#okay to add on it's bc of the difference in where their trauma stems from. jason's is catholic guilt and jake's is abandonment issues | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

iamanartichoke · 3 years

Text

I wrote a Thing. It’s extremely long. I’d prefer it not be reblogged; I wrote this for my own catharsis and would prefer it not be circulated, bc of Reasons.

I changed my mind, okay to reblog. <3

Under a cut for (extreme, did I mention?) length.

So I got about 12 minutes of sleep last night, as you do, and around 3am or so I found myself - out of sheer curiosity - going down a meta hole of Ragnarok discourse, trying to figure out where this "satisfying redemption arc" for Loki happened. (I mean, there's a lot of things I would like to figure out, but I started there.) Because I could.

Basically I was looking for meta that went into detail about how Loki was redeemed in a satisfactory way. The ‘satisfactory’ is an important word here bc there is a redemption arc in the film, in that Loki starts off the film as an antagonist (kinda) to Thor and he ends the film as an ally to Thor, standing at Thor's side. In that sense, yes, there's a redemption arc. I didn't find much (and I had no idea how much people just despise Ragnarok "antis" [I really dislike that word] but that's another topic [that I don't particularly want to get into, tbh]) but I did find some. I read what I could find, and I read it open-mindedly, and overall I came away feeling like, okay, there are some valid points being made here and I can kinda see where they're coming from.

But it was a bit (a lot) like -- flat. Idk. The best comparison I can think of is that it’s like if a literature class read, I don't know, The Yellow Wallpaper for an assignment, and some of the students came away from it feeling like it was a creepy story about a woman slowly driving herself insane, and the other students came away from it incensed at the oppression and infantilization of women in the late 19th century -

- and neither side is wrong, but the former is a very surface-level reading and the latter isn't (bc it stems from looking at why she drives herself insane, why she was prescribed 'rest' in the first place, the context of what women could and couldn't do back then, etc; basically, a bit more work has to go into it).

[Note: I am not disparaging the quality of The Yellow Wallpaper. At all. It’s just the first relatively well-known story that popped into my head.]

In this sense, I can see the argument for Loki's redemption arc, but I don't think it's a very good argument. Not invalid, but not great.

I mean, for example, I think the most consistent argument I found variations of re: Loki's redemption is that Ragnarok shows Loki finally taking responsibility for his bad behaviour and misdeeds. This includes recognizing that his actions were fueled from a place of self-hatred and a desire to self-destruct in addition to bringing destruction on others. That he probably feels awkward and regretful of these things and doesn't know how to act around Thor, but he figures it out by the end, and decides that returning to Asgard is the best way to show that he's ready to make amends. His act of bringing the Statesman to Asgard is an apology. He allies himself with Thor and ends up in a better place, both narratively (united with Thor once again) and mentally (having taken responsibility and made amends for his past).

And setting aside that he had already made amends by sacrificing his life in TDW (and also setting aside that the argument is made that Loki redeems himself in IW by sacrificing himself to Thanos but if that's the case, wouldn't that imply that he hadn't achieved redemption in Ragnarok or else there would be no need to achieve it again in IW? Or, if you think he did achieve redemption in Ragnarok, then what the fuck did he give his life in IW for? What was his motivation there, and why did the narrative not make it clearer? I digress.)

- setting aside those two factors, I think this is a very fair argument. Loki is fueled by self-hatred, and he does want to self-destruct, and he does want to inflict that pain on others as well (particularly Thor). No lies detected here.

However, I also need to know where that self-hatred and desire for destruction (toward himself and others) comes from and for that, we need to go back to Thor 1.

Thor 1.

Loki starts Thor 1 out as "a clenched fist with hair," to borrow a quote from the Haunting of Hill House (that I tucked away in my mental box of Lovely Things bc it says so much so very simply). He's very used to bottling everything up, pushing it down; he slinks around behind the scenes, pulling the strings to this plot or that. He's "always been one for mischief," but the narrative implies that the coronation incident is the first time Loki's done anything truly terrible. And it all immediately pretty much goes to shit, so Loki spends the rest of the movie frantically juggling all these moving pieces while trying to seem as if he's got it all under control, every step of the way. That's how I view his actions.

But I always come back to that quote where Kenneth Branaugh tells Tom, of the scene in the vault, "This is where the thin steel rod that's been holding your mind together snaps." In other words this is where Loki discovering he's Jotun is just one thing too many. He can't take it. But though the rod snaps, his descent isn't a nosedive. It's a tumble. As the story progresses, the clenched fist starts to loosen, the muscles are flexed in unfamiliar ways (that feel kinda good, after being stiff for so long), and it culminates with the hand opening completely and shaking itself out. All of that repression, that self-hatred, that rage and jealousy just explodes so that, by the time the bifrost scene happens, Loki's already hit bottom. It's not just about proving his worthiness to Odin. He wants to hurt Thor, too; he, essentially, throws a tantrum. (That's right, I said tantrum.)

(Note: The word 'tantrum’ has negative connotations bc we normally equate it with a toddler stamping their feet and screaming in the aisle when their parent won't buy them the toy they want. But in itself, the word tantrum isn't infantalizing. It's an "emotional outburst, an uncontrolled explosion of anger and frustration" [paraphrasing from dictionary.com]. That's exactly what happens here [and why Tom called Loki's actions a massive tantrum, but people took that to mean Tom agreed it was childish whereas I doubt Tom meant it that way]).

He's been pushed past his limit, and he does bad things. He does really shitty things. He hurts Thor, he hurts his family. I'm pretty sure he knows this all along so this isn't, like, some revelation further down the line that "hey, those things I did were probably kinda bad." He got the memo already.

Ragnarok

Fast forward to Ragnarok, and we're introduced to a version of Loki who's had 4ish years to sit with everything that's happened. To sit with it and not do much else. The rawness of it has faded, and now it seems as though it's just become a thing, like when you move through life aware of your childhood traumas and have more or less just accepted them (and you probably share a lot of really funny depression memes on Facebook, which is kinda the equivalent of Loki's play, but that's probably just me).

Loki has, more or less, chilled out. He seems more bored than anything else; he's been masquerading as Odin for longer than he ever planned or intended to, so he's more or less ended up hanging out, letting Asgard mind its own business, and entertaining himself with silly plays. This is the version that starts out the movie as an antagonist to Thor - a version that is, arguably, in a much different place [and is a much milder threat] than the version who originally did those Bad Things.

And of course Thor is still mad at him, and of course they're going to butt heads, because that's what they do (and Thor's grievances are genuine, I’ll add, bc it's not really his fault he assumed Loki faked his death, nor can he be blamed for being pissed about Odin).

One argument framed this version of Loki as being a person who is facing the awkwardness of coming out of a dark place, which is fair. If we're going to frame his actions in Thor 1 as a tantrum, then Ragnarok would be the part where the toddler has been taken home, possibly has had some lunch and a juice box, and is now watching cartoons. They're over the tantrum, and would probably feel pretty silly about it if they weren't, yknow, toddlers. They probably can't remember why they even wanted that toy so badly. If they're a little older and self-aware, they might even be embarrassed for having melted down.

Like the word tantrum, this feeling isn't a thing limited to toddlers. I know I've had a few epic meltdowns as a grown ass adult, and I know I always feel deeply embarrassed afterwards - like, want to crawl into a hole and die. I've said things I can't take back. Adolescents and teenagers throw tantrums, mentally ill people throw tantrums, adults throw tantrums (I mean, my god, look at all the videos of Karens having screaming meltdowns - screaming! - over having to wear masks in order to shop at stores). Humans throw tantrums. And usually, after the feelings have been let out and the tantrum has passed, humans feel pretty regretful and awkward and embarrassed about whatever they did and said in the midst of their meltdown.

I get all of that and agree it's valid and that Loki probably feels it. By the time Ragnarok happens, Loki's had some time to reflect and think hmm, yeah, probably could've handled that one a lot better. The argument further goes that in order to navigate this awkward period, Loki must come to terms with what he's done, acknowledge that some things can't be unsaid or undone, and begin to make amends. Supposedly, some people feel that Loki becomes a better person because he does "own" everything he did wrong and, even though he feels like a jackass (paraphrasing), he sets that aside to become a become a better person by choosing to help Thor and Asgard at the end.

Thus, the overall arc goes like this. Loki, Thor's jealous little brother,

throws a tantrum of epic proportions bc Reasons

continues to act badly and make things even worse (Avengers)

has to face consequences for his actions (prison sentence)

ends up with a stretch of time in which he's free to contemplate and chill out

feels embarrassed and awkward about how he's behaved

sees an opportunity to make up for it and decides to take it

helps Thor, saves the day, and ends the film a better person.

Redemption achieved.

None of this is wrong. The film supports it. It's a fair interpretation. But it leaves. out. so. much.

To circle all the way back around Loki being "a clenched fist with hair," and his actions stemming from his self-hatred, you have to ask - how did he get that way? He didn't end up with all this self-hatred on accident. Generally, one isn't born despising themselves, it's a learned behavior. (I realize chemical imbalances are a thing, obviously, as I have Mental Shit myself, but for argument's sake I'm assuming that's not the case with Loki [at this point in time]).

Where did Loki learn it? From his family, from his surroundings, from his culture. We see examples of these microaggressions in the first, like, twenty minutes of the movie - a guard openly laughs at Loki's magic after Thor makes a joke about it (the tone of the conversation implies that Thor "jokes" like this often) and though Loki does the snake thing, the guard faces no real consequences. Thor doesn't acknowledge that anything went amiss. Not much later, on their way to Jotunheim, Loki's barely gotten two words out to Heimdall before Thor cuts him off, steps in front of him, and takes charge. Loki doesn't look annoyed at this; he looks resigned.

Then, for absolutely no reason at all, Volstagg decides to make a jab at Loki ("silver tongue turned to lead?") just because he can. The ease with which he makes this comment and the way that no one else blinks an eye at it implies that this isn't out of the norm. And Loki doesn't react, not really. In the deleted version, he delivers a particularly nasty comeback but he delivers it under his breath, without intending Volstagg to hear it. In the final version, he simply says nothing, though his expression can be read as hurt or stung. Either way, the audience sees an example of Loki being walked all over by Thor and his friends and bottling up his reactions instead of standing up for himself.

Microaggressions matter. They are mentally and emotionally damaging. They hurt. The implication that this is not unusual treatment for Loki means that Loki's probably gone through this for most of his life. It's like the equivalent of being, I don't know, twenty two and you're the friend who has to walk behind the others when the sidewalk isn't wide enough, and it's been that way since the first day of kindergarten. At this point, you're used to it, but that doesn't make it hurt any less when the jabs come seemingly out of nowhere, for no reason other than to make you feel bad.

(I personally identify a lot with this bc I experienced passive bullying in social settings for years. I was the 'doesn't fit on the sidewalk' friend; I hung around with people who'd pretend to be my friend and would be more or less nice to my face, but would laugh at me and make fun of me behind my back for whatever reasons. And often there'd be the random jabs at me, things that would come out of nowhere to smack me in the face, followed by the fake laugh and “just kidding!" so that I couldn't even get upset without being made to feel like I was overreacting and couldn't take a joke. I'd deal with this socially, particularly in middle school when girls are their most vicious, and then I'd go home and, because I was the only girl with a lot of brothers and because boys are mean and because I am who I am, the dynamic was that my brothers would just endlessly roast me to my face and sometimes it was a "just kidding!" thing, where I was the only one not laughing. But that’s beside the point; my point is that microaggressions, passive bullying, and consistent invalidation are harmful and that shit stays with you into adulthood.)

So, yes, Loki needs to be held responsible for his misdeeds, and it's valid to say that he recognizes those misdeeds and wants to make amends. I have never disagreed with that. But the problem with this interpretation is that it lets every single other character who contributed to Loki's self-hatred and mental breakdown (let's just call a spade a spade here, that's what it was; he was broken psychologically) get off scot-free.

First of all,

Odin is not held accountable for instilling in the princes a mentality of Asgard first, everyone is beneath us but Jotuns are benath us the most, they are literal monsters. He is not held accountable for pitting his sons against one another (even if it was unintentional, he still did it) with "you were both born to be kings but only one of you can rule" being the general tone of their upbringing. He's not held accountable for his favoritism toward Thor.

Frigga is not held accountable for deferring to Odin both in supporting the above things and in keeping the truth of Loki's origins a secret while doing nothing to discourage the "monsters" narrative.

Thor is not held accountable for his own tendency of taking Loki for granted (he assumes Loki will come to Jotunheim, he oversteps Loki constantly, “know your place,” etc.. He grants his implicit permission for Loki to be treated as the sidewalk friend in their “group,” a group which is loyal to and takes their cues from Thor as Thor continues to do nothing in his brother's defense).

[Note: Wanting Thor to be held accountable for things he's done wrong isn't vilifying him. Acknowledging that Thor benefited from Odin's favoritism and his own place as Crown Prince doesn't negate Thor also being raised in an abusive environment. I don't think anyone's saying that or, if they have, it's not something I agree with.]

Furthermore,

Odin is not held accountable for his cruelty in disowning Loki (”your birthright was to die” is never going to be forgotten, speaking of people saying things that can't be unsaid or taken back) and in sentencing Loki to a severe prison sentence (life! only bc Frigga wouldn't let him execute Loki) for crimes that are no worse than what Odin himself has committed (around which the entire plot of Ragnarok revolves! Colonialism (and subjugation) is wrong is, like, a major theme [that people rush to praise, even] here).

Thor is also never held accountable for not trying harder to understand what made Loki snap (fair enough, he didn't have a ton of time after returning from Earth, but certainly he had lots of time to sit around reflecting while Loki was being tortured by Thanos for a year). He knows Loki is "not himself" and "beyond reason" and accepts it at face value; he questions it once and then lets it go. He's fine with assuming Loki's just lost his mind, and isn't that a shame. (I realize I'm simplifying Thor's emotions but my point is that Thor could've tried harder to figure out that Loki was being influenced and/or not acting completely autonomously.)

Thor is also never held accountable for - if not facing consequences for his own slaughter of Jotuns - then at least addressing why Loki can't kill an entire race even though Thor tried to do that, like, two days ago. (Granted, it’s difficult to understand how Thor got from Point A ("let's finish them together, Father!") to Point B (this is wrong!), but that failing belongs to Thor 1 (which is not, by the way, a perfect movie).

The interpretation that Loki is fully redeemed because he took responsibility for his actions, returned to Asgard, and allied himself with Thor to save their people is all well and good - but, why is Loki the only one here who has to take responsibility for their actions?

What about all the loose threads in his story?

For example, how did he get from:

Point A (believing himself a literal monster, having a complete mental breakdown, getting tortured and further traumatized after that, etc)

Point B (Hey, yknow what would be fun? I'm going to write and direct a play about how I heroically died to save Thor and Jane, and I'll go ahead and have Odin say he accepts me and has always loved me. I'm going to do these things because Odin never said this in real life and instead of acknowledging my sacrifice, Thor left my body in the dirt, so someone has to validate what I've done right and that someone might as well be me. And hey, while I'm at it, I'm going to control the narrative on revealing myself as Jotun to Asgard, instead of living in fear of it being found out, and I'm going to do it in a way that they have to sympathize with me and revere me in death, bc they never bothered to do so when I was alive. And Matt Damon should play me, also.)

Point C (Yeah, I guess I feel kinda awkward about that whole tantrum thing, also I should help Thor and support him being king.)

The answers to these questions are handwaved and the audience takes that to mean they don't matter. Furthermore, framing Loki's redemption around an act of service (more or less) to Thor makes Loki's redemption about Thor. Does Loki make this decision for the sake of Thor and of Asgard, or does he make it for himself? It's not super clear to me, and I think arguments can be made for both. Which, again, is fine, but - whatever.

If we're going to collectively agree, as a fandom, that Loki is complex, that he's morally gray, that he's worthy of redemption and therefore arguably a good person who's done bad things, then why is it asking too much to have it acknowledged that Thor (also a good person who's done bad things) played a part in Loki's downfall and has shit to apologize for, too? Bc one can only assume the reason is that you're taking a very gray concept and making it black and white by saying Loki has to apologize and make amends because he is the villain, and Thor doesn't because he is the hero (and it's his movie). And it's lazy.

This is where the crux of the issue lands. There's more than one valid interpretation, yes. And no two people (or groups of people, or whatever) are going to consume and therefore interpret or analyze the source material in the same way. I think I saw a post recently about how studies have been done on this, in fact. But, there is a lot going on under the surface that tends to get overlooked when exploring Loki's redemption arc in Ragnarok, as far as I can see, and that’s why I don’t consider it satisfactory.

[I did read similar arguments regarding other issues that are often debated ('debated'), like Loki's magic and/or being underpowered, whether or not Loki's betrayal of Thor was the natural outcome of the situation on Sakaar or not, whether Thor actually gets closure with Odin [if he does, how does he reconcile the father he's idolized with the imperialistic conqueror he's discovered? Why doesn't he hold Odin responsible for covering up Hela's existence and the threat of her return, especially as he knew he was nearing the end of his life? Is Thor's "I'm not as strong as you" meant to imply that he acknowledges those shortcomings of Odin's and that he's okay with them, or that he's just overlooking them, or is he not okay with them but didn't have the chance to get into it bc he was in the middle of battle? T'Challa confronted his father on his wrongdoings in Black Panther; could Thor not have had at least one line that was confrontational enough to establish where he stands as opposed to this gray middle? Can someone explain to me how any of this equates to Thor gaining closure? Please?) but obviously I'm not going to go into all of them (well, I tried not to), bc this mammoth post has gone on long enough (I may not even post this tbh)]

- but my overall point to this entire thing is that when I say I'm critical of Ragnarok bc it's flawed, that Loki's arc was neither complete nor satisfactory, that many things went unaddressed and, due to all of these things, I do not think Ragnarok is a very good movie nor a very cohesive movie, this is where I'm coming from. I have not seen anything to change my mind to the contrary.

But I am not saying that anyone satisfied with it is wrong, or shouldn't have the interpretation that they do. I'm not vilifying Thor in order to lift Loki up, just acknowledging that Thor is arguably just as flawed as Loki without the stigma of being Designated Villain. I think a lot of these arguments get overlooked or dismissed, and that's fine, but it doesn't make the people who do engage with them hateful, or bitter, or trying to excuse Loki's crimes, or feeling like redemption means that Loki's crimes should be erased rather than reconciled.

And sure, yes, perhaps we are expecting too much and exploring all of these themes (or wanting them explored) means that somehow we think it should be Loki's movie (we don't). Loki is a supporting character, but he's still a character. And the movie itself doesn't have to delve into all these things - no one's saying that. (At least, I'm not.) We just want acknowledgement, from the narrative, that this stuff was an Issue.

This could have been accomplished with -

Some dialogue closer to the novelization (and original script), like Thor and Loki both acknowledging the harm they've done one another and their kingdom due to their Feels.

A single line of Thor confronting Odin, or even asking "Why?"

A narrative acknowledgement that Odin did both Thor and Loki dirty (”I love you, my sons” isn't an apology, because it doesn't acknowledge either that there's been wrong-doing or express regret for having done the wrong in the first place).

A little bit more nuance in the way Loki treats his own past (ie, instead of flippantly telling the story of his suicide attempt, maybe - if it must be flippant - talk about getting blasted in the face with Hawkeye's arrow or sailing through to Svartalfheim [And in that moment, I sang ta-daaaa!]) or whatever.

I recognize that wanting full, in-depth exploration on all of these issues regarding a supporting character is probably too much to ask or expect - but, I also feel like, if you're going to be professionally writing a narrative (or rewriting/improvising, as it were), it's not too much to ask that a little more care be taken in regards to all of the layers that have contributed to said supporting character's downfall and subsequent redemption arc. I don't think that's an unreasonable thing to want.

And maybe if there had been more nuance and continuity in how these things were portrayed on screen (ie, if TW had actually done as good a job as his stans think he did), the fandom wouldn't have divided and conquered itself over which "version" of the same character is more valid and whether or not the film did its best to close out a trilogy (not start a new one), to the point where everyone in this fandom space makes navigating it feel like walking through a minefield.

But, I mean

(Again, please don’t reblog if possible.)

Edit: Okay to reblog. <3

96 notes · View notes

leoincolor · 4 years

Text

hello all! leo here! tonight's topic is detroit evolution's touch averse gavin reed! a topic near and dear to my own touch averse heart. so here are my thoughts and headcanons on the topic! under the cut bc it's about to be long as fuck.

first things first! there's so many little things (that michelle talked about in her asexual nines thread on twt) that you can just pick up on about gavin immediately. the fact that gavin doesn't even attempt to shake ada's hand! if you're not really attuned to that kind of stuff you can chalk it up to gavin kind of being a dick, but the hand in the pockets and the gloss over it indicates otherwise! another thing! no one initates touch without gavin's consent! what good friends! chris doesn't clap him on the shoulder or anything like that and nines doesn't even hand him his coffee directly, instead placing it on the desk for him to grab. there's no unsolicited hugs or anything of the sort.

with the exception of nines waking gavin up from from his nightmare. however, as soon as nines recognizes that he's awake he takes a step back. we love a boundary respecting king. gavin is also clearly uncomfortable with touch in this intimate moment (turning down nines offer for skin to skin contact) and there's no protest from nines. he instead sits peacefully and waits for gavin to initiate. gavin reaches out his hand and nines takes it, but no more. gavin is the one that leans in, resting his head on his shoulder.

and the reunion scene! art! even in this emotionally charged moment nines still respects gavin's little (pretty subtle) stop hand! there's no running hug and random kiss! he waits until gavin grabs his hand and takes that as a sign that he can touch. he even lets gavin initiate the kiss.

and after! nines isn't all touchy feely with gavin. the dynamic has clearly changed, but there's no hand on shoulder/thigh or holding hands. he recognizes that even though their relationship is different, gavin's boundaries remain the same.

and the roof scene! nines makes the first move here, but gavin's body language is easy to read in this scene. he melts right into his touch, placing his hand on top of his in a silent sort of okay. the scene is intimate, and gavin's touch aversion doesn't get in the way of that.

gavin is clearly comfortable with minor touch with people that he's comfortable with, letting nines close to him on the sofa in his apartment but refusing to shake ada's hand.

now we approach my headcanons! i personally do think that it stemmed from gavin's childhood. as a (problem, most likely) foster child i imagine he went from house to house. this is where i imagine his aversion to both intimacy and touch began. not wanting getting too attached, he refuses to get close to people. those scars didn't come from no where, so i also assume he had his fair share of childhood abuse that also came into play.

and then we move into his involvment in gangs. he's already had an (assumably) pretty shitty childhood if he would run away and join a gang. this would only add to his touch/intimacy aversion, never really feeling safe. not being able to be vulnerable. they also like beat him up and left him for dead so that probably didn't help either.

it all changes when he joins the dpd. he's never been able to shake it, not like he can shake off the drinking and drugs. it's something so deeply ingrained in him, part of who he is. i imagine that the first time someone tried to hug him without his knowledge, they ended up with some pretty nasty injuries.

however, in de he mentions having previous partners who have left him, assumably over his trauma. i can imagine that didn't help either, and explains why he's still quite guarded around and not entirely comfortable with touching his friends. his whole life he's only been temporary to other people, and he's just waiting for someone to leave again. he'd rather refuse to be close to someone than go through that again.

the aversion may also be a sign of a greater mental illness (coughbpdcough) which would make sense due to his trauma (and me projecting) but that's a study for another time.

if you made it this far, thanks for reading! i just want to thank michelle (again) for her wonderful movie and the inclusivity she brings to so many underrepresented groups. it feels human and so real. truly one of my favorite movies and there's a great person behind it.

#de #detroit evolution #reed900 #tw abuse #dbh #gavin reed #rk900 #touch averse #touch aversion

71 notes · View notes

princeanxious · 4 years

Note

Hey! What Aus are u right now working on? And which are finished / but be continued on the near future? As an example: Accidentally Alpha AU, Moon and sun AU (sry I forgot the name) coma Au, little hooves AU. Sorry if I am annoying!

Uhhhhhhhh okay so like technically none of my aus are finished, theres a few fics that I have tho that are one-offs tho that I guess count as finished if you wanna ask for those in a different ask? But uh. I have a good handful of aus that I work on periodically, so heres a general list??? Sorta Starting from aus that generally hold more importance to me in finishing, down to aus i’m not strictly driven to finish but do touch on occassionally, especially if asked about:

-The Lost Guardian au (all content of which can be found on @thelostguardianau blog, it’s a fic i’ve been writing for 2 years now, and personally it holds the highest importance and intention of being finished. I’ve been working on it for so long, i’m not giving up now!)

-My Coma Au where Virgil experiences out of body angst while his body is stuck in a coma, a v angsty set of comic strips found on @tss-coma-au )

-Gods of the Sky au (another au i’ve been working on for at least a year, though I have tons of plans for this au, inspiration is hit or miss to actually follow through w/ those plans, but gid knows I want to finish it and write out the story as intended. You can find all content for this au on @godsoftheskyau

-my Pastel x Punk Loceit au, were Janus is pastel and Logan is punk, its a very art driven au though I do want to write a fic or two for it! Found under the ‘#pastelxpunk au’ tag on my blog

-my newer The Royal Librarian analogical au fic where Virgil is a new Librarian for the kingdom’s royal castle, and Logan is the crowned prince. Virgil is content w/ working himself half to death to get approval and everyone else is worried and waiting for the moment Virgil drops just so they can force him to rest. Logan gets attached, Virgil is very confused, gay panic ensues. Found under ‘#the royal librarian au’

-an au absolutely no one remembers bc i’ve purposefully been very quiet about it bc I’m rewriting the whole plotline, but it’s pretty much a soulmate au where one can find their soulmate by the sound of one’s voice. It’s a LAMP au, virgil centric. Very angsty. Virgil is mute on purpose from a suffered trauma, and the others are his soulmates too but have no idea bc virgil’s dealing w/ alot and choses not to reveal himself or talk. I may very well change it to be DLAMP and Janus-centric because the original idea was um. Very, very fcking dark. Might still go w/ the original idea though, i don’t know yet. Don’t go looking for the original posted idea on here, simply bc thats far different from what i have planned to happen at this point. Calling it ‘A Voice Unheard.’

-my ‘A Wounded Snake Lies Still’ fic series, Janus-centric, based on the idea that Virgil and Janus had been together and inlove before Virgil became a light side, crossing ‘The Line’ and losing all of his memories. Thomas has finally started accepting Janus and Remus, and The Line is nolonger a threat to cross for periods of time, but that doesn’t mean everythings fine and dandy. Only Remus remembers what Janus and Virgil had aside from Janus himself, and they’d agreed to keep it a secret. Janus deals with the concequences of lying to himself about his trauma and supression while watching Virgil be happily inlove with Logan, Remus makes a slip up, and suddenly Janus’s lies aren’t quite working like they used to. Fall out ensues. Endgoal analoceit.

-Cracked Ribs and Old Promises- an analogince superhero/vigilante fic i’m in the middle of writing and will eventually finish.

- my Accidentally Alpha au, a Logicality and Prixiety led au that came from random inspiration of Patton ‘dad talked’ his way into accidentally becoming the alpha of a werewolf pack, virgil is his close friend and sort of adoptive dad, Logan was the original alpha before submitting to Patton’s dissapointed lecture, Roman was Logan’s second in command sort of? Things work out. Found under the ‘#accidentally alpha au’ tag!

-my Shapeshifter Twins au which is moxiety and logince lead, started from a comic inspired by an idea that spiraled into a full au soon after! found under the ‘#shapeshifter twins au’ tag!

-my little hooves au that stemmed from a fic and has some art, i plan to write more but i’m in no rush?? Found under the ‘#little hooves au’ tag!

- @smolintentsandpurposes-au is sort of on pause atm, because I’m planning to start over with a fic from the top, bc the originsl comic strip story telling style was unsustainable for my creative process.

-my small Famous Au moceit fic and art where Patton is a versatile actor and Janus is a popular talented makeup effects artist on youtube?? Found under the ‘#famous au’ tag

-my Merray and Biomer merman au, primarily art based w/ little story atm. Made before remus was revealed, so i plan to add remus as an octomer alongside octomer! Janus bc I can. The tags are a little scarred for these posts tho, so i’m sorry.

-theres probably more tiny aus that i’m forgetting about/leaving out like my Chaptic Height Differences au and my Fantasy Dragon au, my prinxiety Lady and the Tramp au, my dark world au, ect. but thats what i can find rn

- honestly just keep scrolling through any tag thats ‘#luka writes’ ‘#luka draws’ ‘#luka’s au’ or ‘#luka’s fics’ or just send me another ask and i’ll see if I can finally get myself to compile a fic exclusive masterlist bc theres more unmentioned that are finished oneoffs but, uh. Yeah. Thats the gist of all my big to semi-big aus that are still even remotely relevant to me??

-...yes. I’m aware I have a slight problem.

#luka’s aus #luka writes #au masterlist #sanders sides #long post

39 notes · View notes

linkspooky · 7 years

Note

with all the backlash mutsuki got after rue island bc of his trauma and obsession i wonder if there will be a similar reaction to hairu once she gets back. Being revived must be one hell of a trauma and learning arima's fate should be enough to make her go in a rampage against kaneki (though hairu once a more popular character so maybe she will be seen in the same way seidou was)

I’m almost positive that the fan reception to Hairu will be totally different than Mutsuki.

I could use Furuta as an example but Furuta seems more of a fifty fifty character with people so let’s go with Ui instead.

Ui demonstrates the same kind of “I can’t stop, this is the only thing that will make me happy” obsessive behavior, and possessiveness over an individual who did not feel the same way about them.

I cannot stress this enough, as sympathetic as Ui’s willingness to plunge himself into total darkness for the small chance of seeing the person he loves again might be:

Hairu did not love him back.

This is important because Ui is obviously reviving Hairu with the expectation that Hairu in some way might satiate his loneliness. He’s using her, pretty much the same way that Mutsuki intends to use Sasaki.

Both of them are just using the other as someone to fight for, someone to give them a sense of purpose and security, and also the imagined idea that they were loved. They both want to impossibly return themselves to their own rose filtered idea of the past .

Ui wants to go back to the old CCG where they were heroes of justice and did not suffer such horrible losses in oeprations, Mutsuki wants to go back to the old Quinx squad when they were a closely knit family not dealing with any loss.

Mutsuki lost two people though, Shirazu and Sasaki, while Ui lost for, Hairu, Take, Arima, and Sasaki. However, the two of them only choose to obsess over one single lost person and deluding themselves into having much greater feelings for the other than they originally did, because this makes the loss easier for them to deal with in a way.

“Everything would be okay if Sasaki came back.” “Everything would be okay if Hairu came back.”

Accepting that kind of simplified reality is a lie they tell themselves to make dealing with the current harsh reality easier, by almost avoiding it entirely.

Honestly, to me Ui’s actions read as even more possessive. Mutsuki seems to just want to murder Sasaki, then maybe talk to the corpse?? 114 was weird let’s not get into that.

Ui is not only disturbing Hairu’s peaceful death, but he’s giving the okay for a man like Kanou to experiment on her (look what he did to Seidou), and he’s injecting her with a ghoul’s kagune making her into a half ghoul Oggai. Which means Hairu will effectively become internally in her own body something she has been trained to hate her entire life as a garden child. Considering the instability of the Oggai surgery, Hairu might be forced to eat human meat too.

It’s on a level worse than just stabbing her a whole bunch of times. It’s bringing her back from the dead without permission, and then changing her biological makeup into something of that she hates.

In fact it reminds me a lot of what Frankenstein’s monster wanted in Frankenstein, and begged Viktor to creat for him. Another female monster in order to soothe his own loneliness. That the monster after monologueing for so long about how wretched his existence is, could be so self absorbed as to not realize how horrible it would be to bring another monster into existence to deal with the same horrible existential questions he has to deal with… for the sole purpose of being created to love him with the implication that the being does not have a choice in the matter because the reason she was made was just to love him.

Anyway, all of that negativity and his sudden turn away from the hero of justice he once was is read as a natural fall for Ui’s character. However, for Mutsuki it’s always read as a sudden swerve and “Ishida not knowing what he’s doing anymore” with his writing.

Which is just weird to me. Yes, there is a lot of uncomfortable implications of Mutsuki’s character, and it’s not at all progressive. If you hate Mutsuki’s character writing on those grounds you have every right to.

It’s just I personally never read it as coming out of nowhere? It makes sense as a logical progression?

I think part of the bias stems from (1) a fandom bias that has an inability to see Kaneki’s own actions in the wrong light and (2) a misunderstanding of Mutsuki’s original arc.

People argue that Mutsuki’s violence comes from nowhere, but to me from the start Mutsuki was always the Q who cared the least about ghouls. I always saw Mutsuki’s growing confidence also growing in his ability to kill ghouls as a negative development.

Entirely because of the second half of that sentence, Mutsuki was not really dealing with their internal issues, he was just simply learning how to fight better. Any confidence he gained at the behest of killing ghouls, was never going to be true confidence. I read that from the start of the manga, Mutsuki felt almost nothing about killing ghouls. He was compared to Suzuya of all people, and of the four he was the most fearful and nervous around the monstrous quality of ghouls.

It goes along with the kind of illusion that the audience is told at the beginning of :Re. That things are much simpler, the only ghouls we really see in action are the Aogiri ghouls, or obscenely wealthy ones like the Tsukiyamas who attend auctions. We see none of the innocent ghouls who get dragged along like in the Rabbit case. Peaceful organizations like :Re are completely out of focus. The CCG are heroes of justice protecting their comrades and fighting ghouls, and ghouls are almost always terrible weird murderers, (Torso, Nutcracker, etc.). The cracks in this narrative did not really start showing up until the end of the Rose arc, when the CCG continued to pursue the Tsukiyamas because their message of total extermination meant they could not even let one single ghoul escape even when the rest of the family surrendered to them.

If you add in the details of Mutsuki’s backstory, his turn to violence makes sense. Imagine you are in a horribly abusive household, every day is a walking nightmare and finally you have to act and kill your own parents to save yourself. However, you feel so guilty about this action of self defense you took, because violence on its own disgusts you.

Instead of having this violent side of you treated through proper child psychology though, it’s the only thing that is encouraged by the people who take you in. You’re encouraged to be violent and to point that violence towards ghouls.

Then finally, after years of your own parents abusing you, and other caretakers being cold or not caring at all, you get a nice loving dad. He is the best dad in the world, he cooks for you, he buys you poetry books, he is always patient, always encouraging. When you were at your most weak, he appeared from nowhere to save you, then gave you his jacket so you would be warm.

Then one day your brother dies, you turn to your father to give you comfort but while you’re still dealing with that sadness your father just completely cuts you off without a word. The best dad in the world, and suddenly he’s as cold to you as everybody else in the CCG was. You are kidnapped and tortured, and he seems to barely care about you. You spend all of your time waiting for him to come save you like he once did and he never shows up.

Then when you finally get home, after having to be violent again (the thing you most hate about yourself), you come home to the news that your father who you were still secretly hoping would return all this time, joined sides with the guys who kidnapped you.

From Mutsuki’s perspective alone, it makes sense to have a great deal of anger and resentment towards Kaneki.

I understand people not liking Mutsuki because he is a bad victim of these circumstances, but I at least can see the extremes where he came from and what fueled that reaction?

Once again it also comes from people not really able to see fault in Kaneki. I’m not sure how Kaneki waking up from Yamori’s torture, and the first thing he does immediately is break all of Touka’s brother’s bones right in front of her as a sign of his affection for her. And that somehow reads better than what Mutsuki is attempting right now. The parallels between Kaneki’s violent phase of lashing out and Mutsuki’s violent phase of lashing out are strong. Yes, Mutsuki is implied to be killing a whole lot right now but is that somehow any different than Kaneki’s first action after his introduction being to murder an entire room of 100 people he had just deemed bad without any due process?

There’s also the fact that Kaneki’s refusal to explain himself after effectively abandoning Mutsuki, when he was the one to take the onus to put Mutsuki’s well being and emotional responsibility on himself is extremely neglectful behavior. It’s not like Mutsuki’s attachment to Kaneki came out of nowhere, this was something Kaneki wanted and fostered, until suddenly he did not with no explanation. Which is why I like to frame Sasaki as Mutsuki’s father in this situation, imagine somebody adopting a child and then a year later after dedicating themselves to nurturing and growing the bond of trust between the two of them leaving them on the side of the road with no warning or explanation.

Anyway, to me Mutsuki’s character progression makes sense. I can understand totally if other people find it distasteful or even offensive, especially since Mutsuki is not a cis female like Hairu, a cis male like Kaneki, or a cis male like Ui. Writing does not exist in a bubble and there are already different sets of expectations the readers will have going into those characters.

This is the most I’m ever going to comment on Mutsuki’s character, which is to say I try to make it a personal rule in this blog to only work with the text and sources closely linked to the text.

Anyway, so as I said, both Ui, Mutsuki and even Furuta have reacted to the lack of love in their lives with obsessive feelings. As @kingkishou said in their own recent ask response about Hairu [x].

Hairu’s crush on Arima may be a cute character trait now, but one sided obsessive feelings have never been framed well in Tokyo Ghoul. Especially incestuous ones, as Arima is either her cousin or her half brother.

These feelings always turn into feelings of destruction. It happened with Kanae, it happened with Furuta, it happened with Ui, it happened with Mutsuki. I doubt Hairu will be the first one to break the pattern.

Especially since Ui seems intent on only reviving Hairu, rather than both Hairu and Arima. I can hardly see Hairu agreeing with that once she is revived and conscious.

There’s also a heavily unexplored aspect of Hairu’s character, which is to say her repressed violent side. We only see parts of it during the Tsukiyama Raid, but a revival will probably be the perfect time to explore it.

There’s also Nico’s prophecy to consider, when talking about the nature of obsessive people.

People either live beautifully, or live for beautiful people. For those who can do neither, they go insane and die.

There has to be a consequence for Ui violating the laws of nature like this to bring about Hairu’s return, and I can see if Hairu comes back sentient, this side of her desperate for Arima’s praise and willing to kill anything in her path to gain it being that consequence.

Obsessive love, even in those starved for affection like Furuta and Hairu, and the other garden children has never been portrayed as a good thing in Tokyo Ghoul. The setup in Hairu’s character for it is already there.

Especially with all of Ui and Urie’s parallels as of late. Just as Urie needs to grow up in order to confront Mutsuki and actually be able to conflict with him as a person instead of loving him from afar I can imagine a similiar arc for Ui eventually.

#metasks #Anonymous

31 notes · View notes