#or do you just see her as an inherently less valid choice to be in the movies because shes a voice actor and not a live action actor | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

self-loving-vampire · 1 year

Note

In fairness I'm not Canadian, so I don't actually know what the healthcare landscape there looks like, but here's my take; I'd like to hear your thoughts.

I've been pro medically-assisted suicide since I first heard about the concept back in high school. One of my classmates advocated for it for because her father said he'd rather die of his own will than live a life of suffering, and it got me wondering why suicide was ever criminalized in the first place.

The answer I was given was that it allows first responders to intervene; The answer I've come to believe is that conservative Christian "values" seemingly have more sway over government regulation than is even remotely reasonable, and the rest is largely paper-thin justification.

That said, if a health care provider ever suggested anything resembling assisted suicide to me, even in the form of something like voluntary cessation of eating and drinking, I'd promptly lose it with them.

I can't imagine a scenario where I *personally* would choose to die, but I can easily imagine a scenario where someone could be pressured, even subtly, into picking that option because of the way it was offered to them.

I like the idea that the information be made publicly available, or even upon request, but I can't square how assisted suicide won't be abused in a society that dictates whether suicide is considered morally acceptable in the first place.

This is an especially tough one for me because while imposing control is the conservative Christian/right wing extremist m.o., so is sacrificing people's lives, especially disabled or disenfranchised people's lives, for the slightest amount of profit.

The 'opioid crisis' has me scared out of my mind, because it was effectively wholesale created by pharmaceutical companies convincing doctors to push addictive drugs on their patients, specifically targeting people in pain. This feels way too similar to me. People in positions of authority over other people's lives are already capable of too much harm, and I don't see "they're already doing it anyway" as a valid enough rationale when the inherent nature of medically-assisted suicide makes it difficult to discern whether a program like MAID helped someone by allowing them the choice to die, or just convinced them it was the best option.

Can we really trust conservative Christian "morals" (i.e. imposing control or restricting autonomy) will protect people from right wing greed that doesn't value people's lives in the first place? Because I don't, and that seems to be the strongest counterargument.

Ultimately I think it should come down to autonomy; I'm just not sure how to impose regulations on MAID without restricting access to it.

As an aside, I really value your perspective on stuff like this because you seem to have a similar stance on minimizing harm; similarly low empathy, but passionate devotion for those you care about; and (unfortunately) similar experiences with family and lack of autonomy to traumatic effect.

It's quite possible I'm overthinking this and it's just a matter of accessibility causing less harm than restriction; I just haven't made up my mind that the potential for good outweighs the potential for harm as it stands now.

Oh! I should also mention I share you stance on transhumanism as it pertains to immortality and the pursuit thereof not being inherently morally wrong for some reason, but it slipped my mind since the topic of discussion was right-to-die.

I concur with your previously expressed sentiments of improvements to life-extension technology meaning people can die on their own terms, for what it's worth.

One thing to note is what "healthcare providers bringing up MAID" might look like. There's a huge difference between them just listing it as one of many options they want you to be informed about and them just flatly telling you you're better off dead. Those are different scenarios that should cause different reactions, and I think the former is very reasonable just as a way of making sure people are aware of the option.

Not everyone just researches these things on their own after all, and given how much medical misinformation there is an additional reason for doctors themselves to educate people about the things they might choose to do. There are people who get all of their information about medicine from people like Alex Jones after all.

In particular it should be noted that a lot of what people in places like the US hear about Canadian healthcare is pretty much straight-up lies by the exact kinds of greedy republicans you are concerned about.

They have been saying that the government kills people or leaves them to die to save money since at least 2009. This is to distract from the fact that their own policies cut people off from healthcare all the time by simply pricing many people out of it and financially ruining those who dare to seek it.

They also complain about wait times while ignoring the fact that they wait for medicine too, except they also have to pay for it on top of everything.

I have had two major medical emergencies since I came here. Both times I was seen promptly and at no cost at the hospital. If I had lived in the US, I might have taken my chances with just toughing it out and hoping it's nothing actually serious because I can't afford the kinds of prices people have to pay for basic healthcare over there.

I even had bottom surgery paid for by the government. It's pretty great even if there's still some issues with the system (for instance, my complicated health situation means I have spent a long time on a waiting list to get a new family doctor, but I can still just go to a walk-in clinic and be seen for free if I need to).

Conservatives have to lie constantly about what healthcare over here is actually like because if people were better informed they would absolutely despise what they're doing.

Even in countries that already have this kind of healthcare system conservatives try to undermine it more indirectly by first gutting it and then offer privatization as a fix for a problem they created.

So when they tell you that in Canada you're going to just be sacrificed for profit, take a step back and think about what their proposed alternative is. What they don't say out loud is that their policies would lead to you not being able to afford healthcare in the first place and just dying from poverty and untreated conditions instead.

They don't need MAID to kill people through greed. MAID is bad optics for the world they created, if anything.

Kind of tangential and anecdotal: For what it's worth, when I was offered opioids following my surgery they did so with an attached fact sheet explaining all of the risks, potential side effects, and addiction potential. I decided not to take them after reviewing it. No one even asked me about it again.

I really don't think that counts as "pushing", and if anything a lot of disabled people with chronic pain conditions often complain about being labeled as "drug-seeking" and denied treatment when they try to ask for these things themselves.

I think people should just be informed of every potentially-useful choice and then allowed to take whichever they believe will work best for them, as I did.

Fears that people might make decisions that they regret or be pressured into choices they don't want are not very persuasive to me. That's the same argument people use for things like banning trans healthcare (complete with conspiracies about how it's a greedy big pharma plot) or BDSM (complete with arguments about how abuse victims in particular should not be considered capable of consenting to it).

You could even make the argument that some people are already being pressured in the opposite direction as well. For example, extremely ill cancer patients who are praised for "being brave" and "not giving up" when they undergo extremely painful treatments in an unlikely effort to cure their condition instead of opting for palliative care might feel like they owe it to their loved ones to endure instead of just going out comfortably.

You just can't reasonably stop people from making decisions that they might potentially regret or feel pressured into. Not without going the other way and limiting autonomy in an even more absolute way and likely making things much worse.

#long post

7 notes · View notes

loetise · 1 year

Text

psychology & mental health deep dive. ˎˊ˗ general mental health related trigger warnings apply. feel free to include more or exclude those facts / test results that take too much time or don’t apply, you can check out this list for more personality-related quizzes to include!

as a general note: a lot of allie’s preexisting conditions and symptoms are amplified and influenced by her magic, making them harder to deal with and her symptoms more intense than they might be for the average person who is affected by those disorders.

quick facts.

diagnoses: nothing formally diagnosed, but i am all knowing so this is what she has and what i have written her with the ideas of :) autism spectrum diagnosis, generalized anxiety disorder, and probably something to do with substance abuse, because she uses a variety of them to distract herself very frequently, but it’s not at a point where it’s conflicting with her relationships, or she has a very clear ‘addiction’ to it.

triggers: being alone for long amounts of time, winter and fall seasons, maybe anytime it is cold outside, a sensory overload can sometimes play into it as well- if she’s already anxious about something before hand, or she’s just having a bad day, it will easily overwhelm her -, feeling trapped in an ‘i can’t escape this’ figurative sense, not so much literal, but if you trap her in a closed space, i can see that triggering her as well, but the figurative is what happens most often, with her feeling like she has no choice in something or a bad situation she can’t get out of, anger, when she can tell that someone else is feeling it, makes her incredibly anxious and often leads her to panic and obsession with ‘fixing’ whatever has made them angry, sadness inspires a similar response from her, though it causes less panic and she can normally think clearer about helping and listening.

positive coping skills: all of allie’s coping skills are in the moment fixes to distract herself from the problem, which isn’t inherently a bad thing, what makes it a ‘bad thing’ is that she doesn’t ever try to truly deal with the problem. she’s good at seeking comfort, though not necessarily for talking about or trying to work through whatever she’s working through, but being with her loved ones it does help her cope, though sometimes it can turn into relying on that and that person, especially regarding physical and sexual intimacy. allie often uses her garden to cope, spending a long amount of time outside and with her plants helps her to clear her mind.

negative coping skills: avoidance, she doesn’t like to deal with things in a clear way, and she often needs help to deal with things, support and validation that whatever happened wasn’t her fault, because of her tendency to guilt and blame herself first. she worries that bringing anything up that she’s struggling with will ruin the mood and the way that the other person sees her, or what she’s supposed to act like. also substance use. this could be considered both a positive and a negative skill, but she’s good at leaving. not necessarily leaving the situation permanently, but giving herself a break away from whatever is causing her stress, often in a very extreme and sudden way, leaving her entire life behind, including her loved ones and home.

attachment style: secure. she trusts others so, so much but like. she is absolutely terrified of being abandoned (again). and when she worries about it it’s always her fault, her doing something to cause it and push them away, but it’s still a very clear and distinct worry.

love language… -to give: words of affirmation, physical touch, and quality time i think. in that order. also!!! she gives a lot of plants to her loved ones but it’s not just gift giving, it’s plants specifically. -to receive: words of affirmation. like she will take anything and any kind of love but she understands words of affirmation the best. if you want her to know, tell her. -love language that probably falls into one or more of the official ones but is specific to her: when people are patient with her, explain things to her in a way that doesn’t make her feel dumb or like she’s being talked down to (because sometimes- a lot of times -she notices, she just tries really, really hard not to) which has a lot to due with her own insecurities and that she’s not used to patience, as well as just not thinking she deserves it. i don’t know if this counts as a love language actually but like. explaining things. patience. she likes it and it makes her feel loved.

myers briggs / mbti: esfp.

enneagram: she had really close scores for types 2, 7 and 9.

history exploration.

are their diagnoses formal ( via a doctor, therapist, etc. ) or informal ( self diagnosis, a hunch, unrealized, etc. )? informal and unrealized, beyond a point of like ‘there’s something ‘wrong’(read: different) with me and i don’t want there to be’.

have they ever been treated / medicated? no, not formally, but she has self-medicated with different drugs and substances, though not usually prescription type drugs or even pills because she tries to stay away from them unless offered. she will not seek them out.

have they ever been hospitalized or treated on an inpatient basis? no, she’s really never been to any hospital at all, for any reason, and she’s terrified of them.

how old were they when they first started experiencing / realizing symptoms? autism specifically usually presents very young, though allie never had any peers to compare herself to, and her mother wasn’t educated in it, so she never quite realized she had symptoms. when she struggled with things, she was never aware that it was more of a struggle than a neurotypical child. her mother took notice of it, of course, and frequently reminded allie when she was bothering her or causing her effort or a disservice. once allie became old enough to go to school- according to her mother, who had little knowledge of human culture, which meant no preschool and little preparation (school supplies or any sort of idea of what would happen) -that’s when she became hyper aware of how different her peers were and acted. it didn’t help that allie’s peers were mostly kids who came from old-money/rich families, seeing as that was the kind of town she grew up in, because it isolated her even more.

do they have a family history of mental illness? yes, probably, i don’t have any specific ideas but for sure i know that allie’s mother projected a lot of her own insecurities and regrets onto allie, which likely meant that she herself was neurodivergent and some part of her wants to protect allie from her struggles, although the right way to do that is not what she did.

how was mental health handled / discussed in the family / community? it really wasn’t discussed. allie’s mother taught her things that were essentially about masking and giving other people what they want from her easier, a lot of it was inappropriate given how old she was at the time of these talks, but allie clung to them and took them to heart given that this was really the only time her mother would actually parent her.

what are their thoughts on mental health / their diagnosis? she has a very ‘it’s okay for everyone except for me’ way of thinking of mental health. she will preach about taking the time for yourself and being kind to yourself and your brain until it comes to her. like i said before, she thinks there’s something wrong with her, which isn’t true, and doesn’t want there to be. but she just ignores it and doesn’t deal with it. it’s not like a ‘something’s wrong and i want to fix it’ she just tries to distract herself, and others, from it.

in what ways has their diagnosis shaped their life or experiences? her diagnosis has always caused her to feel different from others, though she’s never known what exactly was ‘wrong’ with her, only that something separated her from everyone else. she’s always felt more sensitive, like she felt more, like she noticed more, and so she often acted as if she never knew anything. and she did struggle with some things, she always struggled with school, but she was smart with people, and could often tell what they were feeling because she was so perceptive.

symptoms. note that all of the below are, on their own, normative and typical aspects of human functioning. they become “symptoms” when they last longer than “normal” or when they pose a significant impact on someone’s life / functioning. bold all that are present, italicize those that are resolved or in the history.

depression. anxiety. panic attacks. dissociation. derealization. depersonalization. suicidal ideation. self harm. homicidal ideation. psychosis. auditory hallucinations. visual hallucinations. delusions. mania. hypomania. racing thoughts. hyperactivity. attention difficulty. flashbacks. nightmares. hyperarousal. hypoarousal. hypersexuality. hyposexuality. psychopathy. risky behavior. catatonia. somatic / bodily concerns. mutism. phobia. agoraphobia. hoarding. obsessions. compulsions. body dysmorphia. hair picking. skin picking. amnesia. illness anxiety / hypochondria. sensory loss. speech difficulty. comprehension difficulty. communication difficulty. tics. defiant behavior. irritable mood. vindictiveness. aggression. pyromania. kleptomania. paranoia. attention seeking. narcissism. avoidance. dependency. pica. rumination. food restriction. food binging. purging. soiling the bed. insomnia. fatigue. sexual dysfunction. delirium. developmental delays.

explanations / elaborations on any of the above symptoms:

she experiences long periods of depression, especially in the winter, where she won’t leave her bed and declines to take care of herself, not making an effort to communicate with anyone or let anyone know of her wellbeing. she often spends most of the time asleep, or legitimately staring at the wall and dug deep in a hole of her own thoughts, often spiraling further because of them. this is probably one of the hardest aspects of her mental health to represent in rp because these episodes happen when she’s alone, which obviously doesn’t work in a thread with another muse. her loved ones almost always bring her out of an episode, even if they’re just around. she is just so, so lonely that any attention becomes good attention, but when she’s not receiving attention or company, her progress takes several steps back. there are plenty of times when she’s alone and she doesn’t descend into an episode, when she’s the one that reaches out first to others and when she can cope with being alone. but there are many times when she doesn’t cope. i also think her episodes stem from being alone for long periods of time when she was a child, and she had to get to school still or fend for herself, but now that she’s older she doesn’t have ‘places to be’ per se, so she just rots away in the cottage instead.

her anxiety can manifest in seemingly childish fits of panic- or displays of emotion that may seem to lead to one -or feeling so anxious that she can hardly sit still and gets very hyper, which is when racing thoughts and hyperactivity can happen and be especially overwhelming, though they can happen on their own, they’re more common paired with the anxiety, for allie.

dissociation can happen when she’s very overwhelmed, though it’s not uncommon for her to zone out if she’s got a lot on her mind, in general, just not necessarily as extreme as dissociation spells.

she has a hard time dealing with attention difficulties and staying focused, and this doesn’t necessarily have to be triggered by anything, it’s just something that she struggles with on a pretty regular basis.

allie has nightmares pretty regularly when she sleeps alone, and while some of them are side effects of her mother’s magic, at this point, a lot of them are due to her own trauma. one of her frequently repeating nightmares is the one where her wings get cut off, though she never sees who is cutting them off, only can feel the excruciating pain of it. she’ll also dream about drowning or sometimes even pirates or hunters. her mother used to supply her with a magic drug to take care of them, and allie had developed an addiction to it. though after her mother left, her nightmares worsened due to withdrawal from the drug.

i’d say compulsions and risky behavior go together, with the risky behavior being things she feels compelled to do. the risky behavior is very often distractions from dealing with other things, things allie considers sad or bad. and when describing her risky behaviors, allie often says she doesn’t know why she does them, or that they’re silly thoughts she has. and i also think that she truly has no idea where they come from, just that they help to distract her from feeling ‘bad’ things.

allie has thalassophobia, and while it does have a reason behind it, (falling down the well when she was a toddler and what her mother would tell her about the water and its dangers and conflicts with her magic) i think it is ultimately irrational because of how she approaches it and her general refusal to learn how to swim and to be more comfortable around the water. however, i will say that with the more time i have spent writing allie, the more she has shown progress to feeling safer by the water, though a lot of that has to do with her loved ones help.

allie struggles with hoarding, and has kept nearly everything her mother has ever owned, and kept everything in the cottage as it was when her mother was around, especially her mother’s room. she also keeps everything that she can, trying to reuse anything the best she can, especially things that are meant to be thrown away, like plastic or paper.

while a lot of it is caused by magic, and her present struggles with memory loss and amnesia are because of the magic her mother used on her, there are also memories of her mother that allie just can’t remember because she has blocked it out. her amnesia especially affects memories in her older years when her mother was present, because her mother had stopped with the spells by then and had pretty much given up on allie entirely.

comprehension difficulty comes especially with social cues and sarcasm, but she struggles all around with ‘book smarts’ types of things as well. she’s good with plants and plant science, as well as some aspects of biology when it comes to animals, but in other areas of academia and knowledge in general, she struggles with understanding.

avoidance and dependency being right next to each other is definitely a choice but listen, she avoids mostly anything that upsets her or could upset someone else. her problems for certain, and like i said before, her leaving coping mechanism is the avoidance. she avoids the bad things and clings to the good. she often depends on other people, without meaning to, to remind her to take care of herself, which really isn’t healthy.

allie has experienced developmental delays due to her trauma. she is incredibly naive, sometimes to a point that it can seem childish. this directly relates to her trauma, and that she never really had the chance to grow up properly because her mother left her right when she would’ve been maturing and growing up, and she had even started to decline from parenting allie heavily even before that.

allie also has a sort of disordered eating, which usually ties in with the lack of taking care of herself during depressive episodes. she often forgets to eat unless she’s with someone, and eats very little in general. i don’t think she even does it on purpose? maybe a little bit of it is but it’s not an obsession that i think is common with a lot of eating disorders. she thinks that her body is one of her only redeeming qualities, so she thinks she has to maintain it in order to be desirable, but that’s not entirely why she has trouble with eating, and it’s not something that she thinks about a lot of the time. her lack of eating or eating proper meals that fill her up causes frequent stomach aches due to stomach acid having nothing to absorb.

tagged by; @lighthouseborn ♡♡ tagging; you, steal this and say i tagged you!

#it's very long if u wanna open it up and take a peek but like #all of these things are things i have mentioned before it just gets expanded on i think #and this doesn't really change anything about allie it's just establishing some things which is like. really only important to me but KJHSCH #𖥸 ₊ * “ study ” … i will wade out ‘til my thighs are steeped in burning flowers.#𖥸 ₊ * “ headcannons ” … all spring i brushed the confessions out of my hair.

15 notes · View notes

thekatebridgerton · 2 years

Note

Random opinion: other then a couple things I think a lot of things that the Bridgeton tv show changed from screen to book has been good. I think a lot of the aspects of the books generally wouldn’t work in a 2022-onwards setting.

I understand how you would think that way Anon. And your opinion is valid.

But I'd like to offer two differing perspectives on who has the responsibility for the message that a show or book carries to the consumer:

If you put the responsibility on the showrunners. Who rightfully get to pick and chose which scenes go and which don't wouldn't it have been better, more convenient and overall less disruptive for viewers to pick a regency series of books that were more modern and DIDN'T have those problematic elements that are difficult to adapt.

It would have definitely been a better choice to adapt something that was written more recently, the Bridgerton books were written in the early 2000's and Julia Quinn was a lot younger then (I think she was in her early thirties). I was a pre teen at the time.

In my opinion if you need to re-write the major storylines of an entire book to make it fit the narrative you are trying to tell. Then you should reconsider the book you're adapting in its entirety. Else it just comes out as a retelling and not an adaptation. And I mean, retellings aren't inherently wrong, viewers do love to see the same characters in different settings a million times. Beauty and The Beast has a lot of retellings, I love every one of them, Sherlock Holmes also does, Romeo and Juliet is famous for them. But I'd like to point out, Bridgerton showrunners. If you're producing a retelling, please don't call it an adaptation. It's disrespectful to the consumers of the original work who probably expected to see Pride and Prejudice but got Pride and Prejudice and Zombies instead.

The issue still remains that they had to practically rewrite 80% of The Viscount Who Loved me. I know I joke about it, and call Bridgerton regency fantasy romance fanfiction. But even fanfiction is called by it's name. Why not just write an original regency story that fits the parameters of what is and isn't acceptable to show in media during 2022 onwards instead of creating something they find themselves having to either justify themselves or apologize to book readers for.

I know you loved the show, and it IS a very good show, I love it too. But please understand, that I love the show as an original creation that just borrowed the characters names of Julia Quinn's story. As an original work, the writers room did hit it out of the park. I love the inclusiveness, the drama, the music and lack of racial discrimination.

But as an adaptation. I mourn for the loss of old expectations.

My second perspective is from the point of view of the consumer:

Why wouldn't certain aspects of the book work in a 2022 onwards setting dear reader? When the product in question is meant to be a branch of historical fiction. Not set in 2022.

If we put the responsibility of picking and choosing which scenes go and which scenes don't in the hands of the consumer and not the creator. Wouldn't this just mean that the consumer is admitting that they don't understand that things in a different era were in fact different?

Because if that's the case it also means that the consumer is shying away from the tough discussions on why things used to be different. And doesn't like the fact that racism, xenophobia, homophobia, gender discrimination used to in fact exist in the past and affect people.

Dear reader, do you really advocate for erasing history just for our children to not have to answer the critical thinking questions on why, the bad things that have happened in the past shouldn't be allowed to happen in the present or future?

I mean I applaud this line of discussion when it comes to media set in the current century, when by all means, the narrative should be reflecting the fact that by now we do know better than to go around discriminating people nilly willy and treating them like garbage for something they can't control.

But in historical fiction. There is a line. Exactly because in different time periods, people didn't know better. And those who did were a minority who made history.

Does the consumer want to pretend that during the entire course of history people did know better? is that the kind of suspension of disbelief they want the creator to bring to life?

Well certainly, fiction doesn't necessarily have to be realistic, but in this case I'd like to direct you to the genres of fantasy and science fiction, where the rules that govern what happened in the character's version of history are a lot more flexible.

When people say that they don't like that this and that happened, and it's a element of something happening in a work of historical fiction, I want to ask them if they don't like it because it makes them uncomfortable or because it simply isn't their cup of tea?. If it's the first, I invite them to ponder why it makes them uncomfortable, and if it's the second, I like to tell them that there are other couples they can ship and other shows they can watch that may suit their taste better.

Trying to erase history or pretend that we can understand how people thought in that time period with the knowledge and modern privilege we have right now, is something we like to do a lot as a society and frankly I find it problematic.

lets give a practical example: In the early 2000's famous pop star Britney Spears was put under a conservatorship, her fans didn't advocate for her freedom then because they didn't know any better. When social change progressed to a point that her fans did see that how she was being treated was wrong, they campaigned hard for her rights and she is now moderately free.

Dear reader if you were currently writing a historical fiction set in the early 2000's based on the struggles of Britney Spears. Would you shy away from the uncomfortable implications?, or would you simply write your fictional story in such a way that people could understand and empathize with her better?.

this line of discussion does give us something to think about doesn't it?

and that's the tea

#historical romance #julia quinn #bridgerton

13 notes · View notes

uwusillygirl · 1 year

Note

i truly loved reading your thoughts about this. it would be so fun if maybe you could occasionally post recs of your favorite books/movies/shows and maybe briefly share opinions on them? only if that would be fun for you of course! i'm just saying i, and i'm positive many of your readers/followers, would be delighted to see them!

you are absolutely right regarding NP featuring a parade of horrifying clueless men masquerading as doms where all of marianne's masochistic tendencies seem to get repeatedly exploited without the scenes being "resolved" in any meaningful or helpful way. & instead of an ideal result of her feeling somewhat better and at peace, they leave her the same raw bleeding wound of a girl. and your take on connell needing to prove to himself he's good and good TO marianne when in reality many times he has been anything but... really brilliant. i don't think i've ever thought of it that way, as lost as i was in my harrumphing about what i took as rooney's repeated portrayal of slow vanilla sex being equated to true quasi-soulmate-bond love and affection. though i am first to admit i am a very sensitive girl who will immediately take things to heart if i see myself in a piece of fiction, and sometimes miss the bigger literary analysis picture. i'm so glad i sent an ask! also lol @ paul and daisy definitely sacrificing some canon information to say get behind me BDSM baddies of all types we got y'all. (also idk if you've seen/heard but paul mescal is in a film called "aftersun" that i believe is playing in select theaters right now which from my understanding is a very dreamy and melancholy potentially-hysterical-tear-inducing two hours of him being a young girl dad. i have not seen it yet because i think it might actually break my brain in a very dangerous way that i am not equipped for atm, and i am already pre-mourning my sanity and emotional stability for when i finally bite the bullet)

also as someone who has full on sobbed to your beautiful cathartic words many times over, i am grateful to you for exploring freaky mentally unstable girls who maybe should re-evaluate their relationship to sex but also maybe shouldn't because sometimes it's ok to be insane and slutty if you have a partner to support you through it! if drugs can't fix you maybe having 15 orgasms in a row can! even though i think i am different from your chrissy in many ways, i have never felt so validated by a character and never felt so hopeful and fulfilled seeing her clawing her way to happiness. sometimes it feels like you've taken stuff from the darkest stickiest ugliest parts of my brain and put it on paper and i'm like ok well now i've got to have a three week crisis to deal with this now, except it usually ends in some necessary acceptance and potential healing and always at least a temporary period of bright hope for the future (which is so difficult to come by some days). so thank YOU!

i loved reading what you had to say, as well! thank you so much for sharing (u actually got my brain all crazy and now i'm writing a little something that'll hopefully be up tonight lmao)! i would be SO happy to share recs (including ones tailored to specific interests!) if that's something people would like! anyone can lmk! i watch and read a shit ton for my work, actually, so i'm always so happy to share thoughts. it'll give my loved ones a break from my random excitable rants, too.

going a little out of order here, but i have found that the day i let go of trying to understand, rid of, or narrativize my sexuality, gender expression, and sexual interests and just say "whether it came from some event or is inherent or is a choice, it just is what it is, and that's okay" it paradoxically became way less of an issue for me, and way easier to express what i like and want just for the sake of it. in my opinion, there's only so much exploring we can do before it becomes a sort of ouroboros of "i'm trying to work stuff out for me" turning into "i'm trying to be sexually palatable in a new way".

"get behind me bdsm baddies" is so fucking funny. i have actually seen aftersun and was one of the original hysterical criers over it. i can confirm it is a life ruiner, and yet i'm going in for a rewatch on sunday. best movie of the year in my opinion!

i am so flattered that first one's free has moved you! it's more than okay to be insane and slutty! i don't know you, but can pretty confidently say that your darkest stickiest ugliest parts of your brain are not that bad if my chrissy expresses them - she may think she's a mess but i think she (and anyone who resonates with her) is doing just great and is a good person deserving of good things <3 if i didn't believe that then i'd also be so fucked lmao.

hope the near future brings you those good things! glad to hear you're finding spaces to feel hopeful.

please send an ask whenever, i'm so glad you reached out!

#asks #partial first one's free inspiration

2 notes · View notes

onewomancitadel · 2 years

Note

Hey I hope you've been doing ok. What virtues do you think Cinder has or represents? -EmperorLuffy

Hi EmperorLuffy, hope you're having a good one.

Well, this is actually sort of hard, because moral excellence in the context of Cinder is, by necessity, kind of absent. Areas where I have discussed some of the potentially 'good' aspects of her are narratively disguised, and intentionally (I feel):

Ironwood's villainy contrasted against the intentionally Byronic heroine framing, for instance, across the course of V8 in particular is something that a lot of people - I found, as V8 premiered - saw as intentional flipped hero vs. villain framing but rather as the squabbles amongst Salem's playthings. But, as always, my favourite thing throughout V7 was the insistence Ironwood's fall wouldn't happen, and he was the true hero, and actually Cinder just needs to be put down and dealt with, when it seems like the reverse is true.

The Fall of Atlas is something which needed to happen, and it made sense that the scapegoated child was the one to really try and make it happen. It's the needed destruction to make way for new things to come through, and the heroes saved the people, and the inherent physical, symbolic structural oppresssion of Atlas was thwarted. Cinder killing Madame wasn't enough, that's just for her; it all had to go.

As I also mentioned in a few recent posts, because I'm working on another post sort of semi-related to this topic, is that Cinder in a 'bad intentions, but ultimately good results' kind of way - which again, is opposite to Ironwood, who started out with good intentions and had very bad results (specifically embodied in the Maiden meat puppet machines, no less) - frees the Maiden candidates from their burdensome choice, and gives choice back to Fria. Fria wouldn't have been able to reject the machine, but she could reject Cinder.

It's very suspicious framing to me, because it suggests there's possibly more to Cinder than it really seems. But because there's this idea that the Maiden meat puppet machines are actually good - Pyrrha should have been the Fall Maiden, Winter should have used the machine - and a fundamental misunderstanding of the Maiden powers, again, Cinder's true character arc is disguised.

In actual fact, in some type of perverted way, Cinder is already helping out reform the powers, and that she may do that eventually herself with the Fall Maiden power is very structurally meaningful. Partly because I think that will finally recontextualise to people who missed it what the powers are meant to be and what they're meant to be used for, and if you learn through Cinder it's not about video game powerups but about something deeper, more complex, metaphorical and spiritual, then the lesson should finally be obvious.

I guess when you talk about the Byronic hero, you're also talking about the wounded idealist. This is another post I made a draft note to work on, but it's not that Cinder is some nihilist who never believed in anything - she did.

and she doesn't think anything she believed in is possible. So why in the fuck would they frame her this way? Why would they say misguided - like if they knew better, like her, they wouldn't try to save it. But if it were possible, would she? Would she be against someone like Salem? This is the long-suffering, brooding Byronic hero.

This is why I find it hard to buy that her ending is specifically supposed to be nihilistic and validate her worst mentors and enslavers, but that's just me.

I suppose you might care for things like honour - Cinder lets Pyrrha and Jaune go at first, to fight Ozpin, and then and only then does she actually kill Pyrrha at the top of the tower. She slaughters Adam's camp with Emerald and Mercury to racketeer him into supporting Salem. She kills the woman at the bottom of the Vault whence she crawled out because the woman sees her as a monster. She does however knock civilians off the Yellow Brick Road, but we know they might not be dead - so whether the narrative here is condemning her or not I'm not entirely sure. So there's some thought to her, more than a character like Tyrian, and indeed more than Adam.

Analysing that stuff is less interesting to me than looking at the narrative consequences in the story and her framing against other characters, though, Ironwood most of all and most suspiciously. I also find her contrasted against Raven interesting, mostly because they're both antagonistic but they're also both Maidens and Raven is a mother and Cinder is a daughter, so there's very interesting stuff going on there, but that's not really about story virtue. I do however think there's some intentional disguised framing there.

The key to writing a redemption arc that's easier to swallow in a story like this is you've got to have characters to contrast with who are worse, so you've got to have complicating elements to Cinder's villainy. Salem's one way to do it - that's why with the V3 finale and V4 introduction, Cinder's redemption back then was my first inclination. Imagine my joy when I figured out a sympathetic treatment for Salem was in the works too.

So it's not just a measure of what's 'good' about Cinder but what is 'worse' about others, and how is she specifically framed, etc., and what is being done thematically... Cinder hunting down Amber with Emerald and Mercury and using the Grimm bug = very bad, that's why she only gets 'half' the power. Killing Amber properly = somewhat better, she gets the full power, and stops the machine from being used. She'll never get another Maiden power because she's not supposed to.

I suppose I disagree with some of the sentiment surrounding Cinder and her beliefs - I agree with her idea of destiny, I just think her certainty surrounding it is incorrect and takes out the mystique of it, and more importantly she doesn't view her own choices and others' as important as they ought to be. Pyrrha's definition is ill-thought out, and had her ideology been validated I would've been very confused at the badphilosophy, but the purpose there is to contrast their opposite opinions.

So Cinder's on the right track, she just doesn't know it yet. That's why I find the disguised framing, the theming, the portrayal of the Maiden powers, her villainy, the things she does vs. everybody else, etc. so interesting, because it's all lining up for this perfect storm, and is my favourite kind of narrative playfulness.

Not sure if that's the answer you wanted, but that's the one I've got. Thanks for your ask.

#seraphina's asks #user: emperorluffy #cinder fall sadsack tag

1 note · View note

invisiblerambler · 2 years

Text

it will probably always crawl under my skin a little bit that someone that was once the love of my life could never admit to me or herself that the real reason we broke up was in part because of her own internalized homophobia. something about that would feel easier to swallow if she was honest. i would feel much less like a shameful experiment she's hidden from most people. i don't really have any desire to love again. maybe one day if it happens I would welcome it but something about the person who will always feel like the one who got away being ashamed of our relationship makes me embittered to the entire concept. it's hard not to feel like there's a level of cowardice in what happened. there were other valid reasons that broke us up but there was a lack of effort. i've never been able to conceive of giving up on someone you love that way. but internalized homophobia is a big ol bitch and can probably convince you to do a lot of self sabotaging things. i wonder sometimes if she will ever realize what she did. since I still love her dearly in a way that is as platonic as can be I wish her all of the happiness in the world, but it's hard for me to imagine her happy and fulfilled. it could very well be my own ego but i'm nearly positive that everyone will be held up next to me. but it's hard to expect bravery from someone who's hardly had to ever be brave. i seem to attract those people in a very specific way. maybe i'm just too daring but i've never been happy with less. and seeing the way life either by choice or by force thrusts that on other people is hard for me to watch. i'm terrified of less. of the inherent restlessness of choosing not to pursue more. it's lonely and alienating but i've never known anything else. i think it's why i'm so comfortable being alone because ambition isolates you in a way that makes you feel as if no one wants to come alongside you. and to my experience thus far that sure seems to be true. anyway i just wonder if she'll ever be kept up realizing she let it all go because of whatever reasons she helped to justify it with. i'm kept up only by the idea that love will be an ever fleeting presence in my life and i need to make peace with the ways in which I can't possess it

0 notes

simplepotatofarmer · 3 years

Text

technoblade: a takedown - pt. 1

(not clickbait)

aka i go over every argument people make against c!techno one by one and determine whether they’re valid, false, or a mixture of both. i rewatched every single stream/video, including those on his alt channel, so i could approach this with the most information possible. i’ll be breaking this up into parts because there’s just too much otherwise. all about the characters unless stated.

techno believes in a ‘dog eat dog’ world - false

this is an argument i see used a lot when people discuss techno so i wanted to address it first. luckily, the stream in which he says this is only his fifth stream on the server. there’s one major reason why this argument falls apart and one minor reason that isn’t objective like the first.

first and most importantly: techno has never acted on this. even at the beginning - which is when this comment was made - he was helping his allies, from building railings to keep them from falling, making a potato farm, and all the gear he grinded for to equip his allies in pogtopia with. moving forward, he’s also helped out plenty of people: giving tommy a place to stay and items, telling phil to reach out to ranboo after doomsday, as well as giving both tommy and ranboo food when asked. there’s more, of course, but the point is he’s never once followed up on this statement. he teamed up with quackity to stop the egg. he spoke to niki about how he was giving anarchy a bad reputation because of the violence and wanted to take a different approach which he has.

when people use this argument to insist that techno is the villain, it doesn’t hold up because it’s merely taking one statement he made and upholding it as a main part of his character when his actions and later statements have shown that he doesn’t actually believe in this randian view point. objectively, i can’t see how this argument can extend beyond ‘well, he said it’. regardless of what he said during the pogtopia arc, he’s said the opposite later - wanting everyone to live free with no oppression or imperialism - and has never acted on it nor brought it up later. this take honestly seems disingenuous and was in fact the driving factor of this post.

second and not as critical, techno mentions multiple times during each of his first streams that he’s not sure who all is on his side. this is a reoccurring point for him. he makes the comment about wanting a dog eat dog world during the red festival stream, while speaking to bad and sam. the first part of the conversation is techno asking about state secrets since they’re (as far as techno knows) on manberg’s side. bad mentions schlatt killing cats and techno launches into a spiel about massive anarchy and the weak being huddled in fear, asking them how does that sound. bad says as long as there’s no cat murder, perhaps. bad then asks techno what his ‘single issue’ is and techno responds that he wants to destroy the government. to me, the context of the conversation, who he’s speaking to and what his opinion of those people is, is an important thing to consider.

techno’s ‘we’ll burn that bridge when we get to it’ comment means he was always going to betray pogtopia/l’manberg - valid but not how you think it is

i’ve seen people say that techno saying ‘we’ll burn that bridge when we get to it’ is a clear sign that he was always intending to betray pogtopia/l’manberg which, yeah?

but i wouldn’t call it a betrayal.

he says the ‘we’ll burn that bridge when we get to it’ line at the end of the ‘eve of revolution’ stream while he’s talking to quackity, ponk, and sam. the conversation is as follows:

techno, to quackity: i’m glad we could get to know each other. i heard you’re on our side now. i heard you betrayed schlatt.

quackity: yeah, that’s right. are you betraying anyone?

techno: no. i would never betray my personal ideals.

[some chatter from ponk and quackity]

sam: what does that mean? what if the people you’re fighting along [sic] have different ideals than you, though? doesn’t that mean you’d betray them?

techno: listen... we’ll burn that bridge when we get to it.

then techno states that he ‘said what he said’ when sam questions him about his choice of metaphor.

he actually uses the same malaphor at the beginning of the ‘revolution’ stream when they (quackity and tubbo) question him again and in that case techno definitely avoids the subject which isn’t a good thing but considering everyone was so worked up about the possible traitor, i can completely understand.

overall, techno is extremely upfront about his intentions. yes, there is definitely some miscommunication between all the parties because none of them were on the same page but that doesn’t make techno the bad guy here nor does it mean he betrayed anyone. he was upfront about his intentions from the start.

in his first two streams, he makes a joke that if they happen to set up a new government/president that he would just take that one down and it would be a never-ending cycle. over and over, he says that he wants to do destroy the government/manberg. when tommy mentions taking it back, techno says, ‘what do you mean, take it back?’ though this kind of gets lost in the middle of everything else - dsmp (lack of) communication strikes again.

the takeaway that i see here a lot is that techno always intended to betray them because he knew tommy wanted to take back l’manberg and knew that he would go against them if they set up a new government. and this is true to an extent! he did know that tommy wanted l’manberg back and he did know that he would go against them if they set up a new government. but wilbur was also telling techno that he was on board with the whole anarchy thing.

none of them were on the same page and that surely led to a big chunk of what happened and hurt feelings on both sides but that doesn’t mean techno betrayed anyone or that he was the bad guy for doing exactly what he said he would do from day one.

techno destroying (l’)manberg was wrong - it’s complicated

the first thing to address here is that for most anarchists, destroying a government isn’t a bad thing. in fact, taking down the government/state is basically our goal. now, i don’t speak for all anarchists, of course, but overall the general feeling is that violence in the name of overthrowing an oppressive government is not inherently bad. there’s no way to do a one-for-one here because it’s minecraft but the general sentiment remains. so while violence enacted against the state is a bad thing for people who aren’t anarchists, techno has no reason to and would not view it as inherently bad.

but it did hurt people and techno himself acknowledges that fact. he’s acknowledged what he’s done when confronted about it. he hasn’t said he was wrong because understanding that it was hurtful doesn’t mean he believes he was wrong. to him, he wasn’t. destroying what he viewed as an oppressive system was the right thing to do, even if it hurt people.

(also this isn’t any kind of meta but i think it needs to be pointed out that wilbur had already set off the tnt and techno summoned two killable mobs which did plenty of damage but he didn’t say wilbur was the great who came before them for no reason.)

again, this is going to be the most controversial part of this post because i don’t believe destroying government is a bad thing and i don’t believe techno is wrong for believing that as well. there are better ways to address the problem and techno is adjusting his tactics but if another government was to be established, i don’t believe he would be in the wrong to destroy it because he’s an anarchist.

the tl;dr of this section honestly could just be summed up with ‘watch less marvel, read more ursula k. le guin’.

‘techno is the villain because he called tommy the hero’ - so very false

this is a take i’ve seen that to this day i don’t understand.

techno calling tommy the hero does not mean he was setting himself up as the villain in any capacity. it was merely pointing out tommy’s habit of putting himself at the forefront of almost every conflict, trying to shoulder everything, no matter how it hurts tommy himself. the speech was directed at that and nothing else. it doesn’t mean techno is the villain, it doesn’t even mean there is a villain; there are more stories to be told than the classic hero-villain and the hero-villain narrative doesn’t always apply to stories. (i’d certainly argue that it doesn’t apply to the dream smp but that’s a different conversation.)

techno is to blame for tubbo’s death - false

i think this one has been done to death but what would a techno post be without it?

no, techno is not to blame.

he said over and over that he was outnumbered and believed that if he had done anything, everyone would’ve turned on him and ‘torn him to shreds’. even if that wasn’t the case, it is what techno believed. he had no reason to think that he could take the entire crowd out until he actually fired the rocket launcher. and remember, he tested the rocket launcher earlier during the festival on niki (who volunteered) and it didn’t kill her. when he realized the amount of splash damage it did, he gives a surprised laugh and then begins firing into the crowd.

as for saying he was under ‘mild’ amounts of peer pressure, techno has a habit of minimizing. not just the things he’s done, but often situations that he’s been in that were stressful. he stated that he deals poorly with high stress situations and one of the cognitive distortions that can come with anxiety is minimization. techno doesn’t actually believe it was ‘mild’ peer pressure - it was a situation that caused him enough distress that he brings it up later at doomsday - but it’s easier to deal with a situation when you downplay it, it’s easier for techno to keep up that calm façade when he’s acting as if whatever happened wasn’t that big of a deal even if it was. again, the way he speaks about it on doomsday was clearly upset and emotional.

the only person to blame for tubbo’s death is schlatt. he was the one pulling the trigger and techno was the gun.

if you made it this far, thank you for sticking it out! i spent so many hours rewatching all the streams, some of them multiple times, while taking notes to be able to do this. i’m extremely passionate about techno and i feel as if a lot of the arguments against him tend to miss the nuance of his character. this project is on-going and i’ll be going over the butcher army/retirement storylines next. feel free to submit any points you’d like to see addressed!

#technoblade #dream smp #dsmp analysis #dsmp meta #tommyinnit #tubbo #quackity #dsmpblr #dream smp analysis #loyal does meta #this......is a lot #i spent so much time on it y'all

261 notes · View notes

transformers-fan-continuities · 3 years

Text

Spotlight: Ties That Bind

This one’s a doozy folks! If you missed the last spotlight you can go read it here, but strap in for The Ties That Bind, an absolutely brilliant take on humanformers. It’s hosted here at @tiesthatbind-tf created by @artsy-hobbitses!

Q) Give us a run down of your cont! What's it about, what's it called, what's it like?

Ties That Bind is a humanformers-based original continuity which is part Science Fiction and part Alternate History where the invasion of Quintessons and introduction of their technology to Earth in 1920 sets the world and humankind on a completely different trajectory. The active narrative spans a period from 1920 to 2070, covering the First and Second Quintesson Wars, the interplanetary Antillan War (leading to the creation of Unicron on Mars) and the Great War which involves the Autobots, Decepticons and Functionist stalwarts, and how it affects the characters.

The cast is pretty sprawling and the narrative is mostly centred around human drama with bits of humor interspaced and a dash of horror (mostly centred around how the previous government often chose to utilize the technology left behind from the Quintesson Wars to create new systems of oppression, which affected many of the characters, in the name of worldwide rebuilding efforts).

Q) What characters take the lead here? Any personal favorites?

I will admit to this continuity being very much heavy on the relationship between Old Bastards Optimus Prime and Megatron, which is given considerable weight as they were best friends who had known each other since childhood and were deeply intrinsic to each other’s growths as individuals, which makes it all the worse when guilt and betrayal enter the party. Despite being captains in two corners of this battle, there’s a part of them that just cannot let go of their pasts together and they need to reconcile with how this will affect their agenda (Megatron) and how they lead their team (Optimus) who don’t necessarily share their history.

Other characters with significant development include:

Starscream, a Cold Construct in a toxic working relationship with Megatron with whom he is hiding a dark secret, who struggles to balance the underhanded viciousness he believes he needs to gain power and his innate desire from his Senate days to make the world a better place.

Windblade, a Camien native who fights her government’s apathy concerning the situation on Earth which they see as unsalvageable compared to their more Utopian society.

Prowl, a Cold Construct raised from childhood to be a cop in a police state, who finds out that he was brainwashed several times to ensure his obedience and efficacy as a government asset and is now working to reclaim some semblance of the humanity he was never allowed to feel and figure out how much of him is who he really is and how much is programming.

Hound, a sheltered Beastman who joined the fight to ensure that Beastmen the world over would have the same rights he did in his homeland of Shetland Isle, but is forcefully stripped of his humanity and faced with his animal side during the war and has to relearn what personhood means amid his trauma.

Q) Is there a bigger point to this, like a theme or some catharsis? Or is it just fluffy fun?

God with the amount of time I spent sleepless trying to figure out how the logistics of this or the semantics of that were supposed to work in universe, I cannot for the life of me say it’s fluffy fun, but I can’t exactly say it hasn’t been pretty engaging either!

There’s elements of war being messy for everyone involved where there doesn’t seem to be a clear line between friend and foe at times, but I think for most part it prescribes to Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s belief that people are inherently good, but are corrupted by the evils of society. Despite its dark themes (Including but not limited to child abuse, torture, illegal experimenation and brainwashing), love and friendships do prevail, kindness does beget kindness, found families are made, even the smallest actions matter, and things do get better because there are people on both sides who genuinely want to, and strive to make it better.

With Cold Constructs and Beastmen, it also delves heavily into what it means to be human; to have agency and personhood.

There’s also a strong undercurrent of taking responsibility for one’s actions, even if they were made with the best of intentions (Avoidance of this is what eats up Starscream and Megatron from the inside, and what Starscream eventually embraces).

Q) How long have you been working on it?

There’s two answers to this!

I’ve had a Humanformers-related universe going all the way back to 2007 around the time the first Bayformers came out---basically I had a choice between learning to draw cars or draw people (I was an anthro artist back then) and I immediately chose people.

The 2007 draft however had no worldbuilding or connective storylines and was mostly a fun little venture into character design and practice which were actually instrumental to me experimenting and learning how to draw humans properly.

I left the fandom for about a decade and when I came back to it in late 2020 around September via the War for Cybertron series on Netflix, I immediately got hooked on the 2005 IDW comics I missed out on and wanted to get around to updating my old designs as well find a way to translate several of the concepts I wanted to explore in a human sense, so the 2020 update became its own full-fledged original continuity with detailed worldbuilding and history.

You can see the artistic evolution of several characters from their original incarnation below!

Q) It’s incredible to see your artistic improvement too! Give us a behind-the-scenes look! Show us a secret ;))

Say hello to my workspace! I’ve been working exclusively on the Ipad Pro since late 2016, which is fantastic because I can basically whip up concepts and sketches on the go anywhere. Nowhere is too out of bounds to work on TTB!

Also, do enjoy this sneak peek at true!form Rung, whose synthezoid human body took years to perfect.

Q) YESSSSS alright I must admit this is one of my favorite Rungs, and certainly my fave within TTB. Amazing. Phew, anyway. Where did you draw inspiration from? What canons, what other fiction, what parts of real life?

TTB was initially conceived as a faithful retelling of the IDW 2005 narrative before it was transformed into its own continuity and as such, it borrows heavily from concepts and mirrored plot lines introduced in that run! I chose to have the series inspired off it specifically for the amount of history and worldbuilding it introduced to the franchise.

Anime like Gunslinger Girl and Beastars inspired the depictions of Cold Constructs, especially the more harrowing aspects of their upbringing as government assets instead of children, and Beastmen (Beastformers) in TTB.

I haven’t depicted the world itself in my art all too much, but the architecture from Tiger and Bunny, which has sort of a futuristic Art Deco feel to it, is what you’d usually see in major cities. There is an in-universe reason for that---with a Point Of Divergence set in 1920 followed by 25 years (an entire generation) of progress basically being kicked to the curb due to the Quintesson wars, mankind was basically in a time-locked bubble until the end of the wars, and by then their heroes were 1920s-style rebellion leaders, which lead to 1920s fashion (especially among the Manual Working Class---Megatron, Jazz and Optimus all rock 1920s fashion at some point of their lives) and architecture being celebrated and retained as sort of a reminder of how things were before The Invasion. This anime’s background design is also where I adopted the tiered system TTB’s major metropolises are often built on (with each tier being designated to a different working class) from.

The main artistic style itself is a love letter to 90s cartoons, in particular Gargoyles’ deep and drama-driven character narratives and designs as well as The Centurions’ take on body armor logistics.

I also take inspiration, especially armor-wise, from the characters’ given heritage and background. As an example, Hotrod who is depicted as Irish has the flames on his armor done up with Celtic knots. Welsh aristocrat Mirage’s armor bears olden knight-style filigree and has his Autobot logo designed as a coat of arms. Indonesian Soundwave’s armor and Decepticon logo takes cues from Batik and Wayang Kulit while their mask is based off the Barong.

Q) They are absolutely gorgeous! Show off something you're really proud of, a particular favorite part of your cont.

The worldbuilding in general! Most Humanformers I’ve seen tend to treat it like a fun exercise which it is and is definitely valid, but I found myself wanting a full-fledged world to lose myself in and I sought to try and make that world myself by drafting a detailed history and timeline of events which would affect ongoing narratives, having indepth worldbuilding to include almost all societal aspects of the universe and expanding on the concept of Beastmen and Cold Constructs existing in a human setting.

I’m not so secretly proud of the research and diversity included to make the cast look like the multicultural, globally-based team that they were meant to be instead of being locked to a single region! My original draft from 2007 was, to put it simply, quite culturally monolithic and I wanted to improve on that aspect with TTB.

I’m also proud that I’ve kept to it this far! I’m a notoriously flaky person jumping from one idea/fandom to another and to have kept at this continuity for the better part of ten months is honestly a personal feat.

Art-wise, this scene depicting a young Megatron working alongside Terminus and Impactor (cameo by @weapon-up-wallflower‘s OC Missit!) is definitely one of my favorites since it helps build up the world they live in and plays to familial bonds and comfort found in one another despite their less than ideal circumstances.

Q) Everything has come together so beautifully, you absolutely should be proud. What other fan canons do you love and why? Would you like to see them interviewed?

I am dying to hear more from @iscaredspider’s Sparkpulse continuity! Her designs are MIND-BLOWINGLY GORGEOUS and I want to hear more about what inspired her to work on it!

Also YOU. Yes YOU BLURRITO. LET ME HEAR MORE ABOUT SNAP.

Q) [wails and squirms away in the mortifying ordeal of being known but in a very flattered way] I WILL SOMEDAY I PROMISE aflghsdjg thank you QwQ

Well that was fantastic, Oni, thank you muchly! A magnificent continuity with so much to look forward to! Coming up next is another personal fave of mine, the first inspiration for SNAP, so stick around...

#long post #gore #ties that bind #spotlight #transformers #HUMANFORMERS #transformers au #tf original continuity #transformers fan continuity #transformers redesign #maccadam #i said id post this on sunday but i realize thats a holiday for lots of folks on this site :/

347 notes · View notes

talkfantasytome · 3 years

Text

'Twas Never Meant to Be - An Opinion

I have a lot of thoughts about this, and really need to get them out. So, let's talk about Elain and Azriel.

First off, I want to warn you, this post is a beast. Like, over 7.5k words beast. It just kept going. I'm sorry, but I didn't know what to take out and, honestly, I didn't want to spend a lot of time heavily editing it. Tread knowingly. I will not be offended if anyone chooses not to read it, or not to read it all.

Secondly, I want to say that this post is not meant to be a pro-Gwynriel or pro-Elucian post. Regardless of my personal ships, I want to explain why I, personally, do not believe Elain and Azriel would be right for each other. And these reasonings go far beyond "because I'd prefer them with someone else". In fact, these beliefs and feelings are first and foremost in my mind when considering all three of these ships, and any feelings I may or may not have on other ships are always second to my belief that they would not be right together. I will do my best to keep Gwyn and Lucien out of the comparison, unless using them as a way to point to something that would be wrong between Elain and Azriel - versus stating any reason why the other would be right.

The first two reasons I will share are ones I have been holding on to for quite a while, and have only become stronger with more content (Silver Flames). I have, personally, not seen much around these two thoughts, but recognize that they may be out there already, as there is no new thought under the sun. So, here goes:

Step Away From the Characters

Honestly, my first reason really has nothing to do with the characters themselves at all, but it's something I can't get out of my head. It's a personal thing, I know, as everyone might see it differently, but I can't help but feel like the three brothers ending up with the three sisters would be too perfect, too convenient.

I know that it's a shit argument when talking about an SJM book, and the more I read about the series, and the more books that come out within it, the more I recognize this. It makes me sad. But personally, I can't get behind this storyline, this ending that is so perfect it makes my skin crawl. It's not how life works, and it doesn't really make sense. If it were three adoptive sisters, as the bat boys are, it would actually make more sense, because it would stand to reason that you would have a two groups that mirror each other. That one girl who mirrored Rhys, let's say, then befriended to the point of sisterhood ones that mirrored the boys that Rhys befriended to the point of brotherhood. But Nesta, Elain, and Feyre are sisters by blood, not by choice, and so it isn't an automatic that they would be that reflection to the boys. And even though the boys lived together, and weren't fully brought together by choice as much as Mrs. Rhys's mother, they still chose to stay together and be brothers.

We have never, not fully, seen the Archerons make those same choices. These boys live together (or used to), work together, truly share their lives. The Archerons don't. The girls were disconnected before becoming Fae, and they are still disconnected after it. You see it more clearly with Nesta, of course, trying to stay away from the group, stay separate. But you see it with Feyre and Elain too. You see how Elain practically gives up on Nesta, and how Feyre discredits and dismisses Elain as anything more than just a kind soul who likes to garden. You can't, for two seconds, convince me that the Archerons have as similar or as bonded relationships to each other as the bat boys, and that alone tells us that we should not expect them to mirror the boys.

I would also like to note, looking back at the characters for a second, that it has been observed by others how Feyre and Nesta do seem to have similar energies a lot. On top of that, you could argue that Nesta mirrors all three bat boys in one way or another. It's one theory as to why she and Rhys struggle so much with each other, because they're too similar. And, you can't convince me that Az and Nesta don't share a bond because of their own similarities. Nesta's fire was cold as ice. Rhys once observed Azriels rage as an 'icy rage'. I don't think I need to mention how Nesta mirrors Cassian, but it's there too. So, the fact that she would be the sister who ended up with a mate from the Night Court, one of these three brothers, just made a lot of sense. But Elain, who is so different from her sisters, she doesn't have that same energy. It's not a bad thing, but it helps make sense why she would be the one with a mate from outside this Court.

Beyond this, however, I still struggle with the three and three come together concept. And that's coming from someone who actually has, within her family, a story of two brothers marrying two sisters - my great grandparents (or great great, I can never remember). So, I know stuff like this does happen, though admittedly my only experience is with two and two, and naturally I do believe that the likelihood of the full group being with the full other group goes down with each additional number. Regardless of that, though, it is an author's job to tell a story that we can connect to, and having such convenient and perfect endings makes it difficult to do just that. Because life isn't like that.

So I struggle with the concept of this. Like I said, the more I get to know these books, this series, the more I understand that this is not a great argument for why Elain and Azriel aren't endgame considering how other things have played out, but I still think it's a good argument for why they shouldn't be. However, I would also say that the argument that they will end up together because it's three brothers and three sisters is completely off base and illogical, for reasons I've mentioned above. What is the purpose of that? How does that drive the plot and the story and world? How does it connect us to them better? It doesn't. All it does is be just a convenient little bow that has no true purpose, unless there is true purpose as to why each sister ended up with each brother. And I don't really see a purpose as to why Elain would end up with Az except that they're both the last sibling, and that they currently like each other. But that doesn't mean they're right for each other, and I don't see how them being together will spur the story and the world forward the way Feyre and Rhys did, and the way Nesta and Cassian can and/or will.

As someone who dabbles in writing, I have thought about these types of things, and I'm always adjusting plans and thoughts when I realize I've gone into that too perfect la la land, and I'd like to believe that all writers do that. SJM has had some convenient endings, but I will say I've not yet felt like any ending was just too perfect. The closest was, of course, ACOWAR. But even then, you still had threads, misunderstandings, questions, and things you weren't happy about. Yes, the ending felt a bit perfect, but we still lost the Bone Carver, Mr. Archeron, the Suriel, etc. There were still things that made it less than completely perfect. And much of what was done in the ending did move this story forward, and provide the opening for what we are now getting. And, in the same vein, I like to think that SJM would recognize how this would be too much. But, I don't hold out a lot of hope on this reasoning alone, it's really just something I had to get off my chest.

Share Life With Me

This next point is huge for me, in my mind. Again, it is based off of my own personal opinions of some characters, as well, so I do understand that some people may not agree with this argument. That's fine, but you will not sway me.

It all comes down to one thing. What does Az want?

In the Az POV chapter we are finally told, out right, that he does want Elain. But, my question - does he really?

I have been thinking about this since long before Silver Flames, since we all knew Az had a crush, but it wasn't as cemented until Silver Flames came out, and we saw how Nesta and Cassian would develop as a couple. Because, and here's the kicker, I don't believe Az actually wants Elain.

Yes, you read that right. I know he thinks he wants Elain. I know he believes she's kind and beautiful. And I recognize that there was a sexual tension there - I'm not blind. But I don't believe that Elain is the end goal Azriel is actually looking for.

I believe that she is a representation of that end goal.

This mostly comes down to his conversation with Rhys, his belief about the Cauldron:

"The Cauldron chose three sisters. Tell me how it's possible that my two brothers are with two of those sisters, yet the third was given to another." He had never before dared speak the words aloud.

Okay, first - Az, please see point above. Also, I can't help but feel like SJM put that in here almost to show that this isn't actually a valid argument.

Second, let's dissect that argument for a moment. Now, perhaps Az is just trying to find what he considers a more 'objective' reason for why Elain should be his, why they should be together. However, if that were the case, then why would he have never dared speak those words aloud? Most likely because he knows it's not a solid argument, and logical Az knows this. But this is 2 AM, you just stopped me from kissing the girl I fancy Az, and he definitely is not being his most logical self.

It's also not a logical or good argument because of one simple word. Given. "…the third was given to another." Az, you're better than this. I truly want to believe you're better than this. I understand that the mating bond is weird, and inherently at least slightly sexist, but that doesn't give any male the right to really look at it that way. Especially when you consider the explanation that the mating bond will be present between two perfect equals. This is seen in ACOMAF when Feyre can't believe Rhys would be her mate, because that's what it would mean, that she's his equal. This also paints Elain as an object, which, no matter what anyone's feelings are toward the character, is not okay. She is a person. A fictional one, but still a person, she cannot be given unless she chooses to give herself. The Cauldron simply dictated who it believes is best for her, and vice versa. I'm not saying the Cauldron was right, or that she and Lucien would be good together, but that's what the mating bond is. To argue that the Cauldron was wrong because two brothers got two of the sisters, but the third was given to another is inherently wrong, because Elain cannot be given away.

It also shows that maybe Az really isn't truly seeing Elain for who she is, if he is thinking of it this way. I do believe that Az is a feminist, or, at least, more of a feminist than most of the males in Prythian (which, sadly, doesn't seem to be saying much). So I don't believe this is a comment based on a sexism in Az we haven't seen yet, I truly don't. I believe that it is a comment made by someone whose judgement is clouded, and who is, as I stated earlier, using Elain as a representation of what he's really looking for. He seems to idolize her, put her on a pedestal, believe that she is all light, all good. (Az, please see my previous post on that little nugget.) He objectifies her not because he truly believes she is an object, but because she has become a symbol in his mind - she is not the person Elain to him. She is the one he should have, the one who will bring him what he wants. Note I didn't say the one he wants. Whenever a person puts another on a pedestal the way Az has with Elain, whenever someone idolizes them, or believes that said person will fix all of their woes, they are subconsciously objectifying them. That being is no longer seen as a true person, with all the flaws and struggles and ugly parts. They are something else. And those types of feelings about another person never end in a good relationship, because at least one side is always expecting too much from the other, and they rarely learn to cope with what they didn't expect. And, for the record, you should never really be 'coping' with your partners flaws, but that's a conversation for another day.

Beyond being not a truly logical argument, and showing us how Azriel has actually objectified Elain in his mind, I also believe this statement gives us insight into what Az actually wants. He could have said a number of things to express a belief (or desire) that the Cauldron was wrong. He could have talked about his feelings for Elain. About how he thinks their personalities are too compatible for them to not be rightfully mates. Pretty much, he could have said something about Elain, and how they are right together because of who they are.

But he didn't.

Instead, Az brought up his two brothers and their mates. How they each got one, so surely the third should be his. And why did he do this? Again, maybe 2 AM Az who had lost his logic just thought this was an objective reason. But I think there's more to it than that. I think he brought up those other relationships as a way to point toward what it is he really wants. Because that's what's on his mind. It's not that Elain is perfect for him, that she is everything he could have ever hoped for in a female. It's that she is the sister of his brother's two mates, and he wants what his brothers have. So, clearly, that must mean that it's Elain who can give him that.

Again, Az, please read my first point. Because that's not a guarantee just because they're related.

Now, I imagine most people are saying, "Well, duh. We all know he wants what they have. He said so earlier on in the chapter." And he did:

Azriel couldn't stop it. The envy in his chest. Of Cassian, and Rhys.

So, it's not new. But, this argument he provided highlights that so specifically. He wants what his brothers have. Not a mate, per se. No. What they have.

But, wait, a mate is what they have. What are you saying?

Yes, a mate is what each of them have. But, as we know, not all mates are perfect for each other. Rhys and Feyre, and Cassian and Nesta are both examples of how right the mating bond can be. But, let's instead look at what they both have, in points, instead of just saying they have a mate. Here are, from my interpretation, the main common aspects of these two relationships:

Love. Sure, Nesta and Cassian hadn't said it yet. But, yes, they love each other, they're just both stubborn and scared and maybe not ready to say it.

Heavy sexual attraction and chemistry. This may not always be the most important piece of a relationship, but it's blatant in both of theirs, and it's clear that Az wants that as well. Which is fair.

Friendship. It's hard to see it at times, because these books are so much about the romance, but I do believe that both couples are truly friends who like to spend time together. Who can have fun together. We don't get to see this enough - and I do wish we saw more of it - but it is there. It's there when Cassian throws his head back laughing at something Nesta said. Or when Rhys is thrilled when sassy Feyre appears. And yes, it is in part the mating bond, making them want to be near each other, but they still enjoy that time together. Mates who aren't right for each other wouldn't.

True partners. In these two relationships, they are more than just each other's mate, lover, friend. They are and/or are becoming partners. In their relationships, Rhys and Cass have found a female who they can share their lives with. Completely and fully. In Feyre, Rhys has found a High Lady, a female who is his true equal, who can rule the Court with him. They work together, plan together. And Rhys can come home at night and tell her everything about his day. In Nesta, Cass has found someone who, I believe, will grow to command with him. Likely female units, but she is still mirroring Cass in that way. She may not become his true equal in terms of being Commander of the Night Court, but she would still be his partner. He will still be able to strategize with her, the two working together to determine where each unit will go. He will command the Illyrians, and by his side she will command the Valkyries. And he can come home, at the end of the day, and tell her everything about his day.

It's this last piece that I want to really dig into, because that is what separates Rhys and Cassian's relationships from others we have seen, in my opinion, and thus that is what Az wants. It's not just a mate, he wants what his brothers have, a true partner who he can fully share his life with. Because that is what makes their relationships so special.

And, in the end, I do not believe Elain can be that for him.

I am not trying to discredit Elain, or say that she is simple, or that she can't do anything but garden and be a housewife. No. That is not my point. I do think, however, that what it would entail to be a true partner to Az is something she does not want to do. And that is okay! It is okay for her to want to garden and bake. It's okay to not wish to be involved in all of the plotting and planning and little missions and quests that the Inner Circle does. It's okay to not want to train. To be happy as you are.

But she can't do both. She can't be a true partner to Azriel and remain as she is. Now, perhaps she does want more, and I have misread her. It's possible, I am not infallible. However, she hasn't ever truly shown us anything that tells me otherwise. And, no, I don't believe her offering to find the Dread Trove in Silver Flames counts as I don't believe she offered to do so out of the goodness of her heart or because she wanted to do it. I believe she wanted to prove Nesta wrong. (Again, you can see this in my previous post.) So, to be a true partner to Azriel, she may have to change everything that she is. And that's not fair to her.

And, even if I am way off on a lot of this. Even if she does want to do more for the Night Court. There is one thing that we have learned about Elain:

She does not wish to fight, she does not wish to train.

I'm sorry, you can't convince me otherwise. Not when she has had ample opportunity to do so in the year, year and a half since Hybern, and still hasn't. It was different with Nesta, who was dealing with a lot of other things, but Elain has been, for the most part, fairly healthy. Her not training is her choice because of who she is.

Again, this is okay! I am not insulting Elain for this, not at all. I get it. I don't particularly love working out - the main exercise I get is from rock climbing twice a week, that's it. So I get it. However, you cannot work with Azriel and not be trained, not know how to fight. Even if Elain could be silent, or infiltrate courts easily, and learn secrets, you need those skills, even if it's just a fallback to ensure you can escape should something go wrong. But it also helps to understand these types of things, to understand battle and politics and everything else. It's not about whether she can do this, it's about whether she wants to do this, and I'm not sure she does. So she would either have to change who she is, and be unhappy to become Az's partner, or she wouldn't be able to be that. And, admittedly, if she were unhappy, he still wouldn't have what his brothers have.

However, on top of that, I also don't know if Azriel would let Elain be his true partner. Think about when they're at dinner, talking about how Nesta needs to scry, and how they'll have to rely on Elain if she doesn't - what Azriel says.

“There is an innate darkness to the Dread Trove that Elain should not be exposed to.”

Sidebar - I've not seen anyone talk about how Cassian was absolutely in the right for defending Nesta. So I did. You can see my soap box here.

Now, back to the point. This is one example of how Az is constantly trying to protect Elain from, well, kinda everything. So, even if Elain did want to do all of those things, would Az even be okay with it? He obviously can't stop her from training or anything like that - and if he tries should she ever want to, he's dead to me. But, would he really share his life with her? Tell her about those 'unspeakable things that sullied his hands far beyond their scars'? I don't believe he would. I don't believe he could truly handle her working with him because, again, he has put her on this pedestal of beauty and grace and goodness (that she may not have). And the things he does are not good, at least not by his standards. He wouldn't be able to truly include her until he started to look at her as her own person again, which I also don't see happening. And, even then, he still wouldn't want to share with her all he'd done, believing her likely to judge those things, to be too pure to even hear about them. Regardless of whether that is true or not about Elain, it would hinder him from being able to have a true partner in her. When Azriel comes home at night, he would not tell her everything about his day.

Love Yourself, Az

This, I know for a fact, is not a new revelation. I have seen a lot about this, and have seen some posts that even helped me along with this as well, but I can't not address Az's shadows. I would link to the first post I saw about this but, admittedly, I can't find it. So, just know, I'm not the only one thinking this, and I recognize that some of this may come off as similar to others, but I couldn't not talk about this because it just feels so important.

Elain sucked in a soft breath that whispered over his skin. His shadows skittered back at the sound. They'd always been prone to vanish when she was around.

It wasn't until the Azriel POV chapter that I fully understood what lay behind the fact that Az's shadows would retreat around Elain, when we get a direct comparison to how they react to Gwyn's breath:

"How was the party?" Her breath curled in front of her mouth, and one of his shadows darted out to dance with it before twirling back to him. Like it heard some silent music.

Before this, I didn't realize how bad a sign it is, for his shadows to retreat. I just thought they did that when he was around someone he was attracted to, almost as a sense that the other person lightened him up. But, with this comparison, and in general what we see from Az when around Elain, I see just how wrong I was. His shadows hiding isn't a sign of him lightening up - no, it's a sign of him retreating more into himself, trying to be something that he isn't around that person, in the hopes that they'll accept him if he is.

In the end, it's toxic.

He can't be who he truly is around Elain. That's not something that will lead to a healthy, happy relationship. He may have the girl he thinks he wants, but he won't have the relationship we all know he is desperate for. Whereas, around Gwyn, we see his shadows reach out to another person, jump out, dance with her breath, sing to her. He is able to fully embrace who he is around her. He will be able to be himself with her, love himself with her. And whether or not Gwyn is the right person to him, what this tells us is that Elain can't be that person. That she, like Mor, would be toxic to Az.

On top of that, I can't not point out the word usage here.

While I did observe this on my own, I am not the first to point it out - pagesofmoonlight talks about this in detail, about the usage of the term 'skittered' in regards to how the shadows retreat from Elain. It's not just a general hiding, or even a 'lightening' of Az, as I once thought. It's a gut reaction to her, her breath. They run from her. When I read that word, I literally picture a wave of something, and the shadows seeing it and running from it in fear.

Similarly, in comparison, with Gwyn's breath, the shadows 'darted' out to it. That, also, is not just a general they reached out to it for warmth or contact. Now, they darted - that is a very quick move, often done with a need or desire to get to where you're going as quickly as possible. The shadows needed or wanted to be with that breath, so they darted to it.

Like I said, this post isn't meant to be promoting one ship over Elain and Azriel. But what Gwyn provides here is a comparison, is a sign of what could and should be, whether with her or another person. Even if she isn't endgame, she shows us this problem between Elain and Azriel.

Home is Where You Shine

This entire post, which has become MASSIVE, has been very focused on Azriel, and why Elain is not right for him. But I want to touch on a reason why Az isn't right for Elain.

Azriel is a part of the Night Court. It is his home. It is where he belongs. He fits here, it is right for him. He can and does fine here. I don't think anyone can deny this. But Elain - she does not.

First, let's look at when Nesta is in the Spring Court.

Nesta’s throat constricted, and she surveyed the swaying cherry blossoms overhead. Elain would love this place. So many flowers, all in bloom, so much green—the light, vibrant green of new grass—so many birds singing and such warm, buttery sunshine. Nesta felt like a storm cloud standing amid it all. But Elain … The Spring Court had been made for someone like her.

I'm not saying Elain will end up in the Spring Court, but I do believe it is telling that Nesta would think about another court this way. We've not, to my recollection, really ever seen another character think about how well someone would fit in a different court. Feyre did, if I remember correctly, mention enjoying other courts at times, thinking they were beautiful, but never did she think about how right someone within her court would be in a different court. Because no one else in the Inner Circle would fit so well in another court. For whatever reason it is, everyone else is perfectly suited for the Night Court, and they can handle it.

It takes a lot to be a part of the Night Court. The masks they all wear, the reputation they have, the responsibilities that fall on their shoulders. It's not an insult or an attack on any character to say that they may not fit there, that they may be more in tune with the beauty of Spring, the warmth of Summer, the light of Day. And Elain, who is gentle and kind and not one to pretend to be what she isn't - likely because she's never felt the need to - I can understand how it would be hard.

Secondly, and I know it's a point of contention, and a well-discussed piece of Silver Flames, but I do want to talk about the Solstice Ball, and Cassian's observations.

Elain in black was ridiculous. Yes, she was beautiful, but the color of her long-sleeved, modest gown leeched the brightness from her face. It wore her, rather than the other way around. And he knew the cruelty of the Hewn City troubled her. But she hadn’t hesitated to come. When Feyre had offered to let her remain home, Elain had squared her shoulders and declared that she was a part of this court—and would do whatever was needed. So Elain had let her golden-brown hair down tonight, and pinned it back with twin combs of pearl. He’d never once in the two years he’d known her found Elain to be plain, but wearing black, no matter how much she claimed to be part of this court … It sucked the life from her.

I will try not to go too far into the information about Elain in the black dress, as it's been discussed a lot from both sides, though I do think it is telling, because Cassian isn't just saying it's the one dress. It's very specific about how Elainin black was ridiculous, not that dress. It may seem shallow, but in the end, black is a crucial color in the Night Court, and that type of symbolism is often used to depict things just like this. It would not be the first time, and it certainly won't be the last that a writer uses color this way. However, I have seen a number of posts about this, on both sides, and I do understand both arguments, even if I disagree with one because I don't think it's meant to just be a skewed POV.

I would like to note, however, that the main argument I've seen is that there was once another time Elain was described in a dress that did little to complement her, but it's a very different description. That other time, it's mentioned specifically that the dress and color/shade of the dress did little to complement her 'sallow skin'. First of all, this is specifically discussing how the color didn't work with her skin, not how the color 'drained the life out of her'. Secondly, I would say it is very important to note that 'sallow' means "of a sickly, yellowish or lightish brown color". It is not discussing her skin as it typically is, but how it is when she was in the midst of her own depression after becoming High Fae. It's not that the dress didn't complement her, it's just that it didn't help make her skin look better than the sickly state it was currently in. Whereas, in this reflection, Elain is healthy, and still the black is draining her. Not the dress, not the shade - black. Point blank.

It's also important to recognize that this isn't meant to insult Elain, I believe it is a symbol of how she doesn't shine in the Night Court, how this court could potentially 'suck the life out of her'. Yes, it's just a dress. Yes, there's a chance they wanted her to look plain, but I don't believe that.

They were always going to have Nesta dance with Eris, and they all knew that, despite Elain's beauty, and no matter how lovely she looked, Eris would gravitate to Nesta. He'd already shown interest in her, he'd already become intrigued. He looked at Elain first, I believe, to get a look at his brother's mate. Because he wasn't looking at Elain with interest. No, it was an 'assessing gaze'. There was no reason to make Elain look plain. In fact, there was every reason to make sure she looked just as beautiful as Nesta. Think about what Cassian said just before this:

Both sisters wore black. Both walked behind Rhys and Feyre, a silent indicator that they were a part of the royal family. Had mighty powers of their own. They’d planned it that way, wanting Eris to see for himself how valuable Nesta was.

Why would they want her to look plain, considering this? They wanted Nesta and Elain to walk in the procession behind Feyre and Rhys, as a sign, a symbol. Yes, they wanted Eris to see and understand how valuable Nesta was, as it is said, but they didn't want Elain to look any less valuable. First, doing so would have made Nesta look less valuable by comparison. But, on top of that, I highly doubt they had any fears that Eris would prefer Elain - if they believed Eris about Lucien, then I think they'd believe that Eris wouldn't wish to take away his brother's mate. In fact, I imagine Eris would more likely help Lucien with Elain - but, that just be my Eris stan status coming out.

What is clear is that it was purposeful that they put both Nesta and Elain in black, as a symbol that they are a part of this family. My guess is that they found a dress for Elain that did her the most justice, and that she was comfortable wearing but, in the end, black just doesn't work on her. And is that fact not telling when that is the color of the family?

While this was in draft mode, I also found this post from yazthebookish, who goes deeper into this, and how it wasn't just Cassian who observed how ridiculous Nesta looked in black. So, for those who want to talk about how it is a skewed perspective, there were actually three that made this observation, and I absolutely agree that SJM wouldn't shove this in there solely to say that they purposefully tried to make sure Nesta outshone Elain. As they pointed out, Nesta is gorgeous in her own right. Cassian met her and Elain together, and he was instantly drawn to Nesta. As I mentioned earlier, Eris has been intrigued by her since long before this - see the High Lords meeting in ACOWAR. Helion would gladly get into her leathers, and while I'm aware that's not saying much, his focus on her is slightly higher than you see it on others he would also slide into bed with. She doesn't need Elain to dull herself down to shine.

I also think the one observation about how the black 'wore her' matters. It makes me wonder more about this court, both the general Night Court, and the people in the Inner Circle. Is the court wearing her? Is it sucking the life out of her? Is this why we don't see as much spine from Elain? We got some in this book, but it was all in an attempt to prove she belongs to this court. Something she feels the need to do, as we see in Cassian's reflection:

When Feyre had offered to let her remain home, Elain had squared her shoulders and declared that she was a part of this court—and would do whatever was needed.

…but wearing black, no matter how much she claimed to be part of this court … It sucked the life from her.

First of all, just quickly, I want to mention the ellipses before it says 'it sucked the life from her', and what came right before that. Is Cassian talking about the black? Or is he talking about being a part of this court? I don't have the answer, just food for thought.

I can't help but notice that Elain seems to feel the need to constantly prove, declare, and claim that she is part of this court. She has to push her way through, and while I know it's in part because so many people try to protect her, I think it's more than that. I believe Elain wants to be a part of the Night Court, but in the end it's not suited to her, and so she has to force her way in, when even Nesta, who everyone has been so displeased with, manages to fall in much easier. It's not because they don't like Elain, that's obvious. I believe it's because, in the end, they all see it.

It reminds me a lot of Tywin Lannister's quote from GoT (TV series, I won't read the books until George RR Martin finishes them):

Any man who must say, "I am the King", is no true king.

Could you not adjust this to: "Any person who must say, 'I am part of this court', is not truly part of this court."

I don't think Nesta has once said that. Feyre, maybe, but not in the same way as much as in letting certain people outside the court know. But, to have to say that within the court - it signifies that either you, yourself, don't believe yourself part of the court, or that maybe you aren't truly. Or that you are, but you recognize that maybe it's not the right fit, even if you really want it to be.

In the end, while I don't think Elain can't fit or find a nice life in the Night Court, the final point is that she doesn't shine in the Night Court. And that's not the same as saying she fully doesn't belong. But, shouldn't home be a place where you shine? Where you can be everything you are, and it is absolutely right? Isn't that what Nesta found in Silver Flames, in the House, with Cassian, and Gwyn, and Emerie,…and the House? She didn't have to be anything other than who she was, with any of them, and she still found a place that not only provided her comfort, but where she could truly shine. And she's found it in the Night Court, as well.

Elain hasn't. And maybe that's just because we haven't seen her story play out yet. I'm not so stuck up to believe there's no way I could be wrong. In fact, what bugs me the most about a lot of posts around these different beliefs is the use of 'when' instead of 'if', because no one wants to admit that, at this point in time, no matter what side you're on, it very much is an 'if'. None of us know what SJM has planned. All we can do is use the information we've been given to make as educated a guess as possible. This is mine, and SJM may prove me completely wrong, and that's okay. She may end up giving Elain a more similar arc to Nesta, and show how she develops and grows into someone who flourishes in the Night Court with Az by her side, and should she do that, I hope it's in a way I can understand and not something poorly developed and difficult to grasp.

A Mate is A Mate is A Mate

I won't talk too much about how she and Azriel aren't mates and how that automatically means they couldn't work. It could, in concept. I won't address the theories about her ending up with multiple mates. I do not agree with these theories, as they conflict with the canon we have. Until SJM puts out canon information that can explain a contradiction to what we've been given, any theory that truly contradicts the canon provided I will not consider, whether I like it or not. Multiple mates is not a thing. Being able to sever the mating bond so that someone can have a new mate is not a thing. I do recognize that females can reject the mating bond, and I am not saying whether or not I think Elain should or shouldn't do this with Lucien. Nor am I saying that having a story where someone does reject the mating bond to see how that plays out wouldn't be great.

I will point out, however, that it is often discussed as a thing females do. Females reject the mating bond. Males who have a female that rejected the mating bond grow incredibly uncomfortable, and they truly struggle.

...there will always be a ... tug. For the females, it is usually easier to ignore, but the males ... It can drive them mad.

I'm not going to include all the stuff about males thinking their mate belongs to them. Grow up, Prythian. Get with the program. But, considering this, considering the other pieces we get, I do not know if a male can be with another person, truly, in a loving relationship if he has a mate. Maybe one day, years and years and years after the rejection. Or maybe, if his mate doesn't fit his preferences - if that is a thing (and honestly, we don't yet know the status of same-sex mates, but if they are a thing - please let them be - then I have a harder time believing that those who have specific preferences would end up in a mating pair with the wrong gender).

I am not saying this to say that Elain and Lucien should be together. I am saying this because, considering all these things, right now, canon information essentially tells us that, should Az find his mate, he will go to her, need to be around her. Think about Cassian when Feyre asked why he bothers with Nesta:

Because I can't stay away.

Think about how Lucien couldn't help but try to find Elain, despite direct orders of being told not to. Or about how the second Rhys heard Feyre say 'no' in her mind to Tamlin, he was there to take her away. They just can't help it. The mating bond has a stronger pull on males.

And, maybe Az would be able to deny the bond. To reject it himself, who knows. But, based on everything we've been told, that would be incredibly difficult. And, considering how much he wants what his brothers have, would he want to?

Obviously, there is reason to believe Az does have a mate, and we've met her. And I know some people disagree with this. I would be interested to hear any theories about why he and Gwyn aren't mates, so long as they don't involve Elain. It's not that I have anything against her, it's just that those arguments don't actually point to Gwyn and Az not being mates, just that the person believes Elain and Az belong together regardless, which is not an argument for why they're not mates. But if there are any reasons or signs found in the books and canon information that distinctly point against Gwyn and Az being mates, then I'm open to hearing those points. And, as I mentioned, I do not entertain any canon-conflicting theories, such as the multiple mates one.

As it stands, though, I do think we have been directed toward the idea that Gwyn and Az are mates, and can believe that the mating bond will snap into place. Once it does, I have a hard time believing Az will actually be able to stay away. And that, even if Gwyn ends up rejecting that bond, I don't know that he'll be able to be with Elain after it, knowing Elain isn't his first choice.

Final Thoughts

Like I said earlier, I'm not against Elain rejecting the mating bond, or anyone doing so. I will say this, though - how much more powerful would it be to have someone reject the mating bond not because they wish to be with someone else, but just because they do not wish to be with that person? Is it not more empowering to see a female (or male, if they can do it) choose to be single, and live their life as they are solely because they just do not wish to be with that person? Instead of it being more of an, 'well, it's just, I'd rather be with him'. Sadly, I do not think Elain is set up to be that person. Gwyn could, potentially, be, though I'll admit I don't believe it, considering the attention Gwyn pays to him. But I do think it's worth noting that, in my opinion, the mating bond can be rejected even if there is not another male in the picture.

However, despite all the questions and uncertainties, until we get answers, this is my personal view, based on what I've seen in the books, and how I've interpreted it. I personally feel that, regardless of who I hope ends up with whom, SJM has placed a number of clues and hints to show that Elain and Azriel aren't meant to be together, that they wouldn't be right together. And that, if they were to be together, the relationship would likely be unhealthy, and potentially toxic.

---------------------

This post is also not meant to insult or attack Elain in any way, nor Azriel. Nor am I trying to insult or attack those who ship them together. We are all welcome to our own opinions. I promise to respect yours, please respect mine.

#acotar #acomaf #acowar #acofas #acosf #sarah j mass #azriel #elain archeron #nesta archeron #cassian #feyre archeron #rhysand #gwyn berdara #lucien #gwynriel #elucien #anti elriel

187 notes · View notes

hamliet · 3 years

Text

What Does It Mean to Save?

I keep seeing it said that Deku, Ochaco, and Shouto will “save” Shigaraki, Himiko, and Dabi, but that there will be no redemption and/or no survival for them. I’m truly not trying to vague these posts and everyone is entitled to their opinion, but literary criticism is fundamentally responsive so I’m writing this anyways.

I personally think that’s not BNHA’s definition of saving nor of redemption. So here, have a deep dive into literary tropes related to redemption, genre, and character arcs as they pertain to BNHA and the question of: what does it mean to save Shigaraki, Touya, and Himiko?

Before we begin, let me say that while we might be personally uncomfortable with redemption (there’s a redemption arc in BNHA I am personally quite uncomfortable with), that doesn’t inherently mean the narrative won’t go there. The key principle I’m operating on here is BNHA’s message that heroes save people. It’s held up as the highest ideal.

So let’s talk redemption in BNHA-verse. With this guy, whose redemption arc I dislike in principle but accept as part of the story so don’t come for me stans and/or antis. I’m analyzing because it shows us what redemption means in BNHA-verse, whether or not that is satisfying to you personally as it fits/does not fit with your own morality/philosophy.

If Endeavor can be redeemed and live, and he’s Bakugou’s negative foil, I highly doubt Shigaraki and Deku as well as Touya and Shouto and Ochaco and Himiko will be any different. Why? Because Enji is an adult character. The others--well, Himiko’s age we don’t know, but we do know that Shigaraki and Dabi are technically adults. But does the story consider them adults?

(It doesn’t.)

Child-coded characters are generally more likely to survive a redemption, which I’ll explain more later. First I have to define what I mean by child-coding, because I DO NOT mean this in the way it’s often (mis)used in fandom wank. Child-coding is a real thing, but it is not done to infantilize and it has nothing to do with shipping.

Child coding frames the character as a child for a few narrative purposes to convey a story’s theme or purpose. For example, if it’s a coming of age story coding a character as a child even if they legally are not emphasizes their journey to an understanding of self-actualization, or a true understanding of self with self-awareness and an understanding of self-value. An example of an adult coded as a child is The Kite Runner, wherein Amir is a legal adult for half the story, even married for fifteen years so we’re talking 30s-40s, but he does not truly become an adult until he returns to his homeland and takes responsibility for a childhood sin. In Attack on Titan, the main characters are now nineteen, but are still struggling to take responsibility as adults and have only started doing so now that their mentors/parental figures have started dying.

Along those lines, in any kind of story, you can code a character as a child of someone, regardless of biological relationship, to convey the type of relationship they have (usually a mentor one). For an example of this, see Bungo Stray Dogs’ Dazai and Akutagawa. Despite their two year age difference, Dazai recruited him to the mafia, abandoned him, and Akutagawa desperately seeks his approval. Usually in these stories a character will “overcome” their parental figure. This can be done through overcoming their need for the parental figure’s approval in stories where the parental figure is kindly (such as in Harry Potter, when in the final book Harry, Ron, and Hermione leave the Weasleys to find the Horcruxes despite Mrs. Weasley’s please) or through like, killing/stopping/leaving the parental figure when they are abusive (see fairy tales like Rapunzel and Cinderella). The parental link to self-actualization is because it is childlike (and a part of actual psychology that is reflected in literature) to see yourself as a part of your parent; self-actualized person would see yourself as a distinct person from your parent, but also acknowledge the ways in which they’ve shaped you.

So, how do you code a character as a child? BNHA isn’t subtle about it, because Horikoshi seldom is subtle about anything. The villain trio are all coded as children.

Shigaraki Tomura:

Who cannot achieve self-actualization so long as AFO has access to his body, as he’s literally trying to possess him. He’s trying, but it’s not gonna work because Shigaraki can’t keep AFO and become an adult at the same time. It’s a choice the narrative is setting up: your dream of destroying, or your freedom? (To get the latter, he’ll probably have to destroy AFO).

Todoroki Touya, who is repeatedly emphasized as a small child when compared to his siblings, and yes, I know he’s now tall. Specifically he’s spotlighted as the child of Endeavor:

And he’s the least self-actualized one in a lot of ways, contradicting himself constantly. I’m not Endeavor, DUH! But these are Endeavor’s flames! He’s gonna have to choose one or the other, because the tragic irony is that the more he takes out his rage on those around him, the more like Endeavor he becomes.

And Toga Himiko (who might well literally be a legal child), who is actually the most self-actualized one thus far, because she rejects Curious’s child insistence (Curious holds her in a Pieta pose, based on Michelangelo’s statue wherein Mary holds a deceased Christ):

She’s still got, like, a way to go though:

Because Himiko also wants to be like the people she loves to the point where she loses her own identity in them, which is er, not self-actualization. So she’ll have to choose whether or not she really wants to be like the people she loves or whether she wants to live her own way, which she herself tells us how that would end (death):

Deku said it himself: it’s good to focus on what someone is doing now. And look, I have issues with this statement and how it’s framed. I’ve talked about it at length and it was doomed to fail because Shouto himself told us long ago that it was annoying to hear a righteous speech by a stranger when you hadn’t gone through the same, plus Endeavor kinda failed by choosing being a hero over a dad here. But, the principle is that if the past doesn’t preclude Endeavor from seeking a better self, why would it preclude three characters coded as children, one of whom is literally somewhat the product of Endeavor’s sins? BNHA doesn’t think the past keeps someone from a better future.

So what about Dabi’s counterpoint, which is indeed valid? Well, redemption doesn’t mean the past forgets, either. It’s complicated and nuanced, and we can debate how well Horikoshi strikes this nuance (it’s got its flaws), and admittedly I don’t know how this will go down in the future. But it is asking Endeavor: how do you redeem yourself to the people you’ve hurt? And we have Endeavor asking this question to Touya’s shrine. I mean, the foreshadowing is obvious. Endeavor has to redeem himself by trying to save Touya. However, it will still probably come down to Shouto to save Touya.

For our three villains, it’s a little harder to predict... well, sort of. For Shigaraki it’s extremely obvious: he has to help take down AFO. Dabi probably has to do something to help his family (siblings probably), but it’s vague. Toga needs help and not condemnation, but presumably she’ll help Ochaco with something.

So, is this redemption? I’d define it as redemption in the eyes of the narrative. To address what makes a redemption is another essay unto itself, but if we bring in the oft-compared Star Wars example: did Darth Vader get a redemption? Did Ben Solo? Everyone says yes to both. However, only Luke witnesses Vader’s redemption, and only Rey Ben Solo’s. So the rest of the galaxy? Doesn’t think so. When I say they’ll be redeemed, I’m defining it as their role in the eyes of the narrative, not whether or not society will accept them or even whether their victims will forgive them (of note, in canonical novels, Leia never forgave Darth Vader despite learning he was her father and obviously knowing Luke’s account of his redemption was true).

So, redemption in a narrative doesn’t mean all of society has to forgive and accept them. Dabi has still like, murdered 30 people--many of whom were thugs, but he himself acknowledges they didn’t deserve to die. Additionally, he himself also acknowledges that the families left behind--their feelings matter:

But why does that mean they have to die? Why even does it mean they have to languish in prison forever? (If there’s even a safe prison at the end of BNHA which I kinda have doubts about.) Heroes have also killed: see Hawks as Exhibit A. In fact, some people want revenge on the heroes precisely because they arrested or killed their loved ones (jail isn’t held up as a rehabilitative place in BNHA’s world. In most countries it isn’t in real life, either, but again that’s for another essay). So why don’t the League’s feelings on Twice’s death matter just as much as the feelings of unnamed and unseen (and thereby less important narratively) characters?

Additionally, regarding death... the villains routinely get called on their death wishes. Himiko’s determination to decide how/when she dies is called out because this is right before Twice overcomes his trauma to save her, and the next arc they appear in is when Twice dies trying to save her again. Dabi’s suicide wish keeps him from getting close to others, and it keeps getting thwarted. Shigaraki’s obsession with destruction and death is clearly not a good thing, and his rejection of his family’s desire for them to join him in death this past arc is growth.

In other words: what Dabi said and what Snatch said about families and how they feel matter for the villains too. The villains are their own weird found family (Dabi as the deadbeat prodigal brother of both his families). Their deaths--Magne’s and Twice’s thus far, and I’m not ruling out further deaths in the future--affect the others. People’s feelings on losing loved ones matter. The villains are people, as Himiko said herself this arc:

Their feelings about each other matter:

How would Touya dying affect the Todorokis? At least they saved him spiritually, I guess, but that’s absolutely lame narratively, and if you have Enji eventually do a sacrifice to save Dabi (pretty likely, even if I personally think Enji will survive said sacrifice) then what’s the point of Dabi dying? How would Himiko dying affect society? As a martyr like Curious wanted her to be, even a redeemed one? A tragic warning story? What even is the point of Ochaco saving her if that’s the case? If Shigaraki dies, well, who would mourn besides Deku? How would Shigaraki dying affect the surviving members of the league? He just couldn’t be saved physically?

It’s not impossible some of this happens, but it doesn’t seem like great writing, especially with panels like, oh, these that show us BNHA’s perspective on death:

Sacrificing something is a type of death that occurs in stories; this should happen in a redemption arc, which is why I’ve been saying Enji needs to sacrifice his hero reputation to help save Touya and even then it’ll still be Shouto imo who does the saving. But physical death?

If you want further analysis of the latter two panels and how they relate to the ending, see here.

We already have another villain who will definitely die redemptively (Kurogiri--an adult coded character--because he’s already, like, dead), and Spinner and Mr. Compress aren’t coded as kids so I hold them with anxiety towards the end. But again, this isn’t me being ageist or saying this is the way things ought to be in fiction or real life: it’s me looking at writing tropes and saying that child-coded characters tend to survive their redemptions. See: Zuko. Why? Because the death of children or child-coded characters is a tragedy. When a child-coded character dies redemptively it doesn’t feel like a happy ending and if framed as such, it’s often criticized for bad writing (see: Ben Solo). Curious even called this out in her fight with Himiko. I would hope Horikoshi doesn’t end the story being like yeah Curious was right that’s the best use of Himiko’s/Dabi’s/Shigaraki’s arcs:

Additionally, as for the believability of a character getting a new chance after so much destruction and murder... well, it’s kinda a thing in shonen and even in seinen? For better or for worse, it’s a thing. We have Vegeta in Dragon Ball Z and Kaneki Ken in Tokyo Ghoul (Kaneki, by the way, is absolutely an inspiration for Shigaraki). We can debate how well-written these redemptions are (I personally have been quite critical of Kaneki’s despite wanting it to happen narratively), but it can be done. BNHA’s Japan especially isn’t as harsh a world as Tokyo Ghoul’s Japan, so it would make even more sense for something like Kaneki’s ending.

The reality is that the cycle of revenge via hurting people and then leaving hurting families and loved ones has to stop somewhere. Someone has to be the bigger person and step up and be like “naw.” That’s heroic. That’s brave. That’s sacrificial itself. Justice itself doesn’t really exist in its purest form without mercy.

There’s another genre-reason I don’t see death or jail as likely (I could see, like, maybe a mental health ward like Rei’s? But it’s too soon to speculate).

If saving is considered a good thing for the story, if it’s truly the highest ideal, then saving someone should be rewarded by the narrative. The characters who save should have a positive result to show us this a good thing.

This is why it doesn’t work for the heroes’ end journey to be accepting that some people cannot be saved. The notion of just accepting that you cannot do something, you cannot save everyone, you cannot, cannot, cannot, is called out as a flaw of society. Determination, on the other hand, is rewarded.

We see it with Deku as well as with Mirio.

So, what if they save them and the redeemed characters then go on to sacrifice themselves in their redemption and die (come to the same end)? If saving changes absolutely nothing for the saved person, if it’s too late for the saved from themselves to change and/or do anything that matters besides die, then the narrative theme of saving as important is left unemphasized at best and undermined at worst. Simple intrinsic knowledge that the kids “did the right thing” doesn’t cut it for a story with so much focus on physical saving when the kids are already doing the right thing; moral struggles about whether to choose to be good aren’t really Deku, Ochaco, or Shouto’s arcs. It works for Aizawa’s arc with Kurogiri, but not for the kiddos. If BNHA was more of a philosophical/spiritual text, that would indeed make sense, but it is not. Genre-wise, BNHA is a fantastical superhero optimistic story, not a gritty real-world set drama.

631 notes · View notes

gffa · 4 years

Photo

IF YOU STRIP CONTEXT OF THE REST OF THE SHOW--HELL, EVEN OF THE REST OF THIS EPISODE--FROM THIS SCENE, I can see how we should be siding entirely with Ahsoka, especially on the heels of the walkabout arc and her conflict with being drawn back towards the Jedi and the Jedi Order. Her points aren’t wrong, in the sense that she’s right that Obi-Wan is playing politics with this, but she’s stripping context and consequence out from the choice he faces and that’s specifically why he says, “That’s not fair.” and even Ahsoka herself says, “I’m not trying to be.” Her accusation is not fair. Because, let’s say that Obi-Wan did exactly what Ahsoka said--that he prioritized the people of Mandalore over saving the Chancellor. We’re setting aside that this was a manipulation on Palpatine’s part and that Mandalore is a trap, only what we can see from Obi-Wan’s point of view and his motivations, his good faith assumptions on why rescuing the Chancellor is important. If they chose Mandalore over Coruscant, what would happen is: - They would be drawn into yet another war because they had broken a treaty, when they’re already stretched to the breaking point for this first war. - The Chancellor may be the one in trouble, but what does Ahsoka think will happen if the Chancellor dies or is ransomed back? The Republic would be in chaos, the war effort is already balanced precariously, and none of them know that the Separatists aren’t the real threat. Whatever good reasons many of the Separatists may have, they murder, enslave, and oppress the worlds they attack. If the Republic loses the war, that’s what happens to every world in the Republic. - The Jedi might be more popular with people if they saved Mandalore, but would it really benefit the galaxy as a whole, given a good faith assumption on what these characters would know? (There is no right answer to this question, of course.) Ahsoka is very nearly arguing for popularity over doing the more important thing, because this isn’t a situation where there aren’t consequences. Mandalore needs their help, but so too does Coruscant and it’s not just about the Chancellor, it’s about the Republic as a whole. And it even comes down to--why are politics bad? I get that Ahsoka means that choosing your actions based on politics is a calculated sort of thing, but why is that bad? Because Star Wars: Propaganda basically posited that that was the problem, that the Jedi didn’t play enough politics, that’s why their image was so bad. Ahsoka’s case for Mandalore could be argued to be the same thing--you want to win back the public’s faith, then you have to take this path. That right there is politics, too. EVERYTHING IN THIS WAR IS POLITICS. NOTHING CAN ESCAPE IT. BECAUSE POLITICS IS EVERYTHING LIKE WE ARE LIVING IN A WORLD THAT HAS DEMONSTRATED THAT TO US VERY CLEARLY. AND WE SHOULD ALL LEAN INTO POLITICS, RATHER THAN SEPARATING OURSELVES FROM THEM. If politics were inherently bad, we wouldn’t see characters like Padme Amidala, Bail Organa, and Mon Mothma--or, hell, even Leia Organa herself--as heroes. Because politics are important! You don’t have to be (and shouldn’t be) a full-time politician for politics to still be important. That working within a system to help better it and be able to reach more people is a good thing. Further, this doesn’t come without context of earlier in the episode, Obi-Wan is specifically shown to be incredibly desiring of helping people--he basically caves to Anakin’s strategy based on Anakin’s argument that they can help people sooner:

That is right there in this very same episode. Obi-Wan agrees to a reckless strategy specifically when Anakin points out that it can help people sooner. Obi-Wan Kenobi is not someone who doesn’t want to help people, that’s his whole thing! Further context, which isn’t specifically related to this particular issue, but does give context to Obi-Wan Kenobi as a character is everything with Bo-Katan seething over whether Satine even meant anything to him. She did. And she still does. But he cannot allow his feelings to cloud his judgement--and that is something that is key to being a Jedi.

It reminds me of George Lucas’ commentary on attachment: “But [Anakin] has become attached to his mother and he will become attached to Padme and these things are, for a Jedi, who needs to have a clear mind and not be influenced by threats to their attachments, a dangerous situation. And it feeds into fear of losing things, which feeds into greed, wanting to keep things, wanting to keep his possessions and things that he should be letting go of. His fear of losing her turns to anger at losing her, which ultimately turns to revenge in wiping out the village.“ –George Lucas, Attack of the Clones commentary “He turns into Darth Vader because he gets attached to things. He can’t let go of his mother; he can’t let go of his girlfriend. He can’t let go of things.” –George Lucas, Time Magazine interview (2002) The thing about Obi-Wan/Satine is that it was pretty clearly created to be a foil to Anakin/Padme (and, boyyyyyyyyy, is that abundantly clear in the scene with Bo-Katan where Anakin is STARING at Obi-Wan as he says this, as we all know Revenge of the Sith is looming riiiiiiiiight over our heads), where Obi-Wan and Satine do make the right choices about the vows they’ve taken to other aspects of their lives. That they are balanced in a way that Anakin and Padme are not. Dave Filoni says it himself in the commentary for the Bad Batch arc, in this very season: “I mean, even Obi-Wan was in love with someone. That’s not abnormal. It’s very normal. What you choose to do and how you choose to have a relationship, what you sacrifice, then that becomes a bigger deal when he’s made an oath to the Jedi Order to be selfless, to put everyone else ahead of himself.” --Dave Filoni Obi-Wan’s feelings for Satine are very much a parallel and contrast for Anakin’s feelings for Padme, and we know exactly how that’s going to turn out for Anakin, because Revenge of the Sith looms incredibly large over this entire episode and this entire arc. ”He’s made an oath to put everyone else ahead of himself.” is something Obi-Wan has done and continues to uphold, so accusing him of politics is like--what does Obi-Wan gain by playing politics then? He’s putting other people ahead of himself, so playing politics must be for that reason, too. Furthering this context, especially in tying it to what it means to be a Jedi, is commentary from “The Lawless”:

”And in that moment, that critical moment, he cannot seize on his anger and his hatred for Maul. Though that’s probably there, deep within, he can’t seize on it or Maul will win, he knows that. I think we learned a lot about Obi-Wan and what it means to be a true Jedi, which is what I see Obi-Wan as.“ –Dave Filoni, on “The Lawless” All of this is important to understand that, when Obi-Wan Kenobi talks about the choices one makes, about not letting his feelings cloud his judgement, he’s coming from a place of established narrative reliability. We want to side with Ahsoka, because her hurt is so genuine and valid. Because she sees a problem with the way the galaxy views the Jedi and we know that the Jedi’s doom is soon upon them. (And this is where I get wary of the show’s narrative potentially trying to say, “Well, they’re kind of responsible for their own genocide because they just weren’t nice enough to people and only helped so many people, that they should have done more and more and more.” because, no, fuck that idea for real, the Jedi are not responsible for their own genocide, certainly not based on anything in the canon!) She wants to fix this problem and she’s coming at it with a choice that she thinks would restore faith in them. The problem is that the Jedi are being asked to make choices between what’s popular and what they see as doing more good for more people. And there’s a great line from the Age of Republic - Padme Amidala comic that ties into these themes as well:

“But trying to serve the greater good doesn’t exactly make you popular.” (Oh, hey, look! More politics!) On first blush, the idea of helping the people of Mandalore over saving the Chancellor seems like the right thing to do because we know Palpatine is Sidious, we know that it leads to ROTS, we know that ROTS leads to the Empire, especially when Ahsoka ties it to the Jedi Order becoming unpopular with the galaxy. But Obi-Wan points out that she’s not being fair. He points out that the Republic is on the line. I’m pointing out that everything is politics, one decision over the other isn’t less political just because it’s more intimate. And it doesn’t come without context. It’s not just the Chancellor, it’s bigger than that. And serving that greater good--as Obi-Wan genuinely sees it--doesn’t always make them popular. And still even further, this isn’t entirely about the Jedi Order’s politics, but it’s about Ahsoka’s own hurt at how the Jedi had to play politics with her, too. She’s still hurt that they expelled her--though, as always, context shows that she gave them absolutely nothing to work with, she immediately distrusted them before they even heard anything, she refused to even send them a message, she attacked clones on her way out, she was seen colluding with a known Separatist war criminal, she was found with incredibly damning evidence, and still wouldn’t actually talk to them or ask them directly to trust her, and ultimately none of her own actions saved her, it was a Jedi who saved her--that this doesn’t negate that they made mistakes as well, they should have visited her in the jail, they were playing politics and it doesn’t matter to Ahsoka that their hands were forced--and that’s driving her conversation with Obi-Wan, especially as someone who is part of the Council that she feels betrayed her. And Obi-Wan’s coming at this from the point of view that she let her emotions cloud her judgement over what happened, that she reacted blindly rather than trusting them in the critical moment (and the theme of trust was allll over that arc), and she’s still coming from this from a place of emotion, but that he respects her choices in the end and he obviously still cares very much about her.

All of that is underlining the conversation and one of the things that makes it such a hellishly complicated scene here in “Old Friends Not Forgotten” is that both of them are pretty narratively reliable. They’re both coming from a place of deep care and a desire to help people. They’re both coming from a place wanting to do what’s best for people. Which is why I love that I think Ahsoka genuinely loves the Jedi Order and why she says, “people who truly need us”. It furthers my feeling of how I think, had Order 66 not happened, she may have come back to the Jedi eventually, if this difference could be resolved, but at the very least she certainly never hated them. This is all coming from a place of love for the Jedi, for her family. Even if she’s on a different path, even if ultimately she’ll say, “I’m no Jedi.” in Rebels, that’s about what she’s willing to do, what lines she's willing to cross, that a Jedi wouldn’t, and that it doesn’t mean they’re not still her family and that she wants good things for and with them. And why I love that she may not be being fair here, she may be stripping context and consequence out of the choice she wants to make, she may be letting emotion cloud her judgement, but she’s still so incredibly valuable and I do think they should have listened to her more. The Jedi’s genocide is not on them, the murder of an entire people can never be on the victims, but I do think Obi-Wan has so much weight on his shoulders that he has trouble seeing the forest for the trees. And that’s not a horrible thing, especially because Ahsoka’s shoving the trees aside here. But that there was no right answer here. Mandalore is a trap. Mandalore is going to fall to the Empire anyway. Coruscant is a trap. Coruscant is going to fall to the Empire anyway. It doesn’t matter if they choose Mandalore or Coruscant. Order 66 is already set to be triggered any minute now, nothing can stop that. Them being more popular wouldn’t have saved them from it, not in a galaxy where the Republic general public was apathetic enough to not stand up against the Separatist themselves, instead allowed a clone army to be commissioned and the Jedi to be drafted into the war. They wouldn’t stand up for themselves against the Separatists, they weren’t going to stand up for the genocide of a tiny religious culture, either. It doesn’t even matter if the Jedi fought in the war or not--fight and be killed. Don’t fight and they’ll be like Mandalore and be forced into it anyway or killed. That the Jedi were forced to make shitty choices in situations where there weren’t any right answers and get blamed for not having magical answers to problems that they cannot possible solve. What really brought that home to me was the way the scene ended--when Anakin offered an actual reasonable, viable solution (something that most people don’t offer the Jedi when saying what they should or shouldn’t do, they’re rarely given actual, workable options) where they could do both, Obi-Wan pretty readily jumped on it.

This shows that of course the Jedi want to help, whenever and wherever they can. Not going to Mandalore isn’t that they don’t care or that they don’t want to help, but that there are two tire fires put in front of them and they didn’t see a reasonable way to do both, and Coruscant, as the capital of the Republic, which is the only body that can possibly stand between the Separatists and the enslavement/oppression/murder of thousands of worlds, must be protected. (Just look what happens when the Republic and the Jedi fall--the Empire inflicted atrocity after atrocity on the galaxy, which says to me that the Jedi were right in that the Republic had to be defended because it was all that stood between the galaxy and a lot of really evil things happening.) Ultimately, the only thing that the Jedi could really do that mattered is that they helped save people--people like Hera Syndulla--and they did do that. And the accusation that they’re not trying to help people is not a fair one. Even when it comes from a place of deep care. And that’s why this scene was ouchy in such a good way, it really was an amazing episode to watch!

#obi wan kenobi #anakin skywalker #padme amidala #ahsoka tano #jedi order #meta #tcw spoilers #long post

2K notes · View notes

caneannabelle · 3 years

Text

ok hi guys. it’s been a while. i wrote this analysis back when Mag 187 aka Checking Out aka The One Where Helen Dies first came out and literally ever since i’ve posted it i’ve wanted to redo it because it feels. lacking. listen if there’s one thing i hate it’s incomplete media analysis and i must right my wrongs lest i be forced to look upon myself and crumble from within. that being said, i’ve been putting off this rewrite for a long long time bc Life Gets Weird. tldr this was written over the course of several months so i apologize for inconsistent quality. anyways let’s get into it!

part one: recap!

it’s been a while! let’s just go over what happened. the scene i wanna focus on in particular is this one:

VICTIM

You’ve got to help me!

ARCHIVIST

[Angrily] Don’t touch me!

[THE ARCHIVIST PULLS AWAY, AS THE VICTIM FALLS AND IS CRYING]

HELEN

Oopsie. Not so easy, is it? Keeping up your humanity?

(187).

that being said i’m gonna be kind of all over the place but! i do think that’s a good jumping off point.

part two (part one): disparaging everyone’s problematic fav

in my original post my point was that in reflexively reacting to a victim with disgust and anger jon inadvertently reveals the nature of his dedication to helping victims as ego driven, especially because this line is directly preceded by him asserting his moral high ground over helen as being a “protector” as opposed to her indulgence in destruction. what i’m saying is homeboy has a savior complex. honestly there’s a lot of evidence to support that claim but i think the most obvious example would be jordan kennedy. like.

JORDAN

…Yeah. But wrong. Sick.

What did you do to me?

ARCHIVIST

I helped you.

JORDAN

Helped me? I don’t feel right, I, I just – Ah! No I don’t – argh! I don’t want this!

(184). to be clear it’s an action with a good intent! he just wants to help someone who once helped him! BUT it also demonstrates a lack of conscious empathy. i feel like i don’t have to argue this since jordan Literally vocally said he didn’t want this several times throughout the scene but the point remains that while jon’s intent is good the actual application of his saviourism removes the autonomy of those he affects. i’m not gonna touch on the “is it objectively immoral to become an oppressor for the sake of self preservation while existing within an extreme system in which all are oppressed regardless of your individual status” query mostly because i do not have the brainpower available rn to come to my own conclusion about systems of power and the way they’re represented in tma (which is a whole other rant tbh) but jon DOES rob jordan of the ability to come to his own conclusion in this debate and make his own choice, thereby removing his autonomy. you know. autonomy. free will. the thing that is central to jon’s internal conflicts. huh.

anyways i NEED to stress that i’m not saying that he’s the same as jonah or the web or even annabelle (although annabelle is a victim. no i don’t take constructive criticism). i just want to point out that his actions reflect a lack of understanding. while he’s able to empathize with the pain others experience and is eternally hyper- aware of it he is unable to view that pain through any lense besides his own and uses it in his cycle of self pity and blame, minimizing it at any point possible in the quickest way and Not prioritizing the wishes of the victim but instead the efficiency in decreasing his own guilt. anyways back to 187- both the victim and jordan are treated as props by jon (and helen) and once they serve their purpose in reaffirming the two’s sense of self are cast aside and ignored. ok from here i’m gonna get conceptual and self indulgent bc it’s my analysis and i get to bring up vague convoluted philosophy.

part two (part two): part two

let’s talk about the distortion for a sec. i refuse to believe helen and michael were both completely gone and it was just the distortion piloting their visage, mostly because… like that’s not what the text would indicate

HELEN

Michael isn’t me. Not now.

ARCHIVIST

What happened?

HELEN

He got… distracted. Let feelings that shouldn’t have been his overwhelm me.

Lost my way.

(101). it’s heavily implied that there was SOME remainder of michael in there, even if the being wasn’t him. maybe i’m way off base here but the way i interpreted the implosion of michael was that it was driven by his inability to maintain the repressed resentment and anger he had for gertrude. like it’s pretty clear that some warped version of michael’s feelings were trapped inside of the distortion and i’d go as far as to say that they were integral to his formation as it. i’m gonna operate on the assumption that michael and helen are two separate beings here for a sec even though we know they’re not. As opposed to michael’s resentment for the archivist, helen actively sought refuge in the institute and from the small amount we saw of her Pre-Distortion it seems like her paranoia is internally directed. i think you could even say that while michael was caught in an eternal battle with the concept of connection, helen is caught in a battle with the concept of self. the point is that she thinks of jon in a less “The Archivist” sense and more as just That Guy who she had an intense connection with that one time.

ARCHIVIST

So… S-so what do you want?

HELEN

I don’t know. Helen liked you, so… there’s a lot to consider. But I will help you leave.

(101). i would also like to point out that helen’s emergence as the distortion coincides with jon coming to terms with his identity as the archivist. parallels, baby! SO helen is a newly formed being that is grappling with the concept of her own existence and jon is reevaluating his understanding of identity as he comes to terms with the fact that he is turning into the thing he’s fighting against and this is all happening at the same time. live laugh love. stay with me here, i promise i’ll get back to 187. Throughout seasons 4 and 5 helen attempts to validate her own moral decisions via jon who she once saw herself in. conversely, jon sees both an image of what he could become AND arguably a representation of his past failure in her.

ARCHIVIST

It did. I think… I mean, you remember how I was back then, how paranoid. The Not!Sasha was there, and I could sense something wasn’t right, but I just couldn’t place it. It left me a suspicious wreck. Then when Helen Richardson came in, it seemed like… she was in the same place I was, but worse, further along. I thought, maybe if I could help her, that would mean… maybe I wasn’t beyond help?

(188). helen and jon lie at opposite ends of the same spectrum. both of them derive pleasure from the suffering of others

HELEN

Oh, John! This existence can be wonderful, if you just let it.

ARCHIVIST

[Sadly] I know.

(187). needless to say that a LOT of jon's arc and the themes surrounding him focus on the concept of autonomy and addiction and i think it'd be fair to say that this component is an aspect of that. repressing these qualities is both a way of reaffirming his control and also just.. him trying to be what he perceives as Good, and season 5 is the point at which this comes to the forefront of his character- particularly the line between what is intrinsic and what he truly has control over. a battle of the concept of the self, if you will. while the two share similar traits, jon is intensely moralistic while helen indulges in a twisted sense of hedonism and both are fueled by an inability to expand their viewpoint. helen fully immerses herself within these qualities and intentionally blinds herself to any concepts of morality (indulgence), and jon actively pushes back on this as hard as he can and follows black and white moral framework (repression). this means that in order for their relationship to function he must either accept her, choosing to let go in his personal battle with autonomy OR she must break out of her worldview and conform to standards of human morality which goes against her own nature.

part three: questions i do not have the answer to

so. what does it all mean. WELL. 187 is the boiling point of all this tension. we know that helen relies on jon to validate her sense of self and we know that jon sees himself in helen, both past and present

HELEN

But that doesn’t make any sense. You barely met her. You had half an hour together, and she spent most of that ranting about mazes! She was positively delirious with paranoia!

ARCHIVIST

True. But as you’ll recall, I was pretty paranoid myself at that point.

HELEN

So what? You saw yourself in her? A sad reflection? A possible future?

(187). I’d argue that 187 is demonstrative of jon’s inability to either fall into complete indulgence in intrinsic values that lack moral validity vs. maintain and image of self that does not conflict with the values he attempts to uphold in order to find internal satisfaction and yes both of those concepts are inherently egocentric as he bases his moral judgement on what he can justify to himself instead of what can be calculated via empathy. however. paired with the alternative (helen). is that BAD. is it inherently selfish to do what you perceive as good in order to feed your own savior complex? and if so, is it inherently selfish to indulge in destructive qualities as to not delude yourself? is honesty vs deception a black and white question? if not, where does helen even fall? in not deluding herself does she achieve a moral high ground? IS she deluding herself by denying the potential to be facetiously benevolent at the detriment of both her personal enjoyment and her honesty? does helen even posses the capability to repress her violent qualities? if she doesn't, does she have any autonomy? if she and jon are both inherently selfish and intentionally resistant to introspection, what makes them different? i do not have answers but i do think the text is meant to invoke these questions. i mean,

MICHAEL (STATEMENT)

There was a great evil, she said, and Michael was going to help her fight it. Am I evil, Archivist? Is a thing evil when it simply obeys its own nature? When it embodies its nature? When that nature is created by those which revile it? Perhaps Gertrude believed so. Michael certainly did. He believed everything she told him.

(101).

part 5: conclusion

so once again. what does it all mean. well! even post helen’s death jon continues to fight for autonomy and preserve his moral worldview so. i think that probably indicates something good.

MARTIN

Huh. She couldn’t help what she was, I guess.

ARCHIVIST

She didn’t even try.

(188). i honestly don’t have a thesis i just find it incredibly interesting how the themes surrounding these two intersect and play off of each other. anyways looping back to 187 i do think in a broad sense jon killing helen is representative of him choosing to stick by his convictions and keep fighting. i don’t have any good way to end this but thanks for sticking around during my self indulgent rambling!

#also apropos of nothing but #this scene reminds me of a clive barker story #truly that has nothing to do w this analysis i just wanted to throw this in the tags #anyways! hope this makes sense #i had a friend who’s never listened to tma read over this to make sure that it’s coherent #and she said it was fine so.. alice ty #this was fun! i have lots of Thoughts on tma and i should write them more often #the magnus archives #mag 187 #jonathan sims #the archivist #helen richardson #helen distortion #michael shelley #tma meta #the distortion #the spiral #tma

31 notes · View notes

sashannarcy · 2 years

Note

ok i'll bite. why does sasha have NPD

alright I'm gonna finally answer this I am very sorry to keep u waiting GJDKFJD it's just hard for me to talk abt NPD w/o going on and on and on BUT! I'll try to keep this informative while not talking for hours. enjoy the essay under the cut

NPD is usually hard to describe to people in general bc it's a HUGE uphill battle due to the crushing stigmatization surrounding narcissism, but first things first, narcissist ≠ manipulative abuser, so that is NOT what I'm saying Sasha Waybright is. yeah, they happen to be manipulative; it doesn't make them inherently bad. in any case I'm just gonna pull from the 9 basic DSM criteria for NPD bc I feel like that's the easiest way to go abt it, but ofc the base criteria are not a catch-all bc this is a mental disorder and it's nuanced. anyway. here we go:

1. has a grandiose sense of self-importance (e.g., exaggerates achievements and talents, expects to be recognized as superior without commensurate achievements)

they're a child soldier. not only that, they were put into place as the literal lieutenant of the toad army after... what. trying to escape from imprisonment? ofc that's gonna get to their head! have we SEEN Sasha's takeover of the Amphibia theme [go watch it if u haven't!]. they might have issues but they are living BIG and they know they are. she’s very clearly not humble abt how successful she’s been, esp when she meets up w Anne again, so we can def say she has that inflated ego.

2. is preoccupied with fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love

I gotta say this one is less obvious to pick up from the narrative, but. not to push my Sashanne agenda or anything. HOWEVER. look at the way Sasha treats Anne in Reunion and at the end of s2 AND in Turning Point. if we make the allowance that Sasha has feelings for Anne, literally next to ALL of their actions in these parts of the plot can be seen as them obsessing over how they can create this ideal solution for Anne's troubles and how they can be a sort of savior. she urged Anne to leave Amphibia w her in Reunion; she had this whole master plan for Anne towards the end of s2 and True Colors as far as sending her home to be w her parents; Turning Point is now showing that she's committed to making things right w the whole "someone that deserves you" line. it's all just very. idk. they're clearly chasing this ideal situation where Anne can be happy and they can protect her again and I think that speaks for itself.

3. believes that they are “special” and unique and can only be understood by, or should associate with, other special or high-status people (or institutions)

throughout the show we don’t really see Sasha trying to make friends with anyone OTHER than character who have helped them in some way; these characters really need to work their way into their heart for them to consider them worthy of their attention [and they’re only just now starting to improve on this w the events of Turning Point]. look at the way they acted in Reunion: they were dead set on proving to Anne that none of the frogs in this dimension mattered and all they should focus on was getting home. Grime only became important to Sasha after he essentially manipulated her into becoming lieutenant; she had no choice but to stick around him, and he was there for her to lean on after Reunion, so he became worthy in her eyes. like. do you see what I’m getting at here.

4. requires excessive admiration

UM. LMAO. THIS ONE’S KINDA OBVIOUS? DID WE ALL SEE BARREL’S WARHAMMER...... she was fucking DISTRAUGHT over learning that Marcy and Anne were hanging out w/o her LIKE. they need attention constantly and they fall apart w/o it. they need validation and when they feel like they’re lacking that, their sense of stability crumbles. when Anne blows up at them in True Colors, they literally just sit there on Andrias’s throne moping. they lose their purpose. someone get this kid therapy I don’t think their parents gave them enough love

5. has a sense of entitlement, i.e., unreasonable expectations of especially favorable treatment or automatic compliance with their expectations

this one is LITERALLY canon. it is LITERALLY canon I cannot express this ENOUGH. look at Reunion look at their arc in late s2 look at ALL OF IT. they have plans for how things should go; they have ideas of what’s best for everyone and those ideas are rock solid and absolute in their mind. you can tell she’s not used to having her plans questioned from the way she gets more and more manipulative and nasty towards Anne both in Reunion and their initial fight in True Colors, when they’re yelling at each other in the throne room. anyway if I haven’t convinced you yet that this bitch is a narcissist don’t worry there’s more

6. is interpersonally exploitative, i.e., takes advantage of others to achieve their own ends

GESTURES WILDLY AT THEIR ENTIRE ARC???? DO I NEED TO SPELL THIS ONE OUT. no you know what I’m not going to because out of all 9 this one is the most obvious. although as a quick aside here I hate how this criteria is phrased and just want to point out that the NPD base impulse to exploit/manipulate people can’t be controlled and is not inherently malicious; it takes practice to not act on it BUT it can be managed so as not to hurt others. and that is reason #5483 why narcissists are not bad people thank you for listening and we are moving along now

7. lacks empathy: is unwilling to recognize or identify with the feelings and needs of others

this one goes hand-in-hand with 6 in that it’s what allows narcissists to manipulate w/o many qualms; they’re not typically thinking abt the effect it’s gonna have on the person being manipulated. in Sasha’s case this criteria shines the most [imo] when they get shocked at Anne not just immediately agreeing to whatever they want; their mind can’t process why Anne can’t just leave everyone behind or just let Hop Pop die or just allow the toads to take over Amphibia. she even threatens to send her home to her parents when Anne doesn’t want to comply in True Colors; she’s not trying to be EVIL, she just literally can’t understand the fact that yes, Anne would be happy to see her parents, but she can’t just leave the Plantars behind. and the easiest way to explain why Sasha can’t comprehend this point of view is due to a lack [OR JUST LOWER LEVELS] of empathy; they struggle with putting themself in other people’s shoes.

8. is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of them

again this is a behavioral thing that’s maybe not explicitly obvious from the narrative but can be reasonably inferred. plus. Barrel’s Warhammer. my good friend the Barrel’s Warhammer episode. there is an EXTREME amount of jealousy there in Sasha learning that Anne and Marcy have teamed up w/o them, to the point where they endanger their life in order to prove a point because they are so blinded by their own rage and envy. it’s uh! a little abnormal! get this kid a FUCKING therapist

9. shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes

NOT TO DISS THEM OR ANYTHING BUT THIS IS SASHA WAYBRIGHT..... GJRKJDJKDF....... THEY ARE JUST LIKE THIS. I don’t need to elaborate we all know this is just an integral part of their personality and we love them anyway

in conclusion the DSM criteria for NPD is not QUITE the best because this is very textbook definition and, again, mental disorders are heavily nuanced, BUT. they technically only need to have 5 out of these 9 criteria to have NPD and uh. there’s evidence for all of them. and yes I know she’s only 13 but lord if you’ve watched this show you know she has issues so I cannot help but think her personality is a bit disordered <3 anyway uh! Sasha Waybright is a narcissist in my heart. make sure to like comment and subscribe

in conclusion [2]:

#in the tags let me preface by saying if u don't agree that is totallyyyy fine but please don't start anything w me I don't wanna debate it #this is for fun. I see a character I relate to and I psychoanalyze the shit outta them. wheeee #and also to those who don't know me yes I am a narcissist yes I know what I'm talking abt blah blah blah #love and support npd havers we're trying our best. love and support npd sasha waybright they're trying THEIR best #and also sorry for the amt of focus on anne but sasha's narrative is centered around anne so I kinda can't help how much I bring her up GJDK #alright anyway. anon sorry to blast u w information beam. but I hope this clears up ur query #sasha waybright #amphibia #anonymous #ask

18 notes · View notes