#at the end of the day it does not matter. how people draw fictional characters. I can always find artists who draw them how I like and I do | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

lisafication · 6 months

Text

This post is uh, extremely normal I swear

So hello yes I am absolutely On My Bullshit regarding my new favourite game.

That’s right, it’s the cannibal incest game, The Coffin of Andy and Leyley. And I’m here to shove five thousand words of pretentious analysis down your throat because, and I do not exaggerate, I think it is one of, if not the best written game I have ever played. And I have played a lot of games, including Baldur’s Gate 3, Final Fantasy XIV and Undertale, to name a few narrative luminaries to come to mind.

That wordcount is not an exaggeration. My brainworms are extremely powerful and now you can share them with me as I walk you through my insane skyscraper of inference-driven analysis.

Or you can click away. I really wouldn’t blame you, it’s quite a lot.

Content Warnings: …Yes?

(To drop the bit for a moment, The Coffin of Andy and Leyley covers extremely disturbing material and challenges you to examine aspects of living in this world that many have taken for granted all their life, it is not a comfortable game, this will cover similar topics and will often echo the game’s unremitting scepticism on basic principles of society and humanity and you should look after yourself first. My Content Warning is framed as a joke, but it’s also quite real in that the game is designed to make you uncomfortable and there’s no shame in that not being for you.)

This was originally posted on and formatted for Sufficient Velocity, and you can probably more easily read and discuss it with me here.

With that said, let’s dig in. I have had to split this into multiple posts because tumblr will only allow so many images. There will be spoilers for all endings.

She’s excited, are you?

It’s All About Ashley

It really is, isn’t it? I mean, for approximately eighty percent of the total game as currently released and the entirety of Episode 1, you’re in control of Ashley, just as she’s in control of her and Andrew’s relationship for 80% of the game, up until the various ending sequences where it begins to slip. The only other characters who really matter at all in and of themselves are Andrew and her mother — and the former is under her thumb, and she eats the latter. It’s all about Ashley. Even her obsession with Andrew is, ultimately, about Ashley.

But who is Ashley? What is Ashley? Why is Ashley, even? Let’s take a look.

Ashley as presented to us in Episode 1 is very straightforward, so let’s list off the traits we’re given — she is malicious, she is fearless, she lacks empathy, she doesn’t have anything resembling a conscience, she demands Andrew belong to her and her alone, she has him at her beck and call.

In Episode 2, we’re ostensibly shown how she has him at her beck and call— she leverages the threat of reporting Nina’s death over him and had him swear to be with her forever. We’re shown that even as a child she was “just, like that” — but as a child, she hadn’t learnt to live with it yet, to laugh at the farce of it all.

Yeah, exactly like that!

And she does this throughout Episode 1 — The Coffin of Andy and Leyley is a remarkably silly game much of the time, finding moments of absurdity and levity against a backdrop blacker than pitch — and most of the time, your internal narration is coming from Ashley and the jokes will not-infrequently come at her own expense.

She will later get negged by her human sacrifice for her poor ritual circle drawing

Her reaction to being told that her soul is as dark and viscous as tar is “You guess you already knew that” — it’s confirmation to her, not new information. Ashley knows who she is. But who taught her this? There’s layers to this, nothing in this game is as simple and straightforward as it appears at first sight, which is why I’ve been obsessing over it for days.

While it’s common in fiction, the truth of the matter is, most ‘bad people’ really do think they’re good people. But Ashley has never once thought of herself as a good person — or perhaps better put as a person worthy of love — as we learn across Episodes 1 & 2, with our flashbacks to Andy and Leyley and the VERY VERY QUIET!!!

I really wish I had space in this essay to talk about this, but I’d like to touch on these being traits usually more easily forgiven in young boys than young girls at some point.

If she removes all other options, only then can she expect him to like her.

This is something that is echoed in the modern day — her seeming self-assurance is easily shaken and she reaches out to the world — usually Andrew — to affirm and validate her, soothing her insecurities, using any tool she deems necessary. Even when her life is on the line when Andrew has her by the throat at the climax of Episode 1, the only ‘compelling reason’ she can give Andrew to not kill her is her ability to soothe his nightmares. When he tells her there are sleeping pills for that…

Most people would have a bit more to argue for their existence.

While she, unlike Andrew, acknowledges having had friends before the quarantine… you know she’s got a point that they didn’t even bother to answer her calls, that was clearly not something the state was interfering with given Andrew’s calls with his mother and his girlfriend, and given her general demeanour it’s not hard to imagine that… they weren’t ever very close. When we see her and Nina talk in the infamous ‘box scene’, it’s clear that Nina doesn’t like her very much, despite Andrew’s assessment of Nina as being one of Ashley’s friends.

We see further support for her general lack of companionship in her dream sequence in the Burial route — Leyley and Leyley Alone. No matter what you do, you can’t place the pink plushy at the family table, the flowers won’t bloom if you give the Julia and Nina plushies her own as a companion instead of Andrew’s — and if you’re bold enough to go for the ‘incest route’, in the ‘Love’ room you see that no one ever looks happy to be with her in the childlike depictions of her history, nor is she happy in turn, save for when she’s with Andrew. In a bit of heavy-handed metaphor, the player then overwrites all of these tense, upset, hard moments with Andrew, having him fill in for everyone else in life — and happy with her.

Once Upon A Lousy Life…

THE END

And that’s why she needs him to affirm her, because no one else ever has and no one else ever will. It’s even included in their comic beats — when the siblings are getting along well, they’ll often play a game where Andrew dramatically overpraises Ashley while she demands more; it’s a comedic bit but I mean — it really does matter to her!

For the record, she opened a door. She gets a little heart in a speech bubble after this exchange.

We have a great example of this dynamic, that of insecurity and affirmation, in Episode 1, after Andrew has killed for her, butchered for her, his girlfriend broke up with her, he’s seemingly thrown his entire life away for her… she’s still insecure over her relationship with him, she’s uncertain of her control and she needs him to reaffirm it for her.

This is her victory, surely?

Andrew affirms her once, with his usual dead-eyed look.

But she's still not so sure.

He actively reaches out to affirm her again with cheer.

Look how happy she is!

While it’s most obvious and clear cut here, it’s hardly the only case. Let’s look back to the aftermath of Andy and Leyley and the VERY VERY QUIET!!! (I’m not using the other name). Leyley is, after similarly extreme acts — he murdered a girl and hid her body for her — convinced Andy doesn’t like her and she needs this leverage to keep him around, to meet her basic needs for survival. Because that’s what this is — she receives no care of affection elsewhere, so she forces it out of the only source she sees available through the means she sees as necessary.

I really hope we see some of their earlier childhood in Episode 3

What exactly made her like this? Was it just neglect, or something more specific…

She needs this to be the case because otherwise she doesn’t believe he’d stay.

This pattern repeats throughout — Ashley’s insecurities are hit on and she reaches out to Andy to affirm that she is not alone, and she will use any and every tool to exploit her ostensible control over him and force him to be what she needs him to be — and as long as she has that, as long as she is everything to him and it’s not possible for him to leave, she’s happy. As long as she thinks he loves her in her very particular, very peculiar view of love, she’s content, come what may. As long as Andy and Leyley are together, they can take on the world.

Let’s talk about that view of love, because there’s always more layers to unpack here I’m only scratching the surface with this essay — Ashley consistently refers to anyone else Andrew may have befriended or spent time with as a whore, a slut, a bitch — highly gendered insults that bring to mind the idea that he’s cheating in some way. But it’s not even about sex — when Andrew mentions that their parents had friends, she accuses them of cheating on each other in the same way!

There’s a lot to unpack about Ashley’s view of femininity and the role the patriarchy plays in their relationship.

Any kind of emotional engagement, any kind of commitment, any kind of life outside of your significant other is, to Ashley, cheating. Because that’s what she needs from Andrew, a seeming complete and total commitment, secure in her place as the only thing in his life, because she cannot understand anyone picking her if they have a choice.

This insecurity she has in her relationship is what drives her to empower the trinket — he can’t leave her as long as she can protect him with prophetic dreams, after all. She needs every kind of leverage she can get because until she succeeds in being everything to him, in devouring him so completely she has him in her thrall mind, body and soul she can’t be sure of herself — hell, her dream sequence in Burial has you placing Andrew’s signature green plushy, ‘the best thing in the world’ in a cage far away from anything else.

Ultimately, it really is all about Ashley — even her seeming obsession with Andrew ultimately comes back to her own insecurities. If she is everything to ‘the best thing in the world’, some of that ‘best’ must surely reflect on her!

But that’s enough about the more normal, straightforward and understandable sibling.

That was not a joke.

Andrew’s Rank 100 Deception

The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he did not exist.

Let me explain.

You might have noticed that in the previous section I often use language such as ‘ostensibly’ or ‘seemingly’ to describe Andy and Leyley’s relationship, and there’s a good reason for that. From the beginning of the game through to its end, Andrew is lying to you, the player, without ever falsely representing or misinforming you about events that occurred.

The common, or obvious ‘initial take’ on Andrew as presented in Episode 1 is fairly straightforward. The game primes you to think this way, it frames things and strings reveals just right so as to make it very easy to overlook the incongruities it introduces in Episode 2. He’s a victim. Plain and simple, Ashley is his abuser and he is her victim and would be fine, a normal albeit kinda depressed guy without her.

It really is not a difficult conclusion to draw

You can go all the way through the game, have him try to accept his mother’s olive branch and enter the Decay route as a method for him to finally actualise his desire to get out from Ashley’s thumb and it makes sense, it’s a reasonable way for the story to go, given his character.

You see him this way because the game primes you in Episode 1 to view their relationship like Andrew does — he’s lying. He’s lying to himself, he’s lying to Ashley and he’s so good at it — Deception Rank 100 — he even lies to you. Without misrepresenting a single event or otherwise misleading you directly, the game gets you to buy into his preferred self-perception. Nina? Ashley. Julia? Ashley. The murders they commit in the course of the game? Ashley, Ashley, Ashley, it’s not his fault he’s not to blame he’s just a doormat at the beck and call of his demonic sister.

But he wants to be there. From the very outset, the very first puzzle, that’s made clear. Does anyone else remember this exchange, from right at the beginning of the game?

Ashley wants to investigate the music!

Andrew disapproves…

…Or does he?!

Like. Listen. Okay. You do not frown when saying ‘Nope’ and then smile when saying that you’ll instead tag along if they do it if your heart is at all in the no. That’s not an objection, that’s using Ashley as his excuse. Especially if you immediately throw her the balcony key that she could not possibly have gotten from you by force (more on Andrew’s ability to use force later).

This is the very first time you control both characters together with Andrew following Ashley instead of off on his own, the first adventure, the first puzzle!

But put a pin in that for now, let’s talk about his initial framing in Episode 2 first. Episode 1 has set us up to, generally speaking, believe the superficial framing of the siblings as portrayed in its promotional art:

The question that we then ask, right at the heart of it is… why is he a doormat? We explore this in his dream sequence in Episode 2, which does make it clear that the boy’s not okay but— it’s real easy, given the priming from Episode 1 to make you think that he’s the one with the originally functional moral compass, to think that that him being fucked up is damage done to him by Nina’s death and being bound to Ashley for his entire life. She corrupted him.

But, well, is that the case?

You're primed to ignore this as manipulation (which it is) but the best manipulation has some truth to it.

Precisely two things spur Andrew to action in the entire game, consistently — they are the fear of consequences and Ashley. And the first incident of that fear, the very first time we’re shown his seeming moral compass as a kid — the first time it’s really hammered home that it’s a fear of consequences rather than any true moral qualms is after Nina’s death. And why does he fear consequences here?

……

The ‘natural’ read that many take away from this sequence, particularly those who have only played Decay, is that Ashley browbeat him into doing this against his will, using emotional blackmail to overwhelm his objections, and then used the event itself to bind him to her forever as her personal doormat.

In a strict sense, this is true. But this doesn’t match up with the details, something the game uses shock to encourage you to overlook. That outburst is before any kind of threat has been made, and absolutely nothing either of them say anything about it being morally bad until Ashley weaponises ‘you’re a bad person’ against Andrew — morality didn’t seem to enter his mind or the equation at all until Ashley brought it up. More than that, his greatest fear and driving motivation even prior to that is, as shown above, being taken away from Ashley.

She, of course, recognises this and uses it against him. But she never needed to, it didn’t change anything about Andrew’s attachment to her, it was there to address her own insecurities.

Just like to touch on how a lot of his affirmations are preceded by him confirming her insecurities.

I adore this phrasing

There’s a second prong to this as well, to the question of ‘who really calls the shots here’ because — Andrew can, at any stage, apply an ‘ultimate veto’ of physical violence. The game is very clear to the player that that is on the table — even when they were children, when Andy swears their blood oath, he briefly considers killing her — and take note of how he ultimately got a ‘winning’ condition out of her by not specifying there wouldn’t be others and she is forced to accept that, there. Even outside of their most serious confrontations, Ashley is portrayed as having to convince, manipulate or otherwise coerce Andrew into going along with her schemes — she really can’t make him do anything, she doesn’t have the supremacy in violence and, to a lesser extent, capability that would allow her to.

Andrew, you are like ten years old.

The truth of the matter is, Ashley can only make Andrew do anything because he lets her. I don’t mean in the sense that I’m saying abuse victims let their abusers emotionally abuse them, I mean in the sense that he is clearly considering his options on the table and choosing to discard those that could stop her, or bring an end to any of this. He needs her.

But it’s true that he hates her, too. He has to hate her, because if he doesn’t hate her, if he isn’t forced to have done this, that means… he’s responsible. And nothing, at the start of the story, is as important to Andrew as avoiding the consequences of his own actions, not even Ashley. By the midpoint, he loves her, he hates her, he can’t live without her, he wants to kill her — by the end… well, that depends if you’re on Decay or Burial, but more on that in a bit.

A great scene to study for this dynamic is the climax of Episode 1, when Andrew grabs Ashley by the throat and considers strangling her to death. She’s pushed him too far with hurtful words and assault, and he’s seemingly had enough.

It’s still framed as a question of risk, of consequences happening to him.

Like, this is not the usual behaviour of someone who’s been pushed past their breaking point.

He tells Ashley that he wants to kill her, because she’s just going to throw another fit and that’s a risk to him. She is… not framed as being able to fight back (she does have a gun here, and more on that in a later essay, maybe). He’s so calculated in how he approaches his use of violence here, which isn’t at all what you’d expect of someone about to commit a crime of passion… but it’s very easy to overlook because of the abuser/victim narrative that the player fits his behaviour into the narrative that the game primes them to accept, brushing incongruities under the carpet.

At the start of Episode 2, we get to control Andrew for the first time, and the first obvious holes in his cover start to show. Some of this is optional — you only learn that he’s been faking having nightmares in order to share a bed with Ashley if you choose to go back into the motel room and check the bed, for example — but not all of it.

----(See reblogs for the second half)

#the coffin of andy and leyley #tcoaal #andrew graves #ashley graves #spoilers #multipost

1K notes · View notes

ofwraithsandwords · 1 month

Text

I’m typically one to steer clear of drama on social media, especially if it’s petty fandom drama, but the bullying and harassment surrounding Halsin and Dave Jones has literally gotten out of hand.

So, since certain people have forgotten how to interact with fiction, Prof. Wraiths is here to hold your hand and help you relearn media literacy:

The definition of “fiction” as it is explained in Wikipedia is “any creative work, chiefly any narrative work, portraying individuals, events, or places that are imaginary or in ways that are imaginary.”

“But what about morally bad stuff like murder, abuse, sexual assault, or even pedophilia being portrayed in fiction?” You ask.

A long answer would be that it’s okay if these things make you feel uncomfortable. Some of them make me uncomfortable, and at one time, knowing some people draw or write about subjects like these in a non-educational or tactful way made me very unhappy. That’s normal. But somewhere along the way, I realized something very important:

It doesn’t matter what you say or do, there will always be somebody out there who makes problematic content; reporting or doxxing them doesn’t help those who have actually been affected by these subject matters in real life in any way that feasibly matters.

For the short answer to the question, see:

For everyone who does not like a fictional character, congratulations! You have just experienced a fascinating aspect from being alive. I also have fictional characters I don’t like.

Specifically in relation to Halsin, I have seen people give reasons like “he’s a creep”, or “he comes on too strong”, and even “he’s boring and kind of a useless character”. These are all valid reasons. You are allowed to feel this way! I can even see the arguments for them.

What is NOT valid, however, is harassing people who actually like him. Social media is not your playground and I am not interested in having to witness your temper tantrums drag innocent people into them. Especially if it gets so bad that you end up bullying someone off a platform. Maybe you don’t like a real life person, too! That’s also fine. But accusing them of serious crimes or morally bad behavior when they have not exhibited such behavior in any way that even remotely holds water, you have now crossed into the

Timeout Zone.

This means that you need to log off and really think about what you’re doing before you ruin your life, the person you’re harassing/accusing’s life, both, or many others. Go take a walk. Read a book. Make your lunch for tomorrow. Do the dishes. Anything to help you calm down.

For a summary of the above text regarding how to deal with things you don’t like, please see:

Thank you, everyone. Have a nice day.

#bg3 #halsin #halsin silverbough #dave jones #fandom drama #harassment #bullying #media literacy #ah I also forgot to mention #if you don’t like a character have you ever possibly considered that you’re just not the target audience #amazing what can happen when you use that weird wrinkly pink stuff in your head

21 notes · View notes

my-mt-heart · 11 months

Text

Les Caryl

Not wishful thinking. Not a ruse. Carol is coming back, and I’m grateful. Mainly, to Melissa McBride for everything she’s given us over the years and for everything she’s willing to give us in order to keep telling Carol’s story. It’s easy to see how much of her heart and soul has gone into this character, and I never want to take that for granted. We all have different reasons for loving Carol, but I think a lot of us draw inspiration from watching an underdog like her turn into the hero everybody needs. It’s been nice to see that mirrored in our fight over the past year to remind AMC how imperative she is to TWDU’s success.

Whether you participated in blitzes, sent letters, spammed AMC’s/TWD’s social media accounts, or just kept Carol in the conversation on your own terms, you persevered just like she did and now you’re reaping the rewards just like she better will. It just goes to show that when people come together to support a female lead with as much talent and grace as Melissa, that and a little bit of hope can make a huge impact.

For anyone who didn’t have hope or didn’t want to set themselves up for more disappointment, that’s more than fair. Maybe yesterday’s confirmation will give you something to look forward to again. Nothing is ever guaranteed, but if you find comfort in these characters, it’s perfectly okay to let yourself feel that too. Love what you love.

I know there are some who wanted Melissa to just walk away and leave Norman/AMC in the dust, but unlike Carol, she isn’t a fictional character. We aren’t entitled to her relationships with other people, so we just have to trust she knows how to navigate them on her own. Like I mentioned earlier, landing new roles comes with its own set of challenges regardless of one’s reputation or talent. Casting is a meat market and options for actresses over 35 are limited, especially when execs want to factor in their hair color (because how can they appeal to men 18-49 if they have gray hair 🙄) or their social media presence (because if they’re not active on Twitter, what audience will they bring 😑) All of this is to say, it’s perfectly reasonable for Melissa to choose another path, and no, it doesn’t mean she’s gritting her teeth while she does it. I’m comfortable believing she’s happy to co-lead Caryl’s show. I mean, you saw that smile, right?

I realize that at the end of the day, we’re all just trying to do right by someone we admire, which is tricky from our vantage point because it’s so easy to treat her like she belongs to us, and we have to keep reminding ourselves that she does not. I can’t speak for anyone else, but for me, the intention of campaigning in Melissa’s name was to leave the door open for her to come back on her own terms. If she’s getting everything she wants, if she’s being treated with the respect she deserves, then that’s a win in my book. If this whole ordeal motivates AMC to create a better work environment for all their female talent/employees going forward, even better.

I know this isn’t news, but I’m still going to hold off on watching the show until Carol comes back and if that sounds biased, let me stop you right there. Let’s put aside the BTS fuckery for a second. Let’s ignore the fact that Carol and Melissa are the ones who got the short end of the stick and need my support the most right now. Not only does S1 sound unappealing to me, it actually hurts too much to think about the ways Daryl’s character has been used for personal gain rather than story integrity, which pretty much guarantees a retcon no matter how long it lasts or how drastic it is. His growth over the past 12 years was some of the best I’ve seen on any show let alone TWD, and I want to preserve the version of him I was drawn to in the first place, the version three out of four showrunners actually took the time to nurture. This version. If it’s all just a marketing ploy, trying to target Carylers’ biggest fears to relieve them later, well, I can’t support that either. Caryl fans have been put through enough over the years, especially in the last season, and I think it’s wrong to try to manipulate them into settling (and paying) for less than what they really wanted.

Do I think we can still get something worthwhile in S2? Yes. I just don’t want to risk torturing myself to get there. Anyone who’s read my blog for a long time knows I would generally give the show the benefit of the doubt because I assumed the payoff would come sooner or later. Needless to say, it didn’t. I know why it didn’t and I hope those issues have been properly dealt with, but if I want to maintain that Caryl/Carol are important for viewership, then I need to watch and subscribe for Caryl/Carol. If I want Melissa to get the pay hike she deserves, then I need to tune in when she’s on my screen, not before. I do trust her judgement for what it’s worth, and I want to look forward to S2 provided there are no irreparable damages beforehand and TPTB put their audience first, meaning they deliver on the promises they made.

The biggest promise, UNAMBIGUOUS CANON, is crucial for story integrity, character growth, and representation. It shouldn’t be a huge undertaking when the chemistry can practically write itself. Daryl and Carol never have nor ever will need gimmicks to keep me invested.

While we wait for Caryl to reunite, I hope the fandom can start to heal and get back to spreading endless love for one of the greatest ships on television. I’ll never stop mourning the loss of the spinoff we were supposed to have, and part of me still hopes we can get it back someday. But I’ll hope for the best on the show we’re getting right now. Caryl deserve it, Melissa deserves it, and the fans deserve it.

#caryl #caryl spinoff #carol peletier #melissa mcbride #mcreedus #darylneedscarol

47 notes · View notes

alpaca-clouds · 8 months

Text

I do not believe in evil

Or rather I should say: I do not believe that people are evil or can be inherently evil. I believe there are acts of evil - but I do not believe any human is inherently and inchangably evil.

I really got to talk about my thoughts on the justice system one of these days. But for now I am going to talk about it first within the aspect of fiction. Because it makes it maybe a bit easier to talk about it. And yes, this is also kinda my more or less weekly "lemme talk Castlevania" blog - but not only. Because it is a media thing in general.

A lot of western media likes to really paint the world black and white. Something that is very much rooted with Christian influences. Sure, at times the water is mudied a bit, but in general this is how a lot of western media goes. There is good. There is evil. And even in series where we have character get a redemption arc, there is usually characters, who will just be inherently evil. While those redeemed have all these complicated reasons for having been turned evil - the big bad usually just is bad.

There is comfort in seeing the world that way. Because it draws clear lines. It does not make us confront the fact that most of us have the potential to do evil. Because we are not evil, right?

It is the reason, why so many people get super angry and defensive, when they get called out for racism, sexism and the like. Because in their mind these things are bad/evil and they themselves are not. Hence they cannot be and cannot do things that can be described as racist, sexist and the like.

And on the other end there are lot of people, who will see someone being racist and what not and be like "they are racist and therefore evil", with no chance for them to ever come back from that.

I... just do not believe that people work like that. Every person has the potential to do good and bad. Most people will do both good and bad in their lives. Some more of one, some more of the other. In some cases way more of one than the other. But nothing of this needs to be final.

A good person can do really, really bad. Just as a person, who so far has done horribly bad things can do good - and a lot of it.

See, whenever there is a war countless people will be forced to do endless amounts of unspeakable evil. More than that, countless people will do so willingly because they are patriotic and what not. And even those who are not... war breaks people. Inflicting hurt and killing breaks people. Because that is not what we have evolved to do. Our neurology is kinda opposed to that.

And yet... Even if the war is lost, most soldiers will go home. No matter for whatever horrible thing they have fought in the war. I should know: Both my grandfathers were soldiers in WWII. Because everyone knows that those soldiers... Well, someone has to work. It is not economic to lock them out. And it also is not moral to shoot them all. So... they get back home. After which some will inevitably put on further of the behavior formerly aspised to. They will be violent, and be it just to their children and sposes.

But others will come back and do... good.

Because evil is not inherent. Evil is something people do - not something that people are. At least if you ask me.

And yes, again, this has kinda to do with Castlevania. Because I know quite a few people are quite angry that Hector, Isaac and Dracula get their happy ends, despite the thousands they have killed. But the thing is, that even with all that done, they still can do good. And at least Isaac explicitly ends the series setting out to do good.

Even with all problems that season 4 has, this ending just very much speaks to me. Because there is a hopefulness in it. People can still do good, if they just want to.

The reason why Carmilla ends up dying is, that she does not want to change. She is more or less offered the change by Lenore. But she does not take it.

#philosophy #good and evil #writing #ethics #castlevania #castlevania netflix #isaac laforeze #castlevania carmilla

24 notes · View notes

nahkyl · 1 month

Note

tell me more about these different omega spectrum 🎤

You know, this is why I adore you all. Because you're just as wonderfully weird as I am.

Sometimes, I don't know, it's like I pick up vibes, you know? I pick up vibes. Like, I've delved into every aspect of a person's public persona: watched every documentary, every interview, observed their interactions in various situations with different people, so I have a decent grasp on their character (though you can never truly know these people, emphasis on never because, let's face it, they're strangers). So occasionally, I'll have this fleeting thought like, "Oh, they're totally an omega. No doubt. Oh, that one's definitely an alpha." But it's all in good fun, you know? I never take it seriously because I'm not into that red pill ideology okay ? I refuse to categorize people based on fictional sub-genders. People are complex beings, and reducing them to such simplistic terms is just... well, narrow-minded and unidimensional.

But then, I catch myself thinking, "If they were a character, they'd be this insert sub-gender," you get me? It's a bit controversial for the conservatives because, hey, these are real people we're talking about, but come on, we're hanging out on Tumblr. Our thought process is weird by default.

Anyway, getting to the point, let's discuss why I believe Max and Kylian embody different ends of the omega spectrum:

Kylian's just so incredibly kind. His approach to the world is rooted in a deep-seated kindness and a genuine desire to make the world a better place. I mean, he radiates sweetness, love, and nurturing vibes. He's altruistic to the core, always eager to give of his time, his energy, his love. Especially with children, he adores them, cherishes them above all else. He's a mama's boy, the quintessential middle child—adorable little brother, protective yet teasing older brother—the pride of the family. And he's pretty. Those big eyes, that infectious smile, those adorable dimples. And his physique? Envy-inducing: meaty thighs, glowing skin, legs for days, a butt that makes ME jealous. He exudes confidence without a hint of arrogance. He knows his worth, excels in what he does, and when underestimated, he turns it into motivation. But woe betide anyone who threatens his loved ones. He's not one to care about his reputation, but when it comes to family and friends, it's personal. You can see it in the way he carries himself, how he basks in praise but doesn't seek it out, how he effortlessly puts people at ease and draws them in, eliciting protective instincts from those who know him.

Max, on the other hand, is the polar opposite. He's a force to be reckoned with, a whirlwind of energy and ambition. He's not one to simply accept praise; he demands it, commands it even. There's a fire within him, a burning desire to be recognized, to be celebrated for his talents. He thrives on being the center of attention, craving the spotlight with every fiber of his being. But beneath that intense exterior lies a surprising depth. He's not just about seeking glory; there's a complexity to him that many overlook. He's fiercely independent, unapologetically himself, refusing to conform to anyone's expectations. He's confrontational, yes, unafraid to speak his mind no matter the consequences. But there's also a kindness to him, a loyalty to those he holds dear. He may come off as brash and unyielding, but underneath it all, there's a warmth, a sincerity that shines through. He's quick-witted, with a sharp sense of humor that catches many off guard. And he's so pretty. Pretty eyes, enticing lips, skin beging to be marked. He's not afraid to take risks, to push the boundaries of what's possible. In a world full of conformists, Max stands out as a beacon of individuality, a reminder that true greatness lies in being unapologetically yourself.

They're similar yet so different. In my book, they're best friends because they're both hardworking, dedicated individuals who've sacrificed so much to pursue their dreams and know what it means to fulfill the promise of high potential. And they plot to drive their mates absolutely NUTS.

#kylian mbappé #max verstappen #partners in crime #do not take any of this seriously pls

8 notes · View notes

dross-the-fish · 5 months

Note

Are you an anti?

I'm not 100 % sure what the context for this is but I do have certain things I will not read or write and I don't believe fanfic is an "anything goes and no one can criticize or discuss it" kind of medium.

I also strongly believed that certain content should not be tolerated.

To make it clear where I stand on this: If the work you're creating is hate speech, racist or ableist propaganda, or could be considered a form of child pornography I don't think it should be tolerated at all or allowed on public platforms because fictive or not these works target vulnerable demographics and can perpetuate or further real world harm to those targets.

I don't care about anything else tbh, I might side eye you or be critical of why a certain toxic trope is popular or romanticized but the only hard line I actually draw is real harm. Especially because the works listed are usually created by the party in power. The people writing about underage characters for their own sexual gratification are almost always adults, the people writing hate speech are usually white, straight, cis and/or abled.

And I'm not saying you can't have characters who portray these qualities or that you can't write dark fiction that takes a serious look at these topics, I'm not even saying you can't write a horror story that ends badly for the victims that features these themes but I think it's ignorant and disingenuous to say that you don't know the difference between media that does that and someone writing a racist manifesto or depicting gratuitous and unapologetic abuse of vulnerable demographics.

Especially in content featuring minors the writer demographic is adults and the subject demographic is always going to be vulnerable and incapable of consent so the writer needs to be careful about how they handle the topic and consider to what extent they might be normalizing or romanticizing the harm they're depicting. The fact that the work is fiction doesn't actually matter because of the inherent dynamics at play in the real world between writer and subject.

What really gets me is that the people who cry "Anything goes! No censorship" are really quick to demand that nobody be able to criticize them or question the ethical ramifications of their work. They want to write shit like Mein Kampf 2.0 with an OC as their mouth piece so they can claim "it's not me, it's just a character I play!" won't tolerate anyone calling out why they shouldn't or pointing out that their ideas and depictions are harmful. They want to write anything they want without consequence or backlash and that is simply not reasonable for someone who's mindset when it comes to fiction is "everything is allowed because no censorship ever!" You don't get to claim anti censorship then censor your critics, that's not how that works.

Obviously at the end of the day I don't make the rules, I can't stop you if a platform allows you to post certain content but if you're allowed to write anything, no rules nor restrictions then I'm also allowed to write under that same premise and the subject of my writing will be to be heavily critical of certain subjects and even writers.

15 notes · View notes

vitos-ordination-song · 7 months

Text

Woobie-fication is one of the worst results of fandom taking over the world. People want to fit every story into a fandom mould; a lot of stuff these days comes pre-fandomified, like a majority of Netflix shows or bad cartoons like The Owl House. But when there is an original, unique piece of fiction, fans will find a way to make it meet their preconceived notions and give them the emotional validation they want.

It’s really funny when this happens to something like Breaking Bad. It’s overall pretty hostile to LGBT readings, it’s extremely cynical, has a hopelessly depressing final season, and is about pure corruption for its own sake. Fans make it cute and create gay headcanons. It has no political theming and actively avoided having any artistic integrity on that front. Fans write analysis of how it’s about American health care or whatever. Etc.

The woobie-fication of Jesse Pinkman has long bothered me. I think he became the posterchild for unhappy fail children with semi-shitty parents. From there it follows that no actual character traits of his matter except that he yells “yeah bitch” and has charming moments. He’s everyone’s soft boy or angst punching bag.

I was around in the fandom in like 2017 which is when a lot of this started. It’s not just about people drawing an occasional cute comic—it’s watching fanon take on a life of its own. Like, here’s how the process played out with the Mike and Jesse relationship:

Walt is abusive to Jesse (true)

Mike is nice to Jesse (true)

Therefore, Mike and Jesse have an adorable Found Family relationship of deep significance which should be endlessly expounded on and turned into every other fandom adoptive father/son dynamic (boring and disconnected from what actually happens in the show)

It’s like people are more fans of fandom itself than whatever work they purport to get into. Mike does end up liking Jesse and trying to look out for him, but people actively ignore that Jesse is a full grown man in a criminal enterprise. I don’t really like Breaking Bad anymore but that’s not because it’s poorly written. It would never be so saccharine as to have Mike tragically sacrifice his life for Jesse or something. They kept it restrained and understated and that was why it worked. Mike knew that he couldn’t make Jesse’s decisions for him so all he did was give advice and walk away. But people are so base when approaching these things. Because they identify with Jesse, they need to make him into a thing they can project on to, and then they emotionally nurture themselves through this kind of fandomization. To some degree I think comfort seeking with escapist media is fine, but it’s just bizarre to me how people do that with something like Breaking Bad. Nothing is immune from this treatment.

9 notes · View notes

paladin-of-nerd-fandom65 · 6 months

Note

Got some more questions

1: I know you said Lois and dick definitely would say no to tattoos but what about those stick on tattoos that disappears after a couple of days or goes away when underneath water?

2: let’s say you were writing a manga/comic series about the duo, how would the series end? Happy ending, bittersweet?

3: besides comic books, do they read other types of books?, like goosebumps, diary of a wimpy kid, maybe captain underpants, etc…

4: does the duo create an in-universe comic about them and share it to the world?

5: is the comic series, war of the Superman/new krypton canon to your universe? Like Chris getting aged up and down, thara sacrifices herself to stop a red sun, etc…

1. Now those tattoos are acceptable. Here’s where also Dick and Lois differ in their approaches; Dick will allow Jake those tattoos along as the image is relatively appropriate for the public as he doesn’t want his boy to get into trouble with his school teachers and staff. Lois meanwhile is fairly lenient with whatever of those tattoos Chris wears since she can admit to having less “appropriate” ones she wore herself back in the day.

2. A happy enough sort of ending that implies future adventures to come for the two, whether it be a mere few in universe days later or probably picking up their story years later with them grown up. They remain friends and allies no matter what, any character development arcs and directions being fulfilled through the story having merit for both future expansion and as reference for any sort of sequel series. I can see also any of the more sympathetic or at least compelling antagonists the two faced in this series having been changed by their various encounters with our heroes, leading to them returning in a sequel series, possibly as allies, either genuine or of convenience.

3. Oh for sure when they were younger, Captain Underpants was one of their go to book series. As they grew older, the Duo diversified their reading levels and portfolios though in differing directions. For example, Chris found himself draw to nonfiction almanacs, factbooks and other encyclopedias about various subjects he’s into ranging from the modern history of countries around the world to the eras of prehistoric life. By contrast, Jake looks up old classic fictional literature that are usually considered ‘grown up’ for his age but nonetheless he can enjoy. As of this writing, he’s currently midway through Charles Dickens’ ‘Oliver Twist’ after just finished with Ouida’s ‘A Dog of Flanders’

4. I can see them giving that a try given Jake being inspired by the aforementioned literary classics and Chris also having some impressive art skills of his own despite a lack of true training. They’d mostly based the stories they draw based on their own daily lives, both in and out of the costume, even basing some characters especially super villains based on their cranky, kill joy school teachers. They just pray to God, Rao and X’hal that those villains don’t become a reality because otherwise, it’ll just be plain freaky and scary

5. Only tiny elements from that arc are adapted into this canon continuity, mainly the existence of New Krypton and Thara Ak Var being present albeit being a preteen more or less about Chris’ age. Aside from Chris and Thara being younger and attending school together, the main divergence comes from the fact both New Krypton and Earth in general have more stable and warm relations between their peoples and ruling classes. It’s just Kryptonians rather prefer keeping to themselves from most Earth affairs unless it’s a crisis that affect both worlds, i.e. invasions from the likes of the Gordanians, Yellow Lanterns or even most likely Darksied and his army of Apokoliptan New Gods

(Phew) Took a while to get to these but It’s sure worth it my friend @gothicghost2000

#chris kent #jake grayson #starburst duo #dick grayson #lois lane #literature #new krypton

5 notes · View notes

sexysilverstrider · 1 month

Note

If I see one more video or post cross my dash where someone lists famous people who support Palestine or draws art of fictional characters holding up the flag I’m gonna throw something. Like this is NOT a fad, why should anyone give a rat’s tail about the standing of ~ celebrities ~ what do they expect me to do with that info, hm? I literally do not care. They ain’t special or something cool to praise. Westerners are so annoying with this culture. And drawing their anime boys just feels insulting. Can they not keep fandom and this matter separate?

ill be very frank anon to me it all boils down to sincerity. its been months since the news was brought to light and personally anythng to show people about palestine and permanent ceasefire n freedom for the country is still good to me. if we cant contribute money, we contribute somethng else (boycotting n spreading awareness are some of em)

nw of course sadly tht means we'll get some performative protests too but i tend to give the benefit of the doubt (or ignore them coz its not worth my time or anger). if it means making ppl aware n want to get educated then so be it. i just hope those who did it for clout opens their hearts n upon realizing how dire it is finally does it out of honesty.

tbh if anythng my mutuals post about fe rally gaza is a good way to show support!

by the end of the day these are real peopls lives at stake and in order to support, we can only do our best amongst those who only chose to be their worst

#besides i do not care abt celebs they are just some guys #all i do if i know theyre a zionist i choose to not support their work ever #same as boycotting food n places tht are doing the samr #so yeah #i focus on those who are genuine n sincere #saves my time and my mentality #ask #anon

2 notes · View notes

sleepieweather · 11 months

Text

The fact that people are getting mad at Male Trailblazer x HSR Seele/Bronya shippers because apparently Seele and Bronya were lesbians in fricking Honkai Impact 3rd is just so funny

But I guess some people are so braindead that they need to be spoon fed the obvious fact that is how HSR Bronya and Seele are not the same people as Honkai 3rd Bronya and Seele. Everyone is okay with them having different character designs, personalities, and backgrounds compared to their Honkai 3rd counterparts, but the idea of them possibly having a different sexual orientation other than lesbian, like, say, bi or pan, gets everyone's panties in a twist

This cold, stone hard fact may be too much for some of y'all, but Hoyoverse's biggest goal at the end of the day is profit. Check Da Wei's speech back at 2011. Does this speech makes it look like Honkai was created as a safe space for lesbians to see themselves in fictional characters? NO! Honkai was created to meet the need of otakus. It's meant to be a heaven for anime fans who are starved for female affection but won't go outside to actually form relationships with real women. Why do you think Wei called the characters virtual idols that hold a relationship with the player? Why do you think touch interaction was even added in the first place? Why do you think Yae Sakura forgets about Kallen and simps for the player at affection level 4? They know their audience, it's horny weebs and they wanna appeal to them. While Hoyoverse may support lesbians (and tbh I think they do), you have to realize that at the end of the day, money rules everything. This is why whenever someone says some delusional bs like "Honkai is not a safe space for cishet men!", I just laugh. What do you think the majority demographic of Honkai is? Who do you think the game was made for in the first place?

So in conclusion, getting mad at HSR Seele/Bronya x Male Trailblazer character is literally the dumbest thing anyone can do. Hoyoverse isn't going to be mad at straight male players for shipping themselves with Bronya/Seele (or any of the so-called canon lesbians for that matter) or drawing fanarts of the ship, if anything, they would applaud it because that's exactly what they want. Shipping yourself with a character means you're in love with said character, and being in love with said character increases the chance of you willing to spend on them. That's Hoyoverse end goal

Also I find it so funny how so many people who say this also say things like "respect bisexuals or die", yet they can't stomach the idea of HSR Seele and Bronya being bisexual or pansexual. This is a problem with a lot of fandoms and not just the Honkai fandom, but notice how you can take a character that has only shown opposite-sex attraction and ship them with someone who is of the same sex, and literally no one would bat an eyelash, but if you take a character that has only been interested in people of the same sex and ship them with someone who is of the opposite sex, even your grandma's dog will be getting death threats. Shipping a female character who has only displayed interest towards other women with a male character is considered "lesbophobic", but shipping a character who has never shown attraction towards anyone ISN'T considered "AroAce-phobic" for whatever reason. Hmm I sure wonder why. Surely it can't be because of blatant hypocrisy, right?

#honkai star rail #hsr #honkai impact #honkai impact 3rd #houkai 3rd #houkai impact 3rd #houkai #honkai #hypocrisy #seele #bronya #biphobia

10 notes · View notes

onewomancitadel · 2 years

Note

I have been looking for strong arguments for my cinder's redemption theory and your posts just completely blew me away. Thank you so much for writing all of this. One thing that baffles me though is the fandom obsession with violence and murder as the solution to her story. I just do not get it. Where does this crap come from? It is like they will not accept anything other than the most violent murdery bloody end for Cinder. In their eyes anything less would be shitty writing. I do not get it.

Hi anon, hope you're having a great day. <3

Aw, that makes me so pleased to hear! Happy I could help out and you resonated with my posts. I know the feeling, when I find other people who really 'get' the same things I am interested in and have a critically good approach.

You touch on something really interesting here about violence and murder as the only answer, because I think that's kind of the great irony of Cinder's character: that's part of her worldview. Kill or be killed, you're the one in pain or someone else is. That's why I find the ending to her story validating that worldview so unsuitable; it's basically begging for deconstruction and reconstruction.

It would be really easy to draw from a psychoanalytic viewpoint here and say that most people view violence and murder as the answer because might is right in society. Compassion and understanding is devalued, and even in conversations where it is seemingly valued, it can be used in performative ways to obfuscate true justice, true compassion, true atonement, and true forgiveness. It makes it hard to have real conversations about that kind of thing because it can seem like a weapon of the enemy.

I think there's genuine value in this analysis. But I think it becomes reductive to say this is the only thing motivating it, especially when I don't think that fiction necessarily validates or creates these atittudes, but rather reproduces them.

I also think that a more simple answer is that it's normative narrative values. Violence is part of narrative language; it's not always directly literal, but often can be metaphorical. Adolescence or adulthood can be reached by literally, and symbolically, killing a parent or parental figure, or usurping parent figures in the story - for instance, Cinder kills Ozpin, and then she kills Pyrrha; these both represent the father (who reincarnates into the son) and the symbolism of childhood and innocence herself. Sometimes you have instances like with Adam, where the bull sacrifice - and the killing - is a type of metaphorical sacred marriage for Yang and Blake. "Marriage and killing are related... the marriage is the killing of your separateness." (Joseph Campbell, from an interview released after his passing). That is specifically from the context of bull sacrifice.

Violence is also a way to communicate sexuality, because there is a sense of anxiety in media about conveying sexuality beyond subtextual means - and subtextuality means you can be more subtle about it, and make it more age-appropriate anyway. But violence is how you can convey two characters very close together, and convey this intimacy. There are manifold ideas motivating violence-as-sex: firstly, because I think sexuality is not taken seriously as an idea on its own, and sex can be seen as a power negotiation and not 'making love', or that is to say: sex is violence; secondly, violence is already an acceptable narrative language; thirdly, subtextuality can just be fun.

So violence in narrative can do a lot of things, beyond simply portraying... well... violence. Those metaphorical implementations sometimes go over peoples' heads, though. It's what (seemingly) makes Pyrrha's death so unforgivable, for instance. No matter how much you might be able to convey that Pyrrha is the killing of childhood, and Cinder represents the complicated morality of an expanding worldview as you come to see adults as people/the world beyond black and white, the inevitability of change and growth (ooh! Autumnal theming!), the violence of change, the complete unseating she symbolically represents in the story, it doesn't change what textually happened. That's why the only answer to that is that death pays for life. Pyrrha died. Cinder's got to die, too.

The answer is Cinder's death for her crimes because themes don't matter, story structure doesn't matter, there's not an intelligible framework to these viewers' eyes that does not go beyond 'bad thing happen, even badder thing must happen'. Violence and more violence! Flat readings! Kill death murder!

If you ignore what the whole story is saying, of course. Like how they can't kill Salem, and the answer will never be killing Salem... not because it's impossible but because her curse must be broken. They don't really know that part yet, but that's part of the ironic prophecy. You can never kill Salem, because you must not kill her. Nevermind the overtness of what they're doing with Neo's story and revenge, or anything else in the story... which are all arguing for this final thematic statement... which Cinder is a part of.

Of course, I could see the argument that Cinder's death could realise an idea metaphorically, but as you go through my Cindemption tag you'll see that a) no b) no, the Maiden power won't work like that, and it's doing a lot of different things in the story and c) no and d) the tragedy of Pyrrha's death, and others in the story, have to eventually mean something, and answering it with more death - not learning from that - is depressing. Pyrrha's death 2.0 with Cinder is just bad, and you can't really kill childhood twice over. If Cinder learnt cynicism in her childhood... then yes, perhaps I expect some themes of innocence to be reprised.

But it's really about established narrative language and expectations, but part of what really annoys me is that the wrong methodology of analysis is applied to R/WBY in particular. R/WBY is a fantastical fairytale gunsword diet-anime show and they have gone to pains to establish the rules of their story. If you want it to be some grimdark, deconstructionist type of deal, you're in for the wrong story. I would certainly say R/WBY reconstructs tropes, but it is not cynical, it is not nihilistic, and it is playing with story magic. It's hard to believe a story about stories would insult the very fabric of stories.

They think Cinder deserves a death because they a) don't pay attention to her character - Cinder is a severe fandom blindspot, b) don't understand remotely anything about anything at all thematically or what the Maiden powers are doing in the story or Salem or Ozma or the stories or the purpose of her backstory or ANYTHING, and c) expect that with the established narrative language as violence begets violence, then the damn evil bitch should be put down despite that already being rejected in V5 with Jaune. The lattermost of these points is also complicated because writing redemption arcs is REALLY HARD. Writing good ones. Writing stories with a different structure that doesn't end in one of the baddies dying (including redemption-by-death) is REALLY HARD. Because it's not just good guys win bad guys die. It's structurally more complex than that. You need to be arguing for it, and argumentation is hard! Especially when you're going against the established grain narratively in Western media! There is a separate post here where I discuss recent trends in narrative nihilism, and a rejection of metaphor...

So I am compassionate towards the viewpoint that Cinder 'must die', because I think it does come from more of a complex place than people being stupid or bad or having bad opinions. It's not really narrative convention to sympathise with villains either (in a sincere way which involves the expectation of redemption), broadly speaking. I am sure that they are people who care about the characters they are used to caring about. I am however very swift to point out the faultiness of their analysis if it goes directly against a textual reading, and R/WBY is really fucking unsubtle.

So that's my opinion on it. I think there are a lot of contributing factors, and hey - maybe I am wrong, and maybe R/WBY will do an about-turn and go back on everything it has established. But between you and me, it's not about being right, it's about being invested in a story and letting that story make you think about things. This is why I dislike the aversion to critically thinking about what a text is actually SAYING. Read, watch, and think for yourself! That includes my blog most especially.

Thank you for your ask! If there's something I've missed in my Cindemption tag, let me know, and feel free to send more asks about Cinder, her redemption, and redemption arcs in general. <3

#seraphina's asks #user: anonymouse #cindemption #redemption arcs

4 notes · View notes