Fascinated by some of the recent P4 discourse I’ve been seeing on twitter... I both agree and disagree with it I guess? I really recommend “Need’s More Gay”’s review of this game on Youtube, it talks about it in a really good way. Persona 4 is definitely not as actively progressive with it’s writing of queer coded characters as I’d like, but it’s also a game that came out in Japan in 2008. For a lot of people, this might have been the first time they saw a video game actually trying to tackle the idea of sexuality and gender, and how society views those who aren’t presenting in an acceptable way. The character dungeons are easily where the strongest parts of the arcs are, where the characters are dealing with these pressures at their most emotionally vulnerable. Unfortunately yeah, it does fumble a lot of these characters in the long game; it knows enough to ask the questions, but doesn’t really have an answer for them yet. While ostensibly the game encourages Kanji’s love of sewing, it still takes almost every opportunity available to belittle him for it; this is a well known, and heavily criticized flaw in the game’s storytelling. I think it is good to be critical of these older works, while not outright demonizing them as well. Sure, we can find better games talking about this stuff NOW but then? Options were a lot more limited, and none of them nearly to the same level of polish and popularity that P4 had.
I think Rent is also a good example of this. I don’t like Rent, but I know it’s very very important to a lot of young LGBT folks. With Persona 4, I kind of view it as growing pains, baby steps towards better writing and exploring REALLY interesting ideas for the first time even if it doesn’t have a proper conclusion for them.
That’s actually why I feel a little harsher towards Persona 5′s decisions honestly lmao, it doesn’t have nearly the same excuse while on top of that having way less even partially queer content. It does get FARTHER in it’s questions about society, breaking from conformity and distrusting authority, only to the drop the ball right after the big climactic boss fight and force its heroes to work within the system. To me a lot of Persona 5 has higher highs and lower lows; when it lets me down, it stings a lot more because of how good the good parts are.
Persona 5 good: the entire system is completely fucked besides a few lone holdouts (and even they need to be talked around initially and are hindered by how bad the system already is), the importance of Found Family, ALL of the characters being abused in different ways by the various social hierarchies they’ve been forced into, final boss is God aka the Ultimate Authority
Persona 5 bad: Even though the heroes have won all their major victories by fighting battles their own way, they are ultimately forced to play along with the rules in order to get even a bittersweet ending. It’s bad when male teachers try to date female students but totally fine for a female teacher to date one of her male students. Found Family Gets Unfamilied at the end of the game. Makoto STILL wants to be a cop for some dumbass reason. Persona 5 ultimately talks a big game about fighting the system but doesn’t seem to actually understand how to do so in real life.
I’m really interested to see where Persona 6 goes with its writing, since I believe the main director for the majority of the series is retiring/stepping down; ideally I’d like to see a continuation of their “pushing back against society’s expectations” themes, but REALLY dig into it and actually include more explicitly LGBT themes and characters without also being kinda horrified by them.
TL;DR: I have mixed feelings! And ultimately don’t disagree with anyone who comes away disliking P4 because of the character decisions they make. But I would also encourage everyone to try and not be so black and white with their viewing of things; stories doesn’t so easily fit into a “good” or a “bad” category.
1 note
·
View note
TBOSAS has me thinking about how Finnick was likely one of the only people alive who knew even some of the story of what happened in the 10th Hunger Games and after. It’s apparent that Snow or the Capitol in general buried any record of the 10th games and Lucy Gray to save face.
However, who knew all of Snow’s darkest secrets and dirty laundry? Finnick. It’s reasonable to assume he probably learned at least part of the story. Not only that but Mags won the 11th games, directly after Lucy Gray’s Games. It is canon that there wasn’t much coverage of the games in the districts but I’m sure even if she didn’t watch them there were likely rumors about it during the next game. And when Snow reappeared as the president she likely remembered his role. And as Finnick’s mentor and mother figure she probably told him a lot.
There’s no real point to this information but I just think it’s very interesting that despite how hard Snow worked to bury his past it probably still lived on. And despite his efforts to control, oppress, and abuse the victors, it was one of these victors who knew his dark past. It was one of the people he tried to control that eventually gained an upper hand over him and helped play a big role in his downfall.
2K notes
·
View notes
OKAY so what ive been thinking about for ages is ctommy and being soft vs quiet . because i feel like it's one of those things in his fandom characterisation that sparks the most debate and in my opinion theres a huge difference between the two but i keep seeing people mix them together.
ctommy is soft but he's not quiet, and to disregard either of those things is what makes him less believable in fanworks imo
because on one hand, of course he's not quiet, that's the most obvious and i think one of the most commonly accepted qualms that we have with general fan interpretations of him. he doesn't just lie down and take shit, he's always committed to being an annoying shit, he's straight up rude so often, and even just. vocally. man's loud as fuck. i think that's pretty easy to establish .
but then what i find is that sometimes we veer into the other opposite, by completely denying that ctommy is also very soft sometimes. and by this i don't mean he turns into strawberry shortcake or starts being polite or whatever, but it's the fact that he's not just crass and rude. he's very considerate a lot of the time, he just shows it. uh. in his Own Way let's say. he cares for animals so so much, he's always so apologetic when he thinks he's hurt one of them, for fuck's sake he sung to the FLOWERS. he's very soft with nature, with things he's attached to, with things he perceives as weaker than him and needing protection.
the complexity of ctommy and what makes him so hard to grasp is that he's loud, he's brash, he is NOT a perfect quiet victim who suffers in silence, he asks for help, he's rude, he steals stuff, he's annoying as shit; but he's also soft, and incredibly empathetic, and he has no shame in showing that softness for animals or nature or his friends.
ctommy, and this is very much because cctommy himself acts like that a lot, is constantly vacillating between someone with the maturity of a thirteen year old boy who shouts and swears and pretends not to give a shit, and a boy who will stop everything he's doing to look at the sky or a flower or an animal (which does contrast his stereotypical rude teenager persona, because lots of aforementioned thirteen year old boys Would be embarrassed or whatever to do that).
he does BOTH. he's not just quiet and nice and sad and lonely; but he's not just rude and loud and """uncaring""" (if there is one thing ctommy is not i think we can all agree its UNCARING).
and i think this is why a lot of debates around "woobifying" ctommy (who remembers the july 2021 trenches . the butterfly clips.) tend to point any ctommy design that portrays him as soft, cozy, or even leaning into his feminine side as the be-all end-all of reducing his character.
in reality i think that misses the mark a bit because while there IS something to be said for sure about people turning ctommy into Blonde Anime Child #249824 and stripping him of his Very Vibrant character, i don't think that putting him in butterfly clips and skirts erases him in the same way. i think he could very much lean into that kind of thing . as long as he's still flipping off the camera we're all good
TLDR : fans strip ctommy of his loud-and-annoying persona but in avoiding that some forget that he's a character who's not afraid to be soft
610 notes
·
View notes
Holy forking shirtballs
I'm choosing violence today. I started this on Twitter, but I'm going to finish my thoughts here like I always do.
But what really blows my mind the most is the way that people look at Aziraphale's "choice" at the end, as if he had one to fucking begin with.
I'm sorry, but Aziraphale knows how messed up Heaven is. He told The Metatron, more than once, that he did not want to go back to Heaven! We can debate what each of us means by "choice" all night because my "choice" and your "choice" might be two different concepts. He could have been strong armed by The Metatron or he could have looked at where things were headed and realized he had no choice but to intervene himself.
You need to ask yourself what Aziraphale has a moral imperative to do.
What do we owe to each other?
Seriously, if you have not watched The Good Place, I recommend you go and watch it, because it absolutely shaped how I've viewed Good Omens 2 since its release.
My levels of frustration with the bad faith mischaracterizations of Aziraphale are off the charts. If you are blaming him for everything, implying that he should have to grovel and that Crowley has a right to hurt him back, you have missed the point of Good Omens entirely.
I defend Aziraphale, but I don't think one of them is more right or wrong than the other. They're equals. They're a group of the two of them, acting and reacting to each other throughout history. They're Alpha Centauri.
I cannot even begin to explain how fucking devastated I felt when Crowley said these words, knowing he was fighting a losing battle. What he said took a lot of courage because he's finally admitting something they've both been too scared to publicly define for 6,000 years. Crowley has had to spend so long with a rough outer shell because he fell and had to hide all of his softness.
The look on his face was one of pure joy when he created that nebula, but I think the fact that he got to share that moment with Aziraphale is what has always stuck with him.
So yeah, seeing Crowley with a broken heart at the end of "Every Day" was sad for me as well.
My brain still lives here!!
But Neil has said that Good Omens 3 is not quiet, gentle, or romantic. I imagine it's going to be more like the the first season in which they are not central to the plot. GO2 will help us make sense of how they ended up where they are when we see the bigger picture with all the other major players involved with GO3.
Aziraphale was still a soldier and accidentally got himself discorporated in his own magic circle in season one. He had a platoon waiting on him to start Armageddon, and he deserted them to go save the world with Crowley instead. Aziraphale is a deserter. I need everyone to remember that. He yeeted himself out of Heaven and sought out Crowley before even locating a body just to warn him about what was happening so they could try to save the world together.
I can't help but think of 1941 and that magician who had been arrested for being a deserter.
Aziraphale disobeyed orders. That took courage but it branded him as a traitor against Heaven. They tried to destroy him for it the same way Hell tried to destroy Crowley for his part in stopping the war.
Aziraphale and Job are the only characters we have seen interacting with God directly. Aziraphale has spoken to God before and he is determined to do so again.
Aziraphale knows Heaven is flawed, but he also knows it's supposed to be good. He wants it to be good. He does not like the way the system works and he wants to make a difference. (And I'm pretty sure he's also determined to talk to God without being intercepted by The Metatron.)
Since when is that a bad thing? I don't get it. And I've had this discussion before.
If you need to change the system by burning the old one to the ground, it's still change, and we don't know what Aziraphale has planned.
It seems to me that people just want to see Aziraphale fail because it would punish him for returning to Heaven instead of running off with Crowley.
Some of y'all take everything Aziraphale says or does and twist those things into malicious anti-Crowley actions because you think the only reason Aziraphale exists is to make Crowley happy, and if he isn't thinking only about Crowley then he's doing something wrong.
Aziraphale does not exist as a plot device to further Crowley's character. They come as a pair. They've been learning from each other for 6,000 years. Crowley challenges Aziraphale just as much as Aziraphale challenges him.
You can be mad at Aziraphale all you want, but villainizing him is gross. Defending Crowley does not mean you have to tear down and mischaracterize Aziraphale anymore than defending Aziraphale means you have to tear down Crowley (but I don't see that happen on nearly the same level it happens to Aziraphale). Stop painting Aziraphale as an abusive partner, for fuck sake.
Aziraphale knows there are flaws in the system. He wants to make a difference, and since he has seen that Gabriel can change, then maybe the whole system can. He has to at least try, and if he can succeed then maybe he and Crowley can stop hiding and finally be together without having to look over their shoulders all the time.
Why is that a bad thing? He's just as protective of Crowley as Crowley is of him!
But don't forget that Aziraphale's wing was covering Adam and Eve too. As much as a wants to protect Crowley, he has a moral imperative to keep humanity safe as well.
He sent Adam and Eve into the unknown with a flaming sword so they could protect themselves.
As much as he wants to be with Crowley, there are 8 billion people on Earth heading toward the Second Coming and Judgment Day. They'll work together to fight alongside humanity in the end. Aziraphale should not have to humiliate himself just to earn Crowley's forgiveness. That's a rancid notion.
The Resurrectionist was a whole ass moral dilemma for Aziraphale, which is why I brought up The Good Place earlier, but that's a post for a different time.
Aziraphale has his own motivations and they're just as important as Crowley's, and they don't have to be chalked up to Aziraphale being the bad guy. Weird, I know, but shades of grey.
"To the world."
481 notes
·
View notes
I'm not gonna sugarcoat it: I hate villain stans.
I hate them because they're like the media when a white or male person rapes or kills someone; constantly justifying, humazing and excusing them from any consequences.
I hate them because they're unwilling to do that for anyone nonwhite or a woman.
I hate them because they clog up discussions with bullshit like "if you hate villains then you think they don't deserve love" And they're right. They don't
I'm not gonna sugarcoat it: you're on the wrong blog.
442 notes
·
View notes