#not everything is defined as a good vs evil

[oneweek]

modern media literacy is so cooked like what do you mean you gave saltburn a .5 star rating because it wasn’t the class consciousness film you wanted that’s not what the fucking movie is about… ‘they made it hard to keep rooting for him and identifying with him’ idk maybe don’t project onto every character in media you come across & then get scared when they act in a way you wouldn’t

#like not everything is superhero vs villian #not everything is defined as a good vs evil #morally grey characters exist and you guys just keep proving you cant handle them #like for the love of GOD!!!!!!! #watch the movie as it is and stop fucking trying to make everything something you want it to be #i could go on and on but #saltburn #rambles #random #movies

[dexaroth]

it's kind of a fun move to make my very very personal blog also the one I post my drawings on

ive purposefully done it to not create that kind of environment where it's just an account posting art, a one-dimensional abstract thing that's so detached that if I were to post something like 'teehee I tried to off myself so I'm opening comms to pay the bills' it'd be met with utmost surprise bc it'd break the illusion yknow?

but sometimes I do want some drawings to not have context. to be as impersonal as a vintage figure whose sculptor has never been fully known or a golden locket with the picture of someone who you don't know anything about

I want both, to be honest. it's always been a struggle of the need of external validation but also to not want to taint everything with myself

I want to draw a pet portrait for someone and not have it be judged with all the ramblings and half-jokes about how everything sucks every now and then.

I want to draw a guy being mechanically separated for no reason and not have it show up besides someone's pet portrait and having to explain to the average person I don't even know why I like gore so much besides rendering it is fun

it's all like a cycle of making it clear who is behind the art for context but also sometimes wanting everything to speak for itself and wanting a sort of pure reaction to it

and it culminates into that overly familiar feeling.. of wanting to be consistent. to have a feel, a look that you can maybe hope someone will identify as yours.. and the question is always the same - for what? why? why does it matter?

if anything the first thing I'd ever say to someone who remotely showed interest in art and wanted to know my side of it is that nothing matters and everything is subjective and that there will always be people who see too much meaning where there isn't and people who miss the point entirely. and that diversity is just as good as quality and not a binary switch that you have to pick for the rest of your life. and that often by trying to achieve perfection you just end up dumping what gave your art a personal touch because it wasn't absolutely on par with the version of you that you so desperately want people to identify you with or the vibe you want to give off or whatever else

it's kind of a problem that also has different connotations depending on the way wherever you post works, too

on devart and I think insta too favorites and likes are the easiest way to show a kind of support that happens to streamline everything into images on a page instead of actually taking in most detail, the title or description or lack thereof, maybe even a message or line or music lyric intended to aid in the perception.. that ends up getting completely ignored because it takes extra effort to do. and it gets exponentially worse the more people you follow

then, well.. tumblr. because of the way the posts are organized and at least show captions it has a bit of a leg up, but then the sideblog stuff comes up. posts 95% of the time only give traction to the account that posted it, so a sideblog where you reblog your art is pretty much just a gallery for the convenience of whoever follows them. if you post on that sideblog however, then that facilitates no one visiting your main and just looking at the drawings, leading to the art-artist detachment as it is also plenty of extra steps and effort

then, independently, the path you choose is hard to undo. choose to be unknown and be bound to the façade you have to keep and not break your persona, or put all bits of yourself out to the public and there will forever be an image/ background version of you that will contextualize everything you do

try to turn around and choose to hide and it will put people off and affect how some will look at your new stuff now that you're less of a social butterfly because of the instinct of curiosity and wanting to know what happened , choose to show yourself and now you're too real and people don't want to associate with you because of the things you express or how it hits different knowing x and y or just not caring about you enough to be bothered to keep up with your life with sporadic drawings inbetween

it's all ironically about your own self-image and knowing others who know you

oh and it just hit me the financial side of things too. but that's too much for me rn and it's sort of a bonus to my point anyways

idk man. I feel like I'm having a stroke while an influencer tries to explain branding to me

#the public vs hidden thing is also like trying to balance the evils #do you want to enable being made fun of by quirky neurotypicals and edgelords bc of ur 'archetype' #or do you want to enable everyone to put any meaning to your art including dogshit ones and treat it like a commodity #public enough to have your name or style used pejoratively to describe other people #or hidden enough to blend in and represent nothing and say nothing. just like a blank piece of paper #these two sort of types are everywhere and there just doesnt seem to be a grey area. its just.... awkward. #ah yes look at my painting and tell me what you think of it! dont take me into consideration at all though. pretend this came out of thin> #>air bc thats how i want it to be perceived. bc of course we all know thats a thing that can be controlled by sheer will right? lol #i want to draw whatever. i want to stop giving a shit. not care of what people think its all about. but i want to be seen as well. .. #and its frustrating bc i find it immeasurably valuable to find meaning in the mundane #to find the whimsy and care on someone's 'bad' stickman cat doodle even tough sketches dont mean barely anything to the artist #and then i get sad when someone below my skill level finds My sketches good despite me posting them as a 'look at how bad this looks lol' #just. being desperate for wanting everything to go your way #like a filmmaker who swears the theater is an integral part of their movie when in reality a guy watching at home cherishes it just as much #i think id turn inside out of disgust if i ever truly legitimally considered all the 'wrong' ways people can experience my art #compressed to hell or they just didnt bother to zoom in and didnt notice the brushstrokes and effects #which is totally normal and common and i myself do it! but my ego says nuh uh. go feel bad bc other ppl have agency lol #i can definitely pretend i dont care anymore and even try to believe it so much i unconsciously start assimilating it #but the Moment someone comments something that contradicts what i thought and wished was happening i just. break . #im truly trying to stave off negative thoughts and teaching myself that what others think of me doesnt define me #and one day im overhearing something i wasnt meant to know and its that someone thinks im a child #and ends up treating me like one. like im too stupid to do anything #and then i look back at my eyestrain/cartoonish stuff thats in fact considered childish by people who try to use age as> #a token of 'i dont enjoy X because X is for kids because/therefore im an AdulT! respect me!' #and i just have to face the reality that thats the image of me my art gives off by itself and what society chose it to symbolize as well #which it all leads to wanting so deeply a way to control how others view you because of how age gate-keeping for example is so stupid #and it bleeds into every other feeling and paranoia and self doubt #either you act cool and lie about who you are or let others label you what they see fit especially what they consider to be deserving of> #>ridicule #dextxt

[nanowrimo]

4 Alternatives to Popular Writing Advice

Some writing advice get passed off as something every writer has to do. The truth is, these tips might not work for everybody! NaNo participant Nicole Wilbur offers some alternatives to popular writing advice that may be a better fit for your writing needs.

While there are no definitive writing “rules”, there’s certainly writing advice so common it feels like it’s become canon. Most popular writing advice is generally good – but what if it doesn’t light up your brain? What if a particular tip doesn’t resonate with you?

 If this popular advice isn’t working - try these alternatives! 

Common advice: Make your character want something.  Alternative: Ask what your character is most afraid of.

Your character usually wants something – the MC’s goal driving the story is a common plot, after all. That something needs to be concrete, meaning the audience will know definitively when they’ve achieved their goal. 

(Is “found independence” concrete? No. Signed the lease on their first apartment? Yes.)

But if you aren’t sure yet, or what they want doesn’t feel motivating enough to support your inciting incident, start with a different question: what is your character afraid of? 

Katniss wants to survive, with her family, yes. But she’s terrified of helplessly watching them die. 

Common advice: Identify your story’s theme and stick it on a post- it above your computer.  Alternative: Use the character’s arc to create a main idea statement, and craft several related questions your story explores. 

English class really made ‘theme’ feel heavy-handed. In my grade nine English class, we listed the themes of To Kill a Mockingbird as: coming of age, racism, justice, and good vs. evil. 

While these are the topics explored in the book, I’ve never found this advice helpful in writing.  Instead, I like to use the controlling idea concept (as in Robert McKee’s Story) and exploratory questions (as in John Truby’s Anatomy of Genres).

A controlling idea is a statement about what the author views as the “proper” way to live, and it’s often cause-and-effect. The exploratory question is – well, a question you want to explore. 

In It’s a Wonderful Life, the controlling idea is something to the effect of “Life is meaningful because of our relationships” or “our lives feel meaningful when we value our family and community over money.” The question: How can a single person influence the future of an entire community?

Common advice: List out your character’s traits, perhaps with a character profile. Alternative: Focus on 2-3 broad brushstrokes that define the character.

When I first started writing, I would list out everything I wanted my character to be: smart, daring, sneaky, kind, greedy, etc. I created a long list of traits. Then I started writing the book. When I went back to look at the traits, I realized the character wasn’t really exhibiting any of these.

Instead of a long list of traits to describe your character, try identifying three. Think of these like three brush strokes on a page, giving the scaffolding of your character. Ideally, the combination of traits should be unexpected: maybe the character is rule-following, people-pleasing, and ambitious. Maybe the character is brash, strategic, and dutiful. 

Then – and this is the fun part – consider how the traits come into conflict, and what their limits are. What happens when our ambitious rule-follower must break the law to get what she wants? Sure, a character might be kind, but what will make her bite someone’s head off?

Common advice: Create a killer plot twist. Alternative: Create an information plot. 

Readers love an unexpected plot twist: whether a main character is killed or an ally turns out to be the bad guy, they’re thrilling. But plotting towards one singular twist can be difficult. 

Instead of using the term plot twist, I like thinking in terms of Brandon Sanderson’s “information” plot archetype. 

An information plot is basically a question the reader is actively trying to work out. It could be like Sarah Dessen's Just Listen where we wonder "what happened between Annabel and her ex-best friend?", "why is Annabel's sister acting strangely?" and "who is Owen, really?" Those all have to do with backstory, but information plots can be about pretty much any hidden information. Another popular question is "who is the bad guy?" - or in other words, "who is after the characters?" The Charlie's Angel franchise, for example, tends to keep viewers guessing at who the true antagonist is until the last few scenes.

Nicole Wilbur is an aspiring YA author, writing sapphic action-adventure stories that cure wanderlust. As a digital nomad, she has no house and no car, but has racked up a ridiculous number of frequent flier miles. She chronicles her writing and travelling journey on her YouTube channel and Chasing Chapters substack.

Photo by George Milton

#nanowrimo #writing #writing advice #writing tips #plotting #characters #by nano guest #nicole wilbur

[heliza24]

Wilhelm's Journey of Radical Forgiveness in Season 3

So this is the next entry in my unintentional series, about how Young Royals embraces truly radical story telling. Previously I’ve written about Simon in season 2 and his arc of radical acceptance, and about how radical the act of quitting the monarchy could be for Wilhelm (and I have never been so happy to be right about anything). But now I’m ready to start talking about season 3, which I loved, and specifically about the theme of radical forgiveness, which I thought was laced throughout the whole season beautifully and drove Wilhelm’s arc specifically.

Before I jump in, I want to pause and really define the concept of radical. When I’m using "radical" in this context, I’m talking about something that challenges the nature of what we assume to be true. I’m talking about embracing an idea that may not seem logical at first, but feels emotionally true and necessary. And I’m talking about ideas that are revolutionary, that have the potential to change people and societies.

When I went in to season 3, I assumed from the beginning that it would end with Wilhelm leaving the monarchy. I have always seen this as the fundamental question of the show (will Wilhelm stay and fulfill his predetermined destiny, or leave and find his own path?). Wilhelm’s relationship with Simon is a catalyst for that decision and their ability to stay together depends on its answer. (There’s no world where Wilhelm remained prince and Wilmon was still endgame.) But during the gap between episodes 5 and 6, I realized that even if you could sum up Wilhelm’s overall series conflict as crown vs freedom/Simon, that was not the major thing driving him in season 3. Or rather, there was another dramatic question he needed to answer, or internal conflict he needed to solve, before he could decide to walk away from the throne and fix his relationship with Simon.

Season 3 starts with the private arbitration/settlement negotiation, and immediately establishes how inadequate legal and financial reparations are at mending the divide between Wilhelm, Simon, and August. Instead this setup pushes Wilhelm into more conflict with August, making him feel like he has to defend his family from August’s incursions. At the same time, the season also opens with the initiation reveal, and the immediate implication that Erik was one of the perpetrators of the sexual abuse that occurred and that August was one of the victims. Suddenly the audience is able to see that the perfect family Wilhelm thinks he is defending— including Erik’s memory— is so much more complicated than Wilhelm realizes. And at the same time, the supposed threat that August poses is also much more complex. No one is as black and white, as good or as evil, as we would like to believe. And Wilhelm’s arc this season is all about understanding this.

There’s one more component to Wilhelm’s arc this season, and that’s his relationship with Simon. As the season goes on, we see Wilhelm become more and more complicit in the abuse Simon suffers. As the season progresses, Wilhelm becomes an enforcer of the palace, asking Simon to give up more of himself, to compromise more of his values, to be with him. By episode four he is saying some pretty homophobic things (“do I have to represent all queers just because I’m in love with you” feels like a slap in the face) and by episode 5 he is subjecting Simon to a violent outburst, even if it’s not directed at him. Wilhelm says almost the exact same thing to Simon that Erik said to him in season 1 (“everything you do now represents me and the royal house”/“everything you do reflects on us as a family”). Kristina is explicitly asking Wilhelm to step up and fill Erik’s shoes this season, and Wilhelm obeys in more ways than one. Wilhelm begins to pass on the same cycle of abuse that is currently affecting him to Simon. The same cycle that has affected Kristina, Erik, August, and Wilhelm is affecting Simon now as well.

In order for Wilhelm to break this cycle, he has to be able to see what he is doing. And he cannot do that until he recognizes and accepts the nuances in both Erik and August. He can’t move on until he has made some sort of peace with both of them.

I think it was a genius idea to trap Wilhelm and August in Hillerska’s version of couple counseling (lol) and force them to talk to each other. (As an aside, I really do love how this show treats therapy as a thing worthy of being dramatized. It’s so powerful.) I also think it was important to see August begin to make some steps of his own, both in therapy and in the way he begins to give Wilhelm and Sara more space. We don’t really see the end of August’s arc of slow self improvement— by the end of the show he’s still very much trapped in the royal cycle and dependent on Sara in a way that’s problematic— but that’s ok because he isn’t the protagonist, and the important thing is that we notice that he is beginning to change, and so does Wilhelm.

The scene at the end of 3.4, when August tells Wilhelm about what happened during the initiation, is so important. August delivers that information genuinely, and not as a threat. And in that moment Wilhelm’s perception of his brother (and secondarily, of August) is flipped upside down. I think even more important is the kind of unspoken question lurking under this new information for Wilhelm: if I idolized Erik, and I detested August, and my image of both of these people was incomplete, then what does that say about me?

I think we can see Wilhelm questioning his perception of his family and of himself in a lot of subtle ways over the last two episodes. We see him put on nail polish and take it off. We see him afraid to ask his dad for more information about Erik on the phone, and then screaming at his parents for the way they abandoned him. We see him struggling to integrate this new information, and he completely neglects Simon because of it, leading to the breakup.

By episode 6, Wilhelm has lost Simon, reached a sort of catharsis with his parents, and maybe most importantly seen Hillerska itself— the setting where the abusive system seems to be baked into the very walls— crumble. All of the things he though were untouchable (his love for Simon, his parents’ authority, the everlasting nature of Hillerska) have completely changed. And I think all of that instability is what allows Wilhelm to finally accept that his understanding of both Erik and August doesn’t have to be permanently fixed either. I love the scene where August and Wilhelm meet at the party, August apologizes, and Wilhelm accepts his apology. And I also love the scene where Wilhelm throws out the broken frog prince snow globe, the one enduring symbol the show has associated with Erik and Wilhelm and their shared role over and over again. I know different fans will have different arguments about how Wilhelm feels about August at the end of the series, but for me their last interaction symbolizes radical forgiveness. By this I don’t mean that Wilhelm has to forget about what August did to him, just like he doesn’t have to forget the bad things Erik has done to others. But he does have to accept them as they are- full of flaws, but intricately connected to him. As part of his imperfect family. And he lets go of the violent anger that has plagued him through much of the series in that moment. That’s a type of forgiveness that makes a real change. It opens up a whole new avenue of possibility for Wilhelm. Because in extending that radical forgiveness towards August and Erik, he’s also able to forgive himself for the way he too has failed the people he loves.

Actually, I think there’s one more component necessary for that self forgiveness, which is Simon telling Wilhelm that he never gave up on Wilhelm himself, only on the Royal family and its rules. That one line is such a gift to Wilhelm. It allows him to see himself as an individual who is separate from his family and able to make his own decisions for the first time. It allows him to fully forgive himself, and to make the decision to leave for his own sake. It allows him to save himself. And then because he has saved himself, he and Simon can be together again.

So in the end Wilhelm ends up answering the driving dramatic question (crown or freedom?) but only after he extends radical forgiveness to his family members and to himself. I think it’s so beautiful, it makes me cry every time I think about it.

This theme of radical forgiveness is everywhere this season, not just in Wilhelm’s arc. It’s in Sara and Felice’s reconciliation, and in Sara and Micke’s relationship, and in the ways that Sara forgives herself and moves beyond shame (expect another meta from me about Wilhelm and Sara season 3 parallels soon, because there are many and I love them). It’s in the way that Linda and Simon forgive each other, and the way that Simon forgives Wilhelm, and the the way that Simon forgives Sara. It’s even in the ways that August grows in fits and starts this season too. I feel like I learned so much from this season. It challenged my assumptions about characters I thought I knew and reminded me to that there is beauty in acknowledging nuance in the world. And I think it will serve as an ongoing reminder for me that even when I mess up and do not live up to my ideals, I am still worthy of radical forgiveness. Growth can’t happen without that compassion towards ourselves and others. And if that isn’t the most perfect message to take away from this beautiful show that I have loved for so long, I don’t know what is.

#young royals #young royals season 3 #young royals s3 spoilers #my meta #wilhelm young royals

[leenfiend]

Kissing you on the mouth for your Lance son of Hermes take. I didn't even really have an opinion before but after reading your post I'm immediately sold and so invested in the au

Do you have ideas on what the other characters godly parents would be? Hunk with Hephaestus makes sense to me, and I'm a fan of Keith son of Ares (learning to accept his godly dad could match with his arc about accepting he's part galra, a supposedly evil/violent side of him, + the anger and fighting skills), but not sure about the others...

hello!!! I'm glad you see the vision hehe. I actually sent many a paragraph to heynhay about this only yesterday. I was firmly on the son of Ares Keith headcanon but then... someone reblogged my post saying Keith son of Zeus (I think it was @pidges-lost-robot and i was like WAAAAIT.

Okay so here's my many many paragraphs explaining headcanons for each. Shiro son of Zeus: Okay so in my head Shiro & Keith are both sons of Zeus but for very different reasons. They're like Thalia vs Jason types. Shiro is a great leader, he's ambitious, he's brave, he's a legend. His dad is so proud. He's been on like 20 quests and absolutely demolished all of them. All the kids in camp know he's So Cool and Talented. He can be hot headed sometimes but ultimately he's really adept at setting aside his feelings for the Greater Good etc. Ideal hero type and ideal son to the big guy upstairs. Keith son of Zeus: Keith is all the bad traits of Zeus (sorry to him). He's got a short temper, he's impulsive, he's closed off. He's a prodigy without meaning to be. Everyone pays attention to him but (despite what Lance thinks) it's because they think he's a freak, he's not a big three kid the way you're Supposed To Be. And he doesn't want to be a leader. This really rubs Zeus the wrong way. Keith would rather disappear into the ranks of his fellow campers than be the star of the show and that goes against everything children of Zeus are supposed to be. His dad definitely refuses to claim him for a long time which makes Keith just some weird really powerful kid who doesn't know who his godly parent is. Luckily Shiro takes him under his wing : )) (too bad Shiro doesn't come back from his latest quest tho, no one knows where he went off to and Chiron doesn't want to send out a quest because if something kept Shiro The Legend from coming back to camp it must be really bad). Hunk son of Aphrodite: ANOTHER ONE I'M FIRM ABOUT. I think Hunk's defining characteristic is his love for his friends. Hunk is always looking for peaceful ways to solve problems, he's always forming relationships with people before doing anything else, he really values giving love to those around him. It also doesn't hurt that he's kind of squeamish and particular about a lot of things, as a lot of Aphrodite's children are. But I really think his greatest strengths are the ways he's able to relate to others. I know a lot of people say Lance is the glue that holds everyone together, but I think it's Hunk. I know the fanon is that Aphrodite's kids are all just big flirts but I think both Selena and Piper are great examples that that's not true, and Hunk would absolutely be their brother. Pidge daughter of Hephaestus: I've seen some people saying Athena for Pidge but that's another one where I just can't get behind it. Pidge is so smart in so many ways but so stupid in others. She's too impulsive and single minded to be a daughter of Athena, imo. Her main love is figuring out how things work, what makes them tick, and using that knowledge to help those she loves. Children of Hephaestus are know to hold grudges, fight for their families, and let's not forget Hephaestus spending literally all of his free time trying to play pranks on the other Gods with his little contraptions like that is all Pidge would do all day long. Plus she befriends a robot and that is who she talks to for the first like 3 episodes of Voltron that is so unbelievably child of Hephaestus energy. Anyway thank u for asking this question I've been thinking on it for days. I am also open to the idea of Shiro being a son of Athena, I think that would suit him well. And also in my head I like to think Keith would potentially just remain unclaimed until he stomped his way to Mount Olympus and forced whoever was his parent to fess up.

#vld #ask #anon

[kittlesandbugs]

You cannot break something like FHR down into purely good vs evil. That is literally the point of the book. Things are not what they seem, everything and everyone is shades of grey, and you have to scratch beyond the surface to see what's really going on. The heroes fight for a government that funds the creation of slaves, definding the existing hypercapitalist status quo. The villains are, yes, sometimes people who hurt others for funsies, but mostly people who have bucked that status quo and fight the system.

Are you really going to blanket this as heroes good and villains bad? Congrats, you're a shill for the state, and you drank the propaganda kool aid.

The reader only knows what the narrator gives them, and the narrator is not unbiased. The reader has to dig into what's between the lines and roiling under the surface to glean a better picture of what's really going on.

Even the stats are not as straightforward as they appear. Daring vs Caution is a willingness to take big risks vs protecting oneself and one's assets. Empathy vs Ruthlessness is a desire to take consideration of others vs a willingness to do what needs to be done to advance goals. Arrogance vs Anonymity is a willingness to put yourself out there and take credit for your actions vs a desire to stay unseen and work in the shadows.

None of these traits are inherently good and evil. They tell us about the character, allow us to extrapolate somethings, but they are tools in a box, and it's how you use the tools that defines good and evil. You can max ruthlessness without ever killing. You can max empathy because it better allows you to understand and manipulate others. The stats themselves are tools, and the colors are visual tools to represent something that really is far more complex than a two color system allows.

#Fhr #metaposting #Blue steps are not inherently angels #Orange steps are not inherently devils #Heroes are not inherently good #Villains are not inherently bad

[miraculouslbcnreactions]

I hope I'm not being rude, this ask also isn't intended as a call out for anyone. As much as I'll be happy if you'd willing to answer, if my ask somehow make you uncomfortable, please feel free to ignore it.

Here's my question :

I've been seeing many post saying that Adrien end up being Marinette' trophy boyfriend instead of proper boyfriend and at the end of the final, Marinette's fight against Gabriel isn't just simply good vs evil rather it's a fight of Adrien's "ownership" so to speak.

I want to ask your opinion about it, especially about the former. I'm personally conflicted about the trophy boyfriend thing because the urban dictionary define it as "A boyfriend that a girl is proud of being with." Which more like what Chloe did at s1, but at the same time it does feel fitting in a way since Marinette do get Adrrien as a trophy for "winning" against Gabriel. Either way it just feels like an objectification and it doesn't seems like something good to show in a show with kids as the target audience, yet I do feels like Marinette's love for Adrien is so shallow that her objectified him like that just make senses for her character.

So, what do you think?

You're not being rude at all! As long as an ask doesn't use names or otherwise make it easy to find the source of the question, I'm cool with it. I don't even mind if it's something uncomfortable, though I will do my best to state my expertise (or lack there of) on those. I think it's really important to be willing to acknowledge your ignorance. No one can know or even be informed on everything.

On to the question.

To start, let's actually define "trophy boyfriend" because the definition you gave - a boyfriend that a girl is proud of being with - is not the one that I would use. It's way too kind!

"Trophy boyfriend" is just a male variant of the term "trophy wife" or "trophy girlfriend." I'm gonna be a little lazy here and just have wikipedia define that one for me as their definition accurately reflects the way this terms is generally used:

A trophy wife is a wife who is regarded as a status symbol for the husband. The term is often used in a derogatory or disparaging way, implying that the wife in question has little personal merit besides her physical attractiveness, requires substantial expense for maintaining her appearance, is often unintelligent or unsophisticated, does very little of substance beyond remaining attractive, and is in some ways synonymous with the term gold digger.

When someone calls Adrien a "trophy boyfriend," they're saying that he's just there to be Marinette's pretty arm candy who supports her unconditionally while requiring nothing from her. A fully one way relationship that's all take and no give.

Unfortunately, canon does seem to be going this way.

Season five was the season which saw Gabriel's slow, agonizing death and final... defeat is too strong a word, so let's just go with reveal. It also saw the end of any hope for Emilie to be revived, assuming that wasn't her at the end, which does seem to be the case. We also saw Nathalie slowly wasting away, triggering all of Adrien's trauma from losing his mother. In other words, this season was all about Adrien losing or fearing the loss of every adult that he has ever loved, none of whom he even got to say "goodbye" to even though they all knew that they were dying.

So it makes perfect sense that Adrienette's big couple conflict was Marinette getting over her trauma and being able to tell Adrien that she loved him! She was absolutely the one who needed unconditional love and support this season and it was so nice to see Adrien giving that to her by laying his own needs to the side since he knew that she needed more support right now.

To be clear, that was sarcasm.

Marinette was an awful, selfish girlfriend this season. Yes, she doesn't know the full extent of what's going on until we get to the final, but in Passion (S5E6) we get this:

Adrien: Marinette? Marinette: Adri-mine! I mean, Adri-fine! No! I mean, you're not mine and you're not fine, I mean, you are fine. (gasps) Adrien, is something wrong? Adrien: No, no, everything's fine... no, everything's not fine. Not fine at all. Somebody I care about is sick and... there's nothing I can do. I feel completely hopeless.

Gabriel then akumatizes Nathalie, leading to a fight that ends with Marinette seeing just how sick Nathalie is. All this means that, by the end of Passion, Marinette is fully aware that Adrien is really struggling with Nathalie's condition and just how bad Nathalie's condition, so it makes perfect sense that the episode ends with Marinette and Alya talking about... how thirsty Marinette is for Chat Noir.

Marinette: You should've seen him! He was so... (growls like a cat) in his cute red suit with black spots. Can you believe it? I asked him out to the movies and I didn't even stammer! True, the timing was bad, but still, everything is so easy with Cat Noir, I can tell him everything I never had the courage to tell Adrien.

Marinette, sweetie, I know that you're going through some stuff, but you're better than this! You've always been shown to care about others! I just don't believe that you wouldn't at least comment on how sick Nathalie is, which really is all that this scene needs because I don't expect Marinette to have no wants or needs outside of supporting Adrien anymore than I expect the opposite.

Marinette can thirst all she wants, especially since she's not dating Adrien yet. Just let her acknowledge that this is who Adrien must have been talking about earlier! Instead, she says nothing, forgetting about Adrien's struggles and not informing his other friends of what's going on, leaving Adrien to basically suffer alone as the Nathalie issue will continue to come up on his end, but he never again reaches out for support from others.

Remember how the NYC special saw Marinette and co protesting Adrien not being allowed to go on a school field trip? And how The Bubbler saw Nino trying to organize a birthday party for his best bro? And how Reverser saw Marinette pairing up Marc and Nathaniel into the dream comic book team? You ever look back on all that and wonder what happened to these characters wanting to love and support each other, even if their attempts where sometimes a little misguided?

Ever since the start of season four, loving and supporting each other has gone out the window. If it's not about shipping Adrienette, then no one cares even though Adrienette was totally one sided for most of the show. First it was only on Marinette, then it was only on Adrien, and it only became mutual in the episode where they... got together? Kind of? Seriously, when did they actually start dating? The second half of Kwami's choice sees Marinette say this:

Alya: Then, how did we go from “I’m pathetic and I’ll never love again” to “Yay! I’m going out with Adrien”? Marinette: I’m not going out with Adrien…

But then the very next episode starts with Chat Noir talking about his girlfriend! When did that transition occur? For a season that's all about Adrienette getting together, it's kinda funny that we never technically see them get together. It's also kinda sad that them getting together was the result of Adrien once again not taking Marinette's "no" at face value... I know it's a romcom trope, but writers, please, can we not use it in stuff aimed at little kids? Plus haven't we mostly agreed that it's a bad, lazy, overused trope? Does anyone actually like it?

This is getting long, so I'll just give some final thoughts and call it a day.

A relationship starting off of shallow feelings is totally fine and normal. Outside of your family, that's how most relationships start. You meet someone with similar interest or whose vibes you like or who is taking the same class as you. You start talking and get to know each other, which can lead to a deeper relationship in the form of a friendship or a romance, which is basically a friendship with bonus features.

The issue with the love square is that the writers are absolutely botching the "deepening relationship" part of the equation. They're not letting Marinette support Adrien or learn about his struggles or even acknowledge the struggles that she does know about, which makes her come across as ridiculously selfish, a terrible lead in to a final where she now has knowledge that could destroy him. Most of the audience doesn't trust her to tell him about this knowledge because of course they don't!

As always, I lay the blame for this at the feet of the writers because so much of Marinette's bad behavior and issues make no sense when we look at her previous writing. She's never been the best at emotional intelligence, but she has always tried to help others, a thing that the show somehow acknowledges during her fight with Gabriel, leading to his win, but doesn't in acknowledge in Marinette's own romantic relationship. Of course, that would require the writers to see Marinette's season five behavior as a flaw and I don't think that they do, which is why I blame them and not her. I have no issue writing her - or reading things that write her - as better than this.

#ml writing salt #ml writing critical #ml season 5 salt #adrien deserves better #marinette deserves better

[bonefall]

the whole thing with the author defending (?) tom the wife beater is so repulsive, and then you read it again and i don’t think bumble is mentioned ONCE. she scrounges for sympathy with turtle tail, but the other one? the fat, useless, other one? forget her! (this is negative towards the authors, i adore the better bones stuff, esp how bumble is treated. vote bumble :) )

I really cannot get over it... to angrily write out a whole screed on how the strongest punishment is regret and not consequence, compare the sentiment of a reader that "Tom didn't deserve heaven" to his physical abuse of Turtle Tail, and then not even mention his other crimes of kidnapping and torture.

Even in death, Bumble isn't important enough to mention. As the books continue, they even continue to only mention her death as an unfortunate accident, or evidence of why kittypets can't join Clans. Even though she was MURDERED.

I think the statement is a good exercise in the difference between a post advocating rehabilitative justice, and abuse apologia just dressed up as it.

There IS a point to be made about how the idea of a Hell/Prison just makes bad people worse. We often have a desire to punish, because we FEEL better getting catharsis seeing A Bad Guy suffer like they hurt others. But that alone doesn't really fix or address a problem.

For example, it's really common to feel that kind of revulsion at a drug addict who robs a convenience store for money. Does it actually reduce addiction rates, or undo the trauma of the assaulted cashier, or help prevent it from ever happening again to throw the robber in a broken prison where they come out, 7 years later, with no rehabilitation?

The answer is no. It didn't help anyone. 7 years pass and he's still addicted to substances, possibly even worse, because prison just made his life shittier. As a leftist we can recognize that compassion is usually the answer.

(Unless, of course... someone needs to be removed from a position of power or actively prevented from attacking others. Violence is the answer sometimes.)

But the thing is, the author didn't SAY that. What they did was compare the impulse for catharsis, to TOM'S DESIRE TO BEAT HIS WIFE.

NO, those are NOT the same thing. Your desire for comeuppance towards a wifebeater character getting a redemption reward for "saving his child" after a long life of cruelty without consequences, is NOT THE SAME as Tom the Wifebeater inflicting pain and suffering on people out of spite.

She had to phrase it in the worst possible way for this argument to even LOOK like it made sense. "She broke HIS rule of Don't Be Mean To Tom" vs "He broke YOUR rule of Don't Be Mean To Turtle Tail." And "Now he's being taught how to be lovely"

Physical abuse, emotional abuse, and kidnapping are not "being mean" and it's both sick and insightful that she'd call it that

Domestic abuse is not a "failure to be lovely," it's the act of harming your family or partner to control them.

Tom the Wifebeater is a character who was not written with a scrap of nuance. He is not a real person. All they did with him was consistently show how much pleasure hurting people gives him, then say him dying for his biokid absolved everything

So in this series where you establish there are Born Evil Truly Malicious people (ONE EYE IS IN THE SAME BOOK), but then turn around to cry that Tom the Wifebeater can be made lovely off-screen...

You end up saying that domestic abuse isn't in your arbitrary "evil" category.

And that's so fucking fitting for the arc of Clear Sky's "redemption," where the same book ends off on Thunder saying that his abusive, woman-killing dad wasn't so bad all along because he's not like One Eye.

The answer's just that simple. They don't think male abuse is all that terrible because it's the same as an impulse; explicitly not malice. So it doesn't make you "evil," and only "evil" people deserve the Dark Forest.

(Dont question the Dark Forest as a concept or how starclan defines evil though :x dont worry about it :x)

#Anyway thank u it is my honorbound duty to give all the women a kiss on the head in BB #Bone babble #I should go back and tag these as Tom Authorial Statement or something

[gellavonhamster]

assigning each straw hat pirate a knight of the round table

because I am currently obsessed both with One Piece and Arthuriana; not any kind of serious AU material, just silliness; I Wrote This for Me but You Can Read If You Like

Luffy: Arthur, not due to any similarities in characterization but purely on the functional level - the boy king, the inspirational leader and, as Sun God Nika, a mythical figure believed to return when people need him the most

Zoro: Lancelot, the perfect warrior who embodies that post that's like "it's not my fault that my love language is acts of service and all I know how to do is kill". There is no Queen Guinevere here, so all the undying devotion is aimed at the king instead. Canonically has massive tits. Mihawk is thus implied to be the Lady of the Lake, and I think that's hilarious

Nami: hear me out: Kay. Sharp-tongued, rather cynical, but loyal to a fault to his king/adopted little brother. Nami as part of the Coward Trio vs. Kay being unlucky on quests and generally the butt of the joke. Isn't known to be a great warrior but occupies an important position (navigator vs. seneschal) that keeps the ship/court going. Besides, looking from the opposite direction, I just think Kay deserves to be the hot girl

Usopp: Usopp, sweetie, I'm so sorry, but I gotta say Tristan. Because Tristan is constantly lying about his identity in the most ridiculous manner possible and it somehow works. That part in Le Morte d'Arthur when he's asked what his name is and goes "Tramtrist" and no one suspects a thing even though "Tramtrist" is just "Tristram" with syllables switched around has big Sniper King energy. Also, can't forget the beautiful blonde healer girlfriend

Sanji: oh, that's the easiest one. Gawain. The Maidens' Knight, the ladies' man, a great warrior and one of the king's closest and most trusted men. If you put together Gawain's characterizations from different texts, from SGATGK to Le Morte to the Vulgate & Post-Vulgate to Chrétien de Troyes to everything, you end up with a contradictory character who is simultaneously the best and the worst guy you'll ever meet, which is how I often feel about Sanji, tbh. Would totally fight at a tournament on behalf of a little girl. Has some kind of an epic gay thing with Lancelot

Chopper: Yvain. Son of a sorceress - ah, pardon, a woman of science; associated with animals; known to be nice and kind (the Vulgate Cycle describes him as the one "whose heart will be filled with every kindness"). Occasionally goes insane in the woods (Monster Point), but, like, who doesn't

Robin: try as I might, I can't pull any direct parallels out of my ass, but I do think that narratively she can be seen as kind of a quasi-Mordred. Since her very childhood she was proclaimed to be bad news and expected to eventually cause a catastrophe, but where Mordred, whom no one tries to persuade the prophecy doesn't define him, ends up becoming exactly what he's expected to become, Robin has people who support her and trust her even after witnessing her be the bad guy in the past, so she never becomes the evil others expect her to turn into

Franky: Sagramore the Desirous (or the Unruly, depending on the text/translation) is a big, strong, good-natured knight who probably has low blood sugar needs to have a snack after fighting because otherwise he'll pass out, much like a certain cyborg needs his cola. In the Post-Vulgate, he and Mordred were raised together, which can be linked to Frobin's fates being intertwined since childhood, because I've Connected the Dots (you didn't connect shit)

Brook: I wanted to pick a character of the older generation who nevertheless isn't a mentor figure to Arthur, and I struggle to think of a better option than Pellinore - not the predatory piece of shit in the medieval texts, but the eccentric but loveable old man in Camelot (1967). Brook is also on a quest focused on an extraordinary beast! Only he's not hunting it, he's trying to get back to it because that beast is his friend 🥺

Jinbei: I honestly don't remember if he counts as the Knight of the Round Table, but I am hereby appointing him Ector - Arthur's adoptive father and one of the nicest parental figures in Arthuriana (and probably one of the nicest people in Arthuriana, period). I've also considered Galehaut for the "(partially) non-human ruler who allies himself with Arthur" angle, but that would imply Jinbei/Zoro and I'm not ready to deal with that.

#one piece #monkey d. luffy #roronoa zoro #cat burglar nami #god usopp #black leg sanji #tony tony chopper #nico robin #cyborg franky #soul king brook #jinbei #gella talks one piece #talk talk talk #initially this included a line about sagramore being a himbo & franky being a genius engineer easily mistaken for a himbo #but i ctrl+f'd through a couple of volumes of the vulgate & i can't find what prompted me to think of sagramore as a himbo. besides Vibes #wouldn't wanna throw unwarranted accusations around

[magnorious]

The Reveal that Changed Percy Jackson

*Spoiler Alert*

I’m talking about the Nico vs Cupid scene in book 8, House of Hades. I picked this scene, even though there were a great many in the original series that defined Percy Jackson as a story far more meaningful than just “cool tweenage demigods with magic and superpowers who fight evil”.

When this book came out, Nico vs Cupid was almost all anyone talked about. Why? Because Nico came out. Nico, an explicitly gay character in a book published by Disney, in a rather high profile series. Nico, the little angsty brat displaced from the timeline, comes out of nowhere with a world-shattering reveal.

House of Hades is already the darkest book in the series and, I think, the most polished and successful with this tone and how it feels so complete. While Percy and Annabeth are in Tartarus, the constant clever and horrific callbacks to quests from prior books quite literally come back to haunt them. The others trying to carry on without them, the ridiculously high personal stakes, the drama, the storytelling, it spares no expense in this book.

The Nico vs Cupid scene was something else, though, and all these years later… I’m not so sure it was done for the better.

—

Independent of the Big Reveal, this scene does a lot of things we’d never seen before in this series, namely this: Cupid is scary, and no one expected him to be.

Percy Jackson, though it does have its serious moments, is the series where the god of wine wears leopard print shirts and the god of the seas has a fishing chair for a throne. These characters quip and joke even when they’re trying to be intimidating and Percy’s personality, snarky and sassy and very rarely shooting straight, undercuts a lot of the attempts at looking competent and threatening (and we love him for it).

They’ve fought gods and monsters and demigods and characters have died really tragic deaths, but for the most part, these serious moments all come when we expect them to.

This scene comes out of nowhere and for anyone who hasn’t read the book in a while, here’s the context: Percy and Annabeth are in Tartarus and Nico is kind of the de-facto leader in their absence, knowing the most about Tartarus of the remaining crew. He and Jason are sent on a side quest to go retrieve the Staff of Diocletian from Cupid and Nico is not at all happy about this venture, but we don’t know why beyond that he’s Nico and he’s never happy.

Right out of the gate, Cupid is not at all who we expect him to be and this fight scene, absent of Percy, is suddenly very serious. Cupid doesn’t quip, he doesn’t show himself, and he fights dirty. The god of love, not the god of war or anything we expect to be violent and dangerous.

He’s whispering in characters’ heads, throwing them around like ragdolls, and taunting Nico ceaselessly all in Jason’s POV. Cupid gets some seriously badass lines, too.

“I’ve been to Tartarus and back,” Nico snarled. “You don’t scare me.” I scare you very, very much. Face me. Be honest.

Love is no game! It is no flowery softness! It is hard work—a quest that never ends. It demands everything from you—especially the truth. Only then does it yield rewards.

“Oh, I wouldn’t say Love always makes you happy.” [Cupid's] voice sounded smaller, much more human. “Sometimes it makes you incredibly sad. But at least you’ve faced it now. That’s the only way to conquer me.”

In all this, unfortunately in Jason POV, we’re primed only once by a previous god finally acknowledging that gays exist in this universe. This universe, based on Greek Mythology, famous for its not-straightness. Even then, audiences have spent 7 and a half books accepting that there won’t be any gays. No one is expecting this from Nico.

So when it comes, when Nico reveals he has a crush on Percy… the fandom lost our minds.

—

And I’m not so sure that’s a good thing, looking back. On the one hand, obligatory “we need representation,” but on the other, there was this one reviewer who knew what was up long before anyone else did.

She’d said something along the lines of raising damning concerns that Nico’s entire character arc was now defined by his homosexuality, that this scene frames all his anger, all his hate, all his rage and depression, about this one aspect of his character, and diminishes him because of it.

All these years later, I’m disappointed to say I agree with her.

This book series’ only major canonical gay (so far) is forced out of the closet with a proverbial gun to his head

Now, Nico likely never would have come out without that gun, but the way it happened, especially in front of Jason who he’s not friends with, showing Jason his memories because it’s not Nico’s POV and Jason has to see somehow because Nico sure won’t detail those scenes himself is... not good?

Jason handles it well, as well as he can given that this is Nico, and Cupid is an explicit villain so him forcing Nico out is in-character and not my problem. The narrative forcing Nico out is the problem—that this is a big reveal both to Jason and the audience is the problem.

The book isn’t new and with respect to when it was written and who wrote it, it’s not a terrible scene or terrible representation. But it’s not just forcing Nico out of the closet, either.

All of Nico’s character development is retroactively pinned on his sexuality

I get it. Nico’s… 14? 14 and from an era where being who he is was a death sentence, with zero education on the matter. Internalized homophobia is a thing (though Nico doesn’t actually seem to hate himself for being gay, he hates himself for crushing on Percy. Nor does he hate other gays or the concept).

Nico, though, is the one demigod who can summon any ghost he could dream up to teach him to hate himself a little less. He could have summoned the ghost of Freddie Mercury and what a dazzling mentorship that would have been.

The way the scene is framed makes it look like all of Nico’s rage comes from this one relationship, when it comes from so much more. He’s a son of Hades, a god no one trusts or likes and is synonymous with death, evil, and deceit. His sister, his last living relative, died on a quest as just a teenager. He has no friends at camp, powers that scare people, and is almost a century removed from everything and everyone he knew in his old life.

And he went and left camp *only* because of his crush on Percy? Not for any other reason?

When he does get his crush on Will, that only makes it worse. Nico did have friends, even if he didn’t believe it. He did have Percy and he’d earned the respect of his fellow campers after the Battle of Manhattan. He back-slid in HOH for this reveal, as if a romance is the only thing that could make him happy.

Cupid’s message is the narrative’s message: The only way to conquer love is to face it [in combat]

With a gun to his head, in front of a veritable stranger, instead of in, I don’t know, therapy with Apollo? There couldn’t have been any other way to fit this reveal in? He couldn’t have made his own group therapy session with other ghosts? Persephone or Demeter never sat this boy down for The Talk with a literal captive audience?

And that it’s a “reveal” at all, in incredibly dramatic fashion, a plot twist for shock value. The book couldn’t drop hints in Nico POV? Couldn’t casually state it anywhere at any time in the previous 3 books? Couldn’t treat it at all like this is normal and not a life-or-death situation?

I just feel bad for the kid. Nico can’t be the only demigod who has a guilty, unrequited crush. Cupid is forcing this out of him because that crush happens to be on another boy.

It’s in Jason’s POV

This world shattering, deeply personal reveal, and the character who’s having it isn’t even the narrator. Jason is a fine character and I know why it’s him out of everyone who could have gone with Nico, but this should have been solely Nico’s moment, not Jason’s commentary about Nico’s moment, being a non-consenting voyeur into Nico’s very personal memories about Percy.

Even if it’s not Jason’s POV to retain the surprise, it certainly starts to feel like Jason’s POV to retain the surprise. Jason can still be present, but even then—Cupid needed Nico to face Cupid, not Cupid and Jason.

—

It sucks because the scene as a whole, removed from the context, is incredible. The choreography, the pacing, the intensity of the battle, Cupid as a villain and Nico and Jason’s desperation to just stay alive.

Its impact on the series can’t be ignored. Blood of Olympus is no one’s favorite. It’s a terrible last book and not all that great as a book, period, but the ending?

Among other travesties, Nico confronts Percy, tells him he had a crush on him, and then *immediately* starts pining after Will. Percy doesn’t get the chance to talk to him, stunned at this reveal. They never have a heartfelt conversation about it, what this means for their friendship, how Percy never noticed or how this makes him feel, if he’s at all guilty for potentially leading Nico on and being a bad friend.

We get none of that. Nico just finds a pretty blond boy after, what, four years pining after Percy? One awful confrontation with Cupid and a few lines of dialogue traded with Jason and all his angst and moodiness is cured off-screen.

Can’t Nico go five minutes where he figures out who he is before he’s trading one crush for another? Can he not define himself independently of who he likes for just a couple chapters? He tells Jason after the Cupid fight that he’s over it, but… c’mon, he’s absolutely lying there, or he wouldn’t have been so hurt and upset and hesitant to reveal himself.

I love that he’s popular now, I love that he does have a healthy relationship (one that eclipsed the whole fandom for better or for worse), but the way he went about becoming popular still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Nico did walk so the rest of the series' extended universe could run. We did get Solangelo, we got Apollo being Apollo, we got a world based off Greek Mythology that stops straight-washing history. It's just a shame that he had to be forced out the way he did, and that his whole character is now defined by his relationship with Will.

#percy jackon and the olympians #percy jackson #pjo #nico di angelo #solangelo #house of hades #blood of olympus #retrospective

[hazelnut-u-out]

If God Exists, It's Fucking Me!

(Post 2/2)

A lot of this is a follow-up to Post 1, but I broke it up because I'm rambly.

Sidenote: I didn't realize how much Rick and Morty tries to confront the viewer with the question of what makes a god a god. Take from that what you will, lol.

Having a god complex is an essential component of Rick’s character. He can’t pull his sense of identity away from his relationship to God. 

'If God exists, it's fucking me!'

Even though someone may no longer believe in their god, they were still raised or programmed to serve them before they serve themselves. It becomes instinct.

I would imagine a god-like intellect could blur the line between one’s own needs and those of their god even more. For example, if Rick can value himself above God, then who’s to say he can’t do all of the things God has done for his own purpose? If Rick can prove that he exists and not that God exists, then what morally stands in Rick’s way? This is what makes Rick a good representation of what religious trauma can look like in someone exceptional. Working on the basis of this assumption, his god complex would arguably be inevitable. 

The final layer of tragedy is that C-137 isn’t all-powerful, is he? There’s one Rick that took something from him he can’t replace; one Rick– someone he can prove exists– is more powerful than him. How can C-137 argue that Prime isn’t in the right while still following the logic that his own power is what gives himself the right to ‘invent, transform, create, and destroy for a living’? Without being able to condemn Prime’s actions, what can C-137 do other than try to become him? 

'You think it's cool being the smartest man on Earth, but once we give you this technology, you become the smartest thing in every conceivable universe -- the Infinite Rick, a god.'

All of this relates back to a take I have on Evil Morty’s character. I believe he’s a lot like C-137 in that way, but his god; the being he was ‘programmed’ to serve; the creator he had to ‘defy’ was… Rick. 

Because Rick made himself a God. 

Even though Evil Morty and Morty Prime don’t seem to have faith in Rick, they were still bred to serve him. Evil Morty justifies his behavior because it’s nothing Rick hasn’t done. If Ricks justify their behavior through their abilities, then there can’t be anything wrong with being Evil Morty… Can there? 

Morty Prime, on the other hand, still serves Rick even though he doesn’t believe in him anymore. 

‘That's something you can't have when Rick shows up. Everything real turns fake. Everything right is wrong. All you know is that you know nothing and he knows everything. And, well -- well, he's not a villain, Summer, but he shouldn't be your hero. He's more like a demon or a super fucked up god.’

Morty Prime, despite believing in Rick’s power, also believes in a set of moral rights and wrongs that’s unadulterated from those demonstrated by Rick. Evil Morty operates within the set of moral rights and wrongs defined by Ricks on the curve. In my opinion, our Morty shows more potential to end the cycle than any Rick or even Evil Morty. 

Evil Morty didn’t break the cycle (though I 100% believe him breaking out of the curve was symbolic of that concept), he’s perpetuating it. He didn’t do what he did in the name of justice, he did it for himself and justified his actions with his ability. In the same way that Ricks had to create the curve to become a god, Evil Morty had to leave it. To become exceptional, Rick had to reject God’s exceptionality. Similarly, Evil Morty had to reject Rick’s. 

There are some important distinctions I want to point out that differentiate Evil Morty and Morty Prime on a fundamental level. 

- Selfish vs Selfless:

We can see a difference in the priorities of both Morty Prime and Evil Morty as early on as Season 1. 

‘Hey man, you seem to know how this place works. Is there any way we can… shut down that grid and rescue all those Mortys outside?’

‘It would be pointless. Mortys have no chance of defeating a Rick.’

I would just like to point out that no Rick put those Mortys on that wall. No Rick designed that 'symphony.'

But a Morty sure as hell made this one!

‘Alright Mortys, listen up! My name is Morty Smith, from Earth dimension C-137! I know you’re scared, because I’m scared! But that’s no reason to accept our fate. We’re Mortys! We’re not defined by our relationships to Rick. Our destiny is our own!’

Morty Prime proves that it is possible for Mortys to band together to take down Ricks. Evil Morty’s plan didn’t have to be at the price of hundreds-of-thousands to millions of Mortys’ lives. Evil Morty was prioritizing himself, justifying his treatment of other Mortys through his power to extort them. 

As a follow-up to this concept, Morty Prime tries to save as many Mortys as they can while Evil Morty finally escapes the curve. 

- Rick Complex:

Evil Morty, right from the start, believes that his abilities are an exception. (One could call it a Rick Complex, in this case, lol.) I believe that it’s actually his confidence, not his ability, that differentiates him from other Mortys.

Morty Prime, on the other hand, believes that Mortys are not defined by their relationships to Rick. Just like Rick is obsessed with being defined by his relationship to God, Evil Morty is obsessed with his identity as it’s defined by his relationship to Rick. He has to be better than Rick. Morty Prime seems more than happy to be the ‘Mortyest Morty,’ but let’s remember who’s the Rickest Morty. 

‘Because Ricks hate themselves the most. And our Rick is the most himself.’

I guess that means the Rickest Morty would hate himself, too, which checks out. Evil Morty, very intentionally, leaves no surviving Mortys on the Citadel. When Evil Morty is confronted with the result of abuse on another Morty, he never stops at hating Ricks. Instead, he opts for, ‘Pfft, you sell-out Mortys kill me. I'd hate you more than the Ricks you worship if there was any point.’

In conclusion of this pretty pointless blurb, I think Morty Prime is closer than anyone else to escaping the cycle, and I’m so proud of him. I hope it’s not too little too late. 

#rick and morty #rick sanchez #morty smith #evil morty #morty prime #rick prime

[misrepresentedmorallygrey]

PROPAGANDA

Rose Quartz Propaganda

"We saw her character arc in reverse!! We first saw all the good she did and then learned of her terrible actions in the past. If her story was told the other way around, it would have been a great redemption arc. Yes, she did some terrible things, but she had no choice. She did everything she could to stop the colonization of earth peacefully buy nothing worked. Blue and yellow diamond just didn't listen to her and when they did, THEY were the ones who made the zoo and shit. Rose wanted to free them but couldn't get to them after the war! And with the corruption, there's no way she could have known that'd happen. There's so many things she wanted to do but just couldn't. And with spinel, yes it was shitty to leave her alone for so long, but again, between running her court, running the rebellion, dealing with earth, she likely wasn't a very high priority and like with the zoo, there was no way to get to her after the war since the galaxy warp was destroyed. And don't forget, she was practically a child around this time. You're saying you didn't do any stupid, selfish, or harmful things as a kid? She learned from her experiences and grew, we just saw that growth in reverse, leaving us as viewers with a poor perception of her."

"Rose Quartz is Steven Universe’s dead mom. Initially, she’s set up as sort of an ethereal perfect figure who everyone misses and compares him to. Later we get to see more of her backstory and discover that she’s actually like, a person, with flaws, who has done some bad things, but she did those bad things largely in the course of trying to escape an abusive home life and save the people and planet that she fell in love with. It’s very clear that despite her flaws she was trying to do the right thing and that she deeply cared about others. Unfortunately, a woman who was not a Perfect Martyr was way too much for the Steven Universe fandom to handle. She pretty much set off the wave of SU crit blogs because these people were furious either that she had taken violent measures to solve her problems, that she hadn’t taken violent enough measures to solve her problems, or both somehow. Lots of “Why didn’t she just murder her abusive parental figures?” Lots of “She was evil for having a baby even though she knew she’d die in childbirth!” Lots of “She should’ve been able to protect everyone from a magic nuclear weapon with the power of love somehow.” Lots of “She shouldn’t have rebelled (even though not rebelling would’ve meant the destruction of Earth) because her abusers retaliated and that’s her fault.” LOTS of people drawing her as stick thin even though she was fat in the show. People treated her like she was on the same level or even worse than her abusive parental figures who were also the main villains of the show. It was unbearable to witness."

Katara Propaganda

"She's smart. She's powerful. She an eco-terrorist. She's got the ability to grow as a person. She's a victim of misogynistic fans who codify her as an annoying bitch (sadly not affectionate) cause she's the "mom character." And that's all she will ever be is "The mom character." She bested Azula and could blood bend your ass but won't cause she's chosen not to be a monster! But she's the annoying mom instead."

"if i have to hear ONE MORE *touches necklace* joke i’m gonna mcfreaking lose it"

"despite being one of the most well-written feminist characters of children’s TV, the fandom decides to define her based on her very realistic 14-year-old girl flaws. Ignoring her complex independent arcs and motivations, people love justifying their hatred towards her based on her one line directed at Sokka that he didn’t love his mother as much as she did. Which, if we’re being nitpicky, isn’t so harsh given that it was Katara who shouldered most of the burden of her death, as well as Sokka’s admittance that he doesn’t even remember his mother. Not to mention that ALL the characters make selfish mistakes given the fact that they’re all aged 12-15??? (Aang hiding Katara and Sokka’s father’s letter, anyone???) She really is an elegant breakthrough of the typical female character molds of “girl who is badass” and “girl with a crush on the mc who sits on the sidelines” and it’s so frustrating to see her get the most hate out of the Gaang"

Mabel Pines Propaganda

"[insert "i am 12 years old" comic]"

"You probably already know about this but back when the series was airing people were really pissed at Mabel because she was supposedly selfish. Yeah ok guys asking for a fucking megaphone to help a merman find his family was TOTALLY unreasonable. Dipper giving up one (1) "date" with a girl way older than him to save Mabel's pet was SO not worth it. (This is sarcasm btw. Side note a lot of these have to do with Dipper's crush on Wendy which is a whole other discussion.) And then there's the big one. Mabel causing Weirdmageddon. What people fail to realize with this is that 1) she was extremely stressed when she handed Bill the rift 2) she was tricked by Bill, a being that is A MASTER AT TRICKING PEOPLE, into thinking that she was being handed a magic solution to what felt like the end of the world to her, and 3) she was TWELVE. Not to pull out the "she is literally neurodivergent and a minor" card but do you really expect a 12 year old who's just been told that she's gonna have to face a big and difficult transition WITHOUT her brother who's been there for her all her life to make a rational decision? Y'all seriously fell for Bill's empty words in Sock Opera. Absolute bufoons. You would not survive Weirdmageddon."

"Oh wow, a preteen girl under extreme distress acts like a preteen girl under extreme distress. Whoda thunk?"

#finals #females fucked over tournament #steven universe #avatar the last airbender #gravity falls #rose quartz #katara #mabel pines #raise of hands whos actually surprised that this is the finals

[novafire-is-thinking]

Idealistic and Stubborn

In TFP, one of the defining aspects of Optimus’ characterization is his stubborn belief that Megatron is not lost—that he can overcome his lust for power.

By the end of Predacons Rising, he was proven correct, but there was very little beforehand that gave any indication that Megatron would change.

In spite of this, Optimus refused to believe Megatron had fallen beyond redemption.

Potential, Potential, Potential

“Everything always fools you,” Makeshift said. “Megatron was right about a lot of things, but he especially knew you. Naive, he said. Vulnerable because you keep on insisting that the best in bots might show through even when all the evidence is to the contrary. (Exiles)

Optimus views the world and other people in terms of their greatest potential for good. He can’t help but look beyond the present reality and see a perfect ideal. He then finds it nearly impossible to let go of this perfect ideal, no matter what reality looks like.

But I Can Change Him!

Peace with the ones with whom war had been waged for eons. . .The Autobots might have believed it to be impossible, but Optimus was willing to give it a try because whatever anyone else might say, he knew that Megatron wasn’t entirely evil. (Retribution)

There was absolutely nothing anyone could have said that would have convinced Optimus that Megatron was evil to his core. This strength of conviction made Optimus a force to be reckoned with. I can only assume that after a while, those under his leadership gave up trying to change his mind. They recognized his incredible strength of will as an asset to the Autobot cause, even if they didn’t agree with him when it came to Megatron.

“Idiotic” Instincts

What happened next was pure instinct. Optimus reached out and grabbed Megatron with one arm, then used his legs and other arm to climb, pulling them both out of the rising white water. A dazed Megatron looked around.

“What are you doing?” he yelled.

“Saving your life,” Optimus told him.

“You’re an idiot, librarian.”

“Thanks for your opinion,” Optimus said. (Retribution)

This was only one of several times Optimus could have ended Megatron’s life.

However, the belief that Megatron could and would change was so deeply embedded in Optimus’ psyche that even though he may have reasoned Megatron’s death was best, his instincts overrode everything.

At that point, Optimus was operating on the old assumption that there was still a part of Megatron left untainted by the lust for power. I believe some part of Optimus hoped that the act of saving Megatron’s life would make the warlord reevaluate things. Optimus was blind to the reality that Megatron’s purely opportunistic mindset would just see it as an opportunity to continue working toward his twisted personal vision.

More than once in TFP, we saw Optimus hesitate to kill Megatron when he could have done so and ended Megatron’s reign of chaos and destruction.

Optimus did eventually snap and confront Megatron as Unicron was awakening, but by then, it was too late. Megatron had grown too powerful from giving himself fully to the influence of Dark Energon and Unicron himself.

Responsibility vs. Hope

Megatron’s obsession with Unicron disturbs me. I see that he is convinced that awakening the monster would grant him the power he’s always desired. Only I know the absolute naivete of that assumption. Still, nothing I can say alters his course. You can tow a bot to knowledge, but you cannot make it think. He has had a taste for Dark Energon for a while now, and constant exposure to it only accelerates his departure into delusions. Must I wait for one of his aides to start an insurrection, as his madness increases? What is the likelihood? Starscream is too fearful, Shockwave is served well by Megatron no matter how insane, Airachnid has failed and must be considered out of play. Soundwave—well, who knows what goes through his mind since the war? The rest are too small-minded to organize a rebellion in a tack factory. No, it will not be any of them who topple him from his throne. Rightfully the deed is mine, though I did not make him into what he is; he was my friend, and once my brother. I would not see him fall farther, but at the same time, I find no way to hold him back other than by recruiting the humans to the Autobot cause, if not for our survival, then certainly for theirs. (CoP)

Megatron refused to allow anyone but himself be the one to kill Optimus. Similarly, Optimus believed the responsibility to stop Megatron fell on him alone.

For Optimus, there was a constant inner war between his sense of responsibility telling him he was the “right” one to stop Megatron, and his instincts rooted in idealism telling him that Megatron still had the potential for change.

When Strength Becomes Weakness

Optimus’ refusal to believe Megatron had fallen beyond redemption was closely tied to his difficulty unseeing potential and seeing things as they were. This stubborn idealism was one of Optimus’ greatest strengths and one of his worst weaknesses. It enabled him to survive the most brutal of circumstances, but it also enabled him to allow Megatron’s reign of terror to last much longer than it would have otherwise.

“Megatron has fallen, Optimus.”

“I cannot bring myself to believe that.”

✧ ✧ ✧

series master post

#transformers prime #maccadam #tfp #tfp optimus prime #tfp orion pax #tfp character analysis #tfp meta #aligned continuity #tf aligned novels #tf exiles #tf retribution #the covenant of primus #the one and only op ❤️💙 #who is TFP Optimus? series #long post #nova’s nerding out again #it’s been ​almost 4 months since I wrote anything for this series #but I’m hoping to finish it this week

[avelera]

Andor brings the importance of money and economic systems back to mainstream sci-fi/fantasy

So fun fact, one reason I love "Andor" so much is that they have money in it.

Right off the bat, in episode 1, they start establishing that things cost money in this sci-fi industrial town where we find ourselves. People have jobs. There are things people can't do because they have money. There's things that even people with money, like Mon Mothma, can't afford because money isn't infinite and it requires logistics to move around. There are haves and have-nots in this society and the Rebellion will sink or swim based on if it can pay its people and purchase equipment. One of the first major arcs is a bank heist.

Ok, so why is this so huge? Shouldn't it be obvious that money makes the world go 'round, even in a sci-fi setting like Star Wars?

Well, here's the thing. Think about all the Disney-owned movies you've seen. How many of them talk about money in any kind of concrete terms? It does happen, but it's quite rare and it's almost never to the extent that money matters in "Andor". A character might have "rich" or "poor" as a character trait, but economic systems are rarely discussed, why certain people do or don't have money isn't discussed.

This is for a very good reason. Back in the mid 20th c., entertainment companies like Disney made a conscious choice not to talk about economic systems in their stories. Why? Because to do so forced the story to take a stance in the existential battle between Capitalism vs. Communism. Even seemingly innocuous story choices like the injustices a poor kid might face in a story could be seen as taking a stance, not something you wanted to invite with things like the Red Scare going on.

But it's really a shame that this choice, which was in response to the political conflicts of the time, has been so perpetuated and that companies like Disney still avoid the concretes of money in most of their works. And that warps the conversation within those works and within society at large as a result. More often in mainstream genre fiction stories as a result, stories must play to fantastical elements and undefined Good vs. Evil to explain why a conflict is taking place between two sides. Certain "So what?" factors and plot elements don't quite line up. Money and resources are at the heart of most real world major conflicts, but by focusing on "good" and "evil" instead you obfuscate the interests involved, the motivations involved, what everyone is getting out of a conflict when they choose to help or not to help. You can't feed yourself on idealism alone.

By leaning into the existence of money, resources, and the haves-and-have-nots of a society, Andor is able to couch its story of revolution in real world limitations for the characters and real world obstacles. It makes everything deeper, more satisfying, more understandable as to why anyone is doing anything. It's hard to talk about fighting a fascist state like the Empire if you don't talk about complicit corporations, or forced labor (because even the Empire can't afford to pay for the sheer amount of labor it needs otherwise) or how everyone on the Rebellion side can afford these fancy X-Wings.

I hope shows like Andor will be taken to heart, not just by more mainstream works of genre fiction using the inherent conflicts that arise from a defined economic system, but also by younger creators who may have grown up on a steady genre fiction diet of "money only sort of exists when it's needed for the plot, if at all". So much worldbuilding is impossible if you don't understand who has resources and what economic systems are being employed. So much character conflict is shallow if you can't define who has money, who has resources, and who has obstacles from not having a limitless supply of those things, and what are those obstacles?

It's super refreshing to see and I will reiterate, Andor is perhaps the best show out there right now from a writer perspective and everyone should watch it.

#andor #star wars #writing #worldbuilding

[sailorblossoms]

Simon: hero vs boy  

I started writing this without a point really, but I think I found it along the way… maybe. Anyway. 

Simon goes along with traditional hero narratives by slaying monsters, especially when it’s linked to saving a damsel. His powers would make him comparable to superheroes – he’s practically perceived as such by his peers – yet he goes against it with the ease with which he kills. Saving the day (saving people) by itself meets the definition of a hero, and he’s genuinely good. But when you get down to it, why is he a hero? Because he was told to be one. Many get training and mentors, but there’s usually a calling involved, a struggle where heroism is an active choice they make. Simon doesn’t choose: he’s programmed to follow orders and rules, and he finds purpose by succeeding in his tasks. Part of it not being a choice is that Simon doesn’t believe there’s anything to choose. He doesn’t think there’s anything outside of the “golden destiny” … other than death.  He makes sense of the world by reframing it into simplistic good vs evil, in the way he has been told to. In some ways, he gains the most when he thinks he has lost it all: it sends him on a path to truly find himself and choose, free of outside influence. 

As readers, we don’t care about the nameless henchmen, the questionable nobodies with non-existent development, but the existence of Baz alone suggests both Penelope and Simon, in their role of heroes, have killed intelligent beings with “a soul” – murder more comparable to killing humans – without thinking twice. The story avoids ever questioning them in such a way (closest it gets is Baz acknowledging Simon can’t let himself think about everything/everyone he has ever killed) likely because they’re virtually brainwashed kids who don’t know any better, so the bigger questions are different (and the books tend to keep it light with that kind of thing, it's not a focus). It also avoids it by generally operating with action movie rules: action hero kills humans, sure, but we don’t care if Evil Henchman No. 5 drops dead – the only thing defining them are despicable actions. Simon kills Evil Monster No. 2 because it’s sexually harassing his boyfriend, and you were probably thinking “as he should” before you even finished reading this sentence. 

In his chosen one days, Simon operates in a way that’s familiar to superheroes: saves the girlfriend from danger, but constantly “chooses duty” over “having a life” (with the girlfriend being “life”). There’s a lot at play behind the scenes when keeping a love interest around the hero, but here is them resisting the realization that they’re miserable and gay and directionless when they’re not doing what they’re told. It’s not Simon being a hero what kills that relationship – it was dead on arrival. It would have never worked regardless – Simon cares about what he thinks the relationship would give him rather than the relationship itself. It’s not his “duty as hero” what “pushes him to let it die.” (Also: the tropes and archetypes themselves are a big part of why that relationship existed in the first place)

However, as the structure Simon has been living by falls apart (starting from “his enemy” not showing up) things change. When Simon can’t listen to anyone and rushes to Watford toward the end of CO, that’s not a hero rushing to save the day. The hero believes he has just been told he’s the true villain of the story (he’s not) but at its core, this is just a boy who believes he did something horribly wrong, and that it’s up to him to fix it. 

In his role of hero, Simon is quick to think the worst of Baz, because it has been decided that he’s his enemy (he's quick to reframe everything he sees about Baz, because he does see it, that indicates Baz is never truly bad). As he frees himself from roles and finds himself, and the wall that used to separate him from Baz falls apart, he sees him fully. He can’t think badly of him then. (He's ready to free all that information he already had on Baz, he has "observed his soul"). The chosen one would’ve gone for the less charitable interpretation of the events (Baz “purposely pushing him down the stairs”) but Simon sees him exactly for what he is (he’s just a boy, it was an accident) or goes for the kindest interpretation (supporting Penny in her refusal to judge Baz, seeing him as another kid being used by adults – just like Simon and her – with the Pippa incident.) 

And speaking of it: Pippa’s “tell Simon I say thank you” stands out to me (thank yourself girl!) because similarly to Penny paying attention to her with her ring ready to strike, that’s a boy who would not hesitate to tackle her ass if she moved funny around Baz. As happy as having the role used to make Simon, he’s no longer defining himself as a hero. His priorities are not to be heroic (as shown by how he walks away from whatever the fuck happened with the Vegas vampires iirc) but simply in protecting his loved ones, and the people his loved ones care about. His image as hero likely remains in Pippa’s head – likely part of why she liked him, and perhaps reinforced in part by her getting her voice back (in more than one way) when he appears in her life again. But if it came down to it, the only thing that would have stopped Simon ("the hero”) from fighting/restraining her (”the victim/wronged party”) would’ve been Penny knocking her out first. He would not be on her side here. This is an “ugly” thing to consider in heroic narratives, but it’s a human thing. Simon is no superhero, nor is he trying to be: he’s just a boy. 

Baz’s goodness and kind heart means he’s not going to put Simon in a position where he has to choose between what’s “good” and him regardless, it’s part of what Simon recognize's (Baz's goodness) as he falls in love with him (he has observed his soul, he refuses to let Baz think of himself as evil or monstrous once he’s no longer blindly operating as chosen one) (and Penny is right anyway). But this instance shows how Baz’s self-destruction means the people who love him, his chosen family (Penny and Simon) will do anything to protect him, especially when Baz is his own enemy. They will be fierce, and they will be selfish. They won’t leave room to consider anyone else – they will be human. In an ideal world, Simon will be left alone to live his life like a regular person (as regular as he can be, anyway) but I think the Simon he’s discovering is the type where what matters is not saving the day, but keeping his loved ones protected. More specifically, Simon has chosen Baz as his priority, and he has decided that keeping him happy and safe comes first. Heros might not prioritize the “love interest” (unless a specific story requires it, but that’s another conversation) they might sacrifice their personal lives for their duty, but for Simon, his relationship with Baz is what matters most. There’s no “duty” that comes before it. Sure, he’s no longer in a position where he has to choose, but if he had to, if he was pushed to think about what he wanted instead of what he was supposed to do, I think the choice would remain the same. The world can burn down, and maybe he can’t do a thing, but he’ll be alright as long as his loved ones are by his side (he says as much with "I have lost it all but I still have Baz, so I still feel like I got the better end of the deal") 

#snowbaz #simon snow #baz pitch #baz grimm pitch #awtwb #carry on #simon snow trilogy #baz x simon #simon x baz #simon snow series

[transmutationisms]

don’t know if you’ve talked about this before but how would you explain kendall’s feelings towards logan? and compare his reaction to logan’s illness in season 1 vs to his death in season 4?

put reductively, kendall wants to kill his father, which in the show's discursive field is equivalent to fucking him. kendall has no reference point for good and evil beyond logan, meaning that to him, bad is defined by whatever logan is or does, and good means killing (fucking) logan. kendall always wants to believe he's a good person; ergo, he has to kill logan.

because kendall has no ideology of his own, the only way he knows how to kill logan is with logan's own tools. logan speaks the language of domination, such as the constant animal kingdom metaphors, which telegraph his social darwinism and the accompanying liberal-capitalist bourgeois ideal of masculinity as grounded in the ability to produce capital. kendall imitates this language (clumsily) and this ideology, positioning himself as the patricidal son, the stronger dog, and the predator higher up on the food chain who's coming to eat logan, wherein eating = fucking = killing.

so, while telling himself that he's rebelling against logan, and that he's opposed to everything logan stands for, kendall is actually loganifying through the very act of trying to kill logan. he's put himself in a psychosexual bind where killing, fucking, or eating his father intrinsically means becoming his father, ie, identifying with him in a freudian sense. it's a classic oedipus complex, but presented to the audience through the distorted lens of kendall's own lack of self-awareness.

in both season 1 and season 4, kendall reacts to logan's illness/death by taking on logan's role: trying to act as ceo, manage the situation, demand better doctors, etc. he has multiple motives for doing so: he's interested in having power, certainly, but he's also genuinely trying to care for his family, albeit in a selfish way that foregrounds his own needs. on a fundamental level, he acts this way because he simply doesn't know how else to react. this is the position he's been groomed for his entire life; he literally is nothing except in reference to logan. his position as the designated heir has stripped him of the ability to develop any further sense of selfhood, ie to differentiate his own identity from his father's.

#a sandpit for emergent behaviour