This is probably swinging a bit of a bat at a hornet’s nest on this website, but I wonder if the rise of purity culture in fandom, aside from other influencing factors, could have something to do with the fact that so many young fans tend to consume primarily media intended for children.

After all, children’s media is usually at least in part focused on teaching life lessons and providing kids with role-models. That’s why you’ll rarely find an anti-hero protagonist in children’s media. In fact, “protagonist” seems to have sort of been conflated with “good guy.”

Of course, not all media follows these standards. First and foremost, you have to remember that characters aren’t people, they’re literary devices, and they serve a variety of purposes. Some might be role models. Some might be anti-role-models. But honestly, sometimes they literally serve to show “what happens if you put a funny little guy in situations.”

More under the cut.

See, the fiction vs reality debate is interesting in this at. We’re humans, and humans are curious things. Sometimes, humans get morbidly curious and speculate about what might happen in some fucked up situation to some fucked up people. They don’t want any of it to happen in real life, but they still want to have an idea. Literally just because we’re curious.

So what do you do? You make a fucked up little man and put him in situations. He’s not meant to be a good person— honestly good and bad don’t matter here because the story’s not about morals but about cause and effect. Characters can show bad things, they can’t do bad things.

Because humans are curious and like thinking about “what ifs,” sometimes people get really attached to these funny little horrible guys. They like seeing them go through situations and imagining how they’d react. Purely because it’s a fun sequence of cause and effect and way easier than trying to enact it in real life. Now, obviously, stories are influenced by creators’ personal biases, but then that just becomes another dimension to the puzzle. That’s how you get character archetypes who end up telling completely different stories. Sometimes, people really like the way one particular creator has figured out a cause and effect sequence for their archetype. So, people end up with blorbos. Funny little imaginary guys, good and bad, who they just take an incredible, scientific joy in watching. Humans have always been doing science.

And that’s where purity culture comes in. Because, with purity culture, these characters are treated like they’re humans with accountability for their actions. Even though they haven’t hurt any real people. It is, in fact, impossible for a fictional character to hurt people. Even if they are treated as a role model— it’s still the fault of the person who decided to view them that way.

Because characters aren’t intrinsically role models. Even protagonists.

Children’s show creators often make their protagonists to be role models for kids. And in that case, when that’s the stated intent, it’s perfectly reasonable to judge that character’s morals. But you’re not judging a person, any more than evaluating a school textbook for accuracy and correct information would be evaluating a person. You’re evaluating the literary device that is a character. Of course, if you primarily consume children’s media, where many characters are role models and teaching moral lessons is often an intent, what happens when you read something with a different premise? What happens when you read, for example, speculative fiction about what goes on in the mind of a horrific dictator?

If you’re used to judging the worth of characters on a moral rubric, then of course you’ll apply that rubric to protagonists of the new media you read. So naturally, you’ll start thinking that, of course the protagonist of this story is a terrible guy and a horrible role model. What about the people who like him? Well, they must look up to him and agree with him in some way, especially if they’re rooting for him. So of course their morals are in question.

Except, they’re not rooting for him because they agree with him. They’re just rooting for him because they’re invested in seeing where his fucked up actions take him and how it ends up.

Same with relationships. Someone who ships a “problematic” pairing might have absolutely no desire to see any relationship like that in real life, ever. But regardless, it’s a very scientifically, morbidly interesting thing that they can’t take their eyes away from.

Anyway, genre awareness is a great thing to have when consuming media. A romance story isn’t about “what makes a good relationship,” it’s about “what makes an interesting and complex relationship to think about.” A horror story isn’t “what should you do in a fucked up situation,” it’s more of “what might people with these kinds of personalities do instinctively in fucked up situations.”

Genre awareness is cool. You don’t need to think about how good of a role model or representation a character is, so much as you need to think about “what is the purpose of this character in this genre and narrative, and how well are they fulfilling that purpose?”

I was thinking about a conversation I had with a fellow writer a while back and I think it might also apply to fandom.

He was upset because his partner did not read much of his fiction. His partner was supportive of his writing in every other way--supporting his need to have space to write, asking questions about it, being a listening ear during brainstorming, encouraging him to make friends with other writers, etc. He (the partner) had never said anything belittling, discouraging, or negative about my colleague's writing.

But he didn't read much of it. The writer I was talking to wrote sci-fi, and his partner didn't read sci-fi. In fact, he (the partner) was not a big reader of fiction at all.

I told this colleague of mine something that I had decided about my own relationships: my friends, lovers, acquaintances, relatives, etc., have no obligation to be my fans. I met almost all of them outside of the context of writing. Our relationships are built on those things: common history, common non-writing interests, common social circles, common humanity. They didn't decide they liked me or wanted to hang out with me because of what I wrote. And I didn't decide to hang out with them because I thought they would read my stuff.

So, expecting people who I know from other contexts to be interested in my stories is kind of unfair. Yes, I should expect them to be supportive. No, I shouldn't expect them to change their personalities and start liking long, drawn out romances about gay Mormons (or whatever it is I may happen to be writing at the time).

If the non-writing people in my life also happen to be interested in my writing, awesome! If not, that's okay too!

And actually, this even applies to the writing people in my life. Most of the writers I know, I met not through reading their work, but through writers groups etc where we talk about the process of writing. I hit it off with people who face similar issues as I do, or because our personalities just happen to mesh. Sometimes, it turns out that I also like reading their stories. Sometimes, it doesn't. That doesn't mean I don't like them or I think that they are bad writers or that we can't learn anything from each other. It just means the story is for someone else.

This relates to fandom in multiple ways. Someone might like me as a person, but not be interested in most of the stuff i post on Tumblr. They might like talking with me about our shared fandom, but not follow me into my next fandom. They might like my blog, but not be interested in reading my fanfic, for whatever reason--they don't like reading fanfic, what I write doesn't jibe with them, what I write is triggering, they have many competing obligations and can't read every single fic that ever gets posted in the fandom, etc. They might love one of my fanfics, but not the others. They might enjoy my fanfics, but blacklist my personal posts or my political posts. They might enjoy conversing with me in the DMs, but not follow me at all.

And that's okay. That's normal. We are all different, and no one person is going to connect with me on every single level. In and out of fandom, I try to keep the attitude that the relationships I have are significant for what they offer, not for what they lack. If I feel like a certain need of mine is not being met, I can look to make additional friends, to expand into additional communities.

That isn't always easy. But it is much easier than trying to force the friends I already have to fulfill a need that they just can't fulfill.

And, by looking at the ways my friends support me, instead of focusing on the ways I wish they would support me, I appreciate the friends I do have more.

And I'm happier.

I'm not, like, a constant joy factory. But I'm definitely happier than I would be without this outlook.

"But who cares if it is 'punk'?"

Whenever I am talking about the punkness of Cyberpunk and Solarpunk and what not (or the punkness of any of the Punkpunk genre, as I did last week), people will usually come and ask: "But why do you care? So what if it is just an aesthetic? Why not just have people have fun with the aesthetic?"

And I will fully admit to it: Yeah, I can see the point. The world sucks. People should be allowed to have fun with fiction. But I am also too autistic to not care about it. Not necessarily if it is "punk", but at least whether it a) has themes and b) these themes are included in the different stories.

See, one of my big issues in regards to media in general is, that people often do not engage with any themes there are to it. I kinda talked about this too when it comes to people complaining that Gundam - a franchise that inherently is anti-war and often anti-capitalist and anti-colonialist - got political in the moment it featured lesbians as main characters. Which is kinda silly. But the reason for that mindset is of course that people engange with media often on a very superficial level. And while folks on the left are quick at claiming that is a conservative problem... Let's be honest, it is an everyone problem.

Again, I get it. The world sucks. Most of us are overworked and overtired and when we engage with our media we just want to turn off and enjoy. I really, really do get it. I have also some of those just mindless action flicks I will put in and then turn my mind off. Like, who cares whether Tom Cruise is basically Space Jesus propagating a deeply abusive cult. Mission Impossible movies are fun. Who cares about some of their rather... problematic messaging?

But media literacy is important. And I think this is what this boils down to. Because no matter if we engage with it or not: The media we consume subtly influences us and our outlook. No, usually media will not turn a stonch anarchist into a Nazi, or a Nazi into an actual anarchist... But it for sure makes us more susceptible to certain other messaging.

Which is why we need to engage with the themes of any given media and try to understand what it is saying.

As written in that blog about G-Witch and such: There is no apolitical media. Even media that is not really concerned with politics will have a message - usually one along the lines of "The world is just fine as it is right now, do not worry about it!" or "Rugged individualism tots is the way to go!"

Which brings me back to the punk genre. While some were in fact invented as an aesthetic and even in some that primarily got made into genre there is not necessarily a lot of thoughts put into the themes... There are themes that will naturally arise from stuff like the historical context the punk genre is taken from and what not. And especially the "punk" kinda means that it has to challenge something. And be it just genre convention.

And usually, whenever those themes get lost... Well, stories tend to revert back to the exact opposite of that. "Everything is A-Okay - or at least it would be if the power structure was still there but the right people were in power!" And once more: "Rugged individualism WINS THE DAY!" The original themes getting lost, does not mean it gets replaced with emptiness. Just with the standard themes of the media of our times. And... Yeah, to be honest: I am not a fan of that.

The thing I value so much about the concept of the Punkpunk genre is the possibility of playing with counter cultural themes. So, yeah, I care if these themes get lost - or get not even included.

And that is without going into stuff like the non-white origin of Solarpunk kinda getting whitewashed...

is it bad to want to be plural or be a fictive?? we've wanted to be plural on multiple occasions and just tonight i caught myself saying "i wish i was a fictive..." but i always feel horrible because i convinced myself it's just romanticizing it... is that accurate or do i have something deeply wrong with me?

it's not bad, and it's common (for both of those things)

it's valid to want to be someone else, or to want a break from life, or to want someone who's always there to talk to you, or to want to have someone else take over to protect you sometimes. even if you know and understand the struggles that come with being plural, it's valid to think that that doesn't matter in comparison to the benefits, and that's not romanticisation.

and I think everyone, even people who don't know what fictives are, has wanted to be a fictional character at least once in their life. it's valid to want to possess certain qualities of a character, or to want to have a different outlook on the world, or to want anything else that they have that you don't. it's valid to want to have a past different from your own, or to have a solid identity you can go back to when you lose yourself, or anything else that can come with being a fictive. even if a character has struggles and a traumatic past, it's valid to want to think of that as your past and your struggles, rather than remembering your own past (even if maybe the character's past is worse that yours, because at least it's not yours).

if you understand the struggles, then I'm going to assume that the only reason someone would want to be plural or a fictive is for escapism because they're struggling with something already. so rather than call yourself a bad person or think there's something wrong with you, it'd be much more helpful to recognise that you want these things for a reason. then you can get to the root of the problem so you can figure out what you should do about it.

Gathering of the Greatest Gumshoes - Number 20

Welcome to A Gathering of the Greatest Gumshoes! During this month-long event, I’ll be counting my Top 31 Favorite Fictional Detectives, from movies, television, literature, video games, and more! Today, the countdown enters the Top 20!

SLEUTH-OF-THE-DAY’S QUOTE: “Kill me if you can!”

Number 20 is…L, from Death Note.

So far, all of the detectives on this list have been protagonist figures. Not all of them have been the MAIN protagonists (although the grand majority have been), but the focus in every situation up till now has been on the detectives trying to solve the cases. This, of course, is not always the case: not every protagonist is a hero, not every antagonist is a villain, and there are two sides to every story. While antagonistic detectives are somewhat rare, they do exist, and in various forms. Most I didn’t feel deserved placement on this countdown, however, due to one or more of the rules I established at the start. This character, however, is an exception.

“Death Note” is a highly-acclaimed anime and manga franchise, which sort of toes the line between crime/mystery drama and supernatural horror. The plot focuses on a Villain Protagonist: Light Yagami, a.k.a. Kira. Light is a precocious young man with a lot of high ideals: he sees the world as a corrupt place, and wishes there was a way to right the wrongs and bring true justice to the people. This desire gets twisted and warped when he comes into possession of the titular Death Note: a notebook with a very dark and dangerous magical ability. Whenever someone’s name is written in the Death Note…they die. And the person who writes the name down can even choose how and when they die, if they so wish. Light realizes the book has the power to grant him the justice he craves so much; consumed by the Death Note’s power, he goes mad and becomes the serial killer “Kira,” using its power to destroy anybody he deems unfit of living in the world he wants to create…or just anybody who gets in his way.

Light does not go unchallenged in the series, and this is where our contender for today comes into play: a mysterious private investigator known simply as “L.” This young fellow is a foil to Light, in a lot of ways: Light is seemingly normal, well-spoken, clean-cut, and conventionally attractive. L, in contrast, is a reclusive little hobgoblin obsessed with computers and candy. What both share is the fact they are each geniuses, both wiser and more clever than their youthful years would indicate. L becomes determined to solve the case of Kira, and it’s his actions and choices that create much of the conflict Light must face on his self-righteous and deadly quest.

Much of the show revolves around the concept of a single word I’ve used here already: “justice.” All of the major characters have their own philosophies and outlooks on what “true justice” really is. Light believes justice is as simple as punishing the guilty; as he is corrupted by the power the Death Note brings to him, he comes to think that the only way one can achieve true justice is to eliminate all of one’s enemies, so that those you care about can be rewarded and saved. L believes much the same, but he sees it from a different point of view: he believes Kira should be punished for his crimes, because that is what “true justice” is, regardless of his motivations. However, L is not a pure and simple hero in this story; he does things that are legally and ethically questionable in his pursuit of putting Kira behind bars. His ideal of justice is set up by the precedent that murder is wrong, and therefore catching murderers is just; how one actually goes about doing that is not something he really cares about on the whole.

Another thing that makes L interesting is his relationship with Light: while the two are dead serious about destroying one another, each comes to see the other as probably the closest thing either has ever had to a real, true friend. Indeed, there are, one could argue, subtle implications of romance between the pair. This makes what happens to L later in the manga and the anime even more tragic, because – SPOILER ALERT – in both, L does not survive the entire series. However, even after he dies, he’s far from done with Light Yagami, as things L did before his destruction ultimately do lead to Kira’s downfall. In the words of a different story, “Neither can live while the other survives.” Their twin paths ultimately result in mutual destruction, which is wonderfully poetic. I would argue the musical of Death Note (yes, there IS a musical, and it’s actually pretty good) does this even better than either the anime OR the manga…but that’s another story for another time.

Tomorrow, the countdown continues with Number 19!

CLUE: “Everyone has thought about killing someone, one way or another.”

Honestly i have so much sympathy for Ailette and the way she mischaracterises Tesilid.

like i myself also fixate on certain parts of the story and extrapolate maybe a bit too much - although in my defence i've only read like half the story.

-but the same can kind of be said of Ailette? This Tesilid is having a new, currently-being-written chapter of his life. In fact she kind of has things even worse, because her characterisation of Tesilid is based off OG!Tesilid, but current Tesilid had his life and outlook irreversibly changed when they met aged 10. But they never really interacted enough afterwards for Ailette to realise just how much of an impact she made on him. She hasn't really had a strong reason to rethink her characterisation of him. Not to mention that she first read the book with her middle school reading comprehension, which. Probably coloured her interpretation for the worse, at least a little.

I really wish Ailette would go into more detail about her own experience as a reader, to really see better how she's viewing this world and its people.

Which paragraphs are the ones that she thinks defines Tesilid's character? (Mine is "I'm praying that they'll all fail the test and go home".)

Which are the ones that made her cry? (Mine's "Right... you're on the side of this world.")

Which are her favourite silly Tesilid moments that make her so fond of teasing Tesilid? (iliac bones)

Which are the ones that reverberate in her head and which won't leave her alone? (Mine is "Please... show me some of that petty mercy too.")

I feel like the fun part of these kinds of isekai story is that. Whatever reaction you had towards Tesilid, be it "wow what a cute kid" or "i'm going to cry, i need to wrap him in a blanket where the world can't hurt him anymore" or "actually he should just destroy the world tbh i would support him", she's been there first and has been doing for at least 10 years, she's the OG. And she's super intense about it too. Like she can say "I need to save him because the story dictates it" all she wants, but the way she reacts so intensely and immediately to Tesilid in danger really speaks volumes of how much emotional investment she has in this guy. Like idk if she really rotates him in her head as much as I do - that might be a me problem - but if you rotate a character in your head enough times while fixating on certain moments and not others, you probably would end up with a biased interpretation of the character. Especially if you don't have someone else to bounce ideas off. And this gets worse if you're actually living in the character's world, because characters in stories serve certain narrative functions, so all their actions which get included in the narration are inherently biased towards portraying them in a certain way that serves said narrative function. But humans are a lot messier and more dynamic.

i just. shakes her up and down. love the concept of an isekai protagonist and the OG protagonist that they love so much.

anyway this whole post is a testament to how much Omniscient Reader's Viewpoint changed the way I interpret fiction and especially isekai stories. Not me anthromorphozing Ailette as if she's really a person and fellow fan who exists and isn't a character lmaoo, i'm definitely not having a "we're all fragments of kim dokja" moment, no sir. i definitely didn't subconsciously draw connections between ORV's isekai'd MC and myself and S-Class Heroine's isekai'd MC and our commonalities as readers who rotate the same story in their heads very many times, and suddenly make a realisation that's actually more relevant to ORV than the actual story that prompted all this. one whole year after i last read ORV, because ORV's story is So Much and so monumental that i'm still haunted by it and figuring it out and it lowkey never left my mind, even after a whole year. (please read orv.) like there are a lot of otome isekai stories about isekai'd MCs realising that the people in their lives don't line up with the OG characters, but none of these stories ever made me viscerally realise what it was probably like for kim dokja, because none of them had isekai'd MCs be that unironically obsessed with their OG protags, and more importantly none of them made me constantly rotate the OG protagonist in my head the way S-Class Heroine does. Han Sooyoung was right, you get as much out of a story as you put in to reading it and re-reading it and re-interpreting it. By putting so much time into S-Class Heroine I accidentally made some relevations about the other story that I was always trying to figure out at the back of my mind. Holy shit.

This is all about a fictional character that I'm still emotional over. In the end, it's all fiction and I'm aware of that - but there's also a reflection in how certain characters are treated in comparison with real life outlooks and experiences of actual humans who aren't fictional...

I also believe that there's room for dark shit, messed up shit, evil characters and that these aspects of fiction don't always reflect the author's true self. We're story tellers. I like my dark, fucked up shit the same as many other people - but in the end, I don't like cruelty in real life. I don't like a lot of shit that I'd happily write about, because it causes a story to be told - and something to think about, or things to hold up to society and say 'hey, lookit'.... And sometimes, it just for shits and giggles, if we're being real about things. However, I will forever be pissed off over how certain shit played out where one fictional character is concerned, and here's just a small bit of why. It involves both fiction and reality, and the reality that sometimes, some characters are treated in ways that reflect how some people are seen in real, every day life...

They did Glenn Rhee wrong in TWD main series.

They took meaning from his character outside of being Mr. Maggie for a good portion of the show. They didn't allow much back story either; what do we actually know of Glenn from the show's history? Not the comics or games or anything but the show? Really, what do we know? When they were in the prison and he was very angry, that was probably one of the highlights of him not being a ray of sunshine somehow, or a positive aspect ready to overcome the darkness. Steven Yeun has spoken on how flat he felt the character was served when it came to emotional reactions beyond a certain point. Goodness isn't a bad characteristic at all, neither is optimism, but there is a sense of lacking within Glenn's stories that don't show the layers of personality and worries and struggles behind those aspects of self. The only real time we saw was the showdown with Nicholas in the woods, and even that felt rushed and hushed in a sense. They made a sacrificial lamb of a person, and writers even admitted to not knowing what to do with him. So what if his character died in the comics? Do you realize how much they changed for so many different characters before that point? For instance, Carol's survival and Sophia's demise. Not to mention Daryl's whole existence as a character. Why couldn't they do the same for Glenn, defy the 'logic' of 'it happened in the comics', and why couldn't they give him more back story while they were at it?

And now, all these people wanting to ship Maggie and Negan, like Glenn doesn't matter at all. It rips at his humanity in ways I don't even want to talk about, but I'm sure people aren't thinking of that when they want those two to kiss. Who cares, right? Glenn's just a dead Asian man that y'all never cared about while he was alive anyway... And it runs deeper than that for some of you, but we won't get into that because I don't have the energy right now. After all, people who are racist in that way won't change because they either don't have the ability to see themselves for their true shit (and try to think about why and how to change that outlook) or they just don't give a fuck about it because they're unapologetically and proudly against either a certain set of humans with certain features or whatever it is they're stupid over, or they don't like interracial couples and don't give a shit to realize that we're all fucking humans and we're all connected in some way or another.... :x

But yeah. I'll always be salty about this, and the fact that Glenn's character could have been so much more than they let him be in the end. Then again, I think he and Daryl should have hooked up instead, but that's just me? But you know, so much of the TWD fandom would have shit itself over that pairing....

am i just in different spaces than a lot of people or have i legit never seen anyone earnestly being like "this character was justified for doing bad things because they had a rough background"? i feel like that's a complete fabrication at this point. more than likely it's just a lot of people don't seem to understand sympathizing and/or empathizing with someone while simultaneously disagreeing with their actions. you can (and should more often) do that! it's a good exercise in empathy (as an aside, it's important to understand why bad things are the way they are, and how they came to be, so they can possibly be prevented later).

fictional characters (and real people but this isn't the blog for that. just treat people with respect.) who do bad things aren't suddenly zapped of their humanity, feelings, relationships, or experiences that led them to this point. and it's fun, cathartic, and interesting at the very least to explore these aspects... and even, god forbid, feel for them and cast them in a sympathetic light in certain contexts.

they still feel pain and clearly they didn't deal with that pain constructively given that we're talking about Bad Guys here. so i will continue to talk about them in this way, especially because i perpetually commit the grave sin of connecting with characters like this... because we have similar experiences or outlooks on certain parts of life. and just because we may have perspectives that align in some ways, that doesn't mean i'm just as evil or "excuse it," because their thoughts don't solely revolve around EVIL TERROR BADWRONG CRIME MURDER KILL.

there are many influences on a person that come from all over. even the guys with the most one-track-mind think about other things and approach multiple facets of their lives based on their general life outlook. WHY do they want to do the bad things they do? why did they (possibly) once do good things? who or what is important to them and why? why do they see themselves as above others? what do they think about their autonomy, and the autonomy of others? did they once feel powerless, and what do they do about it when they feel that powerlessness now? what happened to them?

why aren't we allowed to acknowledge the potential suffering they went through and why/how they're here now, doing the things they do? why are we only allowed to do that when it's a Good Guy?

if i dare to connect with Bad Guy and want to explore their justifications and commit the horrible crime of feeling for them, i guess that means i condone all the crimes ever. at this point, yeah!!! fine!!! if that's what it takes! fine, yes, they suffered and that means they can do whatever they want now. go forth, babe, be terrible. you have my seal of approval. i do not see it 😪 but if i did, let's say hypothetically i did, just know it was hot

Linkle, I must know, what are your thoughts on Mori as a character? His actions and motivations?? Id love to hear your opinion, btw that last chapter of cherish was great!! I loved it so much!!!

Ahhh hello there, anon, thank you so much! 🥺😭💕💖🥰 It’s such an honor to get a message like this from someone who is reading the fic. 💕🥺💖🥰💕🥺💖🥰 I’m so glad you liked Chapter 12; it definitely has one of my own personal favorite scenes, tbh (but I won’t take up your time talking about that right now lol). Having a fan base for Cherish is truly lovely; I’m so blessed by each and every one of you. 🥺💖

As for your question, I’m always happy to share!

Before I say anything at all on my opinion, though, I’m first going to make it clear that I am completely setting aside that one…particular matter that has been discussed to death by the fandom for the moment, because I fear far too many people tend to forget that it is entirely possible to make any remotely positive commentary on a fictional character without that actually somehow meaning you condone his alleged…preferences. For the people in the back that need to hear this out loud to be set at ease: I in absolutely no way do.

Now with that out of the way for a bit, let’s talk about the rest of Mori. I’ll throw it under the cut, though, both for length and for potential spoilers of multiple light novels (Dark Era, Fifteen, Storm Bringer, etc.) and obviously the manga up to his last appearance in current arc. Oh and obviously the typical Mori-related trigger subjects. Yeah.

Honestly, on a general note, these days I think Mori as a character is super cool; I’m not sure where precisely I’d rate him on the list of characters because I honestly like nearly every character in BSD and think they’re pretty awesomely written, but on a general scale of 1 to 10, he’s a very solid 8 or 9 for me.

My first introduction to him was…admittedly not at all the best possible representation of him.

When I first joined the fandom, I began my journey through the series by watching the anime adaption of Dark Era, at the behest of a dear friend who said I would be best off doing so before I watched the rest of the show (of which there were only two seasons at the time) and then reading the manga, in order to get the best and most meaningful experience; it is not something I remotely regret, and in honesty, I would probably wholeheartedly recommend any new people to do the same, if they intended to start with the anime. Regardless, though, this decision did have the impact of making me immediately strongly dislike Mori as a person from the very start, given what he did to the orphans, Oda, and Dazai by extension.

Really, I wouldn’t say that I came to see him in any particular shades of grey motivation-wise until I watched the episode titled Double Black, in which there was the first reference of what would have become of the Port Mafia and Yokohama as a whole had he not usurped the throne to the organization so many years ago.

After that, I began to look at him with a bit more understanding and curiosity, horrible and ruthless though his nature may still mostly have been. Fifteen (specifically the light novel, NOT the anime) — which it should be said, I think is the best existing canon representation of Mori in terms of giving us a good look at his thoughts and motivations — only amplified that outlook and interest for me, and I think it alone is largely to thank for why I enjoy him as a character as much as I do in current time.

Although he’s definitely not someone I’d feel particularly comfortable writing an entire story solely around — as I don’t believe I’m expert nor absurdly passionate enough to do so compared to some genuine Mori fans that I know are out there out there — I nevertheless really, really do enjoy writing him, especially in Cherish (which is only the second time I’ve written him, if I’m honest — at least, in anything I’d consider publishing, anyway).

There’s just so much potential in him plot and personality-wise; he is incredibly flexible of a person in terms of his thoughts, mannerisms, motivations, and actions, which makes it super fun to explore and play around with when telling a story. I’d say he easily has one of the most fun personalities among the BSD ensemble, purely because of utterly unpredictable it can be; on one hand, he has moments where (at least outwardly) is capable of being extremely friendly, outgoing, generous and unassuming, and yet on the other, he is very much always inwardly observant of all that is going on around him and capable of quickly switching to being cold, calculating, and openly cruel at the drop of a hat. But even then, usually, his cruelty doesn’t come in the form of physical violence; it’s often emotional manipulation, intimidation, taking your fears and weaknesses and using them against you to get him whatever he feels he needs in the present moment. Sometimes, it isn’t even outwardly visible that the switch of gears happened; he knows how to poison you in the sweetest and most unassuming yet effective way possible — whether that poison is literal or metaphorical. He’s definitely the kind of person who could sing you to sing to sleep every night and kiss your cheek every morning even as he’s secretly plotting your demise. lol

That being said, I think a lot of the fandom, in their hatred for him as a person, tends to mischaracterize him a lot, rather than looking at it objectively. I’ve seen a lot of fics and general fandom takes that portray him as a sadistic person who is cruel simply for the sake of being cruel and does terrible things to others purely for the enjoyment factor, but that is 100% not who Mori is; canonically, Mori does what he does mostly, if not entirely, out of what he feels is necessity as the leader of the organization. Now, I’m not saying there may not be parts of him that enjoy certain things he does — it’s certainly more than possible, and even highly probable — but his actions as godfather are driven by achieving what he feels is the optimal solution, not by personal pleasure and amusement; as a matter of fact, in Fifteen, he even made it clear when speaking to Chuuya that he fully acknowledges a lot of what he does is morally reprehensible — he just feels that it is his duty to commit these atrocities for the ‘greater good’ of the organization, and that the end therefore justifies the means.

The thing is, there is a character in BSD who is exactly the way this portion of the fandom characterizes Mori, and he was even a member of the Port Mafia, so if people really wanted to canonically explore this dynamic of a character who wholly gets off on tormenting people, causing suffering and probing others’ heads rather than doing it as just a business practice, they absolutely could still do it and be true to canon by writing about said other character; it’s just that it’s not a convenient truth that a lot of the fandom wants or likes to face — because that would mean acknowledging that it was everyone’s beloved Dazai and not the oh-so-despised Mori who used to think in such a sick and twisted way during his days in the criminal underworld.

Granted, some people do write both characters very well and very accurately, and I applaud them, but I do find it frustrating when the fandom reduces either Mori to this purely evil, sadistic villain who is bad just for the sake of being bad, because he is so much more interesting as he truly is in canon.

It’s this dichotomy where his dedication to the overall well-being of his people and company is admirable and even understandable, yet at the same time his individual actions when you look at them from a moral perspective are pretty much all morally reprehensible in some way, shape, or form — if not in every way. The same is true of his time in the army; as a general concept, his desire to protect Japan during the Great War was on the whole admirable and understandable, we know that he was well-meaning about it, but at the same time, no matter how desperate the situation was, what he did to Yosano and his entire army was absolutely disgusting and unacceptable — especially because it came so easily to him to do it and he made no apologies for it nor expressed any guilt over the suffering he caused later on.

Do I think Mori is, on the whole, a good person? Absolutely not. Do I think that he sometimes has the best of intentions in mind with his schemes? In the grander scheme of things, yes; it’s just that he mostly doesn’t care who or how many he has to hurt to achieve that so long as it’s slightly less than his net gain from doing it, which in turn cancels out things enough to prevent him from ever being labeled as being or acting as a “good person” at any moment.

I think the best, most objective description of him is to say that he’s pragmatic and ruthless.

…And then obviously there’s the part that everyone in the fandom discusses to death — about the main universe version of him being into little girls. Not a whole lot to say about that; it’s gross, it’s wrong, it’s unforgivable, it’s morally reprehensible, and it’s chilling and disturbing and it definitely completely disqualifies him from being labeled a good person even if he had been able to earn that title from something he did somewhere along the way.

That being said — and I know this is probably going to be controversial to a lot of the fandom, so let me say upfront that I’m not saying that that isn’t 100% a valid and understandable reading of who he is and the way he feels based on all the evidence throughout the series, nor am I trying to convince anyone otherwise — purely because it is fiction and therefore all made up to begin with, at least for my own personal comfort, I typically choose in my own personal readings to just look at him as someone with a particular weakness for little girls because he’s fatherly — although I make no effort to claim that to be the objective truth, nor does such interpretation affect or influence any of my writings in any way; it’s simply the way I prefer to engage with BSD on my own personal time — outside of my writings.

As a matter of fact, in my one fic, Bittersweet Belief, he was intentionally written with the intention of being portrayed as a groomer, and in Cherish, his ‘tastes’ will be portrayed no less nor more suspicious than how they are in canon, and therefore it will never be fully, directly addressed, but may be interpreted however you wish.

I do not need people coming to me providing evidence of why they believe there is no way to look at it differently, as again, I am not arguing that it is objectively untrue in any way that Mori is written to be a pedo in BSD, and when in public spaces among other people talking about it I don’t even try to say otherwise, much less convince anyone of it. I understand fandom etiquette and I am not trying to erase anything about him from others’ perceptions in order to make him more “likable”. I am just engaging with BSD, whenever I am personally reading it and watching it, in the way that is more comfortable for me. Nothing more, nothing less.

Anyway, yeah, Mori’s a super fun character to write and observe in the BSD world! I think there’s a lot of depth to him and he’s very well-written — probably among my top past antagonists purely for the super interesting personality and the purely pragmatic outlook to life and business.

Sloppy seconds byler aren’t endgame angels with a nightmare is a fool a 25+ year old women with fantasies about teen boys being gay how’s that any different to men’s fantasies about lesbians?

Y’all are so caught up in you’re echo chambers you can’t see it and it’s gonna crash and burn so badly it’s not the byler show either it’s stranger things

Omg I feel so honored to get my first real hate ask!

There's so many things to unpack here, so I think Im gonna go one by one.

First of all, I assume you either ship Mleven or at least you despise byler, but my last post was only tagged as byler so there was no reason for you to see it unless you were stalking the byler tag, which in that case I'm glad you're such a dedicated fan!

Second of all, I'm assuming you're the same anon who has been sending around other anon asks the past couple of weeks always mentioned the words "sloppy seconds". Now, I know nothing about you or about your life enough to tell you what you should or shouldn't do, but I think I'd should let you know how disgusting of a term that is, and what it implies. I'm assuming if you like Mileleven you like Mike too, since he's one half of the ship. That's why it's shocking to me how you seem so adamant of thinking of him as nothing but El's leftovers, as if he wasn't his own person with his self worth! Also, someone's worth doesn't lessen just because they've already been kissed or touched by someone else. That's a sad outlook on life, and I'm not telling you to be mean, but because I think you'll live happier if you leave such toxic mentalities behind. They really do no good to someone's self esteem.

About the women fantasies about gay men, please notice how most people in this tag are underage people of all genders. This is not a sexual fantasy, as these characters aren't even portrayed sexually in the show to begin with. This is people who want to see good stories about themselves being written, and I think that's a really valid thing to wish for. Even if you've seen a couple weirdos out there on the internet, that's not the case for almost the whole of the fanbase. There's creepy people everywhere in every fandom. Also may I add that if you prefer Mike and El (which is completely valid if you do, you're allowed to have your preferences!) they are the same age as Mike and Will. Wouldn't you be predatory as well if you ship them? No you wouldn't, because they're kids and their relationship has never been sexual. Just like with Will and Mike. Assuming that every gay romance is automatically sexual is a very homophobic mindset ingrained in our society. If you really see gay people this way, probably you've been conditioned by society to do so, in that case it's not your fault but it's never too late to educate yourself. You'll be happier, seriously.

Finally, I wouldn't say an echo chamber is a ship community that has more Billions of wievs on TikTok that the other ship and surpasses it on every other platform, and that has general audience filmmakers and professional writers say themselves that they also understand how it's set up to happen in the final season. But again, it is not my job to convince you and you're not forced to change your mind. We will all have to wait until the final season to see who was actually right, only the Duffer brothers know what will happen.

Finally, Stranger Things is obviously not the byler show. However, one of the most important rules of storytelling is writing personal arcs and relationships for the characters to serve as subplots to the main story, so that the characters become full fleshed and realistic. The fact that you can relate to fictional characters, even though you've probably never time travelled done magic, lived in a post apocalyptic time or wathever you wanna imagine, is because you relate to their personal stories. A story isn't good without personal arcs, every professional writer you ask will tell you this. So yes, relationships are an episode aspect of stranger things that people can discuss if they want to. And the byler tag, or any other ship tags exists precisely to focus on those relationships. It doesn't mean that people don't like any other aspects of the show.

Anyways, I hope you enjoyed my little rant anon. I wish you have a great day!

Do you ever just... think about how you ARE god to your characters? Like when they ask: WHY WOULD GOD DO THIS TO ME? (insert traumatic memory for character) all you acn really say is: idk man? It makes you more interesting.

Its something that fucks with my head sometimes because- damn. We really do have all this power over these characters, and most of us creative minds do with that is make their lifes miserable?

What if they really ARE living in their own little universe that we created with our minds and are living through all the shit we're throwing at them?

Personally? I dont think any of my boys think im a benevolent god, i just give them with i think would make them more fun to watch

I have a much different outlook on my creative designs, I think. They are an extension of me. I am not an extension of theirs. These ideas and collection of words and images are representative of my heart and mind and soul, and in my relationship with that there is no separation or difference.

Now, that's not how third parties should see it, a viewer listener etc shouldn't see me at all. But in my personal connection with them? They're not made in my image, they're just...parts of me I've sprinkled onto the page. Whether it's something deep and therapeutic like what I've done with Seth, or just...me having a silly little time with Lucien.

But at the same time I do not feel some sort of deep personal connection consciously. Like I'm not sitting here acting like when people lust for Alphonse, they want ME. That is incredibly unhealthy and having that kind of view on your fictional work I feel would ensure that you're going to make a big ol mess of things for yourself.

I think it boils down like this. In the same way that I'm sure I've impacted lives physically, myself, through my words and actions, I know I can do the same with my writing. I am not actively there and doing something when someone from a decade ago relays a story or memory we shared, a lesson we learned, or mistake we made. I don't know about the relationship or impact that might have because I'm not an active participant in the moment. But that influence was mine.

Sorta the same thing with fiction I create, I guess.

tldr: No, I don't treat my characters like Sims, they're just fictional characters I've cooked up.

Heeheeeee how fun! Smiles all around.

Personality - I'm an aquarius sun and a leo rising. That translates to: I am deep in my thoughts and innovative with my solutions. My outside is entertaining and personality personality personality!!! Everything can be a presentation or a show. Perhaps in perfect harmony, my career goal is to be a drama therapist.

I love reading folklore and mythology of other cultures besides my own (white english). Currently enjoying Hindu mythology.

I love to curl up and play video games, and I love to embrace my geeky side. I also enjoy deep conversations with people. I tend to think that everyone has the best of intentions, even if they're doing something shady - they're just protecting themselves or doing what they were trained to do to survive.

I prefer cats over dogs.

I read fiction over nonfiction. And fantasy or classics over modern day explorations.

Yen Ori'ken's Valentine's Day Matchmaking Services

Yen: What a lovely profile, @madameminor! Thank you for sending it in.

I believe your best match this Valentine's Day is ...

Clone Medic Kix, of the 501st Legion. Kix is calm and collected, but his passion often shows through. He cares deeply for his brothers, feeling their wellbeing is his responsibility. While he isn't as loud or ostentatious as some other 501st troopers, he can definitely keep up with them. But he does tend to be more introspective than the others.

Kix can and absolutely will meet your extroverted and lively personality. You won't ever have to feel like you're carrying the show OR being carried - Kix is an equal partner kind of man. He loves seeing you light up about what you're interested in and he'll match your excitement. He is also incredibly soft over your outlook on life and people. That positivity is something he tries to carry with him.

He's also someone safe to share your quieter, deeper thoughts with. He loves that you study culture the way he studies medicine. I imagine the two of you will have more than enough to talk about on your date, and I pity anyone who tries to interrupt or catch your attention (you'll be too deep in conversation to even notice).

I think a classic date night will serve you two the best - dinner at a nice restaurant, you two dressed to impress, then dancing (NOT at 79s, though. Kix should know better to take you to a nicer club).

I hope you enjoy your Valentine's Day date with Kix, and thank you again for writing in!

five has set my standards high for men 🫢 and i’m going to hold out for a partner like him.

It depends on what precisely about Five you would want to match your real life partner to, but in general I would advise against this. I was going to answer this simply but then I went into a full blown ramble so I'm sorry

Being fictional is Five's biggest allure...

Five is not real and that's a biiiigggg point in his favour. You will idealise him to the point that no real man could ever match up. Imagine a man saying that some super smart and sexy anime girl was his standard for IRL women. We'd rightly tell him that it was an unfair expectation.

If Five was a real flesh and blood man, tied to corporeal form and subject to the curse of existence, I promise you he would not live up to the standards set by the Five in your head. The truth is, Five can never fart on you in bed. He can never have that really irritating habit that makes you want to punt him through a wall, and he will never accidentally hurt you with a clumsy word or leave the dishes in the sink or whatever. He'll never criticise you for any of your bad habits either. Real men do all those things because they're human. They deserve your love and consideration. Don't hold out for a fantasy.

...but if he weren't fictional, he'd be a one man communist uprising considering all those red flags

We romanticize Five partly because he is an asshole. His sarcasm is amusing and acerbic tongue is attractive, mostly because we know there's tenderness underneath it. We have a uniquely intimate insight into his life, past and personality by virtue of him being a fictional character who we have seen when he thinks nobody is watching. We don't have that with real men. Romanticising assholes is something patriarchy has taught us. Just look at the Beauty and the Beast myth that replays itself in our culture again and again ("I can change him! He's different when we're alone, I swear!"). We like to imagine that Five would begin by being a dick to us like he does everyone else, but gradually we would end up being the special person who would bring out all the tenderness we know he has underneath. This is fine when it's a fictional character who we know for sure has all that tenderness underneath, but with a real man whose soul we can never know like we know Five's? No way. I can promise you that you should run a mile from a real man who sarcastically insults people and use their intelligence to put others down. A similar point to Five's violence. This is a character trait you should not excuse in real men. In real life, men who are violent to others will almost certainly be violent to their romantic partners. This is another bonus Five gets for being fictional: he lives in a fictional reality where his violence is justified and nbd because it's a world of comic-book morality.

Alright Mango, you fuckin' killjoy, what can I hold out for then?

Having said all this, I think Five does have some qualities you can admire in IRL men. I've said on this blog many times before that I think I find Five hot because he reminds me of my partner in terms of personality as well as looks. So this is what I think you wouldn't be unwise to look for in a man: 1. Someone with intelligence and competence. There is nothing sexier than someone who has faith in their own abilities and wields that knowledge with confidence, like Five does.

2. Someone with leadership skills without needing to dominate: Five sometimes falls foul of the latter but is usually pretty good at taking control of a situation whilst also hearing everyone out and using the knowledge of the entire room.

3. Someone with a sense of humour. Five's cynical little comments and charming phraseologies (e.g. "Chatty Cathies," "A nap and a schvitz, what more does a man need?") would be adorable in any man.

4. Someone with a mature outlook. Five is just happy living a comfortable life. He likes his creature comforts but he takes pleasure in the simple things. He isn't really competitive anymore because he truly doesn't feel like he has to prove anything. This is partly a result of his age, I think, so I would forgive a younger man for not having this outlook.

5. Someone who cares about his appearance: Five isn't vain, but he dresses carefully and intentionally for the occasion. It not only looks sexy, it shows that he has self-respect.

6. Someone who speaks to you the way Five speaks to Dolores: Five treats his (ex)partner with respect and fondness. He clearly worshipped Dolores when they were together but he didn't patronise her either. He spoke to her like an equal. And after the relationship ended, he never let anybody speak badly about her.

Ok, I'll shut up now.

Maaan, I'm so bad at spotting nature metaphors, what's your favorite to include in your writing?

unhinged_prosody 🕺

Hi! 🕺

I'm putting this under a read more because I waffled on for a fair bit and it's not even about the base game 😭

So I'm including animals under nature because, well, they are nature - and I personify people as animals a lot in my writing (just in general, not even specific to this fic, i do it a lot about myself too, especially in my poetry)

Because we're all just animals! It can be degrading - depending on how it's done - but not all of the time.

I compare Harry to a dog a lot (nothing new there, there's a couple lines in game that reinforce this) but I think my favourite dog guy description came from one of the Kim chapters:

the captain's father; a man so old he should be retired, but sits at his desk chain-smoking. Something he's done for longer than you've been in the RCM. Maybe longer than you've been alive. As you penetrate the haze surrounding his desk his bloodshot eyes rise to meet your own. He reminds you somewhat of a saggy hunting dog, all lethargy and wrinkles.

Because i have no specific appearance in mind for the man (i.e. hair colour/ eyes/ whatever) as it's unimportant. S'more about vibes 👌

Gotta give a shout out to bird metaphors because they formed the theming of these fics in the first place! The peregrin falcon antique shop, references to ducks and geese across fics, the whole scene with the disabled duckling, the name of the case, "Imprinting", the series title "birds of a feather flock together", i just really fucking love birds.

Lmao anyway, you can tell that I REALLY like a metaphor if I turned it into a mind project (not nature related, but same with the "one man castle" thought project for Kim repressing his emotions)

So I'm dipping back into "Imprinting" because this one metaphor formed the basis of me writing over 250k about two fictional detectives last year...:

PROBLEM: You were a man drowning in the sea of vices. As you gave in to the waves and consigned yourself to your watery grave a gloved hand pulled you from the brine. *He* cradled your baby bird form in his palm and raised you from the ashes of the phoenix: Tequila Sunset. You have well and truly imprinted upon Lieutenant Kim Kitsuragi.

SOLUTION: You were drowning and he gave you a reason to float. It's not so much that you imprinted on him, it's that you follow him by choice. You've shed your baby down-feathers and are more than able to walk on your own now, but do you want to?

BABY BIRD

IMPRINTING

DOWN FEATHERS

THE DEATH AND REBIRTH OF A PHOENIX

BOSH BOSH FUCKIN' BOSH 👌👌👌

But my ABSOLUTE favourite nature metaphor at the moment is the flowers metaphor for Kim's repression. Because when I was a teenager up until my mid 20s (going THROUGH it, not relevant) this was my outlook on love and human connection, too:

CONCEPTUALISATION [hard: success] - Don't plant flowers: they'll only wilt.

CONCEPTUALISATION [hard: success] - Love says 'These flowers were cut so you could buy them. They wilt - already - in your hand and that is *your* fault'.

I am now 27 and in the Springtime of my life, this man's 44 and approaching his own no matter how badly he's trying to beat it off with a stick. When I was in my early 20s, I was fairly convinced I would die wholly unloved (even in the beginning of the relationship I am still in!) Not the case! Healing is possible and I truely believe - or rather I know now - that there is no age cutoff.

This metaphor isn't finished yet, but it represents catharsis 🌱

Alrighty, time to get into my theory about how each of Rory’s three main love interests represent different versions of the bad boy trope! So, I’ve seen some discourse about how certain characters are not actually bad boys and how others are and how that relates to Rory, and it made me go into this big reflection over what defines the bad boy archetype and how it’s changed from iteration to iteration. Long story short: it made me realize that all three of the boys (yes all of them) are one version each. So here’s a massive rant where I explain how that works, with Dean as the «good boy gone bad», Jess as the «bad boy made human» and Logan as the «rich bad boy».

Note: I am writing this as someone who ships literati, so know that my analysis will be biased. That being said, I want to focus on how the boys inform the bad boy archetype (and the other way around) and not on the value of their relationships to Rory. So think of this as a defense/deconstruction of certain characters rather than another round of «who should Rory have ended up with?».

Out of all the boys, Dean is the one who is rarely defined as a bad boy, and with good reason. Seasons 2 and 3 played him up as the «good» against Jess’ «bad», he is routinely described as the perfect first boyfriend (and by Lorelai no less), and he’s the one with the most traditional small town outlook on things (liking the concept of a housewife, being a chaste boyfriend in the first round, getting along with the parents etc). But that doesn’t change the fact that a lot of people despised him by the end of the show, since he cheated on his wife with Rory and made her the other woman. And I think this very action is what solidifies him within the good boy gone bad-trope. I haven’t found a lot of writing on this sub-trope (although one could argue it falls under the face-heel turn trope), and it has very vague limits, but I believe that it exists anyway. A good boy gone bad is a male character that started out in a piece of fiction as all around «good». He respects rules, gets along with parents, might even be a bit of a «nice guy» with/without the entitlement. But something in the story (sometimes a build up) will trigger the good boy’s transformation into a bad one. Sometimes it’s getting sick of being an outsider/underdog, sometimes it’s triggered by romantic conflict. I would argue that this transformation begins for Dean when Jess and Rory get together. While Dean has been a jealous and arguably possesive boyfriend before he breaks up with Rory, he still hasn’t done anything that properly makes him a “bad boy”. But once Rory and Jess are a couple everything changes: he threatens Jess in private, insinuates that he can manipulate the situation to his favour and that he can «steal her back», physically fights Jess at one point and arguably marries Lindsay in part to rouse jealousy in Rory. This transformation is fulfilled once he has sex with Rory for the first time while still being married. He might continue keeping the good boy image, and his infidelity is definitely turned into something that harms Rory’s image more than his, but his actions still qualify for the subtrope. (I also want to note that Dean is introduced in season 1 with a leather jacket and love of motorcycles so… do what you will with that information)

In spite of how often Jess is defined as the bad boy of the show — and by other characters in the show at that — a lot of viewers don’t actually think of him as one. And that’s understandable. I think a lot of people in my generation and onwards have grown up with very simplistic iterations of bad boys that follow the formula to a T. They’re aggressive, violent, wildly sexual and usually downright toxic (see: After-series, Jacob post-transformation in Twilight, 90% of erotica novels). And the women in these stories usually exist to «give in to animalistic urges» and heal the bad boys with their love. Taking even the quickest glance at Rory and Jess shows you how this is not the case. He’s more basket case than sex god, is repeatedly denied second chances at love with Rory, and has to heal and improve without her, out of frame. But I don’t necessarily think this makes him less of a «bad boy». While I despise the overuse of the term «realism» in popular media analysis, Jess is arguably a «realistic bad boy». He embodies most classic bad boy tropes (if not all of them), but each trope is then humanized within him. Jess gets into fights, but the two moments we know about in detail are with a bully and with Dean (and both fights are initiated by the others, not Jess). He’s the first boyfriend that Rory acknowledges/explores her sexuality with, but they never technically consumate (and good for Rory, the Keg! Max! scene is a massive yikes). He’s a high school drop-out, but because he worked too many shifts at Walmart. He reads classic literature (yes, a lot of bad boys in media do this) but is a total nerd about it (see: Bukowski v Austen). He has mommy- and daddy-issues, but they are fleshed out and given the space to exist on their own rather than as in relation to Rory and making her love him more. And while he heals through love, it is not through the active romantic love of Rory, but the familial love of Luke and his eventual love for himself. A crucial factor for Jess is that he gets to exist outside of the romance. His most important relationship in the show is perhaps not with Rory but with his uncle Luke. It is this relationship that introduces him to Stars Hollow and it’s this relationship that officially heals him. The last time we see Jess in the original run, when Rory admits to trying to hook up with him as revenge against Logan, Jess claims that he deserves better. And he does. He’s a human, and more than that, he has spent years working to become the person he has become and to get a chance at a loving and respectful relationship. Jess still loves Rory enough when he lets her go to not hold a grudge, but he also now loves himself enough to know he deserves better than to be the other guy twice. He is the bad boy made human.

But whenever people argue that Jess isn’t a bad boy, they usually claim that another boy in the show is. And while I still think Jess is a bad boy, I don’t think that means that Logan isn’t one. Logan simply fits into a very specific subtrope: the rich bad boy. I can’t trace the origins of the rich bad boy, but my (and probably many’s) first introduction to the trope was Chuck Bass from Gossip Girl. Where the classic bad boy has a problem of reputation and in some cases specifically struggles economically, the rich bad boy is partly bad because of his wealth. The daddy issues come from a tyrannical capitalist father who expects his son to be a carbon copy. Instead of a motorcycle he drives limousines and expensive cars. His sexuality is informed by lavish parties, a casanova-lifestyle and general hedonism. While the classic bad boy drags the woman «down» into his world, the rich bad boy drags her «up» into his world of wealth and «civilized» violence. The woman exists to bring the rich bad boy «down to earth». To teach him values of fidelity and kindness, and to show him he is more than his money/work. And as a reward the woman gets to live out the materialistic fantasy: expensive gifts, exclusive balls, luxurious trips around the globe, you name it. If the classic bad boy is about the inherent eroticism of anger/violence, the rich bad boy is about the inherent eroticism of wealth. And Logan fits this archetype to a T. His initial relationship with Rory is «no strings attached», he apologizes with expensive gift giving, and he introduces her to exclusive hedonistic circles like the Life and Death Brigade. He cheats, he recklessly gets into dangerous situations to simply feel something, he has a dysfunctional relationship with his father, and he loves Rory partly because she simultaneously does and doesn’t «belong» in his world. I also think that either end for him (breaking out of his father’s shadow or falling back in it) is realistic for the rich bad boy. Which end he gets simply depends on whether the author desires an endgame relationship for the rich bad boy or not.

So that’s it. Mind you, me categorizing Rory’s boyfriends as different kinds of bad boys doesn’t necessarily mean I would tie them exclusively to that trope. The Gilmore Girls writers did an incredibly good job at writing fleshed out characters that grew outside of their stereotypes and created their own molds. And one could argue that if you make the definition of a bad boy broad enough, most flawed boyfriends will fit into the trope in some way. That being said, I’m currently standing by my analysis. Not only do I think it’s fun to view the guys through such a lens, I think it helps flesh out Rory too. She isn’t necessarily drawn to ‘bad’ men, but her track record does show that she deals with a lot of inner conflict about her love life, and that this is externalized with incredibly flawed (and sometimes ill-timed) relationships to men who have a lot to figure out themselves. Honestly I’ll probably pull a full analysis on her love life one day too, just not yet.

At the end of the day I think who people root for depends on what kind of bad they’re either drawn to or willing to excuse. If you like the idea of someone going mad/bad with love, you might prefer Dean. If you like a character who is undeniably human (as in has good sides but can be so so so flawed), odds are you’re a Jess-person. And if there’s just something about grand gestures and finding a «real» person in a sea of «fake», you’re probably a fan of Logan. It really is a case of personal preference.

please tell me about medieval european sword crossguards youve piqued my interest

Oh god ok I’m gonna try to keep this brief because it’s 3 am and I gotta wake up before it gets hot out to walk somewhere but the main thing that’s interesting about crossguards is that you’d assume some are just outright better than others, especially because of the more general “newer design and materials means better” outlook that’s applied to military history (and all history and conceptions of progress generally) and while that’s generally kinda nonsense it’s ESPECIALLY not the case for crossguards

So here’s four different types of sidesword and rapier crossguards, from top to bottom left to right it’s a sideswept hilt, basket hilt, ringed crossguard and cup hilt. I’m personally more interested in longsword but these are an easier demonstration.

So these were all used hundreds of years apart and in different parts of Europe (though all of the world has had complex and interesting weapon designs, I apologize for being Eurocentric here, general study of swords should not be!) but none are just outright better than others in the way that, say, a gun from two hundred years ago is generally just better in a fight than one from three hundred

but sword combat is fundamentally different and something as seemingly small as the shape of a crossguard makes a huge difference, and they all have strengths and weaknesses and nuance to them. They all affect the weight of a sword and how it’s held and how it’s wielded and the types of cuts or thrusts you can do comfortably and effectively with it, and they’re all more useful against different types of weapons and styles of fighting, and they design is often decided more by how they’re WORN, not used!

Most swords were never swung and the type carried was more often decided by how comfortable it was to have hanging at your hip and how stylish it looked than how effective it was in a fight. They’re a marker of status as much as a weapon and it’s why they’re so romanticized to this day, in the same way that revolvers have been, since historically both have been sidearms and ones only wielded by the upper ranks of either the military or society

Having weapons be more symbol than tool is fascinating both in a historical and fictional setting and can tell you a lot about someone. Cup hilts were most common on Spanish rapiers because fencing practiced in Spain emphasized thrusts, and the cup provides total protection for your hand, even if it’s weaker than a swept hilt would be at protecting against an incoming cut.

If someone from another country has one, especially a country that has bad relations with Spain at the time, this immediately tells you something about the person, whether it be about how she fights or who she fights or her beliefs about nation identity or fashion.

And this is something that can be used to add so much flavor to fantasy settings! I’m so tired of “elves have ornate curved swords because they’re Advanced and orcs have ugly slabs of metal because they’re Primitive,” for a variety of reasons, mainly it’s weird shitty racism, but also it’s just not how the real world works. Which is a problem because people apply these ideas onto the real world and think that, for example, Spanish colonizers were more Civilized and had Better technology than the Inca Empire, which is just not true.

Anyway jesus this got a lot longer than I expected lol, I could write way more but I’ll cut myself off, I hope at least some of this is informative lmao, always happy to answer more sword questions