#For real the more I watch this version the more I love it | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

darklinaforever · 2 days

Note

I love the way you justify any sick shit just because you like it. Ships with violence against women (Darklina, Reylo) - yes, ships with pedophilia (SebaCiel) - yes, just because you like these particular characters, you are ready to look for "depth" and "complexity" there, but only because YOU PERSONALLY do not like Aegon or Aemond or anyone else, they cannot be complicated and interesting characters in someone's perception. Hypocrisy and stupidity. You accuse people of justifying violence and consider your opinion the only true one, even though you do exactly the same thing yourself, instead of admitting, "yes, I think these characters are hot, so I'll turn a blind eye to what they do."

Darkling and Kylo Ren / Ben Solo = Canonical gray and complex characters. (Oh and Kylo Ren / Ben Solo is a real victim of grooming)

Aegon II and Aemond = Canonical villains (besides being rapists).

“The groom was fifteen years of age ; a lazy and somewhat sulky boy, Septon Eustace tells us, but possessed of more than healthy appetites, a glutton at table, given to swilling ale and strongwine and pinching and fondling any serving girl who strayed within his reach.” - About Aegon II.

“Thus did the flower of House Strong, an ancient line of noble warriors boasting descent from the First Men, come to an ignoble end in the ward at Harrenhal. No trueborn Strong was spared, nor any bastard save... oddly... Alys Rivers. Though the wet nurse was twice his age (thrice, if we put our trust in Mushroom), Prince Aemond had taken her into his bed as a prize of war soon after taking Harrenhal, seemingly preferring her to all the other women of the castle, including many pretty maids of his own years.”

What doesn't click for you here in terms of simple differences ? These characters literally have nothing to do with each other. Not my fault if you are not able to understand this simple fact of how they were written. It's not me who ready to look depth or complexity in them. They are literally written like that, but not really the Greens by GRRM.

In addition, what you say is false, because I always said that I liked the original Aemond, as a pure villain within the dance obviously, due to the context of his writing, namely that Aemond is Daemon's foil (the real gray and complex character), a dark reflection of this latter, and that's quite fascinating, complex, and cool for me to analyze (and that is the reason why I don't like Aemond in the HOTD version, because he actually loses that essential narrative feature that basically makes him who he is in Fire and Blood).

But sorry to say, nothing about Aemond's original characterization as a person is deep or complex, much less the rest of his later actions. Literally he is presented as a little devil from childhood and stay like that until the end.

It's Aegon II, indeed, who I don't find interesting at all, even as a villain. He's just pathetic and disgusting, and anyway it seems to me that these are canonical traits of him...

But some people like this type of villain and good for them, it's just not my personal cup of tea.

I prefer Aemond, and more particularly Alicent, in the group of villains among the Greens, especially because as I said, they are more interesting for me to analyze.

I still remind you that Alicent, from Fire and Blood, is one of my favorite villains in all categories. She's that type of villain that you never get tired of loving to hate. She's a rotten woman with rotten motivations, but she's interesting to watch / reading because she's still the one running the whole Rhaenyra usurpation operation, not Otto. Alicent, in canon, is an intelligent villain who will do anything to achieve her selfish ends at the head of operations. And it's always satisfying to have this kind of villain to face the protagonist.

But I have no problem with people liking Aemond and Aegon II for what they are ; which is again villains.

My problem is those who try to turn them into gray characters, or worse justify them, things that happen far too often among stans / fans of these characters what are Aegon II and Aemond.

Because yes, there are fans who actually justify the violence and bad actions of these characters by finding tons of excuses supposed to make them complex for their fans while the original text does not do so. They indeed exist (even though not everyone is like that and I never said they were all like that).

I've already talked about it a thousand times. But you, their fans, seemed incapable of getting these simple facts into your skulls.

Plus it's cheeky to accuse me of "yes, I think these characters are hot, so I'll turn a blind eye to what they do." when all my posts about the Darkling and Kylo are analyzes due to their complexity / actions, and it doesn't even seem to me that I've already addressed their physical. While once again, there is a great sexualization of the characters of Aegon II and Aemond by certains of their fans.

Seriously, how many posts have I seen saying that "Oh my god, they couldn't resist Aegon II because he's so hot !!!" and we're still talking here about a disgusting alcoholic rapist (and pedophile on top of that according to Fire and Blood) who likes to watch children fight in an arena... while then saying first degree next to what they think that "Aegon II needs hugs to better manage his emotions, and that the rape of Dyana is not really a rape because after all we did not see her with our eyes, if that turns out there was not of penetration !" The complete wtf of that...

So don't come and give me this type of speech, with the number of individuals like I have just described who exist in the community of fans of these two characters that are Aegon II and Aemond.

Afterwards, I am not saying, there are surely people who do not understand the characters of the Darkling and Kylo Ren / Ben Solo, seeing them as pure villains and therefore only see their romantic relationships with Alina and Rey as negative, but who, following the fact of finding the actors / characters attractive, one says"yes, I think these characters are hot, so I'll turn a blind eye to what they do." After all, many do it for the Greens, surely others do it for the Darkling and Kylo Ren / Ben Solo, due to a poor understanding of these last two characters. So obviously what you describe probably exists.

But that's not what I do.

Sorry. I don't ignore the horrible actions of the villains I love, or the gray characters I love. I just don't receive them / don't treat them / don't see them in the same way, because their actions as villains and gray characters don't have the same scope. It's just a fact.

Also, I imagine that what you hear complex about Aegon II from Fire and Blood is that he"didn't want the throne in the first place, because he only did it to protect his family, because he been forced" ?

Bullshit reported by Eustace, a pro greens, who obviously will manage to embellish the people he propagandizes, what surprising !

Especially since this stupid speech from Aegon II never wanted the throne... is quickly revealed be bullshit when we see how much he enjoyed sitting there, ready to reign alone and refusing to be controlled by Otto, all while refusing to abdicate in favor of Rhaenyra, who had nevertheless proposed that his brothers and sisters would be safe, and that he insults her of whore in the process for free, it seems to me. Which... oh yes seems so much like the mark of a deep and complex character / person who don't want be king !

And then it's still really cheeky to tell myself that I like "sick shit with violence against women", when you literally like / found deep interesting, complex and complicated, you know... RAPISTS ?! (But who mostly deny being rapists in the Aemond and Aegon II fans / stans community OF COURSE !) Probably the worst form of violence against women ?! Hospital ? charity ? in your speech ?

Although it's again not really a problem that you love them, as long as the problematic aspect is recognized by you fan. (Even if, objectively, I find that there is nothing interesting about Aegon II as a villain, both as a person and in his character construction and his role, but anyone is free to think otherwise)

As I said, I like Aemond, who is a rapist, as a villain for his narrative role, which I find interesting to analyze. But I also like Kilgrave, another rapist, because I find him interesting, in his way of acting in relation to his power, and the way he can be obsessed with something. We are clearly dealing with a particular psychiatric case. Without forgetting the charisma of the actor and the terrifying aura that he manages to exude from the character. Moreover, these two characters have the particularity of dying because of the women who were the victims of their mistreatment, and that is very very enjoyable.

Or the Dracula of 1992, who also rapes Lucy, Mina's best friend, but who remains presented by the story as a figure similar to Lucifer having fallen and who in his love for Mina allows him to find redemption in death when 'she kills him at his request, all without that stopping him from being the villain of the story in the movie.

But is it because I love these villains that I support their evil actions ? Absolutely no. Of course not. They are monsters / villains that I enjoy watching (while hating them for their disgusting actions) at work generally against the protagonists, but I like even more the moment where they are destroyed. It's exactly the same as the Disney villains of our childhood. We love them for different reasons, but we recognize who they are, that what they do is bad, with no real explanation for the most part, and we mostly love seeing them be defeated in the end.

Besides, it's not because I like gray and complex characters that I'm going to defend / justify / agree with their dark actions either, under the pretext that they have a part of light. On the other hand, we can explain their actions, reflect on their complexity. These characters may have good reasons for doing what they actually do, perhaps originally noble causes, like the Darkling, with wanting the protection of Grisha from normal people and the countries Fjerda and Shu Han, because of centuries of mistreatment and discrimination ? Or the fact that they've been groomed since they were fetuses in their mother's womb, manipulated through unbearable voices in their heads to influence them to do bad things, like Kylo Ren / Ben Solo ?

Or those being described as being made of equal parts light and darkness, but who will only direct their dark side against the people they hates / are they enemies and who... let's be realistic, mostly look very little or not sympathetic in our eyes as readers, even if the actions against these ennemies themselves are not very synonymous of kindness on the part of these gray characters either, like Daemon Targaryen in Fire and Blood.

One thing his introduction in Fire and Blood proves :

And that GRRM himself confirms through his words :

It's not as if the author says something about the character and the text doesn't follow. On the contrary, the text of Fire and Blood completely validates the author's words about Daemon.

But hey, if Green stans prefer say that Daemon is a pure villain and monster and therefore to appear illiterate in order to justify liking / preferring Aegon II, that's their problem. People who know how to read and analyze will know what it's all about.

Anyway, all these characters are only gray and complex who in their respective stories have people worse than them, the real villains, whom they generally face with the protagonist.

No, the true problem here for you, is not that you like the villains Aegon II and Aemond, but is that you bother to send me an anonymous message implying the defense of the honor of these horrible villains fictional character by comparing to other characters (who are gray characters, not villains) who have nothing in common, in order to make you appear more morally just under the pretext that you will put them all on an equal footing, even if they are once again not written the same at all...

But again, the difference between these characters is simple. Like I said :

Darkling and Kylo Ren / Ben Solo = Canonical gray and complex characters. (Oh and Kylo Ren / Ben Solo is a real victim of grooming)

Aegon II and Aemond = Canonical villains (besides being rapists).

So there is no comparison to be made between these characters, or even that any equality of treatment is applied between them. Period.

And what the hell do you care if I imagine a scenario where an adult Ciel gets fucked by Sebastian after they surprisingly fall in love ?

It's literally an imaginary scenario of a purely fanon ship, therefore which has nothing canon, which in fact does not really fit into the framework of pedophilia, since I imagine an adult Ciel in this scenario, like I already said it to an anti in another post !

It's just as stupid to say that Sareth and Sessrin are pedophile ships, because the characters knew the young lady when she was a child, when literally nothing happens or is even suggested in this sense when they are children, while one is a story about the sexual awakening of an adolescent girl through her fantasies and the other, nothing happens until she is an adult (i.e. the guy develops feelings for the girl), for the norms of the society in which she lives !

I repeat, canonically, Sebaciel does not exist.

Sebastian does not have pedophilic sexual urges for Ciel, and Ciel does not fall under Sebastian's manipulation to do things with him. This scenario simply does not exist (nor do I imagine this kind of scenario when I personnaly imagine scenarios for this ship).

Canonically, it is simply a complex and deep relationship between a human and a demon, which therefore exceeds human norms, due to their pact which binds them.

But there is certainly a homoerotic subtext by the author, which can be fun (or not, it depends on how people feel) to see and understand. It's a particulary choice to make, but that doesn't mean that the author supports a real pedophilia and sexual relationship between a child and an adult since anyway... well that never happens in his work canonically speaking. Demons are often linked to lust / perverse things, and are anyway... inhuman. So obviously they will not have normal / moral thoughts or actions. But once again, in reality, there is nothing happening between the characters canonically, and for my part, I not imagine any pedophile or ephebophile scenario.

Love scenarios are common between human and demon, it's one of the many known tropes that many people love. Much like being an immortal falling in love with someone he actually knew as a child (and this without entering into the domain of pedophilia or grooming as many antis people like to automatically and stupidly think).

It's nothing new.

But if you automatically think that this kind of twisted pedophile scenario come in my head when I think to Sebaciel, well... maybe you're the real problem.

To conclude... I would say that there are two possibilities for the person you are.

Either you see Aemond and Aegon II as pure villains but don't know the difference between villains and gray characters, or simply refuse to see it so as not to feel guilty for liking villains (or other obscure reasons), which is... ridiculous because we should not be ashamed of loving villains. Since the dawn of time we have loved them when they are well written.

Or, you refuse to see Aemond and Aegon II as the villains they are and try to put them on the same level as any type of grayer character who would do negative actions to make them also appear as complex characters, or you try to insinuate that these other characters are actually maybe worse than the characters you prefer and love, trying to forget the fact that you like real bad guys (which again, is not something something that someone should shame or hide).

These two possibilities can be linked to the fact that you wish in all cases to appear morally acceptable.

One because you will put all the characters on the same level under the pretext that they have all done morally questionable actions, although these characters in fact have drastic differences and are not treated the same way in their respective stories. All to give you the impression of being morally good, because you will not try to differentiate any of the bad actions committed by these characters, when once again you have to make the difference. Because we cannot put a villain and an anti-hero / gray character on the same level. Thus avoiding you taking the risk of really defending or showing your love and preference for a character who has done bad actions in particular to a certain audience. You appreciate and enjoy watching these characters, but still make no difference between these famous characters who have committed bad actions and you put them all on the same level of atrocity. You don't differentiate between them, just saying that they are all bad and therefore on the same level. What could be more morally correct than that on the surface ?

And the other, because you're trying to pretend that you're the person supporting the gray characters in the story against the real bad guys (even though it's actually the complete opposite that the story is telling). And isn't it also a way of appearing morally superior to pretend that you don't like the villains of the story, but gray characters with a real share of light ?

Or that you try to pretend that the characters you like, the villains, are in fact misunderstood gray characters, in the same way that their adversaries in the story are the real gray characters, therefore trying to make people believe that they is no real villain in the story you are consuming, bringing us back to the concept of putting everyone on the same level, but in a less drastic way than saying that everyone is bad.

That, or you're simply a person who doesn't know how to properly analyze the media you consume.

And whatever the truth, I have to say that none of them seem very positive.

Anyway, once again, I actually have no problem liking villains, without trying to justify them so I can feel entitled to like them.

Again, I particularly like Alicent and Kilgrave, villains who are not gray characters.

But I also have no shame in recognizing gray characters and not putting / treating them on the same level as villains, especially such as the Greens. Quite simply because it is the logical order of things when we analyze these types of characters.

The Darkling and Kylo Ren / Ben Solo have nothing to do with Aemond and Aegon II. And that's a simple truth that must bother you a lot for you to take the trouble to send me an anonymous message.

I'm not stopping anyone from liking the characters of Aemond and Aegon II from finding them interesting villains, because most people like villains that are well written, and GRRM wrote the Greens well. I've always said that. I just don't like those who try to make it seem like these are gray and complex characters (or complicated, as you like to say, because what the hell is complicated about the Greens ? I'm not saying that complicated and complex villains don't exist, on the contrary, there are, but we can't really say that the Greens objectively belong to this type of villain, whether Alicent loved her children, and whether Aegon II tried to build statutes for his brothers or not. Because yes, caricature villains still capable of love, that exists. And however that doesn't make them gray, complex and complicated. Just watch the movie “The Frighteners” and many other fictional programs to understand that). Because they simply aren't. This is the reality of their writing by GRRM.

Best wishes.

27 notes · View notes

j8kethewizz · 1 year

Text

I started writing this in the replies of a different post but quickly reached the word limit so I'm putting it here instead. These are my thoughts on across the spiderverse and they contain heavy spoilers. Please only read if you have seen the movie because it's the kind of movie that gets absolutely ruined by being spoiled.

So the antagonists in both ITSV and ATSV have a lot in common.

Miguel and kingpin have the same motivation in each of their respective films. They both wanted to live a life that didn't fuck them over and they crossed through dimensions to try and make it happen.

They both fail to achieve their goal: kingpin's attempts to bring his family back are thwarted by the spiders, and the world Miguel enters literally falls apart around him.

Their actions have ramifications that further the conflict of the series. By creating his collider, kingpin gave the spot his powers, allowing the spot to wreck havoc through dimensions. Miguel's new dimension unraveling led him to believe in specific canon events that must happen to every spider person, and that any anomalies to his formula would cause the multiverse to unravel.

There's a pattern to be seen here, and while the next movie is likely going to focus somewhat on the conflict against the spider society, I think it would be cool if the conflict between miles 1610 and miles 42 followed a similar pattern.

Miles 42 lost his father, and 1610 showing up has proven to him there are other dimensions out there, including one where his dad is still alive, which would provide a motivation in line with the previous ones. Miles 42 is framed pretty clearly as an antagonist, meaning Miles 1610 as the protagonist will likely find a way to stop 42 somehow, meaning all that's left to see is the ramifications. I honestly don't know how it all will play out. Beyond the spiderverse could take this story in so many different directions and most of them would be satisfying enough for me.

The ultimate coolest move in my book would be to create a meta narrative of sorts where each movie has the same key elements that make up the story, but handle the conflict in three different ways; what if each spiderverse movie was an alternate version of the same movie? ITSV would be a man vs man conflict (kingpin pulled the spiders out of their own universes and miles has to defeat him to repair the damage done). ATSV would be a man vs society conflict, as miles is up against a society of other spider people who believe he's an anomaly who needs to be contained, destroyed, or forced into conforming to the spiderman formula. I predict that BTSV (at least miles' main arc) will be a man vs self conflict, showing miles a version of himself who behaves the same way as the villains he's faced so far, and having him reconcile with that.

The villains this series has given us have all been victims of circumstance, people who are trying to do what they can to get themselves out of a difficult or painful situation. What makes them villains is the choices they make in trying to get out. Kingpin, Miguel, and the Spot (and presumably Miles 42 but it's a bit too early to say) will stop at nothing to get what they want, and they don't care about the people they hurt along the way.

Destiny and canon want to put Miles through the ringer like every other spiderman, but Miles rejects these very concepts in the climax of ATSV. Miles chooses to reject these ideas, trying to find an alternate path much like the antagonists. But Miles has a different motivation: in addition to making a better world for himself, he's fighting to make a better multiverse for all of the spider people.

I'm not a super active writer, but a writing adage I've picked up over the years is that protagonists ask questions and antagonists give answers to those questions. Its up to the protagonist whether to believe if those answers are true. In BTSV Miles' question would be "Am I a villain too?" Miles 42 answers yes by showing our Miles that at the very least, he is capable of becoming a villain. If Miles rejects that answer, he will no doubt do so by remembering that unlike the villains he's faced, he's fighting for something greater than himself.

#'im just going to write a few sentences about a cool littke pattern i noticed' i said like a liar #across the spiderverse #spiderverse 2 #atsv spoilers #im so normal about watching movies lmao #i think this is one of those cases where homestuck metatextual brain poisoning has come in handy #if for no reason other than priming me to recognize other metatextual stories in which characters are fighting the narrative #when they said the word 'canon' in the movie for the first time my immediate thought was 'they better not do some homestuck shit'#and they almost did but they DIDNT AT THE LAST SECOND AND DID SOMETHING WAY BETTER INSTEAD #that better thing being the same homestuck shit if it wasnt actively hostile to its audience and took itself seriously #jake waxes philosophical #jake doesn't have a writing tag #autism mode activated #homestuck #< because we're more than 5 tags in so it wont show up there and i name dropped it in previous tags #come to think of it i think regular show also did some metanarrative stuff with fate and choice in the series finale #regular show also had one character and a shadow version of that character whos Them but Evil and they fight each other #which is one of my favorite narrative devices btw #especially if the Evil one isnt a 'real' person but rather a representation of a character's self doubt or loathing #i fucking love man vs self conflicts

11 notes · View notes