I find myself reflecting upon the attitude that the only “acceptable” redemption for c!Dream requires violent coercive action. It’s a startlingly common take even among those who agree in general terms that retributive justice is broadly a bad idea and that Pandora’s Vault/torture in particular is either immoral, ineffective, or both.
If a “redemption arc” always requires violence or the threat of it, what exactly is being communicated?
191 notes
·
View notes
unpopular opinion: arthur (as much as i like him as a character) was useless in terms of prophecy and liberation of the magic people. not just bc he never ended up lifting the magic ban but bc literally anyone sitting on the throne could have done that. i see no reason why it had to be arthur specifically. but the show liked to pretend like he was the only way to achieve a positive future bc the opprressed community cant simply help themselves that would be silly ig? no no they need to patiently wait that maybe one day their oppressor (whos literally continuing his fathers genocide even if less zealously) has a change of heart and they wont be hunted down like animals anymore. never mind the countless people that will have to die in the mean time. merlin can kill a bajillion people on screen and thats fine and for the greater good but if someone tries to kill One guy sitting on a fancy chair with a fancy hat suddenly thats too extreme. half the time it felt like the show was pointing to merlin as a poster child of how to act when oppressed. the fact that morgana growing bitter about uthers reign is framed as inherently bad and what directly lead to her becoming evil tm is particularly infuriating to me. the choice to create this very ya dystopian setting and then cast the oppressors as part of the main cast and the final solution is just very weird to me. i think it wouldve been objectively for the best if the magic community had overthrown arthur (or uther really but thats not really contested.. unless youre the bbc. this show is so british (derogatory))
in that vein: mordred has never done anything wrong in his entire life and that includes killing arthur
one more for the "arthur was a loser" folder
[ok but about the rest!! I have many thoughts about it. merlin as a member of an Oppressed Minority. his betrayal of his own kin. I'm putting it all under a cut bc you guys don't need to see me rambling about this and the disir again]
you make a good point — the way in which a story is framed, even the moment we choose as a "beginning", determines what characters we'll feel sympathy for, even when the facts at our disposal are the same.
I don't think the writers were trying to create any kind of deep social commentary btw. just so we're clear. merlin is the hero of the story and his mission is to keep arthur safe. we've got to root for them both.
to have a king with a hatred (fear) of magic gives us a convenient antagonist within the court. merlin having to defend the men that would have him killed for his magic is a great source of dramatic tension. it sort of follows that the people he has to fight against to defend the king/prince are other magic users, or magical threats. (it also keeps things interesting because there would be no challenge for merlin otherwise).
there isn't much of a point in exploring the motives and backstories of other characters with magic (with the exception of morgana, perhaps). They are only briefly touched upon — so these characters remain vaguely antagonistic for the most part. Neutrally aligned at best (see mordred).
We are shown that the druids are (mostly) aware of the prophecy that marks merlin/emrys as the saviour of their kind.
what I find fascinating are merlin's interactions with magic people who are either not aware of this prophecy (gilli) or have no faith in it (kara, possibly?) Because we're never given the chance or the time to see things from their perspective. To see merlin through their eyes.
When gilli says:
"It is time that someone struck a blow for the likes of you and me. And if you're too weak, then I will." (!!!)
It makes him sound like some kind of extremist, but really, when you think about it. isn't his anger kind of justified? I'm not condoning his violence, I'm just saying — it's understandable. uther has killed so many innocent people. literally drowned innocent children. and merlin's like "violence isn't the answer!" — and I can see his point!! but I can see gilli's just as well. and I find it so interesting that he's still addressing merlin as a brother ("the likes of you and me"), even when expressing disappointment in his actions and calling him weak. because they are the same. he's saying "you're deluded, and cozying up to the enemy won't save you"
this episode also contains what is (probably) my favourite dragon call. when merlin summons kilgharrah in other episodes, he's usually in the middle of some Urgent Situation. matters of life or death. there is nothing urgent here, really. yeah, it is arguably a matter of life or death, but nothing merlin couldn’t have stopped on his own. he really just called on kilgharrah to have a heart to heart with a friend — a member of his class.
("You are a creature of magic, and only a creature of magic could hope to understand.")
this episode is about merlin looking for kinship and still feeling isolated from his magic brethren. there's something tragic about the way the prophecy makes him unable to connect to some of the people who would be best placed to understand him.
and gilli plants a small seed of doubt in merlin's mind. "You've been pretending for so long now that you've actually forgotten who you are" (!!)
but kilgharrah reassures merlin that there's a golden age coming. so merlin does what he has to do — he saves uther once again. before gilli leaves, merlin reassures him that one day they will be free.
he tells mordred the same:
"It won't always be like this. One day we will live in freedom again."
and then, when he has the unique opportunity to use his influence on arthur to sway his opinion in the right direction. he fails.
he condemns himself, and the people he spoke to of freedom, to keep living in fear and in hiding — and what's even more upsetting, he does so while talking of a "just and fair kingdom"!
("You must protect the world you spent your life building, a just and fair kingdom for all." What an interesting choice of words. camelot isn't just and fair to all — as merlin knows well. he's lying to arthur, and possibly to himself.)
imagine being gilli or mordred and hearing him say that "there can be no place for magic in camelot." (!) What a slap in the face.
I've read meta suggesting that the disir were testing merlin just as much as arthur (or even more so than him). I'm inclined to believe it — I want to believe it. If anything because it makes the story all the more interesting and tragic. (I know what some are going to say — if mordred's destiny was to kill arthur, it would've happened anyway. but remember what else kilgharrah said — the future is never clear. there are many paths).
I understand why merlin did what he did, I really do. but for a moment, the fair and just kingdom he spoke of was within reach, and he failed to grasp it.
so was gilli wrong after all?
[and kara. I feel quite sympathetic towards her. we know arthur. she can't see him from our (merlin's) perspective. for her, he might as well be uther. magic people are still persecuted under camelot's law. she has spent her life on the run, she has seen people she loved be killed. and from our (arthur's) perspective, she looks like some kind of fanatic. but in reality. put yourself in her shoes. when arthur offers her a chance to save herself by "repenting" for her crime, she says she has nothing to repent for. "it is not a crime to fight for your freedom". that's the belief she's willing to die for. did she deserve to die for it?
(I also think there's an interesting parallel in merlin failing his kin in the disir, and arthur failing mordred in ep 5x11 by condemning kara to death. something about pinning all your hopes on someone who's going to fail you, and doom you both. idk idk.)]
sorry anon. you were saying
26 notes
·
View notes
I just went thru the whole Moondroid AU tag and wow I LOVE this AU SOOOO MUCH dude it's SO cool !!!!!!!! I hope u have more to say ab it bc its REALLY cool dude!!!
ACK THANK YOU SM.. it's just been kind of rumbling again in my brain after all these years (ironically only a few months after i FINALLY changed this blog's header from moondroid zane to the current image)
i don't know how much of what i wrote/drew for it in 2018 i would change in my current era.. it's one of those aus that is less about a strict story and more like another iteration of the 'zane ninjago somehow ends up horribly isolated' trope that keeps happening in ninjago. like i originally came up with the au because i thought 'what if dr julien lived on the moon instead of alone in the woods/alone in a lighthouse when he built his two sons' and since then it's kind of just been an excuse to draw zane in space becuase he is a space aesthetic kinda guy yknow. and also an excuse to give echo a happier story.
23 notes
·
View notes
I see some people often wonder out loud if Luffy might get a weapon or something to wield eventually, for no other reason than Roger and Shanks (and even Kaidou) also use(d) weapons, and it'd give Luffy some "extra strenght" in combat so he wouldn't have to rely on his Devil Fruit so much (and the Awakening especially, since it drains him so badly)
And the thing is, as most would probably agree, most weapons and blades especially just would not fit into Luffy's combat style. He, much like his grandpappy, fights with his fists, so it's hard to imagine him using any kind of weapons to fight
But that just made me wonder... Like...
Okay so people have been speculating for ages that Luffy might die at the end of the story or something, right. I do not buy that for a second, but it is true that Luffy is willing to throw himself into a lot of danger and has sacrificed literal years off his lifespan to protect those around him. And that has been escalating. It'd be natural for Luffy's self-endangerment to escalate to a point where there'd be actual, severe and tangible concequences for it. Aside from death.
And you know.
There's been some allusions to Luffy losing his hands, right
And you might wonder
How would Luffy losing a hand translate to him gaining a weapon
Well
You know
And the funny thing is
Luffy might not be one to use a HOOK, per se
But we have seen him wield a giant ball of gold to smash Enel's face in. So a metal mace/morning star/etc could actually work
(Also since his Awakening can mess with the fabric of reality itself, even if one of Luffy's fists was replaced with a solid ORB of metal, he could probably/totally reshape it during combat to fit his needs, into an axe or a morning star or knife etc)
Also.
There would be something poetic about Luffy sacrificing a hand to protect someone dear to him, much like how Shanks sacrificed his entire arm to protect Luffy in Chapter 1.
Like you'd get the pay-off/concequences to the escalation of Luffy's constant self-sacrificing, but nobody dies. Luffy gets a weapon to add to his arsenal, but it fits into his pre-existing fighting style and character. And we could get that poetic full-circle.
That all said, if Luffy did somehow lose a hand.
I'm sure Franky would HAPPILY give Luffy a prosthetic hand with a ✨BEAM✨ Can not imagine Luffy turning such an offer down lmao
13 notes
·
View notes
i think that talking to a person who is not really listening to you or talking to a person who doesn’t actually care about listening to you too often has a negative affect on your brain. probably physically. i’ve decided. and not like, small talk or polite chit chat. like, whenever i speak out loud and in person it’s either polite small talk with patrons, friendly chit chat with coworkers, or to my parents or a friend. the first two are nice and fine, but they’re inherently surface. with my parents, most of the time i’m talking to them, they don’t care about listening to me OR i’m really just talking to myself. that sucks. with the friend, most of the time honestly, she’s not listening. and i know this about both of these situations, but what can i do? stop talking? of course not. and then. the reason i never should have been dating is because it put me in another bad situation - in a scenario in which the entire purpose is to get to know someone, where the other person in question did not actually care to get to know me, or actually like me, or was not actually interested in me as a person. and that’s the bouts of conversation that went on, that doesn’t even count all the ghosting (though most of these spurts of conversation ended with an eventual ghosting). it’s frustrating and hurtful and i don’t even have a solution
13 notes
·
View notes