all of that. For Elena to make sense as a character and exist in that relationship, they had to completely re-establish her entire personality and core traits and the writers couldn’t be bothered to do that so just swept it under the rug. The problem is that fans don’t turn a blind eye to things like that they notice it.

So the big question here is why do you, and I, and others still like Elena? Well, I can only speak for myself, but I like Elena because (prior to season 4) she was a genuinely sweet and kind-hearted person that was relatable and had lots of potential but that was done a great injustice by the writing. Elena could’ve been one of the best loved characters of all time if the writers had known how to handle her, but they lost her character amidst the triangle drama and her relationships with the Salvatore brothers (honestly, I think if the triangle didn’t exist, Elena would’ve immediately been a more well-liked character generally). She didn’t do anything to warrant the terrible things that happened to her and has been consistently bashed by fans who nit-pick the minor examples of self-centredness she displayed and overlook all the kindness she showed and the hardships she endured. The horrendous traumas she suffered through have been glossed over but honestly, as a 17 year old girl that went through everything she did, she showed incredible strength and resilience. For that alone, I cannot do anything but love Elena Gilbert.

Also, as a side-note, on a more personal level, I relate to Elena a lot as a character that’s considered flat and boring and that people see as lacking in conviction. I’m always very insecure that I’m dull, that there’s nothing interesting about me and that people will find it difficult to like me or connect to me because I’m a very neutral character. I also worry because I don’t have a specific path in mind for my future or one thing that I’m passionate about and want to dedicate my life to. And I feel like people a lot of people in real life really are like this. Not every single person in the world is super deep and multi-layered with really well-defined personalities. Not everyone is fun, vibrant, charming and charismatic. Likewise, a lot of people don’t know exactly what they want out of life (in fact, I’d argue people who know what they want are in the minority of people). A lot of people are just dull and ‘ordinary’ and don’t have their lives mapped out. We have this tendency to analyse characters based on their traits, their strengths, weaknesses, hobbies, desires, fears etc. which is fun and I love to do it, but real people are more complex than that. If I asked people that know me to describe my core personality they probably wouldn’t be able to (hell, I don’t even think I’d be able to!), because you can never really articulate the essence of what a person is no matter how hard you try. People are contradictory and personalities, feelings, thoughts, morals, beliefs etc. are very changeable. There are core aspects to who we are, but people can change the way they think or behave or what they believe all the time depending upon circumstances and experiences. Elena may not necessarily have a core personality or characterisation that is maintained across the series, but in a strange way, that makes her more human to me than any other character. And I relate so much to the way that Elena never really knows what to do when it comes to making important life decisions. It’s important to remember when analysing Elena that despite Nina looking (and being) older than 17, Elena is supposed to be a 17 year old girl. Most teenagers that age don’t have a clue who they are, what they want or who they want and are just living day to day and seeing where life takes them. That’s exactly what Elena did and since she “made it” it gives me hope that I will one day too.

Thank you so much for asking, lovely! I tried to keep this short, but I have a lot of thoughts and feelings when it comes to Elena. Hopefully I made sense, because I felt like a lot of this was very muddled and explained terribly.

#answered #my meta #tvd meta #elena gilbert #anti-delena #theofficestan

[linkspooky]

Hello, look I don't want to seem rude or offensive to your posts here, but in one of your last posts you say "Amon has not done anything relevant in :re" or something like that and personally I don't agree with that. If that were a few chapters ago I could still agree with you because even in Rushima Amon was still dealing just with personal matters chasing Seidou and Kurona, but don't now.(continues on another message, cursed be the letters limit, you can recognize me as Mr. Potato)

Mr. Potato here. As I was saying, Amon was relevant in encouraging CCG to work with the ghouls, as we saw in the chapters the investigators were surprised to see that one of the CCG heroes, Amon Koutarou, was alive, "hero" so Amon has credibility in the CCG and would get the attention of everyone because of it. I'm not here defending that he didn't lie to himself there when he said those things, but he was relevant there and this time it's not just about personal matters like Rushima.

Alright Anon, let’s define a character in the simplest of terms. A character is somebody who has a simple and clearly defined goal, and takes proactive steps towards that goal. 

In Tokyo Ghoul, Amon’s goal was figuring out centipede. Almost every action he took was centered around that task, and the information he received relevant. As he was an investigator, it made sense that the main majority of his character arc is simply following Centipede’s trail and meeting him in different locations trying to figure out. 

In Re: however, you cannot name one single goal which Amon pursues throughout the entire manga. His first goal is that he will pursue Seidou and Kurona and then save them because they are as he remembered in his final fight before becoming a ghoul members of his precious last sanctuary.

That is a goal, and then as we see all of Amon’s appearences in Re: before this point are trying to pursue that. Re: looking for Kurona, traveling to Rueshima in order to help Seidou.

Then, he gets exactly that. Seidou and Kurona are both safe, and even moreso they showed up to help him and drag him back to. All three of them are reunited, and Amon finally gets the chance to do as he said with Seidou, to allow Seidou to come with him and fight side by side and then....

Amon never mentions Seidou or Kurona ever again. Apparently, after dedicating three years of your life to saving someone, you don’t even want to check up on them or wonder where they are. Amon’s top priority instead becomes Akira.

Alright, his number one goal in life is Akira. He’s going to protect her and stay by her side and choose her over the world now, instead of how he failed to before in the three years he left her alone and didn’t choose to tell her he was alive. That’s his new goal- and now-

They’re both going up against Godzilla. Then we see Amon, who said that he felt all of his feelings as an investigator in the past were wrong, once again returning to his image of an idealized investigator and a CCG.

So when I say Amon has done nothing what I mean is none of his actions form together in a coherent and consistent arc. This is not a flaw of the writing (at least I hope it’s not, rule of thumb is assume everything is intentional), but rather a flaw of Amon himself and his inability to self actualize. Amon almost mirrors Kaneki in this regard, having lost his original cause he just shifts again from cause to cause as they are presented to him. Therefore he lacks the ability to truly commit himself to any one of them. 

You can tell Amon’s hesitance to commit, because he almost never acts until the house is already on fire. He is reactive, rather than active. Amon waits until Rueshima is at its absolute worst and most tense, and then saves Seidou by tearing his arm off and then starting a fight with him. He does not even get to Kurona on time despite stalking her for years it seemed. Seidou is the one who waits by Akira’s bedside, and then retrieves the RC suppressant with Kaneki, and also brings Amon back, but it’s Amon who at the end of that speaks with her. Only after being told by Touka to do so, and also he realizes he wanted to speak with her all along after being told by Touka again. He does not move to help Kaneki with Goat until after 90% of the ghoul population has been exterminated, Goat is mostly destroyed, and Kaneki has turned into a giant monster. Then, and only then does Amon suddenly decide to act. The consistent thread in all of this is Amon is not an active decider in these scenarios. The scenarios area always set for him by other people, and Amon merely reacts to them, most often in the way dictated by others. 

A weird writing quirk of Amon’s in Re: is that all of his importance from Tokyo Ghoul still remains, as you said Amon is an important person to the CCG, and an important perosn thematically, but we see in manifest in Re: in the form of lost potential. 

Amon had the potential to understand ghouls, however he instead tried to learn everything by himself and failed to empathize with them or even see himself as a ghoul despite living as one for three years.

Amon has the potential to undermine V’s grip on the CCG, and their propaganda. He himself is a ghoul while remianing an investigator at heart and a believer in the CCG’s ideals. He is sitting on the sphinx conspiracy, the fact that the CCG experimented on him behind closed doors, etc. etc.

Yet when he chooses to speak to give the CCG a reason to fight with ghouls, does he reveal either of these things? The fact that the CCG was corrupt and that their propaganda that ghouls have no emotions was a lie? The fact that he a former CCG officer is himself a ghoul and standing right in front of them?

No, he once again justice bla bla bla peace bla bla...

Which as I remind you sounds more like V, than anything else.

Which is where I reach my point... probably. That Amon’s actions are inconsitent as a part of his character arc. He does not know what he wants to do, but he also refuses to admit that he does not know. As it would mean accepting a personal responsibility that he is not prepared to accept. Which is why he is still spouting the line of Kaneki not being a murderer, long after Kaneki became a murderer several times over. 

The irony behind that line was that Kaneki is only not a murderer if he does not kill humans. As long as Amon has only killed ghouls, he is not a murderer, he is not fallen like Seidou, or Donato. Donato is Amon’s Black Goat’s Egg. Amon does not want to admit that in a way he’s repeated the same violence that he saw in Donato as a child.

To acknowledge Donato’s humanity, and to acknowledge his own actions means that he has already been a murderer long ago. Long before he became a ghoul in fact. As what Amon’s primary motivator at the beginning of the manga was, was to stop the violence in the world that was primarily aimed at children, because he let so many children in his own orphanage die. Yet his first actions is to enable and even encourage Mado’s pursuit of a child in Hinami, and kill her mother right in front of her. Then much later in the manga, Amon’s current goal is to save Kaneki Ken, somebody who did this to Hajime Hazuki.

Who remember is the same Hajime that Amon was motivated to help fix the world, protect orphans like him or prevent any more people from being orphaned all those years ago.

This is what you call an arc, these flaws and ignorances on Amon’s part are designed with a purpose. Otherwise there would be no reason to call back to Hajime all those years ago, he could have been a completely new character like Yusa, Rikai and Shio were, however the callback is deliberate and we’re meant to think on it. 

Amon’s main flaw was ignorance, he even said it was the reason he was carrying the cross around his neck. In order to actually contribute in a meaningful way Amon has to figure himself out, figure out what he wants, and act proactively and consistently. That’s the path to the completion of his character arc, and so when I say that Amon has accomplished nothing, I entirely mean it as a flaw of his character. That he as a character is prevented from self actualizing due to certain flaws holding him back, and that a path exists in the narrative for resolution of this flaw. 

#metasks #Anonymous