i still want val to have somehow been besties with dahlia hawthorne at one point. they have a book club and they read sharp objects and dahlia wants to remove every copy from the face of the earth

I know you'll probably disagree with me, but i rlly hate the Cloud recessess ending. It's just....

Those elders killed wwx. The Lans were 100% ready to murder both at Qiongqi path but also at the siege. They see him as the guy who corrupted their precious jade. They all preach righteousness, but the whole madam Lan thing is iffy at best and i do not believe that everyone there fully believes the rules. Hell, i have a special bone to pick with the " do not gossip" rule, seeing as gossip had been the main info route for women in patriarchal societies.

I just don't think that after wwx killed Lans in the siege they'd be all that willing to forgive him and take him in w open arms. The juniors and kids love him, yes, but people who saw the war....

Not to mention the whole " do not speak to WWX " rule. I've seen ppl say it's a joke but it's On The Wall. It's supposed to be followed. Even if it was intended as a joke - which i don't believe - it's very cruel for someone w rejection and trust issues.

I also hate it from a very personal perspective. I see Wwx as ND, and, as an ND myself, all those rules terrify me. From the no running and the proper posture ones, i can pretty well imagine they forbid stimming. The Lan curfew would fuck anyone with insomnia and there's smth deeply ucked up abt the " do not grieve in excess". I get that they're supossed to be a paragon of the best things at all time, and that LJY is very UnLan like, but for someone w anxiety who CAN'T follow those rules, it would be a nightmare.

...Some points:

First, the Lan elders did not kill WWX, nor did they attack him unfairly. They weren’t looking at him as the man who corrupted LWJ, either, or at least that wasn’t their primary concern (I will never forgive CQL for suggesting they were or it was); they were looking at him as a traitor to the sects who was raising an army to destroy them. Remember, that is the information the Lans had. Every source they had except for LWJ (who the people he would have gone to would have known was biased and who presumably everyone knew had recently been in close contact with WWX where he could have been manipulated or enchanted in some way), sources which included multiple sect leaders (one of whom was WWX’s brother) and LXC’s dear friend, swore up and down that WWX was a major threat, and let’s face it, WWX didn’t do much to dissuade people from thinking that! Acting like the Lans were maliciously targeting WWX is doing them something of a disservice, I’d say. They acted based on the knowledge they had available; note how the Lans are the first to offer WWX their help once they’re given reason to believe he may not be a villain! And even aside from that, saying they killed WWX (and not JGS and JGY’s manipulation or JC’s army) feels a bit like scapegoating, honestly. Of the four sects, the Lans are quite possibly the least responsible for WWX’s death. If it would hurt him to live with or around anyone who held any responsibility for his death his only option would be to live as a hermit, which would be far worse for him. And yeah, the Lans aren’t perfectly righteous all the time and some morally dubious things have been done by Lan sect members; they’re human, after all! Some of them will only be as moral as their sect leader demands they be! That doesn’t mean the sect as a whole is bad, especially with LXC, LQR and LWJ in charge. Certainly I’d say they’re still better than the other sects, all things considered. One ambiguous situation that may or may not have involved some members of the previous generation doing some fucked up shit doesn’t mean WWX would for sure be mistreated! 

As for gossip... there’s a difference between sharing information and gossiping. There’s no evidence that the Lan women are blocked from... y’know, freely communicating and sharing information between themselves. We have no reason to believe they are reliant on gossip. Also they presumably go out night hunting just like the men? Men and women are kept separate in the Cloud Recesses, but I get the sense that that’s more like... school stuff than anything else. The women aren’t exactly locked up, they can be cultivators! The society is still sexist, but that doesn’t mean they’re kept from going out and doing things. And I need to make this clear: there is a fair chance that the rule against gossip saved LWJ’s life, because it kept word of him defending WWX from the sects from spreading to people who would not be willing to let bygones be bygones. Gossip sucks! It hurts people! A lot of this story (and more to the point the suffering of the characters within the story) happens because of gossip! The Lans banning gossip is pretty clearly supposed to be a good thing, I’d say.

And yeah, maybe after WWX killed a bunch of their sect the Lans wouldn’t accept him with open arms as if nothing ever happened! And that’s fair! I can’t imagine where WWX could go where that wouldn’t be the case, unless he and LWJ chose to abandon the cultivation world forever. But you know what else the Lans won’t do? Try to execute him. Or from what we see in the extras even dwell on the past that much. No, the Lans aren’t going to immediately forgive WWX and bring him into the fold without a moment’s hesitation, but you know what? They accept his marriage to LWJ! They let him supervise the juniors on night hunts! They consider him part of their sect! Honestly, that is all WWX can really ask and far more than he’d get from any other sect. There are consequences for what WWX did, even though he wasn’t the villain or necessarily trying to hurt anyone, and frankly people not being entirely comfortable with his presence is very much reasonable.

The “do not speak to WWX” rule may not be a joke, but it’s also pretty clearly not a serious rule. No one takes it seriously. The juniors (the only people WWX really talks to anyway aside from LXC and LWJ) only pay it the minimum lip service of talking to him off the path. WWX himself sure as hell doesn’t care! He clearly finds it pretty damn funny. And I don’t think a guy who has never liked him once again proving he does not like him (in a way that is clearly temporary given how later LQR invites WWX to the Lan family banquet with... reasonable amounts of grace, thereby implicitly accepting him as LWJ’s husband and therefore his own family by marriage) counts as a rejection or a breach of WWX’s trust? Like, LQR has literally always hated WWX. He isn’t preventing WWX and LWJ from spending time together or shutting WWX out of the Cloud Recesses or even making a concentrated effort to keep people from talking to him; he’s venting his frustrations, but if he really intended to block WWX from taking part in life in the Cloud Recesses he would’ve done a hell of a lot more than just make a rule who no one WWX likes follows anyway. It’s a temper tantrum, that’s all, and clearly that’s what WWX takes it as. I mean, if nothing else you can’t ban people from talking to the sect heir’s spouse indefinitely. That’s just not sustainable.

As for the rules... banning people from running in the Cloud Recesses and demanding proper posture during lessons doesn’t suggest to me that they wouldn’t allow stimming? ‘No running’ at least is a common rule... most places. It’s distracting, and can be dangerous. And the rule about sitting properly doesn’t mean “Don’t move at all ever”; it means... well, “sit properly”. Don’t slouch or sprawl across the floor. I see no reason why that wouldn’t preclude means of stimming that wouldn’t be disruptive (and given this is in a classroom environment “not disruptive” is kind of important). I mean, those rules certainly don’t suggest that they’re any worse than other sects, and given this is the sect that has magic music for calming people’s minds if any sect would give allowances for neurodivergence it would be this one. Also I wouldn’t be surprised if there was a song to put people to sleep, or medication that can help; this is a world with magic, after all, and if there’s a song that can put spirits to rest there are probably songs for human medicine and care. And of course there’s an element of conflicting needs; maybe the rules would screw you over, but frankly firmly enforced rules keeping people from running around or sprawling out of their seats would’ve been a godsend for me in school, given how much trouble I had focusing with people making noise around me. At the end of the day, is it guaranteed that the Lans would make allowances for people with needs that conflict with the Lan rules? No. But I’d argue it’s more likely that they would than any other sect. This is ahistorical fantasy ancient China, too; you can only expect so much in the mental health department. Still, a sect that literally invented magic music for calming the mind actually seems like the best choice for people with anxiety and such. There’s a reason why there are multiple fics that essentially set the Lans up as mental health experts in the setting!

Basically, a lot of your arguments seem to be issues that WWX would have in any sect. Unless he wanted to give up on the support of a sect altogether, they’re all things that he would have to work through or come to terms with. And of course... the most important point is that WWX is happy in the Lan sect. The extras make that clear. He has a home, duties that he enjoys performing, the love of his family and the support of his sect. He’s happy. I just... I do not understand why people keep feeling the need to try to make it angsty when the novel makes it clear that he genuinely enjoys his life in Gusu, and more than that that if he ever decided he didn’t enjoy it he could leave at any time. You have to remember that: if WWX wanted to leave... he would. He and LWJ would just go, and only come back occasionally so that LWJ could visit his home. Hell, LWJ would insist on leaving for WWX’s sake. So like... the Lan sect wouldn’t suit everyone, but WWX is quite content there and doesn’t want to leave. He’s happy and free to come and go as he wishes; there really isn’t anything to be concerned about there.

Sanders Sides Headcanons: animal traits and the concept of "darkening"

Anyone who likes Sanders Sides and doesn't live under a rock knows that the Dark Sides possess animal traits and motifs. Let's see:

Janus's animal is the snake. It's quite clear just by looking at him: half of his face is covered in scales, one of his eyes is snake-like, a two-headed snake is his symbol, etc.

Remus's animal is the octopus. This is not as obvious as with Janus, but his symbol features octopus tentacles and his costume has green octopus-like details.

Virgil is the spider. While this hasn't been shown on the show, it's a popular fanon, and there's plenty of fanart of Virgil with spider traits (multiple eyes, spider legs, fangs etc.). Aside from that, spider imagery tends to be seen around Virgil: his room is full of spider webs, he has a (toy) pet spider, his curtains have spiders printed on them, he hisses, etc.

However, recently we've seen that animal traits are not exclusive to Dark Sides: Patton, in a great moment of stress, transformed into a giant frog. While this was just to keep with the running gag of Patton's love for Frogger, it's also the first time we've seen a Light Side explicitly taking animal traits. Nevertheless, we must analyze the context where these traits were revealed.

Which takes us to the concept of "darkening".

To discuss darkening, we must see what exactly is a 'dark' Side.

Dark doesn't mean "evil", or at least not irredeemable evil. All Sides mean well and want to help Thomas or get more recognition. Yes, even trash boi Remus.

What dark means is "counterproductive". Even if they mean well, Dark Sides don't seem to help Thomas; or at least, not in an obvious way.

Janus wants Thomas to take care of himself, and that's a noble endeavor; but he still prefers sabotage and manipulation to being upfront with his intentions and helping straightforwardly, which led to Thomas making bad decisions and being confused by his actions. It was only when Janus was actually honest and worked with the other Sides instead of against them that Thomas finally understood what he was trying to do and the others (sans Roman and Virgil) felt more at ease with him around.

Remus wants Thomas to acknowledge the dark parts of himself and be more risqué with his creative content; but he doesn't understand that the reason Thomas doesn't want to acknowledge the thoughts Remus produces is because they disturb him, and it's not that he doesn't want to delve into more "edgy" stuff, but he'd rather approach them from a more serious and philosophical angle. Thomas (both Sanders Sides Thomas and real life Thomas) doesn't shy away from discussing mental health issues, showing the impact of a religious upbringing in a person's moral code, researching topics like intrusive thoughts and the ambiguity of selfishness, or even showing himself and his friends (and Leslie Odom Jr.) dying in the name of being 'altruistic'. Remus just doesn't understand that, and that probably has to do with the fact Roman took King Creativity's moral compass when the Moral Split happened, resulting in Roman being mindful of people's sensibilities and Remus being completely amoral.

Finally, Virgil, prior to reconciling with Thomas and the Light Sides, only wanted to protect his charge, and still does; but acting antagonistic and scaring all the others so they'd pay attention to him only worked against him: Logan didn't understand him, neither Janus nor Remus took him seriously, and Thomas and Roman resented him for doing his job. Sure, most of the blow came from the others not really appreciating Virgil or making the effort of understanding his actions, but part of it - as he himself admitted - was Virgil acting scary so he would be listened to. The moment Thomas actually understood his function and accepted him just the way he is, Virgil eased up and started to relax around the others, leading his input to be seen as helpful and he himself to try and keep a more friendly stance towards the others.

So, having established that, to Sides, being dark is being counterproductive towards the charge (Thomas), we can say that "darkening" is the process of a Side accidentally or deliberately being unhelpful to the point Thomas is badly hurt, at least from their perspective. Darkening is a corruption or bastardization of a Side's core function caused by incredible stress and confusion: when a Side doesn't know what to do anymore, when everything they do or say is wrong, their own domain of thought turns against them and transforms them into an extreme version of themselves.

Darkening is like a Steven Universe corruption or magical girls witching out: despair, stress and confusion warp a Side's mind until they don't know who they are anymore, and their state of mind is reflected in their physical form.

Which brings us back to animal traits.

Because what happens when Patton finally has enough and refuses to listen to more moral dilemmas?

He gains animal traits, just like 'dark' Sides have. He becomes unhelpful, useless (from his own perspective). Patton darkens in that moment. Darkening is a fall from grace.

You know who else become animal-like when they fall from grace?

Christian demons.

That's right, folks: Remus is not the only one who reflects Thomas's Catholic upbringing. Subconsciously, all Sides are bound by religious beliefs, and these affect them when they're at their lowest. Patton, being the one who received and internalized the Catholic moral code when Thomas was growing up, is the first to show how 'falling from grace' affects a Side's physical form.

When an angel falls and becomes a demon, they gain animal traits to reflect their more violent and primal nature (ignoring the fact many of these demons had actually been Pagan deities before Chistianity took them and turned them into incarnations of evil). This also comes (at least, according to Good Omens, I don't know much of real-life demonology) with a change of name. Fanon gives different names to Light Sides's dark versions: @parano-vigilant-snake-boy, in response to my "King Creativity Rex" theory, called dark! Roman Burnout.

So, in short, when a Side (again, and I cannot stress this enough, from their point of view) fails to live up to Thomas's needs, they fall from his grace. They turn from guardian angels to demons and adopt the traits of such. They darken. Those who never believed themselves to be angels in the first place, like Janus, Remus and Virgil, adopt the traits from the get-go. It must also be noted that the animals that the Sides adopt are regarded as demonic or spooky, such as snakes, octopuses and spiders.

With all this said, what would other Sides' dark forms be if they believed they've fallen from grace?

Patton, as seen, takes on frog traits. Frogs, or rather toads, have been regarded as demonic animals: one of demon king Bael's forms is that of a toad. It probably has to do with their rather unpleasant appearance. There's a post here on Tumblr (I don't remember the author, please tell me if you're it or know who it is) that says that some frogs have heart-shaped pupils, which suits our sweet boi Patton. His name, based on his extreme, insane altruism and to keep with the religious themes, would be something along the lines of Martyrdom.

Logan takes on owl traits. This has been already explored in @parano--vigilant reverse au. The owl is considered an animal of wisdom: one of the goddess Athena's atributes was the owl, and the character of Owl in Winnie the Pooh is supposed to be wise (but kinda falls short). However, the owl has also been considered a demonic animal: Great Prince of Hell Stolas was depicted in the Ars Goetia as a crowned owl with long legs. In the Middle Ages, certain types of knowledge, like medicine and astronomy (the latter of which Logan adores) were forbidden because they were 'demonic' in nature. So, in a certain way, the owl also represents forbidden knowledge, and being a creature of the night only adds to the spookyness. Logan would relate a lot to the owl, given the others often don't want to listen to him or don't like what he says because it's the cold, hard truth. His name would probably be something along the lines of Forbidden or Secret Knowledge, if anything to reflect an attitude of 'I know something that you don't' or 'I could tell you but I don't want to'. His owl imagery might also be related to Thomas's love of Disney and based on the character of Owl.

Roman takes on goat and/or ram traits. Not only are these common traits for demons (including Lucifer himself), but goats also represent the wild, untamed and lustful side of humanity. Fauns and satyrs, for example, were half-goat mythological creatures that spent their time chasing women and accompanying the god of hedonism himself, Dyonisus. Roman is Thomas's passionate and fanciful side who likes to indulge and enjoy the pleasures of life, as well as the most romantic and the most concerned with courting Thomas's crushes. Besides, you need to be pretty extra to give yourself goat and/or ram horns. His name would vary depending on how rejection affects him: he could turn into Wrath or Revenge if he lets his more fiery side take hold, or he could turn into Burnout if he finally gives up and refuses to help Thomas anymore after his charge seemingly betrayed him.

The Orange Side has been headcanonned around as a butterfly. Depending on his nature, this could go two ways: if he's an independent Side, then he would be a moth, keeping up with the spoopy theme; if he turns out to be King Creativity/Rex (please visit the post with my theory of who the orange Side will be), then he would probably be a butterfly, the animal of metamorphosis (reflects how Rex is the fusion of Roman and Remus) and a 'pretty', flashy counterpart to the rather drab moth, reflecting how extra the Creativitwins are and how detached from both the Dark and Light Sides he is (because he's a mix of both, he gets to pick an animal, like a Dark Side, but he gets a non-demonic or spooky one, suited for a non-darkened Light Side).

Hoo wee, that was a long one. This might be just baloney, but please tell me what you think. If you've made it this far, thank you, from the bottom of my heart. I spent a lot of time in this theory.

Persona 5 and Queer Defiance

I just finished Persona 5 and I had many feelings and thoughts and while most of those were very, very positive (fav JRPG, for sure, one of fav games ever, definitely), some of those... weren’t positive, and this is basically a short essay-like thing that I wrote more to work those out than anything, but fuckin’ heck I might as well post it

the gist of it is that treating Ryuji, or any P5 character, as queer is not only the perfect “fuck you” to the game’s terrible, exclusionary portrayal of queer people, it’s wholly in line with the mindset the game itself encourages; by reading any P5 character as queer, you’re engaging in exactly the kind of defiant behaviour the game’s story upholds

(also, minor spoilers for Persona 5; though those spoilers have kinda major implications, even out of context)

Persona 5 is a game about societal reform and defying corruption, oppression, and subjugation. It is also, unfortunately, a game that not only ignores how relevant the struggles of queer people would be to these themes, but goes out of its way to try and make queer players feel alienated. Yet, in doing so, Persona 5 grants us the ability to act out its own morals even better than it can within its own story.

First, the only queer characters in P5: the Beefy Trendsetter and the Scruffy Romantic, a pair of extremely stereotypical gay men, dainty and effeminate and gaudy in their dress, yet bulky in their build and sporting dark, short beards. This alone wouldn't totally terrible (bad, but nothing unusual), but of course they are also portrayed, in no uncertain terms, as lecherous, predatory sexual harassers. Moreover, this comes not from any optional side quest, but from two unmissable points in the main story, where they openly harass Ren and Ryuji, encounters that frame the two men as creepy jokes. By the end of the game, the pair is nowhere to be found throughout Tokyo, which, paired with the context of the game's ending, clearly implies that such people have no place in the world. Pedophiles, sure, absolutely, they don't have a place in the world. But P5 treats homosexuality and pedophilia as going hand in hand. It's an insulting, degrading, pointless portrayal, and it's difficult to ignore. For reasons explained further on, though, it's quite easily defied.

Ryuji Sakamoto is clearly in love with Ren. He's also constantly acting like a complete, albeit utterly unsuccessful, horndog, talking about girls, checking out girls, and just generally being a fuckboy. Yet, that fuckboy veneer drops dead to the floor whenever Ren enters the equation, at which point Ryuji consistently starts spouting the sweetest, lovey-est, most gayest things. And throughout the game, although characters always assume Ren is straight, the subject of romance is always accompanied by dialogue options that just allow the player to skirt around any indication of heterosexuality, or even imply (though likely unintentionally) homosexuality.

Most significant, with regards to Ryuji and the player's romantically-ambiguous dialogue choices, is Valentine's Day. On this day, if you didn't enter a romance with any of the female characters, Ryuji will come to Leblanc in the evening, dejected over his own lack of romance. Sojiro tells him to come in and have a drink on his treat, but then inexplicably tells Ren to take care of the shop as he walks out. Before he leaves, though, he stops and looks at Ryuji, saying with a smirk and in a teasing drawl “Enjoy.” Exactly what he meant for Ryuji to enjoy is not specified. Morgana then leaves as well, and although him leaving so Ren can spend time alone with his friends (and also not wanting to be around Ryuji) is par for the course, it's odd that the game goes out of its way to put Ren and Ryuji alone together on Valentine's Day, especially given how the scene ends. The evening plays out uneventfully, with the two boys sitting together at a table and simply talking, venting about romantic hardships, and reaffirming their bond when Ryuji gives Ren a Valentine's Day chocolate. After complaining about not getting any chocolate from their female teammates, Ryuji declares (jokingly...?) that he's done with girls, and a few sentences later strongly implies that he's actually never had a girlfriend (which clearly isn't for lack of trying, leading you to wonder exactly why Ryuji is so bad at romancing women). And then... the scene just ends. Fade to black, without even a dialogue box of Ryuji saying goodbye. It just ends and moves on to the next scene, leaving the rest of that evening utterly up to the player's imagination.

And this is where the themes of the game come into play with how you look at the game itself. Headcanons are no new thing, and having a personal interpretation of a character that clashes with the canon has been a thing as long as characters have been a thing. But with most media, even someone who actively reads every character they can as queer will also remain conscious that their reading isn't canon, or official, or even necessarily widely-shared. But Persona 5, by its themes, actively encourages you to defy its own reality. See, the two major themes of P5's story are the following:

   - Being true to yourself and abandoning concern over what people think of you, and in doing so liberating yourself from the shackles of restrictive societal norms and carving out your own place in the world.

   - Understanding that the world is defined by how you perceive it, by what you see and feel, and thus has infinite potential to be remade, so long as you have the strength and will to enact your ideals and perceptions.

Anyone with half an awareness of the social context and struggles of queer people can see how deeply, immediately relevant these themes are to queer experiences. And, as any can also see, these themes actively support the defiance and reshaping of that which you perceive as wrong in accordance with your beliefs; these themes assert that reality exists only so far as it is perceived, and not only can, but should be reimagined in a way that upholds justice and unity.

It's ironic; with one hand, Persona 5 gives the inspiration to resist oppressive and distorted views, and with the other it gives an oppressive and distorted view to resist. It’s the ultimate example of media that's thematically and subtextually queer: the queerness comes from your perception of subtext, while the game's themes actively encourage you to assert that subtext and defy the oppressive, distorted beliefs the game itself presents regarding queer people. It's bizarre, the way the game subverts itself. Persona 5 tries to insist Ryuji is straight and gay men are lecherous predators; Persona 5 also encourages you to assert that Ryuji is gay, and in doing so tell Persona 5 to fuck off. It's self-contradicting in its own morals, and I'd love it if I didn't hate it. 

Refusing to accept Ren, Ryuji, or any character in P5 as straight, refusing to accept the way P5 attempts to portray queer people, and instead defiantly asserting your perception of the characters... nothing could be more perfectly in line with P5's themes and morals. Persona 5 tried to push queer people away, and in doing so only made us more alike to the Phantom Thieves than anyone else.

Top five anime’s?

It’s quite challenging to restrict myself to just five, but I shall do my best!1. Death NoteThis was my “starter series,” without which I might never have ventured into the wonderful realm of anime and manga. I am fascinated by detective stories, moral ambiguity, and Faustian pacts, so it is little wonder that I took an instant liking to Death Note. Even after multiple viewings, the psychological cat-and-mouse games between L and Light still rivet me. The brilliant, inscrutable, unconventionally attractive, probably autistic and oddly endearing sleuth L currently ranks as one of my favorite fictional characters of all time. Although Death Note has its fair share of plot holes, messy writing (particularly in the second half), and unabashedly sexist portrayals of women, its depiction of complex ethical dilemmas and the battle between two formidable intellects make it worth a watch or five. I recommend the English dub; Alessandro Juliani’s L is pitch-perfect.

2. Shingeki no Kyojin (Attack on Titan)It may be a mainstream anime, but this is one of those rare shows that doesn’t merely live up to the hype but rather exceeds it. In brief, the anime depicts a bleak, violent world in which the remnants of humanity must live ensconced within the protection of massive walls in order to avoid being devoured by giants known as titans that mysteriously appeared several generations ago. When the outermost wall is breached, protagonist Eren Yeager can only watch in horror as his mother is eaten alive by one of these monsters, a tragedy that fills the fiery young boy’s heart with a thirst for vengeance against all titans. However, what could have proven to be a stale shonen story became a work of immense depth and power in the hands of mangaka Hajime Isayama, and these attributes translated beautifully to the anime. In addition to gorgeous animation and an electrifying soundtrack, this show also stands out for its character development. Almost all characters of narrative import are vibrantly human, with painful backstories and plausible, nuanced growth as the series progresses. Attack on Titan’s graphic depictions of violence and pathos-laden storyline are not for the faint of heart, but it is a must-see for any anime fan. Again, I prefer the English dub, mainly because of Levi’s and Hange’s voice actors.3. Kuroshitsuji (Black Butler)Specifically, the first half of season 1, Book of Circus, Book of Murder, and Book of Atlantic.I refuse to dignify the non-canon dumpster fire that was season 2.Don’t let the lascivious fujoshis scare you away; despite its unsavory reputation, the portions of the anime that adhere to Yana Toboso’s gorgeous manga are excellent. Though a mere child, Earl Ciel Phantomhive bears a heavy burden as the Queen’s Watchdog, responsible for keeping Victorian England’s sinister underworld in check. Luckily, he has the aid of his ever-faithful butler, Sebastian Michaelis…who just so happens to be a demon with whom the young nobleman has contracted in order to find and exact vengeance upon the unknown perpetrators who murdered the boy’s family and sold him to a diabolical cult. The series is called Black Butler with good reason– there are many dark and disturbing elements to the story, from the bloodcurdling child abuse depicted in Book of Circus to gory fight scenes with zombies in Book of Atlantic. However, the compelling characters, fire OPs and endings, and (in the more recent adaptations) beautiful animation keep me coming back for more. The complex nature of Sebastian’s relationship with Ciel, which simultaneously encompasses and transcends the dynamics between parent and child, servant and master, and predator and prey, is a glorious trainwreck from which you can’t tear your eyes away. Yet again, I have a preference for the English dub here– J Michael Tatum’s Sebastian is the stuff of legend, Brina Palenica’s Ciel is spot-on, and Daniel Frederick’s Grell Sutcliff restores my soul (to my ear, his voice acting beautifully suits a transgender woman who has not yet been able to fully transition). That being said, I’ve also taken a shine to the Japanese sub; Daisuke Ono’s voice has a gentle yet subtly sinister quality that suits this devil wrapped in silk quite well.4. Watamote (No Matter How I Look At It, It’s You Guys Fault I’m Not Popular!)This slice of life anime chronicles the hilarious yet heartbreaking misadventures of Tomoko Kuroki, an otaku who desperately attempts to curry favor with her high school peers in spite of debilitating depression and anxiety. Watamote is one of those shows that makes you hurt while you laugh as you watch Tomoko, time and time again, prove to be her own worst enemy as her blunders cause all her schemes to backfire. To an uncomfortable extent, I saw quite a bit of my high school self in her. If you struggled with loneliness, social isolation, and/or mental illness as a teen, I would highly recommend this show. It doesn’t exactly have a happy ending, but it’s strangely addictive. Plus, Tomoko’s Japanese voice actor is precious, and the OP is epic.5. Bungou Stray DogsMix a wide array of supernatural gifts, a plethora of literary references, and a vast cast of aesthetically pleasing characters, and what do you get? BSD! Chock-full of meaningful messages on overcoming past traumas, fighting against the inertia of despair, cultivating a sense of self-worth, and redemption, this anime does full service to Asagiri’s ongoing manga. From the zany suicide enthusiast Dazai Osamu to the weretiger/cinnamon roll Atsushi Nakajima, you’re bound to fall in love with at least one of the members of the Armed Detective Agency as they use their magical powers to fight against forces of crime and corruption that threaten their city. Excellent soundtrack, lovely animation, and characterization that progressively deepens, especially during the second season. I’ve only seen this subbed and thoroughly enjoyed it!Thanks so much for the ask!

Human, Space, Time and Human (인간, 공간, 시간 그리고 인간, 2018) by Kim Ki-duk

Human, Space, Time and Human by Kim Ki-duk is an ominous and bleak Homo homini lupus est sentence to the humanity, a kind of condemnation the films of Bela Tarr or Alexey German’s Hard to be a God have been proclaiming.

The human existence can be comprehended following the rise of depravity and exploration of the moral decay of the individuals resulting in the conclusion the humans are the world’s parasites and pests. The only hope for the bright future is in the shoots the plants put out as an allegory to the potentially innocent lives of the newborn. However, when the time of harvest comes over the new generations appear being unable to overcome the cruel human nature and people find themselves getting pleasure in suppressing and slaughtering the nature and eventually their own kind.

A disturbing and distressing Korean film of Kim Ki-duk is a misanthropic allegory of the human’s entity depicting the decline of humankind, extreme misogyny, cruelty, and inevitable supremacy of instincts and violence over the bright qualities and features the humans have been struggling to develop within the centuries.

The latest film of Kim Ki-duk contains many references to his previous works and even iterations. The film’s title resembles one of the most acclaimed works of Korean arthouse master Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter… and Spring (2003). The structure and plot development are also similar – the film is divided into several parts putting a loop in the end. While this plot loop in 2003 masterpiece was just saying the humans are meant to commit the same mistakes and experience love, hatred,  and failures, the message of Human, Space, Time and Human is very bleak and misanthropic. The society has always been decaying, and individuals cannot find their way through. After immersing into space and time dominated by Homo Sapiens, every newborn baby would become human whose life is full of sins, intolerance, and cruelty. Another obvious link to previous works of Kim Ki-duk is in the space where the film is set: just like Hwal (The Bowman) the whole story takes place on the ship, and we see no other locations but the ship where the characters are trapped. The whole world of protagonists is squeezed into this limited space with no laws and rules the society stands upon. Though, again the idea of this film differs from what the viewers had seen in Hwal. Human, Space, Time and Human surprisingly simplifies the cinematic language of Kim Ki-duk. Though the whole film is an allegory and contains a number of allusions just like Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter… and Spring, everything here is pretty much straightforward. Kim Ki-duk’s best arthouse features are intellectual and can be hard to comprehend due to ambiguous themes and demanding conventions the director comes up with. In this film, the idea is on the surface, and the viewers collide with clichéd characters. It is obvious where the villains are and who is here to oppose them. Though, it ends up with everybody being some sort of villain. The film’s Bible references are also quite transparent, though well-placed not far-fetched. Simplification of the cinematic system of Kim Ki-duk makes him more available to the audience, yet the film is something that would alienate many viewers due to disturbing violence and naturalism.

The first part of the film entitled Human portrays the group of travelers on an old warship embarking for 7-days cruise (this 7-days-story is the first Bible reference). The narration doesn’t explain why these different people travel on the same ship and where they are heading. It is also not explained why the so-called cruiser is packed with sex workers and all sorts of perverts. Perhaps, that’s the way the narration intends to depict society. This first part illustrates the class difference, conflicts between bandits and seemingly decent people, and abusing of power the senator (Lee Sung-jae) possesses on this ship. With the protection of a group of hired villains, he sets himself and his son in a privileged position which irritates the other passengers. Upon raising their voice seeking some equality in rights on the cruiser, passengers collide with the extreme violence of gangsters having no fear or shame in the actions with approval of their patron. Apparently, this leads to no good.

In no time, the ship becomes a scene of disturbing cruelty. The main female character whose name is never mentioned (portrayed by Mina Fujii) is raped by almost every significant male character including senator. His son is shown as a kind of positive character initially who was not fond of the privileges he is meant to enjoy. However, when he finds an unconscious woman in his cabin after his father leaves he rapes her too without any sympathy or sentiments. Meanwhile, the girl’s boyfriend is stubbed and killed and the other woman is also raped by another gang. There is nobody standing by the side of women, and we see the hidden misogyny going beyond control in every man. Also, there are several sex workers on the ship who sell themselves and close their eyes as they are treated as junk. Even those men who could be possibly against it find themselves being unable to cope with the sexual lust and hidden predilection for abuse of the women. The message of this part is that the men have never been able to suppress their beastly instincts towards women, and this will never change. Being put into the situation where the women are abused, the men choose to be a part of it despite showing some intentions to oppose it. Those who actually oppose it, get killed. These rape scenes are really heavy, disturbing and hard to watch. I can understand people who have stopped watching Human, Space, Time and Human at this point. However, the film would later become even nastier. An isolated group of people now sinks in drug abuse, gang rapes, assaults, cruelty, and unfair treatment of each other from the position of power. The main female protagonist is shown as the martyr, a kind of innocent Madonna. Meanwhile, this rise of depravity is being observed by a mute mysterious old man who resembles a character of an old Buddhist monk from Kim Ki-duk’s masterpiece Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter… and Spring. This is probably the only character in the film who has no intentions to rape anybody (not counting on a character played by Joe Odegiri who is killed at the beginning of the film after his girlfriend’s rape). The old man does nothing, but scrabbles dirt and remains of food collecting it in cups, and it seems like he has something in his mind on what’s going on around him.

The second part entitled Space begins next morning when the passengers and crew realize the ship is now floating high in the sky, and they can see no terrain or sea. Kim Ki-duk never explains what happened as everything from now has to be taken as an allegory to human existence and history. As the ship runs out provision, all the humans show their real face trying to find the way to survive. Nobody knows what’s happening, and those who have guns and grenades are reigning. Slowly people get an idea all of them would die of starvation on this ship. The senator who is in control of all provision is the first realizing it, and he decides to maintain his high status as death approaches. First, he orders to distribute less food to the other passengers, then he stops feeding them at all, repels the attempts of uprising and eventually kills almost everybody with his own hands.

The people in extreme situation turn into the beasts very fast, and there are no positive characters in this setup. It is not something original in the film of Kim Ki-duk, but he has his own view on this survival. Those who possess power retain an excessive use of it, while the others are not able to rise up and left to fight with each other. The female protagonists takes side from the events befriending the mute old man who plants the vegetables and fruits in the underdeck bunker. He even has a few chickens there are yet to start laying the eggs. The woman thinks this is madness as it will take months to get the yield, though the old man keeps looking after his shoots of plants. At the same time, people start killing each other, and their corrupted morality turns them more and more violent. The senator’s son wonders if there is a point of attempts to survive in such conditions. An old man acting as the personification of God explains it with his actions to the girl: the point is to maintain the new life which is being conceived. The symbol of this life is in the shoots he looks after. But soon the girl realizes she gets pregnant after being raped. The old man doesn’t let her do any harm to the child, and she understands this baby is the only reason to survive as it brings the new life which is still innocent while being in the woman’s womb. An old man convinces this baby is a result of divine intervention. At some point, the senator’s son tries to express his sympathy to this girl he raped and feels sorry for what she’s been through. He even tries to oppose his own father and gangsters, but he cannot do much. Later, the senator is killed, and the gang leader for some time becomes the only power on the ship. The girl saves a senator’s son life in a fray with a gang leader taking his promise to take care of her and child. But as he becomes mad of starvation he forgets about any decency ending up raping a pregnant woman again and eating a piece of her flesh. The third chapter Time is probably the most disturbing and disgusting as the survivors fall into cannibalism. Moreover, the old man also takes his part dismembering the corpses preserving the flesh and grinding their bones to use it for planting more shoots. He starts planting the shoots on the bodies of those who had fell victims of this madness. Though these heavy scenes are present here in abundance, at some point I ceased concentrating on this naturalism just taking it as allegory. Homo homini lupus est. People live feasting on other’s flesh, and they don’t do it literally because of law and legal instruments restraining them. When the people’s hands are not tied with any laws and they have to survive they end up like the passengers of the ship. This is the misanthropic message of Human, Space, Time and Human which is probably one of Kim Ki-duk’s conclusions on the nature of the human entity.

There is no God – says the senator at some point despite finding himself drifting in the air on the warship. At the end of the third chapter, an old man who acts like God disappears living the bloody footprints forming a sign of infinity on the deck. He also leaves some flesh, and two last survivors would have to decide who is going to keep living. Eventually, a woman kills the senator’s son to save a chicken he intended to eat. The martyr remains the last living, and she still carries the baby in her womb representing the continuation of life and acting as a symbol of hope. Soon we see the first old man’s vegetables and fruits growing out, and chickens laying eggs.

The last chapter of the film is again entitled Human. It’s time for a loop to close. At first, we see a child and his mother who are the last survivors on the ship and maybe in the whole world. The ship now resembles Eden as it is covered with plants, trees, and gardens growing up from the bones of those who passed away years ago. The little boy is growing up, and he is the symbol of new life. As there are only two people living, I anticipated the story is going to end up with something disturbing it came from. And in the last scene, we see an adult who had found a pistol and started developing violence. He is groping for discovering his real hidden nature and this is not an innocent child anymore. He would be a grown-up man soon who is meant to repeat the fate of other humans. The boundless violence and lust to abuse and suppress lives within him. The film closes with the boy chasing his mother in an attempt to rape her, as the other “humans” on the ship used to do. Then suddenly Kim Ki-duk gives a film Tarkovsky’s Solaris-like ending showing the ship floating from above in the endless space. The divine intervention results in the birth of another corrupt human and the film’s conclusion is a sentence to the humankind. Humans cannot overcome their cruel and abusive nature, they can only hide it for some time. Whenever they get a chance, they would show off their face, sins, and lusts. The idea of Kin Ki-duk’s film is certainly not something new, but it marks a milestone of his career. An author of many provocative features ends up making one of his bleakest film with a transparent verdict on the nature of humanity. Human, Space, Time and Human leaves humans with no hope for change.

The last film of Kim Ki-duk is extremely violent yet it is pretty much into life, from my point of view. The photography is quite delightful making it visually entertaining, not speaking of an abundance of ugly and heavily disturbing scenes of people killing, eviscerating, raping, and eating each other. Though, probably there is no way to get rid of these scenes in such film. The symbolism and multiple religious references which are easy to read appear to be an interesting addition to this carousel of insane violence and depravity. The performances of Lee Sung-jae as senator and Ahn Sung-ki as old man are great, but the real star of Human, Space, Time and Human is Mina Fujii portraying the lead female character whose name is never mentioned. Despite a very dark message and many disturbing and disgusting scenes, Human, Space, Time and Human had become the most remarkable Kim Ki-Duk’s film during the last few years.

This is probably not a film one would recommend to anybody to watch. Kim Ki-duk’s reputation becomes more and more controversial, especially with the recent allegations of sexual harassment against him. It is hard to imagine how the Korean director comes up with such a bizarre material so consistently throughout his career. There were the exceptions such as fantastic 3-iron, Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter… and Spring and even recent 2016 film The Net. However, this time Kim Ki-duk is back to disturbing content which is thought-provoking but very difficult to digest. It is disgusting, but realistic at the same time, and somehow the film might have an enthralling effect. However, I doubt this is something the audience should be looking for in the cinema.

I just finished watching all three seasons of The Fall.

I was actually really uncomfortable with the show up until early Season 2. Paul’s “charade,” as Stella calls it was just too much for me. I hated how he tried to present himself as an upstanding and normal citizen when he has actually never done a sincere thing in his life other than love Olivia and commit murders. This is how I felt in season 1. 

In Season 2 I was warming up a bit to the show because they were getting deeper into the police stuff, but I didn’t love the Rose story line. I get that her kidnapping helped the audience to get to know Paul better but I just wanted the Stagg family to be happy. I guess I like Tom and Rose as characters, I suppose. They’re flawed but real and sincere. 

Also, this is probably the #1 peeve of mine but Katie and Paul’s relationship made me so uncomfortable. I don’t remember what happened in which season but I got extremely uncomfortable when Paul was encouraging Katie to explore her dark side, and he would invite her to his hotel room, ask her to do things for him. When they skyped each other was also pretty uncomfortable. To Katie, it was her chance to get to know Paul better and advance their relationship, but to Paul, I’m guessing she’s just a tool to further his reach and influence. When Paul is arrested, it’s harder for Katie to reach Paul, and that’s when her obsession with him becomes something more like a fangirl crush. Before, Katie was actually able to interact with Paul, and so he was able to influence her directly. However, while he’s in police custody, Katie begins to paint a picture of what she thinks Paul is like because he’s no longer there to continue exerting his influence.

In Season 3, when Paul got amnesia, I was annoyed because it felt like such a cop out. I thought they were going to use the amnesia to make the trial morally ambiguous, since if they convicted a man who had no memory of his committing the murders, it would be like convicting an innocent man. But I’m glad that a different approach was taken. Actually, the amnesia was a chance for the audience to learn about Paul’s past. If the police brought up anything related to the murders, Paul could just say he couldn’t remember and wouldn’t have to comment, but as Paul said, the police were clever by bringing up something that happened before the block of memories he can’t remember. 

I feel bad for Sally Ann and the kids. I mean, you could say that her crime was believing that her husband was a good person. She was definitely under a lot of stress and I was kind of pleasantly surprised to see that Stella sympathized and wanted the police to be a little easier on her. I can definitely see why she was driven to attempted murder-suicide. She thought she had a perfect stable family. Then she finds out her husband is having an affair with a minor. And then she finds out that her husband is actually a serial murderer. 

I’m curious whether Olivia’s unwavering love for Paul would also be a point of stress. Olivia’s love for her father will never change, even though it’s heavily hinted that she understands the gravity of his actions. However, to Sally Ann, she probably can’t see this. I think Sally Ann can only see that Olivia continues to love her husband despite all these terrible things that he’s done, and I can imagine that it must feel painful. To Sally Ann, Olivia’s unwavering love seems like she is siding with dad rather than mom, but to Olivia, she loves both her parents but in different ways. Also, side note. It seems that Sally Ann did a lot more caretaking of the kids, so she ended up being the “mean” parent. Since Paul was away more, he had the opportunity to be the “fun” parent, and I wonder if that had an effect on Olivia’s love for her dad. 

Even if we take that out of the equation though, Paul’s relationship with Olivia is very interesting. He definitely doesn’t have the same relationship with Liam. Maybe it’s because Olivia is his first born. In his conversations with Dr. Larson, his fondest memory is of Olivia as a baby. So when she was born, I think that awakened a special feeling within Paul, and so he associates Olivia with that epiphany. It’s obvious that Paul has a complicated relationship with women for sure, filled with both love and hate. 

The entire series, I just felt like Paul was a shell of a man. As Stella said, he’s always putting on a show. He’s always wearing a mask. And the issue for me is I don’t know why. I did some reading on /r/TheFallTV and someone mentioned that for Spector, it’s either love or death. His entire life, he’s loved two people. His mother, and his daughter. This is definitely simplifying, but I think his murders are a manifestation of his love and anger for his mother (since his love wasn’t good enough for her), and the only thing he had left was his love for his daughter. But by the end, he’s so far removed from Olivia. When the therapist/counselor is speaking with Olivia, she says she loves her dad, but she probably won’t see him for a while, not until she’s bigger or when she has a child of her own. So it’s clear that Olivia isn’t ready to see her father as of now. Since Paul doesn’t have Olivia, all he has is death. 

Now, STELLA. A brilliant character. She’s always so level-headed but she’s emotional when it’s required. I thought it was interesting when Spector’s lawyer acknowledged that his paralegal admired her. I mean, I definitely admire her. Even when she’s “freaking out,” she’s extremely cool and calm. I probably have more things to say but for now I can’t think of anything to say other than she’s super cool and I want to be her. 

Overall, I’d say I enjoyed the ending more than the journey leading up lmao. The first season just made me extremely uncomfortable. The ending was wrapped up well I think. Although I originally wanted the same fate as Stella did, which is for Paul to be able to go through the justice system, I don’t think it would have done him justice (ironic, yes). In prison, he would still have the capacity to do a lot of the things he does now. He could even receive visitors (like Olivia). When Paul got shot and was unconscious, he was in a dark tunnel. One end was his mother calling to him, and the other end was Olivia calling to him. He was called back to the world of the living by Olivia’s voice. But now, it’s clear that not only is the world of the living unwelcome to him, but Olivia also isn’t ready to see him. So for him, he might as well go to the land of the dead, where his mother is. I think if Paul was in prison, he would still be tormenting the lives of others. As we can see at the clinic, he can still exert significant influence on both patients and staff, and that is dangerous. From his interactions with Katie, it seems he enjoys corrupting others. And Stella would always have this monster lingering at the back of her mind. But now that he’s dead, hopefully the saga of the Belfast Strangler is put to rest once and for all. 

There are a bunch of things that went through my head as I watched but I don’t remember them all lol. I’m sorry this was just a jumble of words but it’s late at night right now and I want to get this down in words before I forget!

The Flower & the Serpent: The Violent Women of Game of Thrones

“Here's the smell of the blood still: all the perfumes of Arabia will not sweeten this little hand. Oh, oh, oh!”

-Lady Macbeth, Macbeth, Act V, Scene I

DC’s Wonder Woman opened this summer to critical acclaim. Pop culture outlets made much of its empowered protagonist and progressive themes, lauding everything from its feminist fight scenes to Wonder Woman’s thigh jiggle. In approaching the first superhero flick of the modern big-budget tentpole era both helmed by and starring a woman with such intense and specific scrutiny, much is overlooked and more repurposed to suit a flexible, almost reactive set of ideals held by fans and critics alike. If a woman does something in art that shows her to be powerful, it is interpreted as inherently feminist no matter its context in the work of art or the world beyond.

Perhaps in a world where women, homosexuals, and transsexuals lobby vigorously for the right to serve in active combat zones a conflation of ability to do violence and the possession of feminist power is understandable. Surely there are many women who, for reasons understandable or awful, crave invincible bodies and the power and grace to crush the people who hurt them. Many more are happy to acclaim any media in which a woman emerges victorious as another mile marker driven into the roadside on the highway of equality. Especially beloved are movies, shows, comics, and novels in which such victories are portrayed as straightforwardly virtuous and good. 

Think of Sansa Stark condemning her rapist and tormentor, Ramsay Bolton, to a grisly death at the jaws of his own hounds. How many fans and critics expressed unbridled joy at that, as though Sansa had won some kind of symbolic victory for all women? Her sister Arya’s rampage, which has taken her across the Narrow Sea and back again and claimed the lives of dozens, has likewise been applauded as a meaningful triumph in the way we tell women’s stories. For the record, I think both of these plots are intensely compelling and reveal volumes both about the characters themselves and the world they inhabit. Game of Thrones is a show nearly singular in its refusal to make violence joyous or cathartic, no matter the whoops and cheers of many of its fans.

Still, no matter how many times the show delivers searing anti-war images or explores the corrosive influence of violence on those who commit it, viewers remain hungry for the spectacle of women overpowering their enemies and turning back on them the weapons of their own oppression. In a culture where Redpill misogynists hold elected office and our president is a serial rapist, a desire to see women take power with a dash of fire and blood feels all too understandable, but celebrating the destruction of their personalities and lives is a reductive way to understand their stories.

In order to understand what Game of Thrones has to say about violent women, it’s necessary to set aside the thrill that seeing them materially ascendant brings and focus on the images, words, and larger context of the show’s particular examples. Where films like Wonder Woman thrive by repurposing a complex and horrifying conflict (World War I in the first film, the Cold War in the upcoming second) into a heroic battle between good and evil, Game of Thrones, rooted in a genre where conflict is often artificially cleansed of moral ambiguity through devices like entire species of evil-doers, makes no attempt to sand the edges off of its depictions of war or violence. 

Nearly every woman on the show, with the possible exceptions of Gilly and Myrcella, are directly involved in war, torture, and many other forms of brutality. From Catelyn and Lysa’s ugly mess of a trial for Tyrion, an act they surely must have known would cost many smallfolk their lives once Tywin Lannister caught wind of it, to Ygritte fighting to save her people by sticking the innocent farmers in the shadow of the Wall full of arrows, the actions of women with power both physical and political are shown to bear fruit just as ugly as any their husbands, sons, and brothers can cultivate. There’s an uncomfortable truth lurking there, an admission that some modes of action and ways of being may not intersect meaningfully with many of modern feminism’s tenets.

In this essay I will dissect scenes and story to illustrate the show’s deeply antipathetic stance on violence and the ways in which it is misunderstood both by those who enjoy the show and by those who detest it or object to it.

I. ARYA

If a man is getting his eyes stabbed out by a child he intended to beat and rape, does the child’s gender matter when determining what the scene is meant to convey? Is it somehow triumphant for a girl to do that to another living person, no matter how repugnant he might be? Isn’t it possible that what the scene communicates is not that Arya’s slow transformation into a butcher with scant regard for human life is something we ought to cheer for but that the fact she couldn’t survive in Westeros or Essos as anything else, much less as a little girl, is deeply sad?

Arya’s crimes nearly always echo those of her tormentors. Think of the first person she kills, a stable boy, not so different in age or appearance from her erstwhile playmate, Mycah, who was slaughtered by the Hound a bare few months before. Or else consider Polliver, the Lannister soldier who murdered her friend Lommy and whose own mocking words she spits back at him as she plunges her sword up through his jaw. More recently, her wholesale slaughter of House Frey recalls with a visual exactitude which can be nothing but intentional the massacre of her own family and their allies at the Red Wedding. In this last instance she literally dons their murderer’s skin in order to exact her revenge, pressing Walder Frey’s face against her own in an act that feels uncomfortably more like embodiment than disguise.

Arya’s long journey through peril and terror has hardened her, but there’s little reason to rejoice in her hard-won powers of stealth and bloodletting. Who, after all, does she resemble with her obsession over old scores and her penchant for cruelly ironic punishments if not the subject of this essay’s next section.

II. CERSEI

Cersei Lannister,  is distinguished from a hundred other interchangeable evil queens by the attention devoted to her own suffering. Sold by her father to a man who beat and raped her, denied the glory heaped on her twin by sole dint of her gender, humiliated and terrorized by the despicable son whose monstrosity she nurtured, and finally stripped, shaven, and marched barefoot through jeering crowds after being tortured for weeks or months in the dungeons of the church she armed and enabled, Cersei’s brutality serves only to deepen her misery and isolation.  

The aforementioned tyranny of the High Sparrow she put in power, the murder of her monstrous son by her political rivals after she groomed him to be the beast he was, her conflicted and good-hearted younger son’s suicide after his mother’s revenge on the High Sparrow and the Tyrells broke his spirit; Cersei’s litany of victories reads a lot like a list of agonizing losses when you look at it sidelong. Certainly her grasping, vindictive reign has brought her no joy. It’s true that audiences are expected to see Cersei as a horrible human being, which she is, but the time the show spends on giving viewers a chance to empathize with this badly damaged person trying to throttle happiness and security out of a recalcitrant world argues for a more complex interpretation of her character. Watching her need to dominate rip her family and sanity apart, ushering all three of her children into early graves, transforms her from a straightforward villain to a troubled and tragic figure.

III. DAENERYS

Sold into slavery after a life on the run with her unstable and abusive brother and raped on her wedding night by a foreign warlord, Daenerys’s relationship to violence after her ascent to power is complex and heavily ideological. Her crusade to end slavery, motivated as much or more by strength of character and an innate sense of justice than it is by personal suffering and an impulse toward vengeance, has engendered sweeping changes throughout Essos, but at times it has taken on shades of the ostentatiously symbolic punishments for which her family name is famous. The crucifixion of the Masters is a particularly gratuitous example as Daenerys allows her desire to change the world and her need to feel good about the justice she doles out combine to produce a dreadful and inhumane outcome.

This act of performative brutality finds its echo in the rogue execution of a Son of the Harpy, imprisoned and awaiting trial, by Daenerys’s fervent supporter Mossador. Dany may claim that she is not above the law when Mossador confronts her, but when butchery without trial suited her she was quick to embrace it. Her case is uniquely complicated by her enemy: the slavers. Nothing excuses violence like a civilization of rapists and flesh-peddlers beating and maiming their human chattel onscreen, and there is powerful catharsis in seeing their corrupt works shredded and their hateful and exploitative lives snuffed out, but in making them suffer and in choosing the easy way out through orgiastic episodes of violence, Dany betrays her own unwillingness to do the hard work of reform. In many ways, her long stay in Meereen functions as the tragic story of her decision to embrace the grandiose violence her ancestors partook of so freely. We may feel good watching her triumph over evil, but we’re reminded frequently of the horrors and miseries of her reign.

IV. BRIENNE

Brienne’s pursuit of knighthood and adherence to its practices and code is no warrior-girl fantasy about a scabby-kneed tomboy learning to swordfight. Trapped in a body unsuited to courtly life, mocked by suitors and competitors alike, and yearning for the right to live by the sword as men do, Brienne finds challenging refuge in a way of life intimately associated with violent acts. From her butchery of the guards in Renly’s tent to her honor-bound execution of her one-time king’s brother in a snowy forest, Brienne’s path has frequently led her into mortal conflict.

At the climax of Wonder Woman, Diana kills a super-powered caricature of historical figure General Erich Ludendorff, a character who seems to exist solely to uncomplicate the moral landscape of World War I. A few minutes later she kills the man behind the man, her divine uncle Ares, and breaks his grasp on the people of war-torn Europe. The presentation of the act of killing as a triumph for human morality strips away much of what violent media can offer. Contrast Brienne’s desperate fight with three Stark soldiers as she attempts to spirit Jaime Lannister to safety on Catelyn’s orders. Screaming with every blow and leaving her opponents hacked to pieces, Brienne succeeds in her mission at an obvious human cost. Men, despicable men but men nonetheless, are dead. She and Catelyn are now in open rebellion against Robb’s authority. 

To kill is to sever a life and give birth to a living, growing tree of consequences. To explore it instead as a tidy way to resolve problems and make the world a better place is to misrepresent its essential nature. You can’t improve the world through butchery. You can’t heal by harming. What violence in media is meant to teach us is a capacity for empathy, a reflexive understanding that all people are as fully and completely human as ourselves. Loathsome or virtuous, kind or cruel, no human suffering should be a comfortable or affirming thing to witness. (The Republican Party’s elected officials and pundit corps certainly makes a strong case for an exception to this rule).

One might charitably assume that lionization of violent women and their specific acts of violence stems from a place of vulnerability, a desire to balance the scales and erase the danger and aggression with which almost all women must live on a daily basis. I would argue that while this may hold true in part, a deeper truth is that many people have not been taught to feel pain for others in a way that allows for true emotional vulnerability or complex feelings about morally ugly and confusing actions. It’s easier to cheer when the guy we hate gets his than it is feel sorrow for the former innocent who dished out justice, or empathy for the deceased whose life must surely have held its own miseries and secret hurts. 

Audiences would be well-served by taking a moment to step back from their reactions to violence in media and attempting to interpret what message the art is trying to convey. Is the violence slickly produced and bloodless, a parade of cool moments and heroic victories? Or is it focused on the humanity of victims and perpetrators and the cost of their actions? What is the camera telling us? The colors? The editing? Are we meant to agree with King Theoden’s speech about the glories of war in Return of the King when the very next cut brings us into the hellish, pointless confusion of the taking of Osgiliath? Are we meant to be happy when Sansa smiles at Ramsay’s death when the very last thing he told her was that she would carry him, his essence, with her forever? 

The most transcendent joy art brings is the opportunity to reach out of your own beliefs and feelings and into someone else’s dreaming mind, to parse the language of symbols and ideas with which they have addressed the world and make in the negative space between your consciousness and theirs a new understanding. Learn to relish the complex and sometimes hideous nature of humanity over the easy thrills and cheap moral lessons of crowd-pleasers made by billionaires. Understand that art that makes you uncomfortable could be helping you grow. 

A woman’s actions are not laudable just because she’s a woman, or just because she’s been wronged. In our rush to associate the violent triumph of women over the men who’ve hurt them with personal strength, healing, justice, and praiseworthiness we ignore what shows like Game of Thrones are saying in favor of what we want to hear. Violence should never be easy, and violence that assures us, or that we think assures us we’re good and rooting for the right people should always be suspect. 

In labeling anything that pleases us, that satisfies our own hunger for justice and supremacy “feminist,” we forget that feminism is first and foremost an attempt to remake the world. The structure of things as they are is brutish and oppressive, and to cry tears of joy as women, even fictional women, fall prey to the allure of those same structures is to fundamentally misunderstand the point of a life-or-death struggle in which at this moment in history we are perilously engaged. As assaults on our tattered reproductive rights continue, as women struggling with addiction, illness, and homelessness are thrown into prison en masse, as our political leaders openly contemplate sentencing the most vulnerable among us to death in order to pay off the corporate elite and the Left (justifiably, in my opinion) contemplates and utilizes resistance through force on a scale unheard of in this millennium in our country’s history, learning to see violence for what it is has become more imperative than ever before.

Last weekend I watched all the available episodes of Lookout, and this weekend I’ve watched 7 episodes of Bad Thief, Good Thief  (I had already seen and enjoyed the first 3 episodes well enough, but wasn’t invested yet.)  For other kdrama fen who got over-invested in Rebel: Thief Who Stole the People, both of these series are pretty good followup series, though neither is a sageuk.

Neither series is perfect, but qualify for “Korean Leverage of my heart and soul” status.  Bad Thief, God Thief, IMO, should have held off on various revelations until later on, and Lookout is...very clearly by a newbie writer at times-the male lead is over-complicated ( as opposed to complex)  in that way where “morally ambiguous” becomes “convoluted and will anyone buy redemption at this point?���  (the right actor could pull it off, but while this actor does smarmy well, he doesn’t have the screen presence and charisma to quit pull it off) and things don’t always come together.  Bad Thief Good Thief has the more expansive and complicated plot tied to current and past politics (and almost 4 times as many episodes) but takes a few episodes to get going.  It has a lot of narrative similarities to Rebel, and a few spoilery things actually had me looking to see if the two shows shared and production members or writers, but that doesn’t seem to be the case.  They do share several actors, though.  Lookout is much more fast paced with action scenes and a heroine who regularly is a gallant knight in shining armor rescuing other women.

They both get the “It” that Leverage had* but most shows of the type miss.  That “It” is that it isn’t just cool people being attractive and witty and competent.  It’s a wish fulfillment fantasy that there is someone who will see to it that the people who the law can’t or won’t punish will still be punished, an justice will be met.  This is also the general “Robin Hood” fantasy, though the dynamics play out differently when it’s in a historical setting than when it’s in modern times.

Unsurprisingly, both shows, like Rebel before them, are from MBC.  While SBS is floundering all over the place to figure out how to still mostly depend on an international audience when they’ve lost their biggest outlet (China) and KBS is...doing something (Like, I dunno.  They aren’t the mess that SBS is, but they seem trying really hard to make their mark different kinds of dramas this year more than usual, with mixed results.) MBC is pretty much running around yelling “VIVE LA REVOLUTION” at the top of its lungs.  (Ruler: Master of the Mask is also pretty heavy on the political commentary, but it’s much more focused on “Puppet ruler under the control of unseen master, BAD IDEA” while Rebel, Lookout and Bad Thief Good Thief focus more on widespread corruption and abuse of power and social standing.)

As an aside, Lookout might require trigger/upsetting stuff warnings beyond what you’d expect for these kinds of political thrillers.

*ok, Leverage had several “It”s that other similar shows lack, but I’m talking about a specific “It” here.