#i'm extremely inconsistent at what i post so

[thavron]

"It starts how it will end, with a garden."

This could just be God's omniscience talking, but I feel this tells us something about season one. The story is already over, God is recounting a tale in the past tense.

What if the same is true for Season Two, and it is a story being recounted by Aziraphale and Crowley?

Hear me out. Somewhere on this hellsite there is a post with a great long list of inconsistent duplications. I can not now find this list, nor can I remember it's full contents, but an example would include the following.

Crowley has two sets of sunglasses. Crowley's side burns have two different lengths. Bildad having two different looks.

Why, we ask, would a show that is renowned for its attention to details have so many inconsistencies? Surely not continuity errors. This has given rise to the idea of time traveling Crowley, which I must say is an interesting idea. But I think it might be simpler that that.

Let's look at Bildad. This is a version of Crowley from the past. We know it is a memory/flashback. We know memories can be inconsistent and can also be messed with (see Jimbriel)

So we have Exhibit A, wild and floofy and goofy. Exhibit B, sleek and shiny and a little bit sexy. Why may I ask? Well the simple answer is that this flashback is a shared memory. Both Aziraphale and Crowley are remembering it, and they both have different perspectives of the events.

How do we know both are remembering? There are times when they are not both present on screen. At the start of the minisode Crowley is alone on the hilltop smack-talking the goats. He sees Aziraphale appear. His is the only perspective it can be. Later we see Aziraphale in heaven, without Crowley. Both characters are remembering events and both are remembering it a little differently. Aziraphale, remembers Crowley differently to how Crowley remembers himself. So we have two different versions of Bildad in the same minisode.

So what if the same is true for the present day events? The story is being told from two perspectives, and so they both remember events a little differently. This would explain why little details are different, this is why we have inconsistencies. It would also explain why the major plot arc of this series is about memory loss.

Why does this matter? I'm not certain. But I think something about the final fifteen, and how both characters leave with a different understanding of what happened in that bookshop, will be relevant to how the story unfolds.

EDITING TO ADD: this break down of the perspectives in Job minisode is extremely compelling.

#good omens #good omens meta #my meta

[thatdogmagic]

Remember this smug as hell post?

Well, keep it in mind.

I'm going to give some people here the benefit of the doubt and go into this post with the assumption that they genuinely don't know how fucking awful the Tumblr """"porn filters"""" are for images deemed - or reported by users as - 'NSFW.'

This is a rehash of everything I wrote out before, but it's going over all of it in one big post, because this issue with community labels moves well beyond debates over what is and isn't NSFW. There are doublestandards within doublestandards, and no way at all for artists and creators to know for sure if their post is going to get blacklisted.

We're not merely talking about the fact that these filters exist. We're talking about the fact that they are wildly inconsistent, and that reported images aren't seen initially by a person so much as an extremely stupid algorithm. That's why there's the option to say 'this ruling was made in error.'

There are literally no set guidelines for what qualifies as NSFW, and what doesn't, when it comes to nudity, and to what characters those guidelines actually apply. Staff rulings do not match up to one another. They legitimately do not make sense. You cannot divine how a ruling is going to end up, and it is infuriating that staff is jerking us around like this when the platform very clearly wanted artists like us back.

Not only that, they were, yes: that fucking smug about it. In case you forgot, that 'cheater' picture is talking about people who fled the NSFW ban specifically.

Examples follow:

Both of these images were caught by the filters, and then appealed. The first one was (visibly, as you can see) downgraded to Everyone, in spite of the character showing more secondary sex characteristics than the first (breast, visible nipple).

Similarly, a male character showing a pube fluff was left alone, even in spite of being cited in my appeal on the second image.

Last, there is, as noted, this readily available image of Felicia, that you can find by searching 'darkstalkers Felicia' on the search bar. Did people forget that she's bottomless, and those aren't panties?

Using fluff to cover junk is an age-old trick for characters like this. And it clearly isn't a problem with the male character.

Further, you can go through just about any archive and see a ton of images that were not subject to community labels, many of which are much more racy, and much more legitimately "NSFW."

So, yes, beyond the disgust of Tumblr staff treating any body like mine as filthy and inherently sexual in nature, this is also about a system that is arbitrary, penalizes artists for no good reason, and has deeply opaque standards. You never know when a piece of yours is going to run afoul of a bot, or what a staff ruling will ultimately be, or why the ruling is there in the first place.

And that's bullshit. If you think it's anything other than bullshit, you're being a contrarian ass. Especially since a forced label absolutely WILL kill your visibility, where compared to implementing the label yourself. It is punitive, it is punishing, and I will say again: it is completely unnecessary to jerk us around like this when the platform very clearly wanted us back.

And now that we are, we're back to being treated like garbage, constantly having to guess what the rules actually mean, how they apply, and to which sorts of bodies they apply, all while watching our viewcounts on contested posts eat ten kinds of shit.

tl;dr, do not talk to me about 'following rules' when the rules are so ill-defined as to be quite literally useless, to me, and to every other artist on this website.

#tumblr #community labels #content filters #artists on tumblr

[shuinami]

Jess and Hobie: their defining strengths + their weaknesses

I had a thought about Hobie while I was writing, have been thinking about Jess for a while and then this post about Miguel came out and it made me kind of want to yap. I'll only talk about Hobie and Jessica here because I'm biased + Peter & Gwen have been talked about a lot + I linked a post about Miguel + Miles & Pav have simpler, more obvious flaws that basically come down to youthful naivety.

I also find it really interesting that their flaws are basically opposites, Hobie's comes from "inconsistency" whilst Jessica's comes from stubbornness. And again, both these flaws come from their greatest strengths.

TL;dr

Jess' defining strength is her resolve when it comes to fighting for what's right and tussling with destiny but it causes her to have a one-track mind, even if it comes to dedicating herself to something wrong (from being misguided).

Hobie's defining strength is his optimism (e.g. anarcho-communism) but the extreme difficulty of pursuing those ideals and the struggle against systems can bring that optimism to a breaking point, causing him to be inconsistent or, more directly, to give up.

I think people forget that Jessica's pregnancy is by design and not just a 'feature' of Jessica Drew as a character. She was deliberately chosen to be represented in this stage of her life and I think it is so important to her character, even if it's not in the traditional way that pregnancy is typically portrayed as in media.

I think her pregnancy shows the kind of person she is: most obviously, it's cold, hard evidence that she's a bamf who takes care of spidey business even while pregnant.

More importantly to me, though, there's an implication that, as her universe's one and only spidey, she has been the one to save the day and been the change she wishes to seek, effectively enough that she feels comfortable bringing a baby into the world.

Unlike someone like Peter, she does not make the choice between bringing her child to work with her or leaving them behind. She just has to do what she needs to do to make sure her kid is safe, there's no failing for her. During her pregnancy, it's always going to be a matter of life and death. Jess is well aware and, instead of shying away from action, she's just committed to not making those kinds of mistakes. To get over her losses. She's going to take charge of her own world's destiny as she has always done and she's going to make sure it's good.

Her strong allegiance to Miguel's ideas is her most glaring flaw to us as an audience because A. we're seeing things through Miles' eyes, she's standing in the way of him saving his father and B. we know that Miguel can't be right about canon events - we know they wouldn't make the movies as bleak as that.

Of course, taking a step back from our perspective, it's also a flaw because she is being antagonistic to a teenager as a grown adult. It might make her seem cold and harsh.

However, Jess was the one to vouch for Gwen, to take her in, even though Miguel didn't want her to and they could have left things up to the web of destiny. Jess trusts her own capabilities but she doesn't trust the world to be kind. She doesn't assume Gwen can handle things just because she can, either. On top of being sympathetic, I think her dedication to being the change she wishes to see is why she accepts Gwen as a student; she trusts that a young girl can make the world a better place too, it's not a thing where she wants to micromanage everything. She just wants to know the multiverse is in safe hands. That's her "great responsibility".

The only reason she is following the anti-Miles agenda is because Miles, as far as she and anybody else in-movie knows, is jeopardising the existence of every universe (insidiously via the holes). Maybe, in another position, say, a bright-eyed teen who mainly worried about high school and puppy love, she would be more willing to risk things, to see how it goes.

She's not in that position though. Her world that she felt confident she had the power to keep safe has been made uncertain. One day, it could just go poof, along with her baby, and she wouldn't be able to stop it in the moment. If she makes the right decision now, if she doesn't make a mistake, she can prevent it. It's understandable that she's going to do whatever it takes to prevent anomalies.

What was the canon event chosen to represent her?

Her version of the moment from "The Final Chapter".

It comes from a story that largely focuses on Peter's personal life before spiralling into action to make up for a mistake that has made Aunt May fatally ill. In the panel, Spider-Man is trapped under machinery with the cure - the thing that will absolve the mistake - just out of reach. As the lair is flooded, drowning is imminent.

Against all odds, though, Spider-Man pushes past what should have killed him and rises to the occasion, with the thoughts of saving Aunt May and refusing to have a repeat of Uncle Ben.

"I won't fail you. No matter what - I won't fail."

Jess has had to handle her own fate as well as her world's. Now that the multiverse is involved, it's not going to stop at her own universe. She has to stop this. She won't fail. As per the dialogue between her and Gwen in ATSV, she's made a mistake before (by getting too close to someone) but she tells Gwen "I got over it". Sounds so savage in the moment but she still gives Gwen a chance to make her own situation right before letting her get kicked off the team. Helping Gwen in spite of the anomaly would be a mistake if she couldn't handle this.

And when the Spot gets away and Miles enters the picture? The gloves come off. It's tempting fate at that point. Jess' no mistakes mindset pushes her to even prepare to roll up on a teenager.*

Her greatest strength is her resolve - I mean, hell, she doesn't let even pregnancy slow her down when it comes to saving the world - but it causes her to be stubborn and leads her down a misguided path.

*By the end of the film, she seems to be questioning Miguel's method, though. On top of the fact that BTSV is obviously going to end on a good note, I think Jess' fight against destiny is going to have her come around in the end as Miles is doing the same thing.

Onto Hobie:

I luv luv luv Hobie as much as everyone else, he's definitely my favourite but I feel he has his flaws too (which tend to make me love my faves more lol).

In fact, I think he says what they are when we first meet him, though they are veiled as jokes.

I find that the audience tends to position him as a perfect distillation of anarcho-communism at its best. I think the teen spideys see him in a similar light; they see him as effortlessly cool & charismatic, a wise mentor figure ("use your palms" + his play fighting with Pavitr featured him taking on the stance of a boxing trainer as Pavitr tried to punch his palms) but he's not like the adult adults - he's relatable, he's cool, he's anarchist, he's not always on their case like Jess and Miguel.

He neither calls himself a hero nor a role model... but he is the perfect hero and role model, right? He's the best! He's the only one who's looking out for Miles and, when Miles is getting chased down by the entire society, what does he do?

He... quits.

Wouldn't that perfect hero we all believe him to be swoop in with his cape, know exactly what to do and save Miles, the underdog? He can't have possibly known Miles would manage against the society and, if he knew it was possible, then why wouldn't he lend a hand? He didn't drop off the watch in Miles' dimension, he gave one to his bestie, Gwen, likely in the scenario that she wanted to quit or got booted because 'it [didn't] work out'.**

I think Hobie's major flaw is his lack of consistency, as he famously said himself.

He has a strong moral code - he believes in the right things for the right reasons... but communism and anarchy are pretty much impossible to properly/entirely employ in a system that is consumerist, capitalist and authoritarian. He riots, he fights, but it's never over. London isn't free. In my experience, people with strong moral compasses tend to have issues with themselves because they hold others to higher standards than most and hold themselves to even higher and impossible standards (think Diane from Bojack Horseman).

One of the first comic panels I encountered of Hobie was him getting real with Captain Anarchy about losing morale because, despite killing President Ozzy Osborne, the face of fascism in his dystopia, nothing changes. He wasn't able to save the world like a hero in a movie or like a proper role model. He 'failed'. When you give your everything and nothing changes, no matter how optimistic, clever or read-up on theory you are, it can be hard to keep going.

And what is chosen as his defining canon event?

His version of Spider-Man quitting in "Spider-Man No More". Rather than being fed up with the world antagonising him as 616 is, Hobie is done with an antagonistic world.

The Hobie/Spider-Punk that has been built up externally, as far as I understand, would never give up. He'd keep raging forever and ever because that's the cool thing to do, because it's the heroic thing to do - because it's the right thing to do.

But under the mask, he's just a teenager, imperfect as any other.

He's still a Spider-Man too. Before the bite, he was another lanky black boy in racist-af, peak National Front, send-the-blacks-and-the-Asians-back, '70s England. He's a nerd, as evidenced by his ability to build such a high-tech watch, especially as a teenager who wouldn't have had access to anything like it until joining the society, meaning he had to pick it up quick. And I'm to think he didn't have any Flash-esque characters in his life? "Come out of it."

As Spider-Man with the mask on, he yells to the rooftops; as Hobie with the mask off, he mumbles and whispers. Sure he looks cool now but people don't tend to come out of the womb as Spider-Punk. On top of that, he's still so young and surely has plenty of room to grow.

I believe he joined the society in earnest, optimistic that he could help the multiverse but eventually reached his limits with actively facilitating death and trauma, with saving the multiverse not meaning freedom in his own universe, with being shackled to the web of destiny. I'm not convinced he made the watch in one day; I think he had been planning on quitting for some time and was waiting for the right moment (as he also wanted to support Gwen because friendship is important to him). That's why he tries to dissuade Miles from joining but, when he does leave, he doesn't go out in a riot, he doesn't even leave knowing that Miles has people on his side other than him. Hobie just quits.

I think his greatest strength is his optimism (his anarcho-communism & adamance about "love, joy and freedom" as per the un-permitted performance art pieces in his montage) but he's smart and he's been through shit - he isn't naive like Pavitr or Miles - the great heights of that optimism lead to intensely low lows.

**(I don't really see why or how he would have been able to predict everything that happened in the chase. I know that the watch is set to 1610 but if Hobie believed Miles would make it out of 928 and get back to 1610, would that not be things 'working out'? Or did he predict that he would get to the go-home machine but was the only one who considered that he would be sent to the place his spider came from. Why? And why wouldn't he set the watch to 42 if he knew Miles wouldn't be in 1610? I feel like the 1610 on the interface is just there to be there and that Hobie gave Gwen the watch so she could have the freedom to leave 65 if she wanted to, in the event that she quit the society because they captured Miles or because Miguel kicked her out as Jess kept warning.)

#i luv them #atsv spoilers #across the spiderverse spoilers #across the spiderverse #jessica drew #atsv jessica #hobie brown #spider punk #atsv analysis #shui meta

[daytaker]

greetings from clown anon, adored the fic very silly <33

i apologise if i’m filling up your inbox but may i ask for an mc that’s a mortician? that or is just desensitised to death and knows a lot about it, like i imagine whenever the brothers in early season 1 used to do like very specific threats mc would be like “uh actually that’s not how that works” essentially acting like a bit of a smart ass completely glossing over the actual threat

thanksies in advance (´∀｀*)

Clown Anon MCs - [ Clowncore MC | Death-Fixated Science Geek MC | LeVeyan Satanist MC ]

(I'll be real I have no memory of the specific threats and I was too lazy to go look for them but I will follow along the lines of the prompt anyway.)

I'm going to do this one in bullet point form. Hope that's okay.

(CW: a bit gross at times. not quite gore.)

Now I Am Become MC, Destroyer of Worlds: A Death-Fixated Main Character in Obey Me!

Read below the cut.

They're extremely curious about demon anatomy. And not in a kinky way. They want to see how similar the structure and layout of demon organs are to human organs. They want to get full body X-rays when those wings and tails pop up. They want to get it on video when they appear and disappear. Because what the fuck. Yeah, yeah, they get it, magic exists, but still, what the fuck?!

They fully expect Beel to keel over and die one day from overeating. There is no way any single individual can consume the way he does and survive. They're actually hoping that if he does, they'll be able to carry out the post-mortem and see what exactly was going on with that stomach of his. I mean, yes, they'll be very sad he's gone, but at least he'll have died as a martyr to science!

Dead shadow hog? Taxidermied. Dead fire newt? Taxidermied. Dead devil zebra? Brought home, dissected, taxidermied. The brothers don't really like to go to their room because of the constant dizzying stench of formaldehyde that comes from it.

Sometimes they'll just sit and stare at one of the brothers. If asked what they're doing, they'll simply say, "Observing." Reactions to this range from Beel's "Oh, okay," to Levi's "I'M GOING TO MY ROOM AND NEVER LEAVING FOR THE REST OF MY LIFE."

So Solomon's immortal, is he? How immortal, exactly? Is it just that he'll never die from old age? Could he die of a disease? Surely he could die from injuries, right? Has he tested this? Can they test it? Please?

....Please?

Wait, wait, wait. Satan came from where? How? Why? What the hell? Lucifer, take your shirt off, they need to do some investigating. Satan, you too. Lucifer, show them your back. No scars? Not even from ripping your own wings off? Hm. Satan, do you have a bellybutton? ...That's weird, you definitely didn't need an umbilical cord. And you're saying he came out full-sized? Stop telling them it's magic! Magic is just science that people don't understand yet.

Actually, all of you get in here and strip, this has been a long time coming. MC needs to figure out what the hell is happening here.

Why not?

Pleeeease?

Satan, let's talk about one of your murder mysteries! They do this exactly one time, and never again because MC kept interrupting to point out plot holes and inconsistencies. It was so annoying. It kind of ruined the genre for him for a little while.

Leviathan, MC wants to ask you about how you survive underwater. Levi--- Hey, where are you going? Levi?

They write their paper on comparative anatomy of demons, angels, and humans. Diavolo gets a little queasy after the first page and gives them an A. He doesn't want to read the rest, he trusts they did a thorough job.

#obey me #obey me hcs #dthc #hcs #obey me headcanons #obey me mc #ask response #clown anon #this turned into science geek without a filter mc but i think it still works #none of the brothers are dating this one #nope #no thanks #they'll pass #obey me lucifer #obey me levi #obey me satan #obey me beel #obey me solomon #obey me diavolo #lucifer #levi #satan #beel

[bread-tab]

okay random 4am rant time, don't take it too seriously, but: people need to recognize there's a difference between "bad worldbuilding" and "worldbuilding styles you personally don't like."

bad worldbuilding is, for example: internally inconsistent, bigoted, or something else that messes up the plot or characterization of the story itself. sloppy. careless.

things that are *not* bad worldbuilding:

minimalism.

i've been thinking about this in the first place because i saw a post about the Murderbot Diaries a while back (don't know who made it, don't care; this ain't personal) saying the worldbuilding in those books is bad and lazy. to me, as an avid sci-fi reader and writer, that is clearly not true. but i understood why they thought this. the series uses extremely minimalist worldbuilding which intentionally withholds a lot of detail, in a way that is consistent with the (nonhuman, robot, depressed robot) first-person POV. this could also be a feature of the author's writing style in general—i haven't read her other works—but i wouldn't bet too much on it.

the signature of intentional minimalism is that there *are* details about the speculative setting—they're just doled out very thoughtfully and sparingly. the intent is to leave you a little hungry for more. it's to make you think very carefully about the details you do have. this is best suited to stories that already have elements of psychological and/or mystery plot types. the worldbuilding you do see should still be believable, internally consistent, and have interesting implications if you think about it a bit. but you are for sure going to have to think harder to get it.

if you're not in the mood, i will concede, a minimalist style definitely comes off as a bit dry. if you are in the mood, it's relaxing.

whimsy.

this is a big one for sci-fi fans in particular. see: the constant debate about whether any particular story is "hard" or "soft" sci-fi, and whether soft sci-fi is bad, etc etc. but worldbuilding doesn't have to be realistic to be good. you're allowed to have Jedi and humanoid aliens and time travel in your sci-fi. you're allowed to have historical anachronisms and astrology and po-ta-toes in your fantasy. whether or not they're silly isn't the deciding factor on how "good" these worldbuilding elements really are.

the key thing is tonal consistency. you've got a serious high-fantasy setting with its own strict, un-Earth-like theology and magic system, and you throw Santa Claus in there? yeah, that's not gonna land well. but C.S. Lewis can get away with that in Narnia just fine. why? because the Chronicles of Narnia are whimsical children's stories with a strong Christian/Western mythological influence already, and their central conceit is a crossover between the mundane world and the magical world. of course Santa can cross over too. it's whimsical, but it's not actually random. (and if you ventured into straight-up comedy, you could get away with random too. as long as it's funny.)

the unreliable narrator.

i don't have a good example for this off the top of my head (maybe Murderbot again? idk, i'm sleepy, fill in your own) but i'll tell you how to recognize when this is done well.

by definition, an unreliable narrator has some key misconceptions about their own world. so how do you tell what's going on as a reader? how do you know the writer isn't equally confused?

you connect the dots. solve the puzzle. in practice this is similar to reading a minimalist setting—but instead of just sparse clues, you also have a boatload of red herrings. you can catch some of these misleading details by comparing them to your real-world knowledge and saying "wait, this doesn't add up." other times, the false clues intentionally trick you by subverting those real world expectations.

the trick is in the consequences. regardless of what the narrator says, their actions should still have logical consequences. there should be things going on that the POV character doesn't know about. the character will be forced to learn and adapt their narrative because of these shifting circumstances. you can catch them in a lie. the inconsistencies themselves tell a story.

...

i'm gonna stop myself there because this post is long and i oughtta be sleeping. just. this is a distinction worth making. is it really bad worldbuilding, or is it simply not the genre you're craving today? learn the difference for your own sake. you'll have an easier time realizing if a story is something you'll find enjoyable to read, regardless of its actual quality.

#long post #writing #worldbuilding #media literacy #media analysis #the murderbot diaries #the chronicles of narnia #Christianity mention #rant #sleep deprived

[sylvan-librarian]

In response to the (really good!) story for Murders at Karlov Manor, I've been seeing some (thankfully limited) discourse on the same old tired argument that Magic story has no stakes because characters can die and then come back to life as a ghost or get (seemingly permanently) turned into robot monsters and then get better eventually.

People can obviously feel what they feel and believe what they believe about Magic story, but personally, I'm just so tired of this argument. Magic story is largely a marriage of high fantasy and superhero comics. These two types of literature have much in common, but one similarity stands out in my mind: the impermanence of character death. Comic book superheroes famously won't stay dead, and while this fact has been controversial for decades, it is nonetheless a cornerstone of the genre. And hell, even in The Lord of Rings - the god-emperor and founding text of the entire fantasy genre (for better or worse) - Tolkien's wizard OC Gandalf dies and comes back to life STRONGER ... nigh invincibly powerful (if LotR was written today, people would call Gandalf [and probably Aragorn for that matter] a Mary Sue).

This not my attempt to shill for a corporation, mind you. In contrast, I'd rather see MORE people complaining about things worth complaining about:

The increasing price of the game gatekeeping so many from the hobby

Hasbro firing 1,000 employees right before Christmas

WotC sending hired thugs to someone's house over a mistake the company itself made

The focus on the collectability of cards over how they play

And I'm not even saying there aren't aspects of Magic story itself worth critiquing. To note:

The enjoyability of its prose is inconsistent at times (reread the Magic Origins stories, for example)

The messaging is sometimes off (i.e. - the worst bad guys in the entire universe are folks who use science to make their bodies more in line with their view of themselves)

The stories - especially the big epic ones - are rarely given time to breathe, and the authors are clearly asked to do a lot with very little

War of the Spark: Forsaken

Maybe asking people to have a more nuanced take on the storyline of a children's card game is too much, but I think that "story bad" is far too dismissive. I remember reading through the All Will Be One stories thinking: "Well, there is actually NO WAY WotC is going to kill off ALL of these characters that got phyrexianized." Jace and Ajani are literally two of the main characters of Magic; Nissa, Vraska, and Nahiri are maybe less popular and important to the overall setting, but they all nonetheless have their extremely devoted fans (me; I'm one of those fans; bet you can't guess of which 'walker). I find it a bit silly to assume that the mass permadeath of named characters would be how the Phyrexian arc would end. Modern Magic is just not the type of story where the creators will merc half of their cast just to appease certain sentiments about its literary value.

This post has turned into a lot of meandering nonsense, but here's what I'm largely trying to get across: I wish more people would accept Magic story for what it is, not for what they think it should be. I'm NOT saying people shouldn't have standards for their entertainment, but they also shouldn't expect Shakespeare* - or even Tolkien - from a story about wizard superheroes written to provide a backdrop for a children's card game.

*I also want to mention here: characters dying and then coming back is also present in Shakespeare.

#magic the gathering #vorthos

[wispforever]

Some thoughts on Itachi

So, I've seen a lot of comments circulating about my tags on this post, and I'm intrigued at the interest. I didn't expect it, as I see much more pigeonholing of Itachi's character than honest to god analysis. No hate- I'm no stranger to Kishimoto's writing. Some of his characters were unfortunately butchered or never given the chance to be developed properly, and Itachi is most certainly no exception. That said, I like to grant him a bit more nuance than I see on most blogs. I think people get a little wrapped up in the supposed "moral implications" of exploring how Itachi was also a victim of the system, as well as someone who victimized many people. But it's silly to equate character analysis and context consideration with condoning genocide.

I have a good laugh every once and a while at the metaphorical gymnastics people do in order to stay in the good graces of a bunch of internet trolls who are just Waiting for any opportunity to tell you you love murder and think it's delicious just because you made a post exploring a character's background. Media is grey; it's layered and wonderfully complex. There are many wrongs and rights in every story, and many wrongs and rights within those wrongs and rights. That's what I love about Naruto. Often times it's really too much like real life. Instead of people being black and white, right or wrong, bad or good- they're usually in a tough situation, trying their best and falling short, don't have all of the information, acting with good intentions or acting on what they believe will bring about a lesser evil, and then end up hurting others.

But it is much easier to assign blame and move on. A so-called bad person will always be the perfect scapegoat for issues bigger than them. In Itachi's case, the fascist government in the Leaf. It's easier to say Itachi could have just refused and decided not to be involved, than to recognize that like almost every other character in the narrative, he was under extreme duress, living in a military state. He was a child whose existence, along with all the other children and adults in the Leaf, was only valuable as long as he could serve as a tool for the war machine in the shinobi world's fucked up political system. And saying this is not the same as saying he was not capable of better decisions or that everything that he did thereafter or in general should not be read critically or subject to hypothetical consequences. It is the same as a saying his actions cannot be fully understood without complete context, and the themes of Naruto will never come through if every villain is just "evil" with no further nuance. And it would be boring too LOL

That said, I love to think about Itachi's situation back then. The ages in Naruto are a bit muddled, a little inconsistent, subject to change and interpretation, but Itachi was a child when he murdered everyone in the Uchiha compound. Most sources say he was 13. It should go without saying that someone so young isn't capable of the same decision-making or critical thinking as say, a 30-year-old, someone whose brain is finished developing and has much more experience on Earth.

Itachi's experience at this point in his life is informed by his age, and it's obviously informed by his childhood, as he has no other place from which to draw conclusions. Itachi grew up in a warring state. He saw people die and was subject to extreme violence in his formative years. To make matters worse, he was taught that war was inevitable and the only thing he could do to guard against it was kill others before they got the chance to kill him (threaten the village). Thusly, Itachi internalized at a very young age that what was in his power was to minimize damage (to himself, to his village, and to the world). What was not in his power was to stop this violence entirely (by adopting a critical mindset and going against fascist powers).

A part of this I think people often forget is that Itachi has absolutely nowhere to adopt this mindset FROM, as even though his father and the other members of the Uchiha clan seek equity in the Leaf, if they were to overthrow the Hokage and create a new system, it would still presumably center around the same ideals (minus, of course, the oppression of the Uchiha as a group). Fugaku is the head of the Uchiha clan at this time. As someone who imposed near impossible performance-related expectations on both of his sons, and withheld love and affection whenever they came up short (so often that it was at the cost of having any considerable emotional bond with either of them), there is absolutely no good reason to believe that Fugaku would reform the Leaf using a non-fascist ideology. And if he did, there is no good reason to believe that he would be some kind of visionary LMAO

This is important to remember because when it comes down to Itachi's decision to either kill everyone in the Uchiha compound and his family, or be part of the coup that would overthrow the Leaf, some people treat it as though it's a choice between fascism and non-fascism, which it most certainly is not. And if it was, Itachi, as a child who had grown up immersed in this ideology, would not be able to appreciate the difference. This context allows us to understand further what Itachi was really weighing in that moment. Accounting for his young age and limited worldview, the only valuable difference in this moment to Itachi was the amount of bloodshed that he would "allow" to happen. Essentially, he sees the options as follows:

Either give in to Danzo and kill everyone in the Uchiha compound, or facilitate a coup where the current government is (hopefully) overthrown and risk starting another war.

Here, Itachi pauses. He has known war. He knows how it affects children, adults, families, and whole nations. The peace he's living in currently is bought with blood, but it's the only peace he's ever known. The alternative is horrifying. And a war in this context, Itachi likely thinks, would be his fault, as he has now been put in the position to "prevent" it. Danzo and the whole shinobi system have groomed him into thinking so. Itachi, at age 13, cannot understand that there would be no war; it exists only as leverage for Danzo's argument at this point. His sensitivities are being played on.

Fugaku, though he is not the same as Danzo, offers about as much help as he does (that being none). Fugaku has no interest in avoiding war; if a war breaks out, it's justified because it will still mean his clan will no longer be living in oppression. This idea is valid, as fascist systems and discrimination can only cease to exist when we rise up against them; unfortunately, this most often calls for righteous violence, as the oppressive powers will not be moved with peaceful shows (not to mention they are willing to go to extreme lengths to avoid losing their hold on the people they have crushing power over, i.e. the Uchiha massacre). But Fugaku has no words to explain this to Itachi, who fears the worst and further fears being responsible for the worst. All he does is act as if it's a moral failing that his 13-year-old son is unwilling to stage a coup, which he believes could mark the abrupt end of a peace that's only just begun.

That said, let it be known that Itachi does appreciate this situation with SOME nuance, though it isn't of the kind that might have enabled him to see he was being manipulated. He at the very least understands that Danzo is a warmonger and oppresses those he fears (the Uchiha). He understands that the rights of his clan have been sorely disrespected, and that the issue needs correction. He understands the anger of his friends and family. This is why it takes him much deliberation before he can even come close to making a decision. He plays both sides right up until the end, listening to Danzo, as well as Fugaku and Shisui, paying attention to the current atmosphere in the Leaf as he tries to decide.

It is something he doesn't want to do. Here's where I get to the part I put in the tags of my drawing.

In this situation, it's almost worthless to write an analysis about Itachi's feelings at this time, his understanding of what was actually going on, his loyalty to his clan or his loyalty to the Leaf, because really, he could not grasp it. He was never prepared for this. He never knew he would be asked to make a decision he could only understand as "your family or the world?"

Itachi was put in a position that had no happy ending. There was no decision he could make that would not hurt. That could not result in a cataclysm that split him right down the middle. There was no version of this story that a 13-year-old could carry out thinking "I have done the right thing."

And that's the important part. Both sides asked him to make this decision, and so both sides are guilty of placing an immeasurable pressure on a child who should never have been put in such a position. Regardless of ideology, regardless of price, regardless of oppression or loyalty or devotion or any other thing- someone else should have made this decision for Itachi. Someone else should have been responsible. An adult, at the very least. Someone who COULD understand the implications of both options. Someone who COULD go forward and appreciate the evil of fascism and know that a coup was necessary. Itachi was never capable of such a thing. If he made the "wrong" decision, than every child who can't explain to you what a fascist government in a military state looks like and explain what the difference is between a hate crime and resisting a hateful power, is also wrong. Here is the nuance. These are things a 13-year-old in this universe cannot be expected to understand unless they are taught. And Itachi had no teacher. Quite the opposite. There were only forces pressing him from both sides, saying "choose."

Had his father done this for him, had Shisui been in this position, had any other adult Uchiha acting as a spy been put to this task, it would be a much different narrative. But of course, it had to be Itachi, who Danzo knew he could manipulate. It had to be a child, someone skilled enough to do the job, but inexperienced enough, afraid enough, to be willing to sacrifice everything they had to see the mission through. Someone you could whisper "greater good" to and have them hand over their well being on a plate. Someone who didn't understand they had the power and strength to destroy the system threatening them.

On a narrative level, Itachi exists to illustrate this point. How young people are systematically indoctrinated to serve a greater purpose, be it under a specific government, religion, or otherwise. We see it in real life fascism, in real life cults. There's no mistake. It isn't an accident that Itachi's story begins like this.

Which brings me to the rest of his life. The reason I drew the picture in the post referenced at the top. Itachi's character is a bit of a mystery the rest of the anime. Be that because of bad writing or an intentional omission, his motives, thoughts, and opinions are largely left ambiguous. However, there are still a few moments that interest me as far as the implications of his development.

When Itachi first comes back to the Leaf village, he faces Kakashi. On the one hand, this could simply be a narrative tool- the big bad meets the big good. He takes Kakashi out of commission! The first rogue shinobi we see who is able to defeat the pillar of the Leaf, the Copy Ninja, and without even breaking a sweat!

On the other hand, I find the brutality of Itachi's attack very intriguing. Again, it could be the tough guy act, but he's able to keep three jonin busy easily using standard genjutsu (with the help of Kisame). It wouldn't be a stretch to say that using the tsukuyomi is overkill, and at a considerable price, we learn later.

Why then would Itachi, who has been shown to have excellent battle intelligence, who is strategic to a fault, be willing to jeopardize his health among other things just to... scare the Leaf? Make sure Kakashi wouldn't be a nuisance in the future? Sure, the last one would make collecting Naruto less complicated, but they dispatched Kakashi easily enough, and surely Jiraiya, who Naruto was with at the time, would pose a bigger problem than Kakashi.

It doesn't make strategic sense, which makes me wonder if Itachi has a special animosity toward Kakashi. Being his superior in the ANBU before the Uchiha massacre, someone who was willing to conduct surveillance of the Uchiha compound without question, Kakashi could have become a symbol of the indifference of the Leaf for Itachi. He could very well have been a reminder of the inoperable position Itachi was put in when he was still a child, and Kakashi, of course, was an adult. Another adult who did nothing. Noticed nothing. Did not help Itachi.

And while I'm certain that Kakashi would have taken severe issue with the goings on in the Leaf at that time, judging by his reaction when he finds out the truth in Shippuden, Itachi knows him only by what he did then. Facilitated surveillance of the Uchiha compound, was a supportive superior, but nothing greater. A bystander whose compassion, while well meaning, was entirely unhelpful.

I don't think it's far fetched that Itachi fucking crucified Kakashi because he was so angry at what being in the Leaf did to him. At some point, as he got older, he realized how terrible it was. He realized there were people like him. Children who were "born killers". Pawns in the game of the shinobi powers.

After leaving the village, Itachi joins the Akatsuki, who are also seeking peace through war (another story). He is supposed to spy for them, but doesn't follow through in any enthusiastic way (that we're shown). He works alone for quite some time, or else with a group (briefly he was shown with Conan and Kakuzu). He is partners with Orochimaru before he's expelled from the Akatsuki. He is partners with one of the Seven Swordsmen of the Mist. He grows up and meets many people, sees lots of stories unfold. He learns that he isn't in a minority. Many shinobi are just like him.

And then, as an adult, he is partnered with Kisame, who he finds excellent camaraderie with because of their similar backgrounds. We see in this relationship that he understands what happened to him and what he did enough to acknowledge that, while neither of them are monsters, as many people say, they are human. And humans make mistakes. Humans are complicated. Wrong and right and wrong and right. They understand each other, and Itachi understands more clearly what the world puts these children up to. What it forces shinobi to become. That it isn't all his fault, but he still did it. And so he is responsible. He appears to be able to live with that.

But when he returns to the Leaf, those feelings bubble up. He hates the Leaf. He hates that system. He hates what he did. Maybe he even hates being a shinobi, how his excellence was weaponized, how being an Uchiha doomed him and his clan. And for what?

Itachi is played as a character who is only sensible, only logical, only interested in practical things, has nothing to express. But the way he behaves toward Kakashi in that moment bares all his grief and anger. I just like to think about it. We have so few moments where we get to see Itachi genuinely. The fight with Kakashi, the Sasuke/Deidara fight, his thoughtful moments with Kisame. Just makes me wonder what could've been if Itachi's story had gone a little differently.

Anyway, if anyone would like me to expand on any points or has additional thoughts, feel free to hop in my ask box or leave a comment. Thanks for the interest, I love to talk.

#this is wisp #itachi uchiha #analysis

[waitmyturtles]

This post was making its way around last night, about how viewers could/should recognize when female characters in dramas are written by men, and how we as viewers can rejigger our minds around how we then see and interpret these female characters. I'm thinking of Cheum in Only Friends, and how she's been written by an all-male and all-queer team of writers.

Somewhat separately, I'm noting a reblog from my OF Sunday meta by @fromthedepthsandbeyond about how Thai audiences vs. international audiences are receiving Cheum. Holding myself accountable: in my original post that I just linked, I chunked up the deuces on Cheum (and I do still hope April dumps Cheum's ass).

But I gotta ponder what it means that an all-male team wrote Cheum. And as well, I gotta think about what it means for me to interpret a female character in a drama, generally speaking.

What are my implicit biases towards a female character to hold people around her accountable? To hold her brother accountable for making false rape claims against Boston? To hold herself accountable for calling Boston a slut and making judgements against his sexual predictions? To hold herself accountable for continuing to suggest to Mew that he date Top, because Top is top-tier?

What are my implicit biases that a female character in a drama would be written to transcend above the bullshit she is witnessing, to be a cipher of macro-level sensibility and to cut through everyone else's bullshit to speak on the truth of their shenanigans?

What are my implicit and/or explicit expectations that the older sister of a younger brother who lied about rape claims would hold that younger sibling accountable for his falsehoods?

I just wrote on a reblog from @ranchthoughts, as we head towards Saturday's finale, about my giving these characters the space and grace to be imperfect twentysomethings, and I think this ties into how I need to possibly adjust what in the heck is going on with Cheum. And I note that especially from @fromthedepthsandbeyond's thoughts on Thai vs. international interpretations of Cheum.

Could I generalize a Thai interpretation on Cheum as: Cheum is doing the best she can in what we assume to be a Thai/Asian society that still holds in expectation certain roles of peacekeeping that a female should uphold?

I might be able to safely make that assumption, with sensitivity to overgeneralization. (I've been thinking a lot about sexism in Asian families vis à vis my re-watch and re-rewatch of Bad Buddy lately -- and how Pat's traditional Thai-Chinese family upholds lingering notions of sexism towards Pat's younger sister, Pa.)

And could I generalize an international interpretation on Cheum as: we have made so much progress on women's equality, that Cheum should feel free to burn all these assholes down to ash for their inconsistencies and/or lies?

I think there's a tension there, in the interpretive lenses, that I'm playing around with, as I think about getting more open and accountable towards my biases of what I might expect out of a character like Cheum that was written by men.

I don't know, I'm feeling unsettled by this, because in a way, I want to know what Cheum, as a fictional storytelling device, was meant to achieve by way of her placement in the Only Friends story and script. She has extreme judgement against Boston, for instance, and.... I don't know where that judgement stems from, what it means.

Does it mean that guys (like Jojo and the OF team) assume that all women judge sex? I can't think that that's it, considering Jojo's past works, but... I don't know.

So, yeah. I'm struggling with this and pondering it. How do I relate to Cheum now that I'm thinking about her as written as a fictional narrative device by guys? Oof. I wonder if I should have recalibrated my expectations all along.

---

P.S. I think this also touches on a thought I had a few weeks ago about implicit biases towards lesbians -- that a lesbian couple like Mew's moms could be wiser, sharper, and more attuned to their son's implicit angst towards Top; when clearly, when they first met Top, they weren't, at all. I thought that was a brilliant spin by the OF team on biases that we may have about lesbian couples, and what that meant for commentary about the general aloofness of Asian parents in fiction.

#only friends the series #only friends #only friends meta #lookjun bhasidi #cheum x april #april x cheum #what does cheum mean as a female character that was written by men

[adrianthevampire]

A Somewhat Comprehensive List of Horse Video Games

I will be editing this original post with new games, new information, and so on. If you see a reblogged version of this post, it is worth going to the original post to see if updates have been made.

Ahead will be a list of games that either were released recently and/or are being actively maintained. I have not personally played all of these games. Do not take this list as my personal recommendations.

If you have games you would like to suggest for this list, please let me know!

Some games are listed in both the Single Player and Multiplayer sections. This is due to them having the capability for either.

Single Player

The Ranch of Rivershine [Steam]

Horse Tales: Emerald Valley Ranch [Website, available for PC and consoles]

Rival Stars Horse Racing [Website]

Astride [Steam, Website]

Horse Club Adventures [Steam, also available on consoles]

Horse Club Adventures 2 [Steam, also available on consoles]

Wildshade Unicorn Champions [only available on consoles]

Multiplayer

Rival Stars Horse Racing [Website]

Astride [Steam, Website]

Horse Isle 3 [Website]

Alicia Online [Website]

Star Stable Online [Website]

Star Equestrian [Website]

Browser

Horse Reality [Website]

Ropin' Ranch [Website]

Wild Horses Valley [Website]

Hunt and Jump [Website]

Mobile

Wildshade

Equestrian The Game

Star Equestrian

Rival Stars Horse Racing

Star Stable Online

Equestriad World Tour

Honorable Mentions

These are games that are not horse games technically but may have good horse gameplay, either in the base game or via user created content.

Red Dead Redemption 2/Red Dead Online/RedM

Minecraft

Roblox

The Sims 3 Pets

The Sims 4 Horse Ranch

Black Desert Online

Upcoming

Some but not all of these games have demos or paid beta testing, though none are officially available yet.

Fernhoof Grove [Trailer]

Unbridled: That Horse Game [Website]

Tales of Rein Ravine [Patreon]

Horse Life Simulator [Patreon]

Canter Crossing [Steam]

Pro Show Jumping [Steam]

Horse Project [Website]

Horse Trainer [Video]

Details about some of the games:

Rival Stars Horse Racing

Rival Stars has two versions. Desktop via Steam and Mobile. While the gameplay itself (e.i racing, breeding, etc) are identical there are massive differences in how it functions. Mobile has micro transactions and limits on how much you can do a day without paying money. The desktop version has no micro transactions and no limits on how much you can do at any given time. Desktop, however, does not get updated as often as Mobile. I could go on and on listing various pros and cons between the two versions, but ultimately I personally prefer Desktop due to the lack of micro transactions or wait times and in addition Desktop has the ability to make custom horses, which is quite fun. It's worth checking out the mobile version first, however, so you can see if the game appeals to you as the Mobile version is free to play.

Astride

Astride is in "early access" on Steam, though that can be misleading. What is currently available is little more than a tech demo. You can create a horse and ride around an area on it, utilizing Astride's unique jumping system, and you can given play with friends. However, it is extremely glitchy, the lighting looks awful right now, and overall it just... isn't good. That said, it is still in progress and I personally have hopes that it will become a full fledged game as promised someday. That day is not today and so I personally recommend not purchasing it until it has gotten a few good updates, unless you just really want to financially support the developers.

Horse Isle 3

Oh boy. I'll just point you towards this article about some of the issues with the community management of HI3. Be warned if you intend to play, moderators are inconsistent about the rules they enforce and you can very easily get banned for saying harmless things. Personally, I stay out of the chat and I'm careful with what I name my horses. Horse Isle 3 is a one of a kind game, sadly, that allows for extremely detailed breeding. Realistic genetics combined with the ability to breed for all sorts of shapes makes it a very compelling game, which is why so many people continue to play it despite... the issues. It is free to play, though there are paid aspects to it. However, you can earn the premium currency within the game and utilize paid features without ever paying your own money.

Minecraft

Minecraft can be a fun horse game using mods or server plugins! The mod SWEM adds a lot of content that makes for good realistic horse roleplay, though doesn't fit well in survival style gameplay. The mod Realistic Horse Genetics actually doesn't change much of the horse functionality, making it a really good fit for survival gameplay, but adds lots of realistic genetics and a better system for inheriting stats than vanilla minecraft. The mod Genetic Animals will be adding horses soon.

Red Dead Redemption 2, Red Dead Online, and RedM

While it is not intended to be a horse game, RDR2 has horses that feel so very real. They are well animated so they feel alive and they respond to their environment in realistic ways. Many people purchase the game purely because of the horses. There are mods you can use to improve the horses in Single Player, though I've never used any so I can't offer suggestions. Personally, I really like Red Dead Online for the horses because the horses can't die and there are a few more breed options. You also can look into joining a RedM server. There is one called Rift that is specifically meant for horse enthusiasts.

Roblox

I know nothing about Roblox personally, but I know there are several worlds (games? I don't know what they're called) in Roblox that revolve around horses.

I will add to this as I think of more. If you are viewing this as a reblogged post, it's worth checking the original to see if it has been updated.

Please feel free to request more information or suggest games or add your thoughts.

#adrian the vampire original post

[sheikfangirl]

Positively adore your art!! Thank you for sharing it!! Also, would you happen to know of any fics that sort of resemble your art style or ones that inspired it? I’m right there with you I love the basic vanilla vibe and I have been trying to find a decent fic to get into before I finish totk

thank you!!

Thank you so much for your kind words for my art

🙏 I greatly appreciate!🙏

I have a confession to make dear friend! I hadn't read fanfictions in several years but beating Totk made me go FERAL for Zelda material and explore what's been written since BotW came out.... oh boy the rabbit hole is deep!

There is a lot of good stuff out there but I have read so many fanfics in a short time that the whole thing is a blurry mess in my brain. BUT! There is one in particular that really stood out and left a lasting impression on me: Displaced written by socksock https://archiveofourown.org/works/21128084/chapters/50279321 It was originally written in 2018, before the release of TotK so there are some small and harmless inconsistencies that can easily be ignored because, duh, it was written BEFORE totk. I particularly liked this fanfic because it has all the qualities I'm looking for!! Also several key moments and general ideas in that story are extremely close to my own headcanon to the point it almost scared me. The story focuses on Zelda trying to find her place in post-calamity Hyrule. The characters are very well written and credible, Link's personality is player behavior accurate (MORE OF THAT PLEASE!!!!!!!!) and obsessed with completing his quests backlog and I thought it was amazing. Damn i love a player accurate Link!!

It's a wholesome slow burn romance, lots of humor, it's sexy, does not take itself too seriously but can be very emotional at times. Also, I was amazed by one scene in particular....I don't want to spoil anything for you, but the Big Damn Kiss moment is *CHEF KISS*: the setting, the tone and the resolution HSGDKJS, I would've slow clapped if i could've (I was holding my phone lol)

Reading that scene, I thought to myself : F*** YES! This person gets it hahaha !!

My own Zelink Big Damn First Kiss moment shares a lot of similarities with that fic so, Im going to say it now: when 'll post the Zelink first kiss i'm currently crafting, be sure to know that Socksock and their fic Displaced did something in the same general vibe FIRST! They are awesome. I hope i answered your question haha Have a great day!

#zelink #legend of zelda

[maniacwatchestheworld]

A Basic Guide to Harvey "Two-Face" Dent for Misha stans

With love, from a Two-Face fan who hasn't watched Supernatural and doesn't really intend on watching Gotham Knights.

Now before getting into this, you need to keep in mind that Harvey Dent (at the time of his creation, Harvey Kent) was a character first introduced to comics in 1942, and even within Batman canon, he is one of the most wildly inconsistently written characters. If you pick up any two stories that feature Two-Face in them at random, you are very likely to get two entirely different characters. As such, there are dozens of entirely valid ways of interpreting and writing his character, so what I write here is either based off of general consensus or my own personal opinion on the character.

If you are already a Two-Face fan who is reading this, I'm not trying to diminish your preferred way of interpreting the character and would be perfectly happy with discussing our differences in opinion in a separate post, but here I'm just trying to make a somewhat digestible guide to his character for newbies based off of my own perception of him and what I've heard about his character from Gotham Knights and what might appeal to his fans. If you disagree, you're welcome to write a similar post about him yourself.

Overview

Harvey Dent is Gotham City's District Attorney. He's actually a legal genius and savant. (He is also just generally DAMN smart when written well!) He became District Attorney at a very young age (~26 years old, making him the youngest District Attorney that Gotham has ever had,) and is the best damn lawyer in all of Gotham! At his best, he was locking up criminals left and right no one could stop him, and this ended up ticking off Gotham's criminal underworld. As District Attorney, he would work alongside Batman and Commissioner Gordon to make his convictions stick, which is something other District Attorneys before him couldn't do. For this, the public loved him. This also makes Arkham Asylum and Blackgate Prison exceedingly dangerous places for him to be, as a good percentage of their residents are there because of him.

Harvey Dent is Bruce Wayne's best friend. Sometimes they are even childhood friends! At the latest, they became friends after Bruce had already become Batman, but usually they are long-time friends, sometimes meeting as kids, though also often meeting in college. (They both went to Gotham University.) I think there are some iterations where they're even college roommates! They tend to have been very close in college. Regardless of when they met, they found kindred spirits within one another as they each sought to bring justice to this city that they love in their own ways. Because of this kinship, the two got extremely close and were the best of friends before Harvey's incident.

Harvey Dent is an abuse survivor. When he was a kid, Harvey's father would beat him and his mother. But his father made a game of it. The details sometimes change a little, but in essence his father would flip a coin. If it landed heads, he would beat Harvey. If it landed tails, then he wouldn't have to be punished. The coin was heads on both sides.

Harvey Dent is neurodivergent. Most iterations of Two-Face have OCD and many (but not all) are plural, presumably with some form of Dissociative Identity Disorder. It is generally thought that his childhood abuse caused him to have these conditions. After leaving his father's control, Harvey was able to get a handle on his OCD tendencies and deeply suppressed his one other disassociated identity. However, if Harvey experiences high levels of stress or anger over a prolonged period of time, that could make these two conditions show themselves again. When the incident that melted half of his face off happened, these conditions came back to stay. He is indeed legally insane. But this is because of his OCD (specifically how he flips a coin to make all of his decisions), and NOT because of his plurality! Note: Plurality is more common that you probably think it is. It's estimated that 1-5% of people are plural. I've also spoken to at least 2 people who are plural or system members that dearly love Two-Face as a character. Two-Face is very unusual as a system (you are a lot more likely to find a system of 12 members than one of as few as 2), but I have no doubt that systems that work like him are out there. Because of all of this, I try my best to be sensitive and understanding towards plural people at all times while in this fandom space. I can not speak for them as I am not plural myself, but I am always trying to listen to plural voices and learn from them. I would ask that while you're in this space that you try to do the same. All of the plural people and system members that I've spoken to and know want to be thought of and addressed to as different people, and therefore I try to think of Harvey and Two-Face the same way that I would a real plural person, and see them as different characters. When I say "Harvey Dent" (full name) I'm usually talking about the general character and in-universe legal identity or the body. When I say "Two-Face" I usually mean their shared criminal identity or Harvey's "dark side" as this is the generally accepted way to refer to him by. For the sake of this post I will try to generally refer to "Harvey's dark side"/"Two-Face" (the character) as "Harvey's associate" or "the Associate" to more clearly differentiate him from Harvey. Harvey is Harvey.

Duality and the Number 2

Since Harvey and his Associate have OCD, they get compulsions and obsessions that they can't entirely control. In their case, they have a particular fixation on the concept of duality and the number 2.

They often theme their crimes around the number 2, be that having them take place on the 2nd or 22nd of the month and starting at 2:00 am, the locations having 2 in them like 2222 Doubleday Street or the Second National Bank, or conceptually relating the to number 2, like kidnapping twins, or stealing two-of-a-kind, matching artifacts. If the scheme can do two things at once, like receiving a payout AND killing Batman (killing two birds with one stone), that's even better!

They think in very dualistic ways and try to apply those themes to themselves. Harvey is good, the Associate is evil. Harvey is clean and calculated, the Associate is messy and unpredictable. Harvey is friendly and polite, the Associate is mean and rude. The Associate might also do things that he knows Harvey wouldn't for the sake of 'balance' or being Harvey's opposite. They might also try to apply this duality when it comes to their relations to other characters. Batman is good, they are evil. Batman represents order, they represent chaos. Whether these statements are actually true or not may not reflect the reality of their characters, but they want it to.

Expect lots of puns around the number 2 and for them to get agitated when other numbers that don't relate to the number 2 to get brought up.

The Coin

The origin of Two-Face's coin varies between iterations. The original story from 1942 had it as a piece of evidence. It was the good luck charm of a mob boss that Harvey was trying to put away and was a piece of evidence that placed said mob boss at the scene of a crime. This mob boss was the same one that tried to melt Harvey's face off. Harvey would keep the coin after the incident, for some reason. Later on, the coin was rewritten to previously belong to Harvey's father as I wrote about above. In this iteration of the coin's backstory, Harvey's father gave Harvey the coin and Harvey kept it as a good luck charm.

The coin is usually a silver dollar, minted in 1922 and has the heads side on both sides. However one of these heads has been defaced and is all scratched up, making the coin fair again. Clean heads is considered to be the 'heads' side and is often referred to as 'good heads.' The scratched side is considered to be the 'tails' side and is often referred to as 'bad heads.' Harvey and his Associate feel a kinship with this coin, Harvey being represented by the good heads, and the Associate being represented by the bad heads.

Often times their OCD leaves Harvey and his Associate unable to make decisions and so they have a compulsion to flip their special coin to make their decisions for them. This will sometimes be used as a tie-breaker between Harvey and his Associate- if they get good heads, they do what Harvey wants, if they get bad heads, they do what the Associate wants. Other times when it comes to more neutral decisions, good heads will represent yes and bad heads will represent no (Example: Do we talk to this person? Good heads, yes. Bad heads, that person can fuck off). However most famously, they flip the coin to choose the morality of their actions with good heads being they do the moral thing and bad heads meaning they do the immoral thing. They are known to flip their coin to decide whether or not to kill. Good heads, the person lives. Bad heads, the person dies.

Because of their compulsion to flip their coin to make decisions, they will often end up doing things that they don't actually want to because the coin told them to. This also does occasionally lead to Harvey and his Associate helping Batman out and actually doing the right thing.

About the cooler Harvey (aka "Harv", "Two-Face", "Big Bad Harv", "Harvey's Associate" or "Harvey's dark side")

In plural terms, the Associate usually starts off as a Protector- a system member that protects other members of a system from harm (external or internal), but has become a Persecutor- a system member who does harm to others, be that to the body, other system members, or people outside the system, often because they think this will somehow help the system.

It is very likely that the Associate also holds Harvey's anger and trauma, and may have experienced the brunt of the abuse they have been subjected to. Because of this, the Associate is known to lash out and hurt others.

Before Harvey becomes Two-Face, his Associate will sometimes come out to the front, but only a little. He may pop up when Harvey is under a lot of stress for a long period of time or when he gets exceedingly angry. He may also come out any time Harvey gets into any kind of physical altercation with someone.

Where Harvey usually keeps his temper under control and is not likely to fly off the handle, the Associate has MAJOR anger management issues! The Associate WILL fight you with his fists if you provoke him enough.

The Associate is NOT nice! He is mean and cruel and sadistic. He is usually more brutal and violent than Harvey. Where Harvey might want to do things nice and clean, the Associate isn't afraid of letting things get messy. When they kill, you can usually assume that the Associate was the one to pull the trigger.

The Associate HATES Harvey for suppressing him for so many years. The Associate tends to see Harvey as weak, ineffectual, and a coward, unable and unwilling to do what actually needs to get done. For this, the Associate does not like it when Harvey gets to front and will often do what he can to shove Harvey into the back. Because of this, Harvey may not be seen fronting for long periods at a time.

The Associate and Harvey are often seen to be co-conscious and may co-front.

In many iterations of these characters, Harvey has often tried to get rid of his Associate, but it never tends to stick.

The Associate often REVELS in their compulsions where Harvey is upset and disturbed by them.

While the Associate is often a viscous and cruel thug, that doesn't mean that he is entirely unsympathetic. The instances of him being genuinely sympathetic are rare, but they are out there! Therefore he should be thought of as more than just an 'evil alter ego.' Just like real life Persecutor system members, they shouldn't be considered to be purely malicious and evil, but should rather be a character who deserves understanding and help just like any other system member character would!

Harvey Dent's Love Life

Just so you know, BruHarvey/TwoBats (Bruce Wayne/Harvey Dent) is indeed the most popular ship that Harvey has. To you people who immediately started shipping the two, just know that you're not alone in feeling the gay vibes from them and that these two do indeed refuse to be straight about their relationship in a lot of the media that they share! Most Harvey fans that I know do indeed ship BruHarvey, and there is some good media out there that have a lot of BruHarvey vibes!

Harvey is often married or engaged at the start of his story. His wife is usually Gilda Gold who (when we know that she has a job) is a very skilled sculptor. She likes sculpting Harvey's face because he's beautiful, even sometimes calling him by the nickname "Apollo."

Gilda may or may not be the Holiday Killer- A serial killer who targets mobsters and kills them on holidays (Christmas, Halloween, Thanksgiving, Valentines Day, etc).

In the current mainline DC continuity, Gilda is dead. Harvey is a widower. In previous continuity they had gotten (understandably) divorced.

Other characters that Harvey has dated include Poison Ivy (who wanted to kill him) and Catwoman (who wanted to steal from him). Given that and how Gilda is sometimes the Holiday Killer, and you can comfortably say that Harvey has questionable taste in women.

Harvey falls in love HARD and FAST! As an example, in Batman: the Animated Series, he knew Ivy for a week before proposing to her. He does something similar with a different woman later in the series (a Gilda analogue, so that one partially works out).

Often Harvey wants to have kids. He seems pretty down with the idea of adopting.

Harvey Dent's relations to other characters that may appear

Dick Grayson (1st Robin): They hate each other. Early on in his career as Robin, Two-Face almost beat him to death. Dick has decidedly not forgiven him for this.

Jason Todd (2nd Robin): Not always the most friendly with each other, but have worked together in the pages of Task Force Z (which is a specialized Suicide Squad task force that consists of undead supervillains). In Task Force Z, there were kinda vibes that Harvey was the team dad who was just trying his best (but sucked at his job) while Jason was his angsty son with anger issues. Jason's biological father was killed by Two-Face (he worked for/owed money to Two-Face. He didn't pay back, so he was killed), but at this point Jason doesn't really seem to hold a grudge over it. Probably Two-Face's favorite Robin since he's the second Robin.

Tim Drake (3rd Robin): The story that introduced Tim Drake (A Lonely Place of Dying) was a Two-Face story, so in a way, you could say that Two-Face pushed Tim into taking on the role. (Otherwise I personally don't know much about their relationship.)

Commissioner Gordon: They used to be good friends back when Harvey was Gotham's District Attorney. They used to work together a lot, but now they seem to have 0 issues with the idea of killing Gordon.

Other notes:

He has almost no consistent visual design outside of 'male,' 'face is half messed up,' and 'split suits'. While he's usually supposed to have brown hair and green eyes (to make him look different from Bruce), this isn't always stuck to. Hell! There are a handful of iterations of Two-Face that are black!

Harvey Dent/Two-Face are decently influential characters within popular culture. You know the quote, "You either die a hero or you live long enough to see yourself become the villain." ...? That quote comes from The Dark Knight (2008 film) and is said by Harvey before he becomes Two-Face and ends up being about him. Also the quote of "He isn't the hero we deserve, but he is the hero we need" relates to Harvey as well, though it's spoken about Batman. Also apparently this is a meme that exists and was apparently popular on Reddit, and I only just now learned of it soooo... Pop culture contributions yay?

Recovery is precedented for Harvey! In his original appearance in the 1940's, Harvey actually decided to turn away from his life of crime for the sake of the woman who became his wife and got his face fixed after she proved that she still loved him in spite of his disfiguration. Apparently in the 1980's newspaper strips, Harvey went on to recover there as well! And he even kept his scars that time! (You can actually read this story on Tumblr here!) However in most iterations, when Harvey 'gets better' he usually takes the turn for the worst at some point and sadly goes back to being Two-Face again. But for the most part, Harvey wants to recover and get better, but his Associate wants them to get worse.

A long post, I know. But I hope that you find this helpful or at least mildly interesting! If you have any other questions, feel free to ask! I'd be more than happy to try and answer to the best of my ability! If you made it this far, color me impressed! And if you are indeed a Misha stan who's new to this space, I'm happy to see you here! I hope you have a good day! Love you!

#long post #harvey dent #two face #misha collins #misha #two-face #twoface #This took a hot sec to write... >.<

[celaenaeiln]

(Cracks fingers)

Okay now it’s time for a relatively big question. Between these two, who would say defined Dick’s true persona the best?

Marv Wolfman (New Teen Titans) or Chuck Dixon (Robin Year One, Nightwing solo book)?

noooooooo how can you be so cruel as to ask me 😭😭😭😭 I love them both so muchhh

Okay you might hate me for this but I'm the type of person who accepts everything written about a character unless that comic has glaring inconsistencies that completely contradict what other writers have written.

So for me these two are some of the absolute best writers and you're making me choose! 😭

Robin Year One is one of my all time favorite comics but at the same time Marv Wolfman wrote Silver Age: Teen Titans and I loved that comic.

However I'm more interested in Chuck Dixon's work because he retained Dick's psychotic quality that he was known for from his robin days. He writes Dick as a happy, intelligent child with extraordinary abilities and accomplishing daring feats. He writes Dick with all the daring and brilliance that the world's greatest acrobat and genius prodigy of Batman should have.

Dixon's portrayal of Bruce and robin Dick is heartwarming is the most accurate representation of their relationship.

Furthermore he gives Alfred's perspective on how Dick made Bruce's life so much better. Some which I talked about in my previous post.

The little things he does like juggling with batarangs

Being popular in school

Being an ace basketball player

Being so overly competent that he can kock out people and guns three at a time with pool balls-

All of this is the essence of Dick Grayson. While Marv Wolfman does a good job, he doesn't quite emulate who Dick Grayson is a person, more specifically robin.

I like Chuck Dixon's Nightwing better.

Chuck Dixon's Nightwing run IS the BEST Nightwing run ever written. For one, he makes Dick come alive as a person.

"I've only been here two minutes. And already I want to shower with clorox and sandpaper."

He's the one responsible for bringing back Dick's jokes and laughter in Nightwing that Dick's robin is iconic for.

He's made Dick the caring, lovable person that Dick was as robin but with the maturity of an adult.

He saves a woman, protects her from being raped, gives her his money and ticket, and sends her on her way to a safer place with no questions asked, just kindness in his soul.

He writes Dick to be the brilliant detective and extraordinary fighter he is.

Best of all, his craziness!!

DICK!! CRAZY ALERT?!

Chuck Dixon's Dick Grayson is funny, brilliant, wild, and loving. That's why I like him so much and this is who I believe Dick Grayson is.

But Marv Wolfman did a fantastic job writing Dick's maturity and his relationships with other people. He focuses on Dick's detective side and how Dick interacts and engages with other titans.

While not as funny, his Dick is also extremely intelligent and loving. He created Dick to love with his full heart and upright morals.

He invests in people, he's loyal, loving, and faithful. It's just another part of him.

So I can't say one person wrote him better than the other. Wolfman and Dixon combined create the whole picture of Dick Grayson. But I can say I prefer Dixon as a personal choice because I just happen to like those particular traits of Dick's he emphasized more even though all of them are equally important and make Dick who he is.

#dick grayson #nightwing #robin dick grayson #bruce wayne #batman #teen titans #thanks for the ask!

[esther-dot]

Daenerys is capricious and inconsistent in the extreme. She romanticizes the Dothraki but campaigns against Slaver’s Bay, never realizing that Drogo was just as bad as any of these masters and that the Dothraki helped prop up Slaver’s Bay’s markets. She’s for or against slavery depending on which positon benefits her at any given time. She has no set rule of law, and she exacts punishments on a whim. She’s unpredictable. Can you imagine living under someone and not knowing what was or wasn’t against the law, or what might or might not get you tortured or crucified ?

And she has an extraordinary capacity for self-righteous violence. This is tricky, because at face value it makes her violence look somehow better or justified. Someone who crucifies slavers without a trial garners more sympathy than Ramsay Bolton flaying and crucifying people who’ve just surrendered. Notice how Daenerys and the Boltons are the only parties in the books, besides the Meereenese slavers, who use crucifixion as punishment. Daenerys is also thematically linked to the Boltons in one of her thoughts, where she thinks about making peace with men she’d sooner flay. How intentional this parallel between Dany and the Boltons is, I can’t say, but it’s definitely there but people let this stuff slide because, right now, at this time, the targets of Daenerys’s self-righteous violence are targets that we ourselves also want to see punished. But remember that Daenerys sees pretty much anyone who would stand against her conquest of Westeros as an enemy equally worthy of these extreme acts of violence. It’s one thing for Daenerys to aim her anger at slavers, but it might be another thing entirely for her to aim it at, say, Tommen, the Starks or the Martells. It actually wouldn’t surprise me if GRRM is making a statement here about violence and how bias and perspective play a role in when violence is "acceptable" and when it isn’t. I also think it’s naive for anyone to expect Daenerys punishments to somehow get more lenient when she gets to Westeros; at some point, she will almost certainly target someone who, from readers perspectives, doesn’t deserve it.

You explained this so well, anon, thank you!

I believe that what he is doing with Dany is trying to show how choosing violence says something about you, but also changes you. The decision to harden yourself to suffering and violence (which Dany thinks she must do because she thinks she must take Westeros) are a problem because if you succeed, why would you not choose those means more often? Martin believes you are meant to see the cost of taking life, to feel it, so you do not do it easily, thoughtlessly.

The Starks have this belief that's introduced in Bran I for a reason,

 ...we hold to the belief that the man who passes the sentence should swing the sword. If you would take a man's life, you owe it to him to look into his eyes and hear his final words. And if you cannot bear to do that, then perhaps the man does not deserve to die. (AGOT, Bran I)

Careful, measured justice matters, and Dany struggles to constrain herself to that. So yes, right now, we aren't as alarmed as we should be because the people who die seem guilty enough to most fans so they let it slide, but she will eventually kill someone who isn't, many someones.

I believe the Bolton / Dany parallel is intentional, there are examples from the book as well as the show (mixture of both, show dialogue, similar shots from the show). There are book only posts, but for some reason I'm not turning them up at the moment.

#dot chat #anti daenerys

[argentumcor]

The Price of a Bullet

You can find the whole fic posted here, covering Jason's experiences during Arkham Knight.

Notes and thoughts if they interest you:

-I do think Jason was written consistently between AK Genesis, AK, and the Red Hood DLC. There's a complaint that he wasn't, and an accompanying complaint that the Knight is whiny, but that's assuming a level of emotional stability that he doesn't have. Reading AK Genesis, it's clear that Jason's narration regarding Bruce is cope, a product of his time in captivity and the Joker's mental conditioning. Bruce does care- he's just bad at showing it. That's clear in his interactions with the rest of the family, even Dick who would have known him before the haunting loss of Jason. On top of this, Jason spent most of his life from the day he was born being told he was worthless verbally and via physical abuse. Trust comes hard to him. The Joker in the Arkham games is very good at spotting things he can exploit about people, and when Jason was talking to buy time for Batman to come save him, he probably heard Jason's low sense of self-worth (self-esteem doesn't cover it), the perfect thing to use to break Jason to harness.

-Jason's snark is present as the Knight here and there on comms. He's not stable, though, unlike his depictions in other media. The "whiny" tone people complain about is more mania coming through as he gets close to his goal and his programming comes undone. This, I think, was an interesting way to split the baby- in the comics Jason being unstable is a concern of Bruce's to rather...extreme...extent (and unfounded, he isn't unstable except for inconsistent characterization like the rest of the DC cast). What is happening in AK is someone grindingly finding himself dragged back to reality after living in madness for a long time (no way in hell did he "escape" as late as Asylum; let's say it's been five years minimum and it happened during some other breakout).

-A quiet theme in the Arkham games, and in a lot of the better Batman media, is "truth beats lies." Batman beats out fear toxin, beats out Hatter's hypnosis, overcomes the Joker's mental infection because they're all founded on things that are not true. As such, Jason- as his student and his son- is able to overcome the lies the Joker and Harley put into his head in the end.

-It's beyond clear in game he has no respect for Scarecrow qua Scarecrow or any of the other villains he's pulled into this plan. People are mad about that, but he's hyperfocused and obsessive. It's a video game (sillier, yes, I said it) version of his plan, if for different motives, from Under the Red Hood.

-Dini might not have written AK but I'm pretty sure his notes were used or something. It has a lot of the elements I associate with his Batman writing- Bruce as deeply fallible, for one, the Joker as an unsympathetic and very real threat and charismatic. I think Dini found Jason's story a well of potential, based on how BTAS Tim is actually mostly Jason, how Return of the Joker's Tim plot is AK Jason's plot, and how Terry has a lot of Jason's attitude. Dini, for all his oddities as a writer in some respects, has a real gift for spotting things to punch up a character and situation.

-It's funny to me how Tim is the 'generic Robin' of the group so his characterization just gets kind of tossed around wherever the winds are blowing. I like Arkham Tim as the grounded reliable one, but he's Basically Jason in BTAS and in the comics his characterization seems particularly up in the air.

-The Arkham games are very silly, objectively- the whole thing with Titan, the entire idea of Arkham City, the Joker disease and how Bruce beats it, and so much more- but not to themselves. It's a story about a guy wearing a bat-inspired costume and being a vigilante. It is silly. The platonic ideal of a Batman story is silly with a violent dark aspect, cynical about human nature but hopeful about the power of love (brotherly, familial, romantic, agape, etc.), and it takes itself seriously within itself. From these can flow many things, profound, funny, and entertaining alike, and they coexist smoothly. I think the important thing with fiction is to meet it where it's at, especially as a writer, and this is especially true of these IP (modern myth, that's what they are) stories.

-Going through the game for Jason's timeline has been revealing about things I think were trimmed/changed. I'm pretty sure there's a missing Knight boss fight when Batman takes down the air defenses, because Jason just bolts for no reason (I rolled with this in the fic), to let Batman do as he pleases. I also think the vehicle boss fight vs. Jason in the grinder was supposed to be more complex instead of doing the same thing the whole time, but that's generally true of the vehicle combat: mechanically, it needed another pass across the board to make it a less repetitive experience.

-The Red Hood DLC should have been Jason fighting his way to the Asylum where he saves Bruce's life at the climax, potentially with contact with Oracle or even Nightwing which would have been interesting as hell. I really wish all the DLCs would have given us something at the scale of A Death in the Family; I really like these versions of the characters.

-I recommend this sort of fic, where you follow a plot through an alternate POV character, as a writing exercise. It has the merit of having known constraints you don't have to come up with but some creative give to figure out how the POV character got from point A to point B or figured out something or why he did something.

#arkhamverse #arkham knight #jason todd #red hood #batman

[redheadlesbianfreak]

I know that I'm a little late to the James Somerton thing but I wanted to make my own post about this. I started watching James when I was 20 during the pandemic. It made me feel comforted to watch someone talk about queer theory in film, especially because I found out so many films I never heard about. His stuff did make me very passionate about queer history as well, and led me to start seeking more of it. I took a queer literature class in University (one of my fav classes) and I started watching more queer creators.

I grew up in Texas and Mississippi (the Deep South) in a pretty conservative environment. I started to break free of that in middle school and high school, though I was still very ignorant. I think I knew I was queer for a long time, but it took me a while to come out. I felt that I was around queer people who were somewhat hostile and wouldn't believe me. This is because I identified as ace for a little while. People were either actively hostile about that or they acted like it was a dumb identity that didn't matter. I also don't know if I'm cis or not, all I know is that I really relate to the experiences of the trans community.

I kept watching James' stuff over the years. I fell for the hole "academic queer" vibe. He talked so much about queer erasure that I thought he cared deeply about it. I felt connected to the queer community when I watched his content. He talked about trans and sapphic experiences so I thought he cared about that--turns out he stole all of that. All my favorite videos of his were stolen, word for word, from queer writers. All of the passion, all of the great writing, that was stolen. I thought I was watching someone who cared about queer history, but he was actively erasing it and harming other creators.

There were some things that I noticed. He mentioned the indie movie studio and I thought that was weird. I thought his Attack on Titan video was extremely weird and made a lot of non-points. I also remember disagreeing with a lot of it because he just said a bunch of nothing. I thought that it was weird he mainly talked about mainstream culture (Disney, MCU, etc.) rather than less well known pieces of queer media. And there were quite a few videos I didn't watch because there were so many of them (not sure how I didn't suspect that he was a content mill). Some of his videos were incredibly intriguing (because he stole good writing) while others were boring, so there was a lot of inconsistency.

I'm incredibly pissed at this man, and it's hard not to be pissed at myself. I didn't watch every single video by this dude, but I did watch enough. I think that I have a lot to examine about myself when it comes to picking up racism/misogyny/transphobia. Especially when he dressed up all his points to be "progressive" and "academic." I didn't pick up on things like "bad vibes" from this man. I'm not really sure what bad vibes even look like? I also didn't pick up on the fact that his writing style constantly changed. Even with all the strange shit, I still gave him the benefit of the doubt because he was queer and that was way too trusting and that's something I need to work on.

As for the misogyny thing, especially when it comes to queer women and trans/AFAB people. He said a lot of blatantly lesbophobic, biphobic, and transphobic things while downplaying the experiences of everyone who wasn't a cis gay. What James was saying about women in his videos is how a lot of people talk about queer women in the queer community. Especially in fandom spaces. Misogyny is so rampant on the Internet that it can be hard for me to pick up on it as a queer woman. So many people talk about how lesbians want every female character to be gay or how bisexual women are "fujoshis" constantly trying to fetishize gay men.

I hope this makes sense, but it feels like I'm being gaslit when it comes to misogyny because of how often I see it. It's hard for me to tell if I'm being oversensitive or if someone is actually being misogynistic to me. So many progressive men that I trusted have been misogynistic to me and that can be a lot. James was someone I trusted and defended. I even recommended him to people. It's something I'm still disappointed in myself for doing, but I'd like to think I've grown as a queer person since watching his channel. There are so many great queer creators out there and I definitely need to make a recommendation list in the near future.

#personal #james somerton #hbomberguy #long post #sorry to post about this so much #this whole thing really upset me #i'd also like to make a post going into fandom misogyny #especially fandom biphobia/lesbophobia/transmisogyny/etc

[waddlehekk]

Can you talk a little more about how Goemon is intended to be mixed race? I read the manga but never picked up on this; was it lost to translation, or is it extremely subtle (or just a headcanon)? Also, do you have any idea why his race was changed in the Pilot film (if it was at all)?

Though it is never outright stated, there are clear details in Goemon's design that I believe are included to suggest he is mixed race, being part Asian since he is still the descendant of the original, Japanese, Ishikawa Goemon, and part something else, which I'm thinking is part White. The themes presented in the Lupin manga and in MP's other manga of racial freedom coincide with this too.

It's important to also understand the context of the themes that surround Goemon's character, being raised under strict Eastern culture, but despite being naïve towards Western culture, he does not reject it in the way his masters do and is even curious about it.

Before I begin, I'd like to make it clear that MP is not the most consistent when it comes to his designs, especially in the earlier manga where he is still working out what he wants of the characters. It doesn't help either that he had to rush to meet deadlines for the manga. With that being said though, I will be focusing on Goemon's consistent character traits that become more concrete in Shin Lupin.

An obvious detail to Manga Goemon's design is his cleft chin. This is usually drawn in more western-like characters (for instance, he draws Yankee from Bakumatsu Yankee with a cleft chin but not Okita), so it's really interesting how MP chooses to show it in Goemon. MP drew it more obvious as time went on, but it did exist since his first appearance.

Also, notice how Goemon's hair is not fully inked black as MP does with other characters. Generally, aside from artwork for promotion of the anime, anime ost album covers, and artwork made after the manga's completion, MP would color Goemon's hair as blonde-ish brown. I've seen people refer to it as possibly being ash blonde, or dirty blonde, but I'm not sure.

I'll post examples below. If you've seen them before, please read the rest of the post! I have a lot more to show.

It's a shame though that in some instances, publishers tried to hide this by recoloring MP's artwork, even if it wasn't meant tor the anime at all. Likely this was done to appeal to the larger amount of fans for the anime, and much of MP's later artwork after the manga's completion would alter other parts of Goemon's design to resemble it too, such as by changing his facial features and removing the pattern on his kimono. If you look closely below, you can see how the publishers weren't perfect at covering it up.

You may have seen how in my other post, with the artwork of the English Conversation book, or in a small amount of MP's other drawings, that Goemon's hair is instead colored as grey, silver, or not colored at all. I think MP tends to do this to save on color, and you can even see this in how his clothing is colored only white and grey.

That's also why though Fujiko appears blonde in the covers of that same book, she is also colored with grey hair in its pages inside of the book. Notice how the color of her dress changed too to save on color.

There's a similar case of Fujiko's hair originally being portrayed as blonde in the manga, but MP coloring it as brown or red in some artwork to match the anime. It didn't seem to be as much of an issue though considering how inconsistent Fujiko's design already was in the anime and early manga, and with how the changing hair color does not suggest as much about Fujiko as it does for Goemon and his race.

Goemon's manga design already does not resemble his anime design, so to make it even more different by having a different hair color would certainly bring more confusion from the anime audience. Goemon in the anime is strongly associated with being Japanese in comparison to the others, so it makes sense why his hair color is not a blonde-brown when MP draws for the anime.

Unlike fully blonde characters like Fujiko though, MP tends to draw Goemon's hair with many lines. I notice that when MP isn't rushing to draw Goemon, he draws certain areas of his hair having more lines condensed together and other areas having empty space.

(This is kind of hard to explain so I hope the drawing below makes it clear)

My own interpretation for why he draws his hair this way is to show areas with more denser lines being a darker brown, while the less dense areas show the lighter blonde parts of his hair.

It's worth noting Jigen's hair gets drawn with lines too, but there are more lines to show how much darker it is, and it also lacks any lighter areas. Perhaps Jigen's hair is still meant to be black, with the lines added to show detail in the strands of his straight hair, but what if it was meant to show color in his hair too?

Part 3, the Lupin anime with character designs that resemble Shin Lupin's the most, makes the decision to color Jigen's hair dark brown to show this, despite it always having been depicted as black in the anime.

But back to Goemon, I've seen a few people believe that maybe his hair is dyed/bleached. I can understand this notion, given that when he is first introduced he is dating Fujiko who seems more knowledgeable in this, and we do know that Goemon is an open-minded person when it comes to new things despite his old-fashioned upbringing. I disagree though, in part because some of the more detailed color drawings of him give me the impression it is natural. His sideburns also appear to have color in some close-ups of them.

There is something that he cannot change, however, and that is his eye color. It also happens to share the same color as his hair, more proof that his hair color is natural.

If you look at this magazine cover, you can see everyone's eyes colored in as black, but MP specifically did not do that for Goemon. Perhaps he wanted this detail about Goemon to stand out to readers.

There are many smaller details too, like his fluffy hair that curls at the ends, and his body hair.

And I can't forget the sideburns either. Though having sideburns obviously isn't a genetic trait, it's more western-like design that MP uses. The point of Goemon having sideburns may be to help you picture a more western person from him.

Compare all this to Anime Goemon, who has straight black hair and smaller eyes with black pupils, no sideburns, no body hair, and a regular chin. There is a very different intention between what the 2 characters are attempting to portray, and it's obvious when you look at them side to side. These different intentions are the reason why the anime is so stubborn when it comes to incorporating parts of Manga Goemon's design.

You may be wondering, is it unusual that Monkey Punch would make a character like this?

Not at all!

We know for sure Lupin is mixed too.

"I don't need a passport because the whole Earth is my country!!"

"Everywhere on this Earth is my home, even the middle of the ocean."

The character Inspector John Starmow, who admits to Fujiko that his childhood memories are filled with him being bullied by both other children and adults because he has Indian blood in him.

MP's other work, "Western Samurai"

And of course, MP's "Bakumatsu Yankee"

Looking at the designs of the two friends, it almost seems like Goemon is a hybrid of the two that each represent the East and the West. Okita's fully inked in hair and Yankee's hair with hardly any lines, while Goemon has hair drawn with many lines. Also, Goemon's face resembles Okita's, but he has a chin like Yankee. A little off-topic but I've always thought that Goemon's personality was a mesh between the two: Okita's cheerful attitude and Yankee's calm demeanor.

Now onto the rest of your question, why was this not carried into the Pilot?

If you haven't read my old post, please do read it as it explains my theory on why Manga Goemon was not adapted to the anime, and how Anime Goemon was created: https://www.tumblr.com/waddlehekk/711176903837483008/a-theory-on-the-creation-of-anime-goemon-and-why?source=share

Essentially though, the Pilot and Part 1 very clearly wanted a fully Japanese character out of Goemon to clash with the rest of the cast who are very American.

In the Pilot, Goemon is portrayed with a much darker skin tone rather than being very pale like he is in the Part 1 and nearly every portrayal onwards. Additionally, Mystery of Mamo pushes against Part 1's famously established design, bringing back Goemon's original skin tone and also changing the color of his hair to a dark brown.

At first I thought this dark color was chosen so that the artists could show lighting in Goemon's hair and give it detail, and that therefore it was still meant to be black, but even looking closer his eyebrows were colored too. Fujiko, the only other member of the gang that doesn't have black hair in this movie, is also the only other one to have colored eyebrows.

I read a post recently saying that he's mixed because of this, but to be honest, I disagree. There are many people in Japan with the standards that being very fair-skinned and having black hair is what makes you beautiful, but that doesn't mean all Japanese people are just born like this, and some even try to hide it. If anything, I think the reason why Goemon is depicted like this to go against these beauty standards and show that Goemon is still just as much a good representation of a Japanese samurai. The teams still wanted to depict a message about racial freedom in Goemon, and I think this is in part why the Pilot and Mamo understand the tone of the manga much better than other adaptations.

On a final note, I'd like to add that if Manga Goemon is supposedly mixed, and these themes do exist throughout MP's manga, why not then see characters like Jigen, Fujiko, and Zenigata as being just as racially ambiguous? For all we know, Lupin and Goemon could be a combination of more than what I've said here. I'd love to hear any headcanons.

#lupin iii #goemon ishikawa xiii #monkey punch #manga #lupin the third #原ゴエ #shin lupin #lupin iii manga #sorry for the long wait #life is getting kinda busy for me rn #you can tell i was really fighting with the image limit lol #manga goe is so cool i love him