I need to reread the comics again to have specific arguments/evidence for this, but like

I feel a bit like I could've been sympathetic to the way other Cybertronian colonies view Cybertron, if it weren't for the fact that at least several of them (as in, ones that get notable dialogue/screen time) are so low-key self-righteous?

Like, idk... there's a lot of criticism of Cybertronians because they're so "warlike" and how their obsession with violence and vengeance is just dragging the whole galaxy down with them, but uh. The Autobot-Decepticon war was basically a product of societal ills bubbling over for like 6 million years beforehand and then finally boiling over into a 4 million year war that lasted as long as it did because the people involved had immense social/psychological trauma from being "raised" in an oppressive society.

So when the colonists come in being all 'omg you people are so violent and uncivilized why don't you just like, stop fighting' it kind of pissed me off a little bit as a reader/person like. Idk the colonists really came into this society of people full of massive amounts of trauma where even before the war society was super oppressive and no one has any experience of living "normal" lives unaffected by violence and bigotry. And the colonists were like "ummm wow why don't you guys just??? stop fighting???." Like idk it wasn't EVERY SINGLE MOMENT, in fact I think that when it was played for laughs it's quite a funny "fridge horror" type element. It was just annoying because like.... IDK???? It's just really annoying to watch a bunch of people who lived relatively sheltered lives on their own planets come to a different planet full of traumatized people and be like "omg why are you people so fucked up" IDK BRO MAYBE BECAUSE THEIR SOCIETY WAS OPPRESSIVE AND THEY LIVED THROUGH A LIFELONG WAR???

It also doesn't help that the colonies were literally founded based on imperialism and conquest so like, it's fucking rich to hear colonists scolding Cybertronians for their violence ruining the whole galaxy while literally sitting on planets that their Primes colonized from others. The hypocrisy of this is briefly mentioned in Unicron (literally the FINAL STORY OF THE SERIES) but like, that's basically the only time Cybertronian characters are given a reprieve of sympathy from other characters in universe and it's so tiresome.

I've talked to other people who didn't like the colonists and thought they basically (narratively speaking) existed just to shit on the existing characters, and it's actually really easy for me to sympathize with/outright agree with that assessment of the story considering how much of exRID/OP seems to be preoccupied with "Cybertron/the Primes/Optimus sucks" with very few reprieves for anything positive happening and even fewer chances for characters to get to explain themselves and experience a little bit of justice? Like, as the audience, it's just very frustrating to see the characters you spent hundreds of issues keeping up with get shit on by a bunch of "literally-who"s and then not really get a chance to ever defend themselves, either by literally defending themselves in conversation or having some sort of narrative thing happening that vindicates them at least symbolically

I have finally finished the first part of the second episode and have reached the actual family conference. I have a lot of thoughts about George/Shannon and Jessica/Kanon.

I cannot really bring myself to ship either couple. They do have cute moments together, but I feel like their romantic feelings are mostly due to the fact that the other is fulfilling a need or resolving an insecurity rather than an actual connection.

George loves Shannon, but his feelings seem to be mostly helped by the fact that her fawning over him and her being formerly interested in Battler helps his insecurities and his feelings of inferiority. In a perhaps even worse way, Jessica's feelings for Kanon seem to be mostly due to him being one of the few men her age she has around (even the narration acknowledges it). As for Shannon and Kanon, and by extensions Sayo, her feelings are a complicated mess between being envious of them, admiring them, being grateful for the attention and interest and looking for a way to escape their place as "furniture". Overall, neither character seems to have genuine appreciation for their love interest as an actual person.

Another thing that bothers me is that George and Jessica come from a place of immense privilege and are, in many although different ways, incredibly self-absorbed (yes Jessica, please tell the orphan who was raised as a charity case, cannot go to high school and works his ass off as sixteen that YOU were born under an unlucky star).

While the story shows us how they are negatively impacted by this position in terms of familial pressure, they are still in a place where, in one hand, they have some measure of freedom to determine the person they want to be or present themselves as, and on the other hand, they have never suffered any amount of actual grave consequences and trauma. Because of this, their speeches of love and their protests against Shannon and Kanon calling themselves furniture ring very hollow. They do not understand Sayo's trauma and are in no way equipped to handle it and while this is certainly not their faults, their reactions really show how much they do not have the proper tools and insight to get to the actual core of the problem.

Furthermore, the cynical part of myself wonders how much their feelings will last when faced with the backlash from their choice of partners. Sure, George talks about how he does not care about what anyone will say, but will he say the same thing when his parents refuse to support him financially and he has to work a difficult or boring job to support his family? When his wife is used to humiliate him ? When he constantly faces comments and jokes about his partners? When he has to handle Sayo's trauma and the way it impacts her and her self-esteem? Hell, when he has to handle that he will never have any biological children? It is easy to say "I don't care what anyone says, I am marrying you" but the biggest obstacle is not the actual opposition, it is the length of time and the constant little annoying things that happen every day.

However what I find most interesting in this romantic nonsense is that some of these criticisms can be applied to Battler and Beatrice. By understanding the weaknesses in George/Shannon and Jessica/Kanon, we are prepared to see where Battler messes up with Beatrice and where she messes up with him. Battler can also be pretty self-involved, engaging more in the how done it that the why done it (which will eventually cause Beatrice's death). Beatrice also seems to be using Battler as a mean to an end. However, where George/Shannon and Jessica/Kanon never had the chance to overcome these flaws, Beatrice and Battler eventually were forced to face these flaws and grow up.

The Owl House's Problem with Genre

So this is more a general lesson of: You are supposed to set your expectations for something by the genre set forth by it. If you're consuming a tragedy, you need to understand that fundamental flaws in who a character is are going to doom the entire cast. That doom is inevitable for them by who they are as people. However, if a RomCom tries to pull the same trick for angst and sadness, that's when you get the Third Act Breakup in both its good and infuriating incarnates because, well, it's two genres about joy more than pain.

So what does this have to do with The Owl House? Well, it's something that I struggle with as a writer myself because I can blend genres some and that makes it hard to entirely quantify what genre a work is in. TOH has a problem where the genre will often shift between various episodes.

Like let's look at the first episode. Pretty firmly, that is a comedy adventure. It's got some fun jokes tying into the problem, the action is silly and the powers are a bit goofy to play up the comedy even as they're in danger and the show is telling a lot of jokes pretty rapidly.

Jump over just two episodes though and you have the first episode with a comedy B plot. Sure, Eda and King are having a comedy adventure of sorts but Luz? That one is magical slice of life. It's somewhat comedic but calling it an adventure feels a bit like a stretch. Yes there's a fight eventually but it's much more about the societal issue presented and making friends with some cute banter that you'd expect from a light hearted show. The fight is barely a fight and is over quickly so it just... comes across as something you'd see in any magical school show. Not necessarily bad but not in the genre TOH claims to be. Covention is very similar where there's not actually any real adventure element as it just does some world building until its fight scene mostly. Even then, besides a quip, the fight itself isn't funny.

And mind you, SOME genre blending is actually a good thing. A comedy knowing when to slow down for a serious moment is good. Times for a party to breathe in town can lead to great chances for sides of characters you otherwise wouldn't see. There's a genuine back and forth to be had there.

But it shouldn't ALWAYS be contrasting like that, especially with your main character. Luz actually has VERY little to do with the comedy side of the show. Almost always, there's a moment or two in an episode but the majority of the comedy is either through comic relief characters or explicitly through the B plots. She does just enough comedy to get her character across (which is part of why it fades from her so much in S2B) but no more. Sometimes, she's even gone from the adventure elements too because Luz is too caught up in romance or drama or slice of life stuff to even be put in peril, or isn't until the very end. Like Hunting Palisman has a couple cute jokes but it's mostly a serious affair... except for giving Hunter shit. Otherwise, the show honestly treats Luz mostly seriously. She isn't funny to me as much as she is cute when it comes to how she's trying to express herself which is fine for an adventure, much more questionable for something specifically branded as a COMEDY adventure.

But if it's not the greatest comedy, what genre fits TOH? Was it just listed wrong? Well, pretty much EVERY genre falls into this sort of problem with TOH. It's not a great slice of life because it's not inventive enough to make many of these situations interesting. It's most archtypical episodes are considered some of its worst. It's not a great adventure because the action is pretty meh most of the time and there is zero threat to the main characters so there's no tension. No threat/tension means it's also not good horror. It spends a LOT of time on romance but all of its romances are bland and samey and when they are together as a couple, they often struggle to do anymore than fluff. As a drama, there's never any consequences to anything so the angst feels hollow as it just makes an episode feel bad then moves on. And finally, as a fantasy show, its magic is really basic, kind of boring and there's nothing unique to its world or rules that don't make it feel like it's not just the modern world with more teeth and that's not great fantasy.

The best stories know what they aren't as much they know what they are. Genre blending is a good thing but there's a point at which you're just a composite sludge. Master at nothing, impressive at little.

And there is no genre TOH impresses with.

======+++++======

I have a public Discord for any and all who want to join!

I also have an Amazon page for all of my original works in various forms of character focused romances from cute, teenage romance to erotica series of my past. I have an Ao3 for my fanfiction projects as well if that catches your fancy instead. If you want to hang out with me, I stream from time to time and love to chat with chat.

A Twitter you can follow too

And a Kofi if you like what I do and want to help out with the fact that disability doesn’t pay much.

axelle judges bl shows > Be My Favorite

summary: Kawi is 30 and lives a shitty life. His father died, he has a low paying but exhausting job, no friends, and Pear, the girl he's liked since his university days, is getting married to their classmate, Pisaeng. When Kawi discovers that he has the ability to travel through time, becoming 20 again, he decides to try and seduce Pear. One problem: Pisaeng is there to get in his way.

where to watch: youtube

grade: 8,5/10

pros:

the story is not only pretty original, but very well written. I think everyone can find themselves relating to elements of the show, and I loved the topic of wanting to go back in time to fix things which is something everyone has wished at least once in their life. I also love that we see the characters slowly detach themselves from trying to change & predict the future, but actually enjoy the present, which is a pretty beautiful message to pass. the theme of the show truly makes it so lovable and important in my eyes.

the acting was really good from everyone! my favorites were of course my baes gawin & aye who especially slayed :) krist also really impressed me considering I was obviously skeptical about him acting in bl again.

LOVED LOVED LOVED the pisaeng coming out storyline. it wasn't anything incredibly original, but actually was never done that way in a bl show & made incredibly respectfully and well, especially thanks to fluke gawin's performance!

gawinkrist ate?? the chemistry was mostly really good on & off screen and they really sold pisaengkawi to me.

cons:

all of my problems with the show come from the writing, so here you go:

I wish we'd seen kawi's feelings more before he changed his mind from liking pear to wanting to be with pisaeng. I know it was explained as him suddenly realizing it once pisaeng was gone from his life, but I still wish they'd given it slightly more time so we could really feel the weight of kawi's feelings.

I found the pisaengkawi's first time storyline kinda badly executed, even though the sex scene in itself was beautifully acted & filmed. kawi's discomfort with sex is never explored, and he changed his mind without us ever seeing his thought process. I wish we could've gotten a scene where pisaengkawi discussed their relationship with sex & it was made clear that kawi does want to have sex but is just scared, bc without that scene, it feels like kawi doesn't really want it, and the cut from pisaengkawi not getting along great to them having sex was really jarring in the show.

I wanted the side characters to be more developed, and believe there was enough screentime for that. I would've loved to see pear finding herself outside of romantic relationships, kwan finally meeting a man that treats her like she deserves, I wanted max to be more than just activist pride guy (which, SLAY!) and get more screentime & depth bc he's fucking iconic, and even crusty not should've been shown having grown & become a better person after 10 years.

would I rewatch it: absolutely!

If you'd told me Be My Favorite would be one of my favorite shows of the year, I would have laughed at you in the face. In fact, I was the first one doubting this pairing and even the precedent one, but I gotta say... this show really pulled through for me. It is more flawed than I'd like, but still a very touching show about a topic frankly rarely or even never seen in bl. I'm so glad I gave it a chance :)

Dapper’s 1vOne D&D: Part 1

So for anyone who hasn’t heard, D&D’s getting an upgrade. There’s been rumblings about this for the past few years, and I’ve been tentatively looking forward to it for more than a few reasons. That said, my area of focus is that of a veteran dungeonmaster who’s run the game long enough to see where the flaws in the armour are, so I’m going to be on the lookout for some very particular things:

5e is an amazing ruleset specifically because it’s all about giving DM/players the ability to make intuitive value judgements on how situations should be resolved rather than having to memorize dozens or even hundreds of individual rules interactions.  If any rules were to be added on to this, I’d want them to follow in this intuitive tradition, rather than trying to be simulationist about any aspect of the game. 

However, while the base ruleset is elegant in its simplicity, the actual GAME DESIGN of d&d 5e is absolute trash:  The DMG is a random grabbag of advice that vaguely gestures at what you should do to run a fun game while almost completely neglecting the teaching of valuable dm skills. As an example, the section on designing dungeons ( yeknow, the part of the game that’s so important it’s in the actual name) is only six pages long and is mostly art and random tables. The same is true for the entire “exploration” section of gameplay that’s supposedly one of the three central pillars of the game, with almost no enjoyable mechanics devoted to it.

5e desperately needs to reconsider how it thinks about money and  magic items. An overrepresentation of low-magic DMs in the early playtests made WOTC think that it was a good idea to discourage the use of items as rewards when really getting shiny new toys was one of the PRIMARY motivators for exploration and dungeon deviling. Plenty of people have likewise pointed out that gold has no actual use without magic items to spend it on, so either the game needs to get rid of gold entirely or start giving players a reason to spend coin hand over fist. 

While I’ve never been happier with the design of the base classes (strongly thematic mechanics, easily implantation of homebrew subclasses), we can all admit there’s a distinct fall off somewhere after level 6 or so. This is because 5e never mechanically evolves past the concept of a roving band of vagabonds cycling between the wilderness (exploration) the dungeon (combat and problem solving) and the town ( social and story) despite the fact that characters outgrow this cycle very quickly given the chance.  I want to see rules modules like sailing and exploration, diplomacy and warfare, which DMs can socket onto their campaigns as needed to give their party new challenges to face, while the rules likewise give the players new avenues of customization and specialization. 

Below the cut I’m going to go in depth with my many, MANY opinions regarding the first playtest and some of the initial prospects of one d&d, and let me tell you, the takes are hot.

Before we begin discussing first playtest doc It might please readers to know that while watching the preview videos I entered a state of feral, possibly otherworldly rage. The very distinct slow metered corpospeak  that’s been adopted by WOTC and the DnD Beyond social media teams grates like a cheesegrater against my brain, especially because I only care about 1% of what they’re talking about. I do not look forward to having to watch more of these videos in the future. 

Likewise I think it’s important to talk about my standards when it comes to design:  I don’t care about balance, I care about fun. True balance is something that’s impossible to achieve in d&d unless you want to limit the game to samey cambers and corridors where the party can expect to fight mathematically perfect opponents in laboratory controlled conditions. MY d&d is much more wild than that, so I focus my attention on whether or not people are having fun with the options presented to them.  This is why I don’t care that X build is considered overpowered, or Y “breaks the game” by being able to fly while from lvl 1:  Unless those things are in my game then they don’t matter to me, and if they ARE in my game I can either build around them or deal with them in the moment. 

Players are SUPPOSED to break the game. If I plan out an entire heist and my party breaks it by using a spell I didn’t know they had access to and a joke item I gave them four levels ago I don’t complain about things being broken, I ride the giddy wave of surprise and congratulate them on being smart/invested enough to actually put thought into the challenge I presented them. 

First up, Ancestries:  I mostly had no problem with how ancestries were handled and have no problem with how the playtest proposes change, especially since They’ve buffed a few of the less interesting ability suites. Nice to see them giving orcs an overhaul rather than going with the old halforc baggage. 

Backgrounds: Now THIS is interesting. I was a big fan of the inclusion of backgrounds as it allowed you to get statistical benefits from who your character was outside of their species/what they were as an adventurer, and the designers have evidently followed suit. Backgrounds are now the source of your ability bonuses ( which makes sense, your character would likely be doing something they were predisposed to) AND grant a thematic feat. Seems like a winning formula

Misc Rules changes: 

Feats are evidently going to be split up by level, which makes me think we’re going to see a lot more of them. If you can separate out the power level of feats with more than just ability prerequisites, then you can provide a lot of smaller, interesting feats while the powerful ones act as tentpoles.  It’s likely that we’re also going to see atleast a minor reintroduction of feat trees

I think the thing I’m most against in this playtest is how they’re doing crits, which now only multiply the weapon’s damage die rather than all dice rolled. Spells, Monsters, and Npcs apparently can’t crit… which I hate.  Crits work BEAUTIFULLY in 5e, with everything from the handfuls of dice to excessive amounts of damage function like a jackpot in combat, provoking a surge of dopamine that ties you in to combat. A single damage die (especially for weaker characters) is not worth that sort of fanfare, especially when enemies have HPpools in the hundreds.  What I COULD see this opening the door for is the expanded crit range weapons/builds from earlier editions: with weapon damage dice increasing on ranges of 18-20 or even 15-20 (depending on how you stack your build) but ALL damage dice increasing on a nat 20. This would be getting your cake and eating it as it’d allow crit builders to get their extra damage fix without denying everyone their 1 in 20 chance of getting the spotlight. 

Formalized rules for gaining inspiration are great, as you seem to get them early and often (and by rolling a nat 20). Big fan

Grappling is alright, but I will say that I’m kinda sorry to see it decoupled from skills. Grappling big bads at advantage  is one of the best  surprises in the barbarian’s/str fighter’s toolbox so I’ll be disappointed if they don’t get some specialization in it. 

Spells are now divided up into lists based on origin of the magic rather than class, a move that I’m primarily in favour of because it’ll make incorporating 3rd party spells/classes SO MUCH EASIER. As for the arcane/primal/divine sourcing, I think it might be a bit… limited? Curious if they’re going to add any more niche spell lists with specific origins later on (fiendish, feywild, etc) 

Now lets talk about that virtual tabletop:   What strikes me as funny is that WOTC has been trying to get a digital d&d working for years. 3e was bogged down in simulationism and needless rules because the system was supposed to run on a computer, and plenty of people have remarked on how crunchy 4th edition was. 

There seems to be this idea that “advancement” for d&d means taking it further and further away from the table, and while I’ll admit that online play has helped millions of people get into the game, I’m always going to think that in-person games are the best way to play for me any my groups. 

Look at this teaser for 4th edition, and behind all the nerd jokes you’ll see the drum they’re beating is that at-table play is clunky, where as digital play is sleek and futuristic. (also notice they have the exact same reassurances taht the game will remain the same despite how massive a change 4th edition was)

You’ll also note how in the One d&d preview, they talked about how people had “cobbled together” a bunch of tools to play online, whereas this new virtual tabletop was going to be the be all end all.   Not to sound conspiratorial, but a WOTC produced VTT is going to have a profit incentive to ensure you use WOTC products over your own homebrew/3rd party material, and is never going to be as flexible as something you’ve found that works best for you.  They’ve done this before, taking a section about how to make/source minis and terrain out of 3rd edition books and replacing them with advertisements for their own products.   If I REALLY wanted to get myself fitted for a tinfoil hat, I could talk about how the lack of tools in the default DMG for building adventures subtly encourages DMs to seek out officially produced ones. 

This is… fine… I guess? I can’t fault hasbro as a mega corporation for doing what’s in its nature, except in such cases where its actions directly impact the game. But we’ll have to see how that turns out with future playtest options rather than getting all conspiratorial. 

Thanks for listening to me ramble, expect more of it in the future.

Be very mindful of people who use unrelenting denialism to dismiss a very real pattern, cultural phenomena, or circumstance which you’re trying to point out to them. The chances are they just literally don’t want to know, because the truth of the matter either makes them feel uncomfortable, contradicts their flawed value system, or both.

The denier usually displays a sequence of behaviour that comes in four stages. When confronted with your observation, say, for example you are highlighting the risk that trans-identified men pose to women when placed in their prisons, they will respond in this order:

1. “Nope. That literally never happens. You’re a conspiracy nut/delusional/*insert buzzword here, most likely transphobia*.”

Then, when you present them with multiple clearcut examples, citing mainstream media sources that they cannot so easily discard they way they would with a smaller, alternative media source:

2. “But my point still stands, that this is uncommon. Why are you so focused in on this tiny thing? Your *insert buzzword here* is showing.”

Then, when the issue bubbles in prominence, leaves the niche corner of the internet from whence it came, and becomes more socially acceptable to publicly assert due to the overwhelming evidence:

3. “Okay but I don’t see why you have such a big issue with this? Why don’t you talk more about *insert totally separate issue here as a means to shift the goalpost*? Because by focusing so much on this specific thing, you’re just inciting hatred/promoting ignorance.”

This stage attempts to toe the line between not explicitly acknowledging the existence of the problem, but also not condoning it (because they quietly know that it does exist – that it is very real), instead choosing to insult the character and motivations of the claimant.

Many deniers will stop there, but the more spiteful and maliciously motivated among them will escalate to:

4. “Yeah well they brought it on themselves anyway. They fucking deserve it.”

I have noticed this across all sides of the political spectrum, both sexes, and all age groups, with so, so many different issues, including, but not limited to:

- TRAs denying TIMs’ abuse of women in women’s prisons, domestic abuse shelters and hospital wards

- TRAs denying how ‘gender identity’ has replaced biological sex in the practice of state institutions across the West (eg on passports)

- TRAs denying how self ID laws will be abused by ‘cis’men who do not sincerely consider themselves trans, but will claim to be to gain access to, and film women and girls in, changing rooms and toilets

- Catholics denying priests’ sexual abuse of children in the Church

- Conservative parents denying religiously influenced child abuse within their communities

- Healthcare practitioners and defenders of differing countries’ healthcare systems denying the prevalence of medical misogyny, the pathologising of women and girls, and the dismissal of their symptoms, which results in delayed diagnoses turning terminal and/or causing death

- The ‘progressive’ British left denying the targeted mass-grooming of working class white girls by Muslim, mostly Pakistani, men

- The ‘progressive’ British left denying that the government are buying out fancy private hotels to put up male illegal migrants in

- The political left across most of the Western world denying the recent demographic changes to its countries, and the cultural changes that come with that

- Men of all political orientations denying that women on porn sets are tricked with dodgy contracts, blackmailed, drugged, gangraped, and sex trafficked, and that this is the footage they see on PornHub and wank off to

- People across the world, of all nationalities, ages, sexes, socioeconomic statuses, and political orientations denying the larger-than-officially-acknowledged likelihood of suffering adverse side effects to the various Covid19 vaccinations, or the coercive policies of governments across the West to maximise the number of people who felt compelled to have it

The point of the diverse range of examples above is not to make a value judgement (you may not consider some of those things as ‘issues’, instead believing that they are good. That is your right), but rather 1. to point out just how bloody common this pattern of behaviour is, especially among those who consider themselves politically progressive, and 2. to potentially aid anyone who reads this in pointing it out in future discussions.

We do not live in a transparent political culture. People employ all sorts of backward mental gymnastics to justify their harmful beliefs, just because they make them feel better, and feel like they are supporting a good cause. That’s really all mainstream left wing progressivism is in the Global North: doing what feels good and makes you look good to your peers (this is why radical feminism is seen by the woke lot as right wing. We don’t operate off of that value system. We don’t do what feels nice in the moment, we want actual fucking results). So we need to be able to reply with: “If you are going to support [x] thing, bloody well be honest about the potential consequences that you have absolutely no problem with taking place.” We need to stop giving these people plausible deniability, and allowing them to fall back on “well I couldn’t have possibly known that [y] bad thing would happen if [x] thing was implemented.” Because yes you did.

I'm honestly curious as to what Salem was referring to in the first volume when she said, "there will be no victory in strength" - alluding to all the times Ozpin has failed to defeat her. Interestingly, Salem never directly strongarms her followers into working for her - violence only comes in when they disobey her (Cinder) or she has her followers do it for her. Meanwhile every conflict the heroes face is solved with violence with the exception of heel-turned antagonists who are either narratively disposed of (Ilia + Raven), added to the cast-bloat of 20+ onscreen characters (Emerald + Aceops) or killed off (Hazel), thus not having to reconcile with new dynamics that aren't "everyone is best friends, all the time".

In some respects it feels like a reversal of the standard moral we would expect from a tale like RWBY. (Though, as I always want to stress, not an intentional reversal.) Meaning, most shonen-esque, fairy tale-esque, young protagonists fight some evil force-esque stories present the message that it's not their literal power that saves the day, but rather the Power of Friendship/Love/Purity/Whatever. Or, more accurately, one leads into another. By embracing the emotion that the story wants to uphold as significant, they receive their power up as a cosmic reward (like going Super Saiyan over the love of a friend), or are otherwise rewarded with the solution to their difficulty (like the Guardians of the Galaxy crew splitting the power of the infinity stone). The in-world universe looks at the hero who has Behaved In The Morally Correct Way--which often includes overtly rejecting power--and says, "Here, have a lot of power anyway as a treat. You've proven that you deserve it." Something, something the best leaders don't want to be leaders (insert Ruby's Beacon arc here) and similarly, the people to have a ton of power are those who don't inherently want to be powerful because now there's little chance that they'll misuse it. And for a hot second RWBY went in that direction with a "simple soul" who doesn't want to be the "bees knees" but does want to "help people."

Problem is--as you say--Ruby and the group just solve all of their conflicts with violence. Not in a Power of Friendship/Love way, but ordinary, prodigy, punch-them-until-they-stop-moving violence. Particularly in the later volumes. Ruby doesn't defeat Cordovin with a power-up because a teammate was injured in the fight and she now wants to protect them, they just shoot at her until a massive grimm shows up to finish the job. They don't defeat the Ace Ops with the Power of Teamwork, they all split into separate rooms and we're told they're simply more talented than these professionals, period. Blake doesn't find the strength to defend herself by thinking about Ruby, she begs Ruby to wake and do the work for her. Jaune doesn't save Penny by unlocking some upgraded semblance at a crucial moment out of a love for her, he slits her throat. The group doesn't defeat Cinder in Volume 8 at all. There's no strategy anymore, or success tied to Love--and I do use the word "anymore" deliberately. Because for a long time RWBY's saving grace (no matter its other flaws) were the Silver Eyes: a straightforward ability Powered By Love that was at the heart of our hero's development. Ruby sees Pyrrha die and it activates. She sees Blake in great danger and it activates. Even in Volume 6 when it was getting very flimsy with memories of decorating the dorm and what-not, at least it still revolved around the concept of a found family, even if it was retconning the idea of mortal peril being a trigger. It still mostly worked.

Now though, Ruby simply decides that the fight is over and disintegrates the Hound--no emotion necessary--and she doesn't react at all when her sister is murdered. We lost the one aspect of the show that still revolved around the Power of Friendship/Love.

Which finally brings us back to Salem's opening speech. "There will be no victory in strength." AKA, the standard moral. You can't defeat me by training, learning fancy techniques, or even being a prodigy. At least, you can't wield those things on their own. All the straight-forward power in the world isn't going to bring me down. Her immortality should be a metaphor for that message, wherein the cast learns the thematic lesson of upholding the Power and Love by figuring out how to circumvent the practical problem of an enemy that can't die. This setup works. It's tried and true and tested!!

But than, as said, RWBY swerved hard. Now they're saying that strength is enough. Strength is the ultimate weapon. How do you deal with a traumatized ally? You punch him and demand that he return for more violence. How do you convince an abused brother to help you? Threaten him with your sword. How do you beat the best team in Atlas, possibly the world? By just being more powerful than them, duh.

How do you defeat Salem?

By fighting her. That's the closest the group gets to offering Ironwood a "solution" to their problem: we'll stay here and fight her. How is that going to work given the whole immortality thing? They don't know. They don't care. There's absolutely no discussion about the issue, yet the protagonists continue to push the message that the best--the only--solution is to stand your ground, sharpen your weapons, and find a way to punch the problem into submission. Oh, RWBY still appears very Power of Friendship-y with all the speeches about how they have to work together, but post Volume 4-ish the writing hasn't followed up on that message.

RWBY said, "There will be no victory in strength" and then halfway through its run went, "Never mind, strength is awesome. Why would we write a story about strategy, creativity, and the importance of strong bonds when our heroes can just be More Powerful than the enemy? It's so much simpler to write a story where they're inherently as talented as the plot needs and they've all read the script, so they know they'll win in the end--that's their reasoning and justification. So much better than writing that complicated metaphor."

You know, I'm thinking now about Ironwood's final moments as he reached for his gun and then dropped his hand. Besides the fact that it reads as more sympathetically tragic to me than, I suspect, the pathetic angle RT was going for, within this framework it really reflects his whole philosophy. In a "normal" Power of Love story, there might be something to the idea that he isn't trying hard enough; that unlike our protagonists who Persevere, Ironwood demonstrates a pronounced weakness in giving up. But since the story has established quite clearly that conventional violence will not win this fight--AKA, a gun--it reads more like a tragic wisdom. In his final moments he's not giving up because he can't fight anymore (I mean, whatever else we might say about the guy, he's incredibly determined and resilient), but because he understands that the only course now available to him is useless. From the moment Oscar told him the truth, Ironwood has been working within the realities of their situation. It led him to doing horrific things in the name of finding a lesser evil, but it's narratively significant that he (and Ozpin) is one of the only characters who truly accepts the problem of Salem's immortality and doesn't bow out of the fight (like Raven). He understands that picking up a gun and shooting this being is the height of stupidity. It's a waste of time, of energy, of focus. It might be comforting to pretend that their weapons are still a viable option, but he's not going to spend his last slice of life chasing a delusion. It won't work.

Meanwhile, or protagonists are still ignoring this problem 99% of the time and the other 1% they're going, "Hmm... but what if we tried brute strength 🤔?"

Entrapta, like Catra, has all the foundations for a corruption arc. Pre-existing deviance, a solid motivation for revenge, climbing up the enemy ranks until she is the head boss's left hand, and then gaining powet over Hordak himself. Like many villain scientists she assists and joins with the good guys from time to time.

What makes Entrapta different is that, through all of this, she ISNT a mastermind, morally grey ends justifies the means scientist. She is in fact a complete cinnamon roll who's hurt by what happened but doesn't hold a grudge at all and has joined the villains because they gave her sense of belonging, and a place to foster her love of science. So you have the top dog villain at the start of season 3 when shes finally got power over Hordak, and she's using it to tell him to love himself, to show him that our flaws are what make us beautiful and they shouldn't be masked, especially if we need help. And in season 5 she's not the sneaky ex villain getting a questionable redemption, she's literally leading the front lines in terms of converting people to the Rebellion, pulling one clone of a million clones out from under Prime and immediately being able to connect with him, being the one to tell Prime to his face he will never understand love, wrecking his brainwashing network, her connection with Hordak leading to Prime's death.

It's... so OPPOSITE to Shadow Weaver, who joined the rebellion about the same time Entrapta overtook Catra in the horde and then disappeared. Weaver has the standard "redemption" arc but doesn't learn a damn thing in her life, has no humility, and is constantly fucking with people's heads underneath her silver tongued words, all stuff Entrapta literally cannot do.

So you have this very compassionate pure of heart character influencing the iron cold leader of the villains, and this incredibly manipulative abusive character influencing the leaders of the heroes.

I think it's interested how shera plays so hard with tropes.

Yes! Exactly! One of my favorite parts about Entrapta’s character is that, in seemingly direct contrast to Shadow Weaver who looks, talks, and acts like a fairy tale Disney villain evil witch 24/7, with even her attempted ‘redemption martyr moment’ just piling more mental scars onto her surrogate daughters,  everything that we’re presented with in the first few minutes System Failure gives us the idea that Entrapta is this typical (albeit sweet-toothed) Mad Scientist soon-to-be-if-not-already-villain. She lives in a classically evil scary castle on a mountain, it’s full of traps, secret passageways, and (conveniently timed) robot zombies, and there’s mutants in the sewers apparently?!? Especially since some fans know her old incarnation was a shallow villain, once she finally crawls out of a vent like a goddamn Xenomorph with welding mask eyes glowing with menace the audience thinks they have her character figured out, and then she subverts these expectations by greeting our heroes with a genuine, cheery, hospitable welcome that still acknowledges the immediate danger they’re facing and her direct involvement in it. And ever since then, all she’s wanted to do is help people and do science (and hopefully make friends with people by doing those two things). Even when she learns She Ra’s most direct and effective weakness, even when she’s given the chance to use that weakness *again* after she thinks the BFS and Princess Alliance left her for dead, she still doesn’t take the opportunity to go full "They laughed at my experiments, but now I’ll show them all! Brand New Day! Muahahahaha!” etc etc. Shadow Weaver WISHES she could’ve climbed the evil corporate ladder as fast as Entrapta did, and ironically she accomplished it by doing the exact opposite approach to SW: Being 100% genuine and honest about her opinions, knowledge, and feelings. And Hordak establishes time and time again that he hates dishonesty in his ranks (mostly because he’s not great at subterfuge and trickery himself) and gains valuable knowledge and self-worth from Entrapta’s genuine honesty. I may be forgetting something, but I’m pretty sure the one and only time Entrapta intentionally, consciously lies about something is that bit in System Failure where she find the lab and says “We’re here! Uh, I mean, of course we’re here, we were never lost.” Of course, just because she never even considers taking steps towards actual, conscious Villainy and Vengeance doesn’t mean we can’t think up AUs where she does go down that path a bit.  One concept that I’ve yet to make into a proper fic is an alternate ending to Season 5 in which she has a more active role in usurping Prime, fully disconnecting him from the other Clones before Hordak does the Darth Vader/Emperor reference, then taking over the Velvet Glove’s army of clones, droids, and drones in order to collect data on the flora, fauna, and magic of Etheria before expanding her DC Brainiac style "data collection” to the rest of the newly entered galaxy. 

anyway thanks for prompting and then coming to my Ted Talk

GARROTH SKIN REVIEW YIPPEE! 🎉 (MCD season 1)

masked (original)

Can’t blame Jess for how poorly this cross motif fits into the eventual lore, since it didn’t exist yet and she didn’t make this skin herself, it was another one that was just part of the mod. Other than that, it’s pretty nice looking and certainly gave him an iconic theme & design. I personally have some very mixed feelings on the crusader imagery present: on one hand, it brings in some unpleasant history which can sully the image of what’s meant to be a very likable character and otherwise bring up unpleasantness, but equally it does evoke strong, iconic imagery and draws on religious and historical iconography that the audience will already be familiar with, which does provide him with a strong, recognizable presence and gives the audience an automatic understanding of some aspects of who he is. The black cross on his chest probably should have been a little lighter so it could have been shaded, and the gold pieces are pretty ugly, but since the skin is mostly monochromatic, I have no complaints for the majority of the colors and shading. I’m only noticing it now, but the texture on the sides of his legs doesn’t match up with that of the front at all, which is... certainly an odd choice. He looks nice though, overall. 

( P.S. In CustomNPCs mod (not Minecraft Comes Alive, like I previously thought?), this skin was titled White_knight. Couldn’t they have picked a better name? u_u )

-

masked (rebirth!!)

It’s cute that his mask emotes, but otherwise... hm. Not a huge fan.

The color of the gold is a lot better, that’s nice to see (sure took her a while.../lh), but otherwise this is just the same skin but overdone. I was really excited at first by the prospect of Rebirth as a rewrite and redesign, but realizing most of the characters just looked exactly the same but more highly rendered was disappointing, for me personally, at least. The colors in this one are actually a lot less pleasing to me, since there’s a lot more of this very light grey which wasn’t present in the original, and the shading is highly lacking despite it being a more “high quality” rendering.

And while it is cute that his mask emotes, it doesn’t match the style of the show very well, in my opinion. Garroth is generally a pretty serious and stoic character, which is greatly enhanced by the fact that no one can see his face or read his expressions. Additionally, it’s a little overly cartoonish, especially for, again, a character with a generally serious demeanor.

It is cute though, I can definitely see why the team would choose to make him more expressive this way, since lack of personality and expression can certainly be a character design flaw, rather than enhancement.

The small amount of skin showing under his helmet also lends itself to poor character design, in his specific case. Originally, the audience has absolutely no idea what this character will look like underneath his helmet, and while it’s a small detail, showing his skin still detracts from that suspense and mystery a notable amount.

Finally, there he is, still wearing a cross in a world where Jesus Christ does not exist (at least, there sure hasn’t been mention of a Minecraft Jesus,) and where he, along with most others, follow a religion with a different representative symbol. It’s a nice enough idea that the cross is specifically the crest of the Ro’meave family or O’khasis, but then it makes even less sense for him to be wearing it, as he’s keeping his identity a secret.

What a downgrade, to be honest! Rewriting a story with a more clear vision of where it will go should provide one with the ability to enhance character designs and make them fit the world they come from better, yet when given this chance, Jessica didn’t do a single thing to make his character design make more sense within her fictional world, and instead decided just to render every piece of chain on his chain mail.

-

face reveal!!!

I’m blinded by affection for him. I can’t properly review this because when I look at his little face I want to explode into a million little pieces. He’s so cute. Little guy. I want to squish him and knead him like dough and

-

tuxedo

Yeah, that’s historically inaccurate for sure. Whatever, I guess. It looks nice enough.

-

that other armor?

I want to dribble him like a basketball & put him in a blender & throw him &

This armor is a fun change from the original, and it adds a lot to his character knowing that back in O’khasis he had designed his own armor and that it’s considered some of the best of the best. However, he is still wearing that damn cross.

I have yet to mention his sword. It’s one of the least tacky of the swords in MCD. Even though it’s definitely just supposed to be a cool fantasy sword without any particular bearing on reality, its silhouette does actually have potential both as a fantasy weapon and a more realistic one. Though it certainly isn’t exact, his blade does bear more than a passing resemblance to the Indonesian keris/kris sword, a wavy bladed weapon with spiritual and practical associations and which is historically a sign of status. These were also considered individual works of art, with each sword being highly detailed and decorated.

While it isn’t necessary, I think details like this are worthy of note and interesting to look over. I think the keris is quite a fitting blade for him.

-

Jury of Nine transformation

Well, this is basically just his first armor again but without the white cape thing, but if it isn’t broke, don’t fix it! The darker colors clearly signify to the audience that he’s become more villainous and his muted skin, eyes and hair give the impression that he isn’t quite himself. It’s a little bit cliche, but there’s nothing really wrong with it. He looks good!

What are your favourite tlh characters and why?

Hi there! ✨

If you have seen my blog the past few weeks, you probably can guess some of them, but here we go:

Grace

I feel like Grace is one of the most complex characters we've ever gotten in TSC and it feels like such a breath of fresh air. Don't get me wrong, I am perfectly aware that these are YA novels, so I generally don't expect the books to be super amazing, I know what I'm signing up for, but that's precisely why I like her so much. Her personality is very unlike other female characters we've gotten in the series and I don't mean that in a "not like other girls" sense but in the sense that it caught my attention immediately, because CC doesn't have the best track of giving her girls gray morality without treating them like they suck for that.

I guess I was always curious about her? Even in CoG she gave the impression she was more than she seemed, and reading her backstory in CoI just made me hurt for her and root for her to have a happy ending after so much misery. There's something really satisfying about characters that have faced so much hardships finally getting a chance to simply be.

Alastair

Oh, boy. When I first read CoG and I read about Alastair, he felt to me so much like my older brother that I loved him immediately. It helped that I found his snark incredibly funny. However... as I kept reading TLH, he actually started reminding me of, well, myself. For many reasons, but let's not get too personal here, haha, let's just say I found his flaws, his struggles, and his stubbornness to go on in spite of that very relatable. How could I not love him deeply and dearly?

Aside from my biased reasons, I also find that his character is written very consistently and I loved his character arc (I stand by how simplistic some things felt in COT, but even so), how he had his highs and his lows, that was very nicely done. He also feels like a complex character because he's allowed to fuck up badly and it doesn't get swept under the rug, though I would say they go the other way with him and Grace by being too harsh, but I'll take my wins where I can.

Christopher

Oh, Kit, sweet Kit, you were the best of them all. Christopher is such a great character because, while mostly ignored the first two books, he's endearing practically without trying. CC's books have this thing where sometimes they try to convince you a character is likable for X reasons and it simply doesn't work for me that they tell me that I should love a character.

Christopher doesn't have that problem, they kinda present him to you as this klutzy nerd, but he's so much more than that. His logic helps him be the most compassionate and kind from the group, no matter what the narrative tries to tell you. He's perceptive, he's fair, he's fun. Who doesn't like Christopher even if he isn't their favorite? He knows what he is and what he wants and he follows through with it, he's such a pillar of the group that passes unnoticed because he's always in the background, but by the gods, he's so good.

Honorary mentions

Thomas and Ari.

I adored Thomas in CoT, though I must admit he doesn't spark my curiosity and excitement quite like the other three did, in the way that I would get immediately engaged the second I saw their names on the page. Nothing wrong with him, just my personal preferences, but he was truly funny and sweet and I quite liked that!

Ari... I do like her, in a way, I wanted to like her so bad, but she's trapped as the love interest in Anna's narrative, and given that I have no love for Anna's character or their pairing, it was hard for me to enjoy her appearances. She didn't have a chance to shine on her own, but when I think of all the ramifications of her story, I swoon a little. She could be so interesting.

Hi! This is a question more geared towards insight on your own writing process and the conceptualization of FMN rather than a what if or plot question. I was wondering if you’ve always had a clear vision of Luke and Aemond ending up together, and building Luke’s trauma with that in mind, or have you gone back and forth about the two of them getting together? I guess I’m asking because I find it really difficult to support Aemond or their relationship because he r*ped Luke. It’s hard to read a story like this and learn all the assaults that Luke has been through, all the times he has had his choice and sexual agency taken away, only to then see him end up with someone who assaulted him. I know a lot of readers are rooting for Aemond, but I find it difficult to because of this. He could have so easily not brought that into their relationship. If he really loves Luke, and has truly changed, why do this?

Did you debate with yourself whether to add this sexual component because doing so would taint whatever future they have together? It’s just heartbreaking to see Luke end up with someone who abused him. Aemond (although unknowingly) is taking advantage of Luke’s trauma which influences his opinion on what Aemond did as not being r*pe. To be clear, this is definitely not me being like “oh if you love Aemond in FMN you support r*pe.” This is a complex story and I’m not shaming anyone for wanting them to be together. It’s just me saying: it’s hard to read and it makes me sad to imagine Luke being tied to someone who assaulted him, no matter how soft or how it was from a place of love. This is a question on your writing process: knowing Lucemond will be endgame vs waffling back and forth influences how one writes. But I guess I’m also asking if it’s okay with you to really not want them to be together when the majority of readers seem to want to see their endgame?

You not wanting Luke to end up with Aemond is completely understandable, just as your point about Luke ending up with someone who yet again taking away his choice/agency is incredibly valid. Going into this I’ve always had a clear cut ending for the story as well as my initial outlines which Ive mostly been following to a t this entire time except for a few things here and there. However, I think most writers would agree with me when I say that sometimes characters just sort of write themselves? Deviating from my initial plans on their character arc for the modern world as well as what their overall personality was/is supposed to be.

Aemond was always meant to be this very flawed guy who simply wants to do better and is trying his hardest to be what he feels to is a good person, however there is an internal struggle with his selfishness. When you’ve committed genocide, butchered children and the elderly as well as taken a woman who you initially thought was nothing more than helpless wet nurse as your war prize in the past it’s easy to think that doing anything outside of as well as condemning those actions would automatically make you a better person. And I know our normal talks around here are mostly about Aemond being this sweet lover boy but in FMN canon he’s in this morally ambiguous gray area rather than your average good guy (I put him in the same category as a Daemon who is an entire essay by himself considering his inappropriate relationship with Rhaenyra in the past and making the decision to do the same thing over again in their present without truly giving her a chance to learn who she is without him because of selfishness’s)

Now don’t get me wrong, Aemond WANTS to be good, and is putting in the steps to do so. But at heart he’s still battling that deep seeded selfishness that thinks of what a happy life he and Luke can have together rather than going “hmm, but what does Luke himself want? Does he have goals? Aspirations? Dreams that don’t involve a man at his side?” He’ll get to the point, but at this current moment in time a lot of his actions are very selfish even when he feels he isn’t being just that.

As of the club scene in chapter 31; that decision to cross those sexual bounds wasn’t something I was planning on doing from the beginning but just sort of happened. Though this definitely does taint things going forward seeing as Luke wouldn’t have wanted things to go this far with the man who killed him if he was still “Lucerys”

I felt it going down this path makes sense for both their characters though it will come back to bite them in the ass. Luke is someone who uses sex as not only a coping mechanism but to gauge whether or not his feelings are returned. While on the other hand, Aemond is too selfish to think about how this event (and a sexual relationship going forward in general) will affect Luke when he does remember. Again, its not that he won’t be able to see why this would make Luke feel taken advantage of or played, but that he’s too busy thinking of their future wedding and how many kids they’re going to adopt to sit back for a moment as ask himself these questions.

Not wanting these two to end up together is 100% okay and as i’ve said before I always understand those are aren’t rooting for them because even though his decisions weren’t made with hurting Luke in mind, that will be the outcome. He has taken advantage despite not realizing it and a relationship built off of that would be very hard to navigate once time comes because these two truly do love one another. But a question I want to ask everyone is “is love and someone seeing the error of their ways enough of a reason to forgive these actions?”

Also, in Aemond’s mind the words “rape” don’t pertain to their situation. “Taken advantage of” absolutely. “Led astray” works as well. But that selfishness won’t hear the words “rape by deception” and agree. Mostly because he’s ignorant to the many different forms of rape which is a societal issues as well as a personal one due to ignorance. To Aemond, rape is holding someone down, touching them although they haven’t exactly said yes and are clearly uncomfortable, having sex with someone who’s drunk or under the influence although you yourself are stone cold sober, and every other way rape is mostly depicted in media as I don’t usually see rape by deceit showcased as a valid form of assault (there was one episode of law and order SVU I vaguely remember but it was very surface level)

This is a major character flaw, specifically when taking into account that this story heavily revolves around the effects of sexual abuse. Can he grow and come to see that if he continues to take his sexual relationship with Luke any further then it’s in fact rape? Yes, but is he mature enough at the point to even take the first step which is acknowledging his actions.

Another thing that I’ve kept to myself is that from the very beginning, whenever I say that Lucemond will be endgame, this doesn’t mean they’ll be together at their current ages and places in life as they are now. Both of them (especially Luke) need time to grow as people. Luke needs to go out into the world on his own and heal from his truama’s rather than focusing on being a good boyfriend just as Aemond needs to work on his morality. What he feels is right and wrong as well as unlearn that selfishness from his first life that still has a hold on him.

Overall, FMN is a complex story. There is no wrong side to choose as everyone here is flawed with their own set of traumas. It’s valid to like Aemond just as it’s valid for him to leave a bad taste in your mouth.

In the end, being team Luke getting justice for what he’s been made to endure and learning to be happy with himself to the point where he can look in the mirror and say “i love you. You deserve happiness” is all that matters.

OFTS thoughts (- I don’t have a title)

Here, I’ll talk about the characters and their relationships. I’m not really trying to analyze them, it’s more about how I perceive them so far (as of episode 3).

First, let me get it out of my system, but I don’t think there’s a clear villain in this show, nor a mastermind. I think we’re supposed to take the characters (mostly) as they’re presented, with blatant flaws. If these characters are dishonest, it’s mainly with themselves or with each other, not with the audience.

1. The core friendship

From the start, Cheum, Boston, Ray and Mew’s friendship felt off to me, but in retrospect, more than off, it’s imperfect. While this can read as a euphemism after last Saturday, there are scenes with both working and broken bonds between them. The good: making sure everyone gets home, Boston and Ray's go-to person being Mew (in ep1: Boston gives his number to Nick for his phone repair, Ray calls him right after exiting Sand’s flat), Mew 2nd go-to person is Ray (but only after he met Top), the way they know who will not do the assignment and who is good with each part of the job. The bad: Boston throwing under the bus both Ray and Mew to get Top, the peer pressure to lose one's virginity, their teacher foreshadowing comments…

Honestly, if it wasn’t for Boston’s unhinged behaviour, their friendship might have a chance to last. (it still might)

2. But that’s not Boston.

Boston looks everyone down, and what he wants, he gets. He doesn’t mind twisting the truth (Top) or gaslighting people around (Nick). He’s also someone who sees everything through the lens of sex. His value is established by the number of partner he has, by how they want to come back for more, and how he had them first and can get them back whenever.

It looks like this lens might also impact his assumptions about others’ relationships. While we now know for a fact Mew and Ray kissed, I highly doubt they had sex. But, at this point, I feel Boston sincerely believe they did. Maybe he saw them getting together in a room. And what else could they have done together if not fuck? This is why Boston keeps looking at them with suspicion. He thinks they’re lying/hiding/hypocrites, but HE sees them, HE is no dupe.

3. Mew the virgin

I wouldn’t be surprised if Mew ended up being demisexual. But, let's talk about how so many of us see him as mastermind, and... I don't. Or, at least, not yet.

Did he make sure their school project would secure his future? Yes, I agree with this. It's his idea, and he's aware how much Ray cares for him, and, to some extant, he's profiting from it. Did he take top's 3-months-limit as a form of challenge? Probably (unless he's demi, then the scene take a slightly different tone). BUT, that's it. I strongly believe the rest can be taken at face value.

Well... until he'll decide to confront Top about cheating on him. Because, then we get to this (I think):

And I still don't know if that smile is Mew feeling reassured, knowing he has the upper hand in their relationship, or planning revenge.

4. Top, a much frailer top-tier

Not gonna lie, I love his character. He looks like a basic (wo)manizer at first, but he's showing some cracks that make me want to know more. Of all the characters, he is one of the most adjusted when comparing who he thinks he is and who he says he is. But that doesn't always mean he lets others see all parts of him.

He had zero problem sharing his childhood trauma with Mew or openly taking sleeping pills, but whatever that dude, Beam, is to him is out of line. And Beam stating he knows Top both in and out of bed? What do you mean OUT?

Also, that clip of his confrontation with Mew (see above), shows Top crying. Do I think Top and Mew are opposites? Maybe. I mean: Mew is reserved, sexless, composed, while Top is in-the-open (mostly), sexfull, emotive. And gosh are we going to see emotions from Top next week. His carefully worked façade is falling in favor of anger and jealousy. Mostly (and wrongly) directed at Sand.

5. Sand, the only really adjusted person?

Well, adjusted only if you consider the men, because so far the women are rocking it better than everybody else. But he has his shit together at least. No trauma in view, very done with bullshit in general, discreet where needed (did you sleep with Boston??), know his own value...

Honestly, the only mystery is what happened between him and Top. Like some others, I feel there must be another person in between them. My wild theory is it's Cheum's lil bro 🤡🤡🤡

6. Atom, who the fuck are you?

Atom, played by Title Kirati, is Cheum little brother. He just got introduced in the last episode, but I have no idea how he connects to the rest of the story (thus my wild theory). We know he's a comm arts student (a link to Nick?). The reason I think he'll impact, in some way, the story is his presence in the opening credits and 1 micro-second in the trailer.

7. Nick, stalker with gentle heart

To be fair, Nick is not the only character with stalker behaviour. Boston shows it with his habit of taking pictures of his lovers in intimate moments, and the picture of Ray/Mew's kiss. Ray also who follows Sand, and Mew who admits he could very much go pry in his lover's phone given the chance.

But Nick is not the poor bunny we thought he is. His stalker behaviour is present from the start with the invasion of privacy on Boston's phone, which would be illegal in many countries, and now the taping of Boston's car (illegal too). But there's also the cameras he suggests to Boston for their pool party. No one was asking for video and sound recording, but he suggested it as if it was perfectly normal. (btw, did Drake use this kind of camera? Could we get both revenge porn and/or commercial sex tapes?)

8. Ray, he'll break some heart, his or yours, or both

So, where do I start here. By the obvious? Falling out of love is complicated, it’s a process partly built on bad habits. Sometimes, you might even start falling in love again before being fully done with said process. I think this is happening to Ray. But I also think Ray has been lying to others for so long to hide the true extent of his pain, that he has difficulties acknowledging the burgeoning feelings he has for Sand. There’s a reason why both Mew and Yo perceive them better than he does.

There are other things to mention about him. The drinking issue, the call to mental health lack of care, his blackouts habit. And that one is really an habit that has found him waking up in random people beds with no memory of what happened in the night. He didn't go presuming he and Sand had sex that very first night out of nowhere. I'm not gonna lie, it scares me that this can be someone's real life experience. It brings back that time when a coworker told me that really I should have a blackout once (on purpose): "it's a great experience". "Great" said with no sarcasm nor joking tone. It still gives me the chill.

Anyway, I'll stop here, sadly I have not much to say about the women in the series. I wish they were more present, and as messy as their male counterparts, but that doesn't look like it'll be the case. The writers and directors are focusing specifically on mlm experiences, something as intimate to them as to the main characters.

Disney's "Beauty and the Beast" is Fanon "Pride and Prejudice" (warning: long)

It goes without saying... or in other words, it is a truth universally acknowledged... that Disney's Beauty and the Beast is full of parallels with Pride and Prejudice.

First and foremost, of course, there's the central romance. A young woman and a young man meet. The man is of higher social status than the woman and tends to be unsociable, selfish, and rude. The woman is the first person to properly call out his behavior, so naturally they don't get along at first. But eventually they get to know each other better and learn to respect each other, the man becomes kinder and improves his manners, and ultimately they fall in love. Both works also include a possible alternate love interest for the heroine: a handsome, charming, popular foil to the hero, who turns out to a total cad. (Although a key difference is that Elizabeth is charmed and fooled by Wickham, while Belle always detests Gaston.) @starberry-cupcake has also, ingeniously, pointed out further similarities in the structure of the two stories. In both, the hero and heroine's animosity culminates in a scene where the hero behaves especially badly, seemingly ending any chance they had of becoming a couple (Darcy's first proposal/the West Wing incident). But then a dramatic turning point takes place, initiated by the hero, which leads the heroine to see him in a different light (Darcy's letter/the Beast saving Belle from the wolves). From that point on, they draw closer and closer together. But then a crisis involving the heroine's family suddenly separates them (Lydia's elopement/Maurice lost in the blizzard) and the hero shows just how far his growth has come by doing a great, selfless deed for the heroine, expecting nothing in return (Darcy bribing Wickham to marry Lydia and save the Bennets' good name/the Beast sacrificing his last chance to be human again by letting Belle go to save her father). Then an antagonist tries to separate them forever (Lady Catherine forbids Elizabeth to marry Darcy/Gaston tries to kill the Beast), but this only leads to their becoming a couple at long last (the news of his aunt's meddling inspires Darcy to propose again/the Beast's near-death leads to Belle confessing her love and breaking the spell). To all these things that @starberry-cupcake has noticed, I'll add one more. In both, early on, a close relative of the heroine's gets sick from being caught in the rain, which somehow leads to the heroine staying in the same house as the hero (although of course there's a big difference between "Jane has to stay in bed at Netherfield for a few days and Elizabeth decides to keep her company" and "the already sick Maurice will probably die if he stays in the dank, cold castle dungeon, so Belle offers to take his place as the Beast's prisoner").

But there's more to both stories than just those parallels. Pride and Prejudice also has quite a few popular misconceptions attached to it, which don't really reflect the novel. Maybe these stem from the popular 1995 and 2005 screen adaptations, or maybe they predate them, but either way, they're pervasive. And I would argue that Beauty and the Beast more closely resembles the pop culture "fanon" version of Pride and Prejudice than it does Austen's actual book.

#1 – First of all, there's the misconception that both Pride and Prejudice and Beauty and the Beast are stories of a flawed man changed by a role model woman, and that in both, the central character arc is his, not hers. But for Pride and Prejudice, that's not really true. Pride and Prejudice is more the story of two decent yet flawed people who both change and bring out the best in each other. Admittedly, the first half of the book is mostly from Elizabeth's point of view, and it sets us up to view her the same way she views herself, as the most sensible, perceptive person present, who cleverly observes and judges the silly and annoying people all around her. But the book's turning point isn't Darcy's revelation-filled letter alone; it's Elizabeth's resulting recognition that she hasn't been as clever or perceptive as she thought she was, and that her judgments of others have been based more in her own vanity than she realized they were. Elizabeth's humbling process is arguably more prominent than Darcy's, both because she's the protagonist and because it takes place on-page, while Darcy's is off-page and only revealed after it happens. But in Disney's Beauty and the Beast? The central character arc of the story is the Beast's learning to be a better person and becoming worthy of Belle's love. Several members of the creative team have described him as "the real protagonist," which Darcy could never be called. Belle's arc of learning to love him is a response to his development, not equivalent to it. The attempts I've seen to argue that Belle is flawed and does change along with the Beast ("She learns to let go of her grand fantasies and find happiness in everyday life," "She learns that people's characters aren't black-and-white and that they can change," "She learns to be less of a snob about who she considers friendship-worthy," etc.) might have a little truth in them, but for the most part, Belle is a clear-headed role model, who serves as the story's best judge of character and whose good or bad opinion is the narrative's barometer of morality.

#2 – Another popular misconception about Pride and Prejudice is that Elizabeth is a free-spirited, independent misfit who defies the social conventions of her time and place. Personally, I don't think that description entirely fits her, but it does fit Belle. True, Elizabeth is lively, strong-willed, both more athletic and more intellectual than a classic ingénue, and willing to stand up to her social superiors or to turn down an advantageous marriage if she dislikes the man. (Although unlike in the screen adaptations, she never says she's only willing to marry for love.) But she also cares very much – more than any other Bennet except Jane does – about pleasing others and following her society's basic rules of decorum. This is both a virtue and a fault, as it sets her apart from her rude, obnoxious family, yet it also leads her to mistake Wickham's gentlemanly charm for goodness and Darcy's stern aloofness for a bad nature. Besides this, she's outgoing and well liked by most (not all, but most) of the people she knows. But Belle is different. While she also cares strongly about good manners and being considerate, Belle is genuinely "never part of any crowd," with no friends her own age, and viewed as "odd" by most of her neighbors because her dreams, interests, and values are different from others of her time and place. That's part of the point of Disney's Beauty and the Beast: it's about two misfits who find acceptance and belonging in each other. Personally, at least, I don't see that theme in Pride and Prejudice.

#3 – Belle is a bookworm, and her preference for books over small talk and would-be husbands is one of her main "oddities" in the eyes of her neighbors. Elizabeth is often remembered as a bookworm too, based on Caroline Bingley's catty remark that she takes pleasure in nothing except reading. But that comment comes from just one incident – Elizabeth choosing to read instead of playing cards at Netherfield, not because she really prefers reading to cards but because they're playing for money and she can't afford to join in – and Elizabeth herself promptly refutes it by claiming that she's "not a great reader." Her favorite pastime, if she has just one, is going for walks, not reading; Darcy is more associated with books than she is.

#4 – The Beast has a redemption arc, while Darcy doesn't. Darcy never does anything morally shameful; he's just "disagreeable" and sometimes rude, dissuades Bingley from proposing to Jane (with good intentions), and fails to warn others about Wickham. Even at his most unpleasant, he's always honorable, generous to the poor, and devoted to the people he cares about. Does his positive growth count as "redemption" when he never really sins? The Beast, on the other hand, does do morally disgraceful things: he imprisons a lost and sick old man just for "trespassing," only letting him go when Belle takes his place, he forbids his servants to feed Belle as long as she refuses to eat with him (although they ignore that order), he makes Belle fear for her life with his rage in the West Wing, and years earlier, he was cursed for shutting out an old beggar woman on a winter's night. He's in real need of redemption, which he begins by risking his life for Belle and completes by sacrificing all his hopes for her sake.

#5 – The Beast is a Byronic hero; Darcy is not, even though pop culture tends to think he is. The Beast is initially moody, tempestuous, and dangerous, tortured by his monstrous appearance and living in self-imposed isolation. Even after his personal growth, which makes him less Byronic, his response to losing Belle (which, to be fair, means losing his last chance to break his spell, not just losing love) is to roar like a jungle animal and sink into suicidal despair. But Darcy? He's initially cold, severe, and prone to annoyance, but not prone to dark moods or outbursts of temper. He's unsociable (though whether out of real social awkwardness or out of arrogance is a matter of debate) but he's not a tortured recluse, he's certainly not dangerous, and while he loves deeply, his apparent response to losing Elizabeth is just to carry on with life as best he can and to try to be a better person. Having a few traits in common with a Byronic hero doesn't make him one.

#6 – Modern Austen fans sometimes describe Darcy's character arc as being about "toxic masculinity," which he "unlearns" in favor of healthy masculinity. But is that really true? I would argue that Darcy's cold arrogance is gender-neutral and more related to social class than to masculinity. In Beauty and the Beast, however, toxic masculinity vs. healthy masculinity is a central theme. The Beast really does behave in toxically masculine ways at first (i.e. domineering and prone to rages), but by the end embraces healthy masculinity that allows for gentleness and vulnerability. Meanwhile, the real villain, the boorish, macho Gaston, is toxic masculinity personified, in a way that Pride and Prejudice's gentlemanly rake Wickham never is.

#7 – Darcy is sometimes accused of not "really" loving Elizabeth when he first proposes to her – of proposing just out of lust and only really learning to love her when he's a better man. But this isn't what Austen tells us. While he might not fully understand her until after she rejects him, and while his love might be more selfish than it becomes later, the book never denies that it was true love. In his second, successful proposal, he claims that his feelings for her are "unchanged." The Beast, on the other hand, really doesn't love Belle yet when he first hopes to win her love – what he wants is to break his spell. His arc of learning to love Belle, having never loved anyone before, is just as important as his becoming a better person in general. Darcy doesn't need to learn how to love; just to be humbler and more considerate.

#8 – The Beast changes for Belle, and changes drastically; Darcy arguably doesn't change drastically, and definitely doesn't change for Elizabeth. The Beast's efforts to be a better person are intrinsically tied to his desire to please Belle, and he changes from rough to gentle, ruthless to moral, and selfish to selfless. But Darcy was always a good person, just a flawed one, and he goes through personal growth without changing his core self. This happens when he never expects to see Elizabeth again; he becomes a better man because he wants to be a better man. It's slightly baffling that so many amateur critics accuse him of changing his entire personality to please Elizabeth.

None of these differences between Pride and Prejudice and Beauty and the Beast reflect badly on either. Of course Austen's novel is more complex and sophisticated than the Disney film, but each work is outstanding in its genre: a realistic literary comedy of manners and an animated family movie based on a fairy tale. But the fact remains that while they are full of striking parallels, they're very different from each other too.

Dabi analysis

More and more layers to Dabi's character are being pulled back, and we've begun to see how developed of a character Dabi is. He is my favorite character, and his character arc is told creatively to accommodate its larger meaning.

First, It's important to realize what this larger meaning is. Dabi's character arc talks about healing from suffering. Everyone goes through hardships, but certain people grow and become better, and others hurt others after they've been hurt, as is the case with Dabi and many others in this series. Dabi is a hard determinist who believes that all his crimes are Endeavor's fault, hence why he says he's burned others with his flames. He didn’t grow from his pain, but he became shortsighted and let it define him. His character serves as a commentary on what not to do after undergoing a difficult past, and it's shown through his backstory.

The main reason why I said his arc is creative is because of how elaborately his backstory is told, even more so than Shigaraki. Dabi's backstory is told in 3 parts, two of which have been seen in the anime already, and one in the manga. The 3 parts are:

1.) (Chapter 291, episode 124) This part was shown alongside Dabi's revelation. It mostly served to show how Endeavor "lit the fire" under Toya or, in other words, how it was mostly his fault.

2.) (Chapter 301/302, episode 130) This part further elaborated how Endeavor fanned these flames, but it also showed how Rei might’ve failed, as well as the rest of the families reaction to the whole matter. It also hints at a part of Toya we'll see next.

3.) (Chapter 350) This part shows how Dabi's crimes are truly his fault. He may have been mistreated by his dad and, in some ways, even cast out by his family, but this chapter shows that he was given a second chance. Not even afo (someone who is known for manipulating others and bringing out the worst in them) could manipulate Toya. His desire to stay so shortsighted and focused on revenge after he was finally free and off on his own was his choice, and his alone.

Additionally, Dabi, alongside other lov members, represents a flaw in quirk society. Shigaraki is the result of when you have a lack of empathy and outsource a problem to someone else, Toga is the result of when you show prejudice and force someone to conform to your idea of "normal", while Dabi is the result of when you treat someone like an object/tool: they become detached from their humanity.

A big part of Dabi's character is the idea of "feeling." Dabi himself says he can't feel anything emotionally/mentally, and in the third part of his backstory, we found out that his nervous system is impaired, so he can't feel physical pain. Additionally, we also see that Dabi is detached socially. He is very obviously a sociopath: he has no empathy, very little remorse, generally shows no emotion, and he's incredibly selfish. The lov have built themselves to become a family of sorts, but Dabi is the only one who's detached, literally, since he's not even present with them sometimes, and figuratively since he has no feeling for any of them, as he admits to hawks he doesn't give a shit about them. Afo points out that Dabi doesn't really have any friends, and we can see that Dabi always has his own ulterior motives to anything he does.

Not only all of this, but Dabi has no attachment to his own life. He doesn't care about making friends, falling in love, starting a career, eating good food, having fun, or even dying. He solely lives for the sake of killing and torturing Endeavor, so much so that he believes this is ambition and conviction and puts himself above others for it. He's shortsighted as I said and rigid, too. Alongside this, Dabi is very mysterious and never tells anyone anything about him. All of this shows that not only did he let his past define him so much to the point that he wasted his life being filled with anger instead of looking for the good in the world, but also how detached and numb he is to everything and everyone around him.

However, Dabi has shown that he can still cry. Not with tears, but with blood. His tear ducts have burnt, so it's as if his body found a way to bypass it. I believe that this is meant to show that despite how detached he is, he can still feel even just a little bit. Even if he's mostly stoic and indifferent, he'll still feel pain, and that's what a lot of villains are in this show: indifferent monsters who are still hurting. Deep down, he's just an angry kid who never felt loved or truly seen, which is why he's so jealous and angry at Shoto. It also shows that no matter how twisted someone can become from abuse, underneath all of that is a child who wasn't loved.

But none of this justifies what Dabi does. His crimes are very much his fault. His fire is not Endeavor's, and this is why I believe Horikoshi chose to make his flames blue, a separate color from Endeavor's: to show the disparity, and that Dabi's flames are truly his own. Blue flames are hotter than orange ones, after all. This is a metaphor for how Endeavor may have lit and even fanned the flames (Dabi being born with orange flames, and only teaching Dabi how to increase the heat), but Dabi was the one who refused to put it out in the end. He let its temperature increase, hence the symbolism of hotter blue flames.

All of this is why I believe his flames burn him: his hate consumes and slowly kills him. Now, in the final arc, he's literally killing himself. This is also why his hair color changes. I believe that in the Todoroki family, white represents desire, and red represents passion (I might have the labels wrong). This is why Rei, Natsuo, and Fuyumi are primarily white-haired since we see their desire to deal with the abuse in their own ways. This is also why Endeavor is predominantly red-haired since we see him strive to become better in two different ways, plus his name is literally Endeavor. Shoto has both hair colors since we see him give in to one side at first, but later, he uses his past to drive him to become better and not be defined by Endeavor. Dabi's hair turns white over time since we see him fall deeper into his suffering. Interestingly, one piece of art (the I'm watching you one) indicates he still has a very tiny amount of red hair, which could prove what I said earlier about how he is deep down.

The main message: Overall, from Dabi's character arc, we can learn that if you've been through a painful past, you need to let go of the anger and rage. It'll hurt you if you don't. Many people go through horrible things in life, but they still get their degrees, get married, have children, post pictures of themselves smiling, etc. Does this mean they've forgotten what happened? No, they might think about it all the time, but you can't revolve your entire life around a time in your life, even if it was very painful. Dabi was basically brought back to life and was given two choices, and he chose not to let go of what happened. He could've fought this issue in another way, but he chose to stay vengeful and even kill others who had nothing to do with it. He lost out on life all because of his hate. Nothing defines where you end up in life but you and your choices, and there is always good in this world. At the end of the day, YOU choose what you want to look for. Thanks for reading all of this if you did.

Alright gang, home stretch. Since I do these little writeups every other day, I only have today the 25th, 27th, and 29th left to go. Maybe I’ll do something extra on the last day of the month, just to wrap up. We’ll see. For today:

Amberprice!

My congratulations to Chloe Price on the distinction of being the only character to show up in two of these this month. Well done, madam. Ya just gotta love split-timeline stories in which they take the opportunity to have multiple happy scenarios in the end.

But yes, Rachel and Chloe. It was an odd journey for me to liking these two together. Really it was mostly a function of it taking a long time to decide how I felt about Rachel. From the starting point of Rachel being the missing kinda-sorta-maybe (definitely) ex in LiS 1, to the semi manic pixie dream girl but with real human flaws and problems thing in Before the Storm, to the more grown up and better adjusted version we get to meet in the comics... Rachel covers a lot of ground. But we’re here to talk about their relationship, both of them together, not just Rachel, and for that, we’re gonna need to go a mental journey down one of these possible paths.

First let’s set up how I think we get to the point of them living together before meeting them in the comics. I think the point of divergence is where you, as Chloe, Have a chance to ask Rachel to prove she’s serious about leaving Arcadia Bay together.

Now the interesting thing here is that only the kiss displays an out-and-out, intensely present romantic interest. The other interesting thing? In the first game, Rachel has this tattoo (the one in this pic being a placeholder Chloe drew on):

Meanwhile, if we check the comics...

No tattoo, not here or in even a single other panel of the entire series.

Basically my theory is that, in the timeline of the original game, Chloe asked Rachel to get a tattoo, she did, and then the events we’re familiar with played out.

In the comic timeline, meanwhile, she decided to be brave and go for the kiss. That would have changed how Rachel though of Chloe and their relationship, made her take things a bit more seriously. Eventually, they did end up leaving together, and they went right to where they always said they’d go, where Max would meet them: Santa Monica.

Why is this important? Because I think the key difference is Chloe being honest, vulnerable, and brave with her feelings. It’s hard for anyone to do, let alone Chloe at that point in her life. It’s a big difference, especially when they were that early in their relationship, and it would have had ripple effects. Regardless, how they get there is secondary. There are many things I like about their relationship in the comics, bu what I really want to highlight is something about their lives once they’ve gotten to Santa Monica.

In Before the Storm both of their stories center on hard to deal with emotions surrounding their families in general and their fathers especially. Chloe’s dad is dead and she’s having tremendous issues with her well-meaning but not always great mom and her new soon-to-be-stepdad. Rachel’s dad, as far as she can tell, is cheating on her mother, shattering her previously idealized picture of him. By the end I think I’d wish it were that simple, if I were her.

Both of them are going through these deeply, deeply painful experiences centered on their parents; feeling alienated from them, being unable to accept what seem to them like completely voluntary choices that do nothing but hurt them, be it Joyce inviting David to move in or Mr. Amber’s apparent infidelity. They are, at the end of the day, two very different people from very different homes who nonetheless feel hurt in a very similar way, and they find comfort in each other.

But by the time we meet them in the comics? We hear about none of it. We never hear anything about this timeline’s Joyce and David, even though we know for sure they’re fine, as Arcadia Bay is still standing. We never hear about Rachel’s family situation either. Nothing like that, in fact. Nothing at all. We just see the two of them happy, together, and living life.

Do you know how inspiring a message that can be? Especially for a lot queer people, the message of “your family hurting you is not the be-all end-all, there is life after them and it is a life that can be full of joy without them” is HUGE. Their lives are free of even the shadows of their painful family ties. They are living happily, well, and free, and that is beautiful to me.

Why I think the beginning of this scene is extremely important to Sebastian’s redemption arc.

• scene from ‘Glee, Season 3, Episode 14, ‘On My Way’, timestamp: 17:44’.

Tell me, when you look the above images, what is it that you see?

Most people will recognise the photo for what it is when presented to us amongst the cluster of the rest of the episode, the opening cut to Sebastian’s very ‘rushed’ character development segment, which starts out with him writing school notes/doing homework, drinking a coffee, and waiting for Brittany, Santana, Kurt and Blaine to show up for their scheduled chat. On a surface level, that’s exactly what this scene is, nothing less, but maybe something more.

I’m going to elaborate on why I think this section sets the correct tone for the upcoming scene, and how I feel it makes Sebastian seem a lot more genuine than he is shown to be in prior episodes.

1) Teenager or Adult:

One thing I think Glee truly struggled with, even throughout its earlier seasons, was the mismatched attempts at making the age of their characters believable. Between seasons 1-3, their youngest teenaged individuals were 14/15 (Artie and Tina in S1), and their eldest were 18 (the graduates of S3), your typical high schooler age range. However, throughout the filming of S1, many of the actors portraying our favourite glee kids were actually in their late 20s (for example Cory Monteith was 27 as he played 16 year old Finn Hudson). This concept wasn’t new to TV at the time, many shows even to this day use young adults to play their spritely teenagers, and while it may fix a lot of issues behind the camera (legal working hours, maturity levels, contract signings and professionalism), this can cause a few show-based misdemeanours for the audience.

While watching from afar as fans discuss characters wrongdoings, I’ve come to notice that a lot of people overestimate the actions of each character based upon their ‘ages’. It’s easy to forget that Quinn and Puck were only sixteen years old in season one, when they’re portrayed by 23 year old Dianna, and 26 year old Mark. Psychologically, it is much easier to be angrier at somebody you perceive to be in their twenties as the age is often used as a scapegoat (“they’re 21 years old, they should know better), especially in comparison to that of a sophomore. I mostly see this sort of misinterpretation in characters with more faults than strengths, so for example Santana, Puck, Rachel, and yes, Sebastian. If we take into consideration that throughout season three Sebastian would’ve been 16, if only just 17 at the latest, this should add a layer of understanding to his maturity levels, especially when considering his upbringing? But again, as a flawed character being played by the 21/22 year old Grant Gustin, I think that subconsciously this gives people a reason, or even an excuse, to discard this segment of his redemption, as I often see it does with other characters.

“He’s sneaky, he’s manipulating them, he’s irredeemable”, what he is, is a spoiled teenager with a brain that literally isn’t, and won’t be for years to come, fully developed. Whenever I flip this argument on somebody and say “are you irredeemable for the stupid decisions you made as an emotionally confused sixteen year old?” And to that, it’s always: “it’s different for Sebastian, he’s evil and should know better.”

No it’s not different. Sebastian should be held accountable for his behaviour, I’d never dispute that, but do that, and only that. Don’t force a false vindictive narrative onto a character because you dislike them, and especially don’t set up a double standard when it comes to actual facts. He’s a teenager, a minor, a spoiled little brat who did need his ass handed to him for lack of a better phrase, but a child no less. Treat his wrongdoings as such, hold the accountability, but don’t force evil intentions when they aren’t there because you think it’ll be held, allow him room and a chance to grow up. Everyone, especially teenagers, is entitled to that.

- Redditor comment from the glee subreddit.

- a more in depth version of my teenaged vs adult argument, written by myself on a Reddit comment.

2) How this timestamp rectifies this:

I find that this timestamp helps put into perspective Sebastian’s age, and as a result, his maturity levels and mentality (or lack there of…). I know that in the US uniforms aren’t a common practice unless it’s for a prep or private school, but I genuinely think the use of the Dalton blazer adds to the legitimacy of the canon ages of the character. I tend to associate a uniform with a high school, especially the stereotypical blazer, tie, shirt and nice shoes, this works for the unholy trinity and the footballers in their letterman jackets and cheerleading outfits too. It really sets the tone that these are high schoolers, aged 14-18 year old kids who are going to make really stupid decisions sometimes, keeping in mind the emotional turmoil that comes from puberty and hormonal changes around these ages too.

Now this next point is the one that scratches my brain itch. Sebastian 👏 is 👏 doing 👏 homework 👏. We hardly ever see any of the kids in glee doing homework, or anything school related unless it sets up for a song (in a classroom). I know people don’t tend to look at it this way but even just the principle of Sebastian doing his school work sets such a realistic tone for who actually is. A teenager. He’ll sign his name at the top of that piece of work like any other student, he’ll hand it in to get feedback like the rest of his class, he’ll anxiously await to receive his weekly grade, much like any other teenager would, when it arrives he’ll either be pleased or disheartened, and he’ll discuss it with his friends. The simple idea of him doing something completely unrelated to sabotaging the NDs, even if it’s just as simple as a bit of homework or finishing up a phone call, really sets apart that this is a person, not a monster. He has a life outside of hurting your favourites. I adore how much this puts into perspective that underneath the layers people associate with him, rightly or wrongly, he’s still a 16/17 year old boy, both recognising his age and his maturity level along with it.

3) Video essay:

Audio clip: https://youtu.be/hhYQBudh0vc : timestamp: 8:41.

That’s all I really had to say, definitely not as in depth as my very first analysis post, but this is one of my favourite details about our lovely meerkat no less. This can really be applied to a lot of your high school faves from glee, mainly Quinn, Puck, even Artie to an extent off of the top of my head. It gets a little trickier to defended when the behaviour continues as they grow up and still act this way in a professional work place and/or college (not naming any names, but I’m thinking them-), but beforehand, I’m not going to have anybody try and wipe away Sebastian’s redemption for the price of nothing, and these are just the aspects I think help set the tone for who he truly is, not who he’s painted himself to be in the eyes of an audience.