Rant: Anyone bothered by Amren?

I have a lot of gripes when it comes to SJM and her POC characters. Amren is one of them. In particular, I genuinely dislike her as a character - both for her shitty behavior, unnecessary presence in the plot and for the fact that she feels like a bunch of East-Asian stereotypes.

Her character premise in the beginning that she is an otherworldly and monstrous being that drinks blood to subsist. Immediately she is characterized as something that is 'Other' and Made.

She pretty much fits the "Dragon Lady" stereotype commonly assigned to East Asian women in media. The Dragon Lady is strong, deceitful, dominating and mysterious and there is usually some aspect of fetishization around this archetype. It's old, overused, and racist.

Amren is one of the first and more prominent side characters in the book who is commonly East-Asian coded with the generic descriptor of angular eyes, tanned skin and straight black hair. (Also love how she specifically is described as plain among all the drop dead gorgeous WHITE female characters in the IC)

All of the points combine to essentially make her the worst example of potential East Asian representation. Whether intentional or not, this is the effect

This rant was fueled after I saw a YouTube Shorts about ACOTAR fancasts and the person in the video talked about factors in choosing Amren's actress.

Basically the person said that they should "bring in a foreign born actor for 'financial reasons' & drawing in a different market" and she wouldn't mind if they had an accent because Amren is 'Other' compared to the rest of the Night Court. It just felt tone deaf and lowkey embodied the disregard of problematic treatment of POC often seen in the ACOTAR fandom.

I wonder if I am just petty and reading too much into this or if other people also feel the same.

Character consistency and the Hazbin teaser.

One of the most important parts of quality writing is keeping ones characters consistent. This means establishing their morals, opinions, personalities, and speech patters and sticking to them. This allows your writing to, well, make sense and your characters to effectively evolve over the course of the story.

Breaking Bad establishes Walter White as a brilliant man who will do whatever it takes to reach success, and throughout the story this conviction combined with his illicit dealings slowly turns him into a monster. But at his core he still is Walter White, his caring side established early on through his familial relations, something he buried deep down in order to survive in the drug business, resurfacing in the series finale.

Unfortunately, Hazbin Hotel looks to be no Breaking Bad. And the recently released trailer for the series seems to imply that the characterization in the series is decaying disturbingly quick.

One of the largest red flags is seen at the very beginning of the video. Alastor has created a somewhat satirical advertisement for the hotel, broadcast on an old CRT television. Yet it has been prior established that Alastor hates post-30s technology. He wishes to cling to the era in which he died. Additionally, his sworn enemy is a television. He loathes the things; they are the crude antithesis to his beloved radio. And yet, he makes a television advert.

Realistically, Alastor should compose a radio ad. It would be just as snarky, but with sound effects and vocal acting in place of visuals. But yet the show does not do this, a completely nonsensical decision that is a massive deviation from Alastor's prior characterization.

In a similar vein, the leaked Vox audition sheet features him commenting that "reality television is dying", yet clinging to it anyway, ordering someone to "figure out how" to take a poorly titled show and make it into a successful series. Vox has been established as supposedly the opposite of Alastor in this regard: he is the overlord of technology, obsessed with advancement and innovation. Yet here he clings to the past, something implied to be likely detrimental to his business.

Perhaps Vox could instead snark that the show is part of a dying art, but nonetheless profitable, producing it anyway because he knows people will still watch it, thus keeping in line with both his television and shady entrepreneur themes.

It seems to me that the writers swapped the two characters' opinions on technological and cultural advancement, something completely strange considering how the two are complete inverses in that regard. The cause of this eludes me, but nonetheless proves very alarming.

"Ghost Bear irritates the f*ck out of me to be for reals. He’s mad at the Mad Dogs for “ruining his pro wrestling career”, when it was his own fault lmao 😂"

Usually when I argue that Vivziepop’s character designs lack “body diversity” and “variety in shapes and sizes”, I found a good example of someone who I think designs better, and that is Jane Walker, someone who literally works on Helluva Boss, and has designed background demons, the cherubs, as well as her own art of course.

I actually really like her art, I suggest looking at more if you’re interested! But yeah, I feel like this is a good example of different body types, shapes, sizes, and features. Each of the characters look unique and have a good style to them, and I feel like Vivziepop sadly only knows limited body types, wether that be a plain male stick, a woman with a small waist and wide hips, or a circle shape. So yeah, I wish Viv was more branched out like this, instead of using the same standard body type and features over and over again.

So this is what, the 3rd time Porter has been decked by a character because of his attitude? At minimum?

Under the cut for long and rambling character and literary analysis

We have the initial fight 4-5 years ago between Porter and Vincent

We have Lovely getting him during their "Switzerland" talk before the Summit

Now we have Asher at the Summit (part II electric boogaloo)

At this point, I'm starting to wonder if we're even supposed to like him as a character. Sure, he's charismatic. Porter got Treasure wrapped around his finger in less than an hour. But Mr. Redacted is usually pretty clear about delineating between who is intended to be the characters we're supposed to be supporting (with enough moral grayness to make them complex and interesting). So many of his characters are a great example of the difference between the narrative 'protagonist' and the narrative 'hero'. Going back to the more technical literary term, a protagonist* is the character the story is about, but they're not necessarily the same as the hero of the story. Yandere!Ivan was a great protagonist, but he's very obviously the villain of that plotline. If you want a classic example, Michael Corleone (The Godfather) is a villain protagonist.

*I'll point out that depending on what exact definition you're using for "protagonist" that you can argue that the listener character is supposed to be the main character. I don't think that fits because in many of Redacted's cases the listener falls into the "sexy lamp" trope, where by design they have few if any character traits of their own so we as listeners can project on them. To me, they're the point of view character, which though usually is not always the same as the protagonist. IMO, a protagonist should play a more active role in the story. Overall it's a fascinating way of capitalizing on the limitations of Mr. Redacted's chosen medium, and I'd love to hear other people's thoughts on this phenomenon.

Most characters fall into either the 'hero' or 'villain' category. Characters like David, Asher, Vincent, Elliott, Guy, Ollie, and Gavin are all clearly hero protagonists**. Their respective stories revolve around their interactions with the listener character, they're the good, upstanding citizens that we want to support. They've got flaws, sure, but for the most part they're meant to be appealing characters that we agree with. Characters like Marcus, Yandere!Ivan, and Regulus are clearly the villain protagonists; they're the "bad guys", we want them to fail in whatever terrible thing they're trying to do. (Which isn't to say you can't enjoy their particular brand of twisted. Dark characters and themes are important and have their place).

**with the caveat that different focal length of a particular story can change who is the technical 'protagonist' and 'antagonist'. Kody, in his Water Elemental videos, is a 'villain protagonist'; when you look at the DAMN series overall he's better classified an antagonist of season 1. The fact that there's so many perspective changes across Mr. Redacted's overall work means that a lot of these terms can get muddied depending on which specific set of videos you're referring to.

Which brings me to the 3rd type of protagonist, the anti-hero. The anti-hero is a protagonist that the reader/listener wants to succeed, but generally lacks the traditional/universal moral traits that usually define the classic hero protagonist. Examples of an anti-hero protagonist include: Deadpool, Walter White (Breaking Bad), Huckleberry Finn. In particular, the mark of a well-written antihero protagonist is the fact that it can be difficult to distinguish them from a villain protagonist. Vega is a good example of this; in the Sadism's Hold/DAMN S1 series he's an antagonist for Freelancer and Yandere!Ivan. He graduates to a villain protagonist in early Carpe Deus, and with his stated goal of preventing another Cacophony he's morphing into an anti-hero in the more recent videos. I'm sure you can get hyper-specific if you start going through all the TVTropes pages to find the perfect flavor for individual characters, but most major protagonists can be classified as one of those three groups (with eternal, ongoing debates on where specifically you draw those particular lines based on your particular morals).

Bringing it back to Porter, I'm not sure that he's meant to be an anti-hero. He's charming, intelligent, capable, and likeable (to those not biased by his history like Vincent and Sam). But I don't think we're supposed to support him as a character overall. We've had too many "hero" characters come to conflict with him; Vincent, Asher, and Lovely explicitly. Even without getting into the fine distinctions between a protagonist/supporting character/POV character that's an awful lot of animosity from some very well established people. We might not know all of his goals/motives yet because they haven't been revealed to us (Porter wants to support William, wants to gain 'power', but why? What history drives him? What is his specific end goal with that power?) but his manipulation of other people, ruthlessness, and his own acknowledged boot-licking to increase his own social power disqualify him from a traditional "hero protagonist" role. An anti-hero is one we still are intended by the author to want to support, a character we want to see succeed. But because Mr. Redacted keeps putting Porter into direct conflict with more traditional protagonists it sets him up to be an opposing force; by definition he is an antagonist to our established hero protagonists.

I've talked a lot about the different types of protagonists and some of the minute distinctions between the different types of protagonists. Antagonists can be even more variable; you have your classic Devil, Sauron, and Darth Vader trying to kill your protagonist heroes. Technically speaking, antagonists don't necessarily have to be characters, either, they can be forces or concepts. An antagonist is just someone or something that opposes the protagonist. I won't divert into the different types of conflict in a story, but I'll point out how much more variety there is for your villains than your heroes based on their particular blend of moral alignment and narrative framing. (It's a lot easier to make things go wrong than it is to make things go well). You can also have sympathetic antagonists, where the villain has acceptable motives even if their methods are objectionable and cement their status as villains. Think the Wicked Witch of the West; Dorothy killed her sister, revenge is an entirely reasonable motive even if we're not supposed to be on her side. Adam and Quinn are the clearest unsympathetic antagonist villain characters in Redacted-verse. Blake is a sympathetic antagonist, vacillating between a villain and an anti-hero depending on whether we're looking at him from Sunshine or Bestie's POV.

As far as my initial claim that we're not supposed to like Porter, we have to consider which lens we're looking at him through. From Vincent's perspective he's an unredeemable asshole. William, however, clearly sees something in him. Other characters we trust that don't have that skewed perspective because of baggage, like Asher, don't like him either. While Porter is the protagonist of his own videos (you are the main character inside your own head) he's not being cast as a classical hero. Morality wise, even in his own story he's an anti-hero at best (he wasn't honestly trying to warn Treasure off, he was luring them in to SkySide). He's got the potential to be sympathetic (at least, according to Sam and William) but he's outnumbered in the narrative of protagonists (at the very least, by Vincent, Lovely, Asher, and there's evidence for Milo and David because of what he put Sweetheart up to) who consider him an antagonist, causing them problems or otherwise being obstructive. Considering the weight of numbers and length of existence in the overall story Mr Redacted is telling, Porter so far is generally being portrayed as an antagonist to our hero protagonists but not necessarily as a villain (like Vincent wants him to be) of Close Knit's caliber. So, this leaves him in a very interesting position on the morality/perspective spectrum. Essentially:

[Photo ID: a graph running from Villain to Hero along the horizontal axis and Protagonist to Antagonist along the vertical axis. Gavin, Lasko, Guy, Ollie, Caelum, David, Asher, Milo, Vincent (post-Adam) are in the Hero-Protagonist Corner. Regulus, Yandere!Ivan, Kody, Vega (DAMN S1) are in the Villain-Antagonist Corner. Vega (early) is in the Villain Protagonist Corner. Vincent (early) and Vega (later) are in the Protagonist Antihero area. Porter is in the Antagonist Antihero area. /end ID]

Because of these mostly negative relationships to our established characters I don't think he's meant to be "supportable". There's too many reasons someone could write him off as unredeemable, based off of his history, his current actions, and his morals. Mr Redacted obviously intended us to be pitted against certain characters like Adam, Kody, and Yandere!Ivan in the same way the author intends us to like and support wholesome characters like David, Huxley, and Guy. I think Porter was written in such a way that we're supposed to disapprove of him despite his likeability in the same way we're "supposed to" disapprove of most of the Imperium characters or Alexis. There's a glimmer of "redemption" deep down for how good they could be if the universe was a little kinder towards them and they didn't have to resort to morally questionable (at best) actions and perspectives, but harsh circumstances left them protecting themselves with sharp edges designed to make anyone who gets too close bleed. Character complexity is attractive, but that's not the same thing as being sympathetic.

After all of this I have to say, death of the author is 100% valid as a concept. At least half of a story is determined by the reader themselves, and this in particular is just my interpretation of these particular facts and classifications. Depending on how you want to weight certain factors and perspectives you can come to a completely different conclusion. By trying to define a particular character the act of applying a definition means you have to be reductive; making a decision on which box to put them in flattens out their complexities. You don't have to APPROVE of a character to LIKE them. There's also a difference between a morally GOOD character and a COMPELLING character. Not every character has to be redeemed, it's not a prerequisite for finding them interesting. Just because Mr Redacted wants us to hate certain characters doesn't mean everyone is obligated to; you're entitled to your own opinion.

I don't understand how people can have a fav without being critical of them. I'm critical of every character I love, it's my favorite activity to harass them and pick them apart I-

Some Not-So-Gentle Reminders and Points for the Gravity Falls Fandom (And for Fandoms in General) to Consider, Especially the Dishonest and Clueless “Apologists”

Note: So here’s my official first Gravity Falls post. I’m not exactly a new fan, though I am having a second wind of interest and appreciation for it and everything in it. For this particular post, I guess I just really felt like getting some thoughts off my chest and just kept going after that. Sorry for lack of pics/direct evidence. This was supposed to be quick and most of this stuff should be pretty obvious if you just pay attention and take the bias goggles off. I might come back and add images/media later. I’ll gladly correct any mistakes too, big or small, if need be.

Now consider this:

- Stan, in the scene where he allegedly “broke” Ford’s science fair project, didn’t even touch it! I repeat, Stan DID NOT touch Ford’s science fair project! What he touched, was the table it was set on when he slammed his fist down! Yet he was and still is blamed for it breaking by everyone in the fandom and show, even himself. How has this common claim so rarely been questioned by a fandom that prides itself on being skeptical and solving mysteries? Just use your eyes and rewatch the scene, people!

- The fact that Ford was so quick to accuse Stan—the one person in the whole world out of his entire life that had supported him through thick and thin and always protected him—of breaking his project based on minimal evidence at best, implies that Ford already had a low opinion of Stan by that point and probably much earlier. It implies that even if he did love Stan, he definitely didn’t believe in him. No one had ever believed in or supported Stan until Soos came into his life, followed by Wendy, Dipper and Mabel.

- No matter how you try and slice it, Ford had been outright shown time and time again, through both words and actions, to have not appreciated Stan’s love or devotion to him, or their closeness. At least not outwardly, to us viewers. His true feelings might not always show and we do get some glimpses here and there of his thoughts on Stan, but appearances matter a lot! Someone being open to doing things with another person, seemingly to keep up an air of decency and calm while they’re trapped in the same place together, doesn’t mean that person appreciates the other. It doesn’t even necessarily mean that you want a relationship with that person or to reconcile.

- Ford’s usage of the words “suffocating” and “meant for something greater” when talking to Dipper about familial relationships and specifically the boy’s connection with his sister Mabel, besides many other talked-to-death things, is very telling and shows how much he was terrified of the intimacy he had with Stan. There’s literally no nicer way to put it. He didn’t just want to escape the bullying he received or the crappy town he grew up in. He wanted to escape Stan. At some point in his adolescence, Ford seemed to have grown to view Stan as an obstacle to his success, a weight on his shoulders, a leech or spotlight hog of some sort, or just a painful reminder of awful experiences. This in itself is a very realistic reaction and when you look at the examples, the case for Ford truly being proud of what he had with Stan looks very shaky. Despite what I’ve noted here, I do think Ford did and does greatly love Stan deep down. But he also seemed to be afraid of something, which seems to have led to him wanting to run away from his feelings—and from Stan.

- Again, it’s possible to love someone dearly but still harm them or view them as harmful to you or for both of you to harm each other. If you really want to view Ford’s immediate discarding of what was supposedly both his and Stan’s dream, along with Stan himself, in a somewhat more positive (well, more selfless) light, you could argue that Ford thought he was holding Stan back (instead of solely vice versa). After all, if Stan did depend on Ford as much as we see him do in the series to the point where they were practically a (mis?) matched pair of socks, it could very well be that Ford felt like he was forcing Stan to be the ‘dumb but brawny and funny’ twin to his ‘smart but weak and weird’ self. Maybe he figured Stan shouldn’t have to keep defending him and making a fool of himself to make Ford happy and feel less alone in his ‘freakishness’ into adulthood. Perhaps he thought some separation was what they both needed to finally grow into two fully-fledged, separate beings.

- There’s an argument to be made that Ford is/was extremely narcissistic and insecure. You know what many narcissists (with or without NPD) have in common? They have low self-esteem. Low self-esteem often born from a childhood of emotional abuse and neglect and constantly being told there’s something wrong with you, that you’re not and will never be good enough. Low self-esteem and a need to hide it and look for ways to avoid rejection or coming rejection, even if it’s just perceived. It can be easy to forget that Stan and Ford were both treated terribly inside the home as well as outside it. Ford was on some level the golden child whereas Stan was the scapegoat. There are some narcissistic dynamics going on here. (They’re very prevalent in families, you know?) Childhoods like theirs are known for breeding such people. This means that Ford may have saw himself in a negative light but felt Stan’s love was exacerbating the problem because he was being led to believe that Stan was a problem; The problem child.

- Stan shows signs of extreme codependency to the point of having traits that practically mimic that of BPD/EDD/EUPD (including insecurity and low self-esteem as well). He’s clearly terrified of abandonment yet of closeness too, at the same time. This is likely also caused by his and Ford’s childhood. Many people with BPD come from homes like theirs, too. Now I understand these are cartoon characters, so the urge to diagnose, while understandable, is typically pointless. However, if we’re speaking theoretically on which disorders match up with characters the most based on what we see and find out about them, then yes, Stanley seems to be extremely codependent—especially toward Stanford—and likely suffers from other emotional trauma that was made far worse after he was kicked out.

Do we ever see it so much as implied that this concerns Stanford though? That he sympathizes with whatever current plight his brother is going through even once outside of the finale of all times, particularly before Stanley had seemingly already been erased out of existence? I don’t think we do. Well, maybe once. Stanford gave Dipper a pretty and high tech tie to give to Stanley... I guess he wanted to throw his poor, dumb dog of a brother a bone. (I kid, I kid. But not really.)

You can’t even claim that it was the same the other way around and say that Stan doesn’t pay mind to Ford’s struggles or want to help him out of them ever, because the show often goes out of its way to illustrate to us the opposite and often also makes it clear just how much Stan adores Ford. Spending their childhood protecting and sticking up for him. Dropping/giving up everything for Ford repeatedly. Being concerned over Ford’s sanity/behavior when he visited him that fateful day in 1982. Still holding out hope he’ll change his mind on their old dream despite the hell he’s been put through. Forgiving Ford for everything even after he almost ‘dies’ to clean up the problem that, mind you, FORD CAUSED TO BEGIN WITH. Ford “ruined” his own life! (And is implied or explicitly shown to have had a hand in bringing about the intense hardship of others’ lives. E.g. Stanley, Fiddleford....the evidence is there.)

- In fact, there can be no talks about “who was more responsible for Weirdmageddon” without acknowledging who was the first one to shake the devil’s hand: Ford! I mean, of course it’s mainly Bill’s fault, he’s the villain! The point is that it’s harder for others to do wrong when we refuse to help them. We know romantic relationship cheaters are jerks but what about those who knowingly help the cheaters cheat? They never get a pass, now do they? Then the same can especially be said for Stanford, who did not refuse to help Bill—even despite warnings about summoning him—until it was too late and the cat was miles away from the bag. At that point he had no one to blame but himself for the problem continuing to escalate. I mean, don’t you remember the many questionable ways he tried to contain it?!

- Stanley is not even close to being the dumb twin. Not in anyway. On top of all the skills he’s learned over the decades, he’s actually implied to be close to as smart or even equal to Stanford. His whole life is actually a testament to how amazing he truly is at surviving and, given the right tools, thriving. You know what some of you sound like when you have nothing but crap to say about this main’s relatively positive traits, irrespective of his actual wrong-doings? Stanford Pines, pre-realization of all the ways he has screwed things up for those around him. You know, who the man was only after he erased Stanley’s memory. Though a lot of you seem to self-insert and project onto Stanford to an unpleasant extent anyway, so I guess that’s not surprising. You know who else you end up sounding like? Filbrick Pines. Yeah, that one. I don’t know, seems a bit disturbing to be. You know who else you often end up sounding like? Bill Cipher, if I remember properly. In fact, wasn’t it implied that much of Stanford’s negative views of Stanley and not needing family, was influenced by Bill? Hmm.

- You can not blame Stanley for pushing Stanford into the portal while completely ignoring the context of the scene and all the actions that lead up to that point. Ford sent Stan a vague postcard (implying he may have known how to reach Stan all along). Ford allowed Stan inside and in the basement where things were bound to be the most dangerous. Ford told Stan to take the book and get as far away from him (“sail as far away as you can. To the edge of the Earth”) as possible despite knowing their were a lot of tender feelings there, especially when it came to the two of them sailing together. Ford started the fight when Stan tried to burn the book he was given, that Ford wanted to get rid of anyway! Ford pushed Stan while trying to get said book back onto a bunch of buttons which activated the portal to begin with! The accidental lever turn came after that and the Stan accidentally pushing him into the portal was just the nail in the coffin of their faux family reunion that Ford caused to happen. 

No one made Ford choose an unsuspecting Stan as a tool and means to an end for the mess he put himself and possibly the whole world in. That was his choice. Either they’re both to blame or Ford is solely to blame. What you’re not going to do is put the entirety of the blame on Stan. Call me every name in the book for this, but I believe the BIGGEST innocent victim in that scenario was Stan! You don’t need to blame him for every single terrible thing that happened to Ford because Stan already blames himself for everything! Even when it doesn’t look like it could have been him responsible for it! He already is full of shame and remorse that fill every step he takes every single day. He worried every day for thirty years that the blood of one of the only people in his life that he’s loved, may have been on his own hands.

- I think it’s possible that one of the reasons Ford latched on to Bill despite all the red flags, was because Bill reminded him of Stanley. He wanted a friend. He wanted his best friend back. Bill played the role almost perfectly—until he didn’t anymore and Ford realized his mistake. This could mean that there’s a chance he realized the biggest difference between Stan and Bill since he did end up contacting the former after Bill’s betrayal, and in his own words, chose Stan because he trusted him. He still trusted Stan. It could have been less than when they were children though and all that time with someone that reminded him of Stan yet ended up betraying him ‘too’ may have caused him to start associating Stan with Bill. I can imagine that after he was sucked into the portal, Ford’s associating Stan with painful betrayal may have worsened. But bringing him out of the portal could have slightly improved it. And seeing as they finally sailed away by the end, he realized must have he was wrong to ever associate them, if he had before. I bet they’re probably still sailing around the world together over a decade later right now.

- If the thought of both twins not returning home and choosing to live with their grunkles and exploring gravity falls/world and sailing the sea together, bothers you, ask yourself how it would have been soooo much better if only Dipper had stayed while Mabel went back home? You see the issue with that now? I won’t argue whether or not it’s okay for a 12 - 13 year old boy to stay in a far off place with an adult family member. After all their parents didn’t mind sending them alone to Gravity Falls for the summer to live with their great uncle anyway, which was likely dangerous/irresponsible of them for many reasons. I just think it’s suspicious that some people can only see the issue if someone suggests that both twins should have left their parents and life in California behind to resolve the issue of the apprenticeship and keeping close to one’s sibling all at once.

- The Stan Twins told their story in ATOTS but only we, the audience, actually see it play out. The characters don’t. The way brothers explained it may have made it seem to each other like the other still had no sympathy for them and didn’t think that what they did was wrong. Stan even called Ford’s dream college “stupid” while the flashback was being shown and he was explaining his side of the story. The fact that neither apologizes for the painful things they helped contribute to in their young adulthood which affected them, probably didn’t help either.

- In one of the scenes from the ATOTS flashback, Ford yelled at Stan “Help me Stanley!” as he was slowly sucked into the portal. He wanted Stan to save him! These were Ford’s final words to him that Stan internalized and are what Stan immediately set out to do! He likely worked for decades with these last words in mind, not knowing whether Ford would still be alive when he brought him back to their world! Ford even threw the book that they’d fought over to Stan before he disappeared. How do you think that looked from Stan’s POV? Like a visual cry for help on top the audible one I bet! Also, Ford had some awful nightmares thanks to Bill. It was terrible what was done to him and pushed him to the point of insanity. However, he wasn’t the only one with fears, regrets and a troubled past. Imagine what Stan’s nightmares must have been like, especially the ones with Ford in them? The parts of Stan’s dreamscape that we got a view of were depressing. The dreary colors, the symbolism...

- Both sets of twins are extremely sensitive to and immediately take things to heart, especially insults/criticism and all of them can at times act less mature than their actual ages. They all feel inadequate in some way. They just showed these traits to different extents and unhealthily cope in different ways. Be careful with their feelings and what you say to them because all of them wear a front as a cover for protection. They also all occasionally lack common sense, act silly and say and do the oddest things at times. Plus they all need someone who genuinely loves them dearly to hold them down and would die for their family (or die of heartbreak if they didn’t get there in time).

- Stan and Ford after decades apart and so much animosity between them, are sailing on a ship. They could be together in the middle of nowhere very often. Knowing of all those negative feelings that were present, it leads me to think about all the ways their trip could have gone wrong. Many understand that their father was abusive, but what if they were or became abusive to each other? I don’t want to believe this would happen and I doubt we were supposed to consider such a thought. However, the terrible possibilities are still there. At worst, I prefer to think that things are at times bitter but then sweet.

- It’s very fascinating to me how so much “Stanford Defense” seems to be built upon throwing other characters under the bus to make him seem less culpable for his own choices. It boggles my mind how the same people who claim that characters such as Stan and Mabel are never questioned on anything (laughable to say this point, especially coming from them) seem to be the ones doing everything in their power to keep people from so much as voicing displeasure anymore at any part of Ford’s character. I swear I’m ever seeing the same names on different sites arguing with people about how wrongly ridiculed he is. It’s really is starting to look like all the “Stanford gets soooo much unnecessary HAAAAATE and is always bAsHeD” people are trying to take things in the opposite direction. Which is just as upsetting if not more so, because such behavior only leads to the shutting down of discussion and critique. That’s horrible for a fandom to go through, just like the other way around. Can’t Gravity Falls do better than that?

- Your faves won’t ever be every single person’s faves. Sometimes people will even dislike a character that you like. That’s fine! That’s life! Just don’t forget while loving said character, that this does not have to mean you approve of everything they say or do. You don’t need to jump to one’s defense whenever someone makes a point. Especially a valid one that can’t truly be disproven anyway. It makes you look delusional and like you’re in a parasocial relationship with that fictional character. Learn and never forget the difference between arguing an important point with societal implications and solely defending a character for the sake of it, please.

- Mental illness is not a joke or something to wear as a badge of honor. It’s also not something that, if noticed, should be swept under the rug. In the case of fictional characters, I think it’s quite admirable when people can see certain traits of themselves or their loved ones in characters past the stereotypical ones, but that also gives us a chance to talk about those traits and just how hard it can be to live with them and why sympathy and amnesty is so important to healing and moving forward. I believe Stan and Ford especially show signs of extreme mental illness in the show that I have a hunch were placed in them on purpose. This seems to be one of those cases where we’re supposed to see our own family dynamics in them.

- It’s asinine to claim to love a character but ignore or even outright deny their faults and flaws, even when they admit to it! If you love someone, love all of that person, even if you’re often at odds with them. When someone says they love Stanford for literally deny things about him that are proven to be true, I’m left wondering if that person actually loves him—or just the idea of him. Same with any other character this happens with. Enough with the need for our favorite characters to be pure, perfect versions of ourselves. Enough with the need to wipe away issues and to go as far as making up traits for the character, or even stealing their traits from another to make him or her look better and the other character look worse. You’re in effect masking what depth is actually present and risking putting a bad taste in the mouth of those that are neutral on them; souring them to the character and even fandom. 

- Even the characters with potential who were unfortunately underutilized—such as Caryn Pines, the mother of the Stan Twins—still tended to fill their main roles in the story pretty well, even despite time restraints. Some of these and other side characters even managed to gain their own small group of fans and fan-creators on their behalf, within the larger fandom. That is pretty wild and deserves some praise. Nice one writers!

- Sometimes it really does help to just remove yourself from the story and just be meta with your takes, i.e. to distance yourself when discussing something because it helps make you less biased and more evidence-based. There are times where we really do see something in a character that indeed was not there or meant to be there. Death of the author can only allow for so much leeway in interpretations. Authorial intent will always matter. This show was very detailed and there are so many things you only noticed after looking again. Some theories exist that imply the whole story for the Pines Family would have mattered no matter what in-universe. We need to be careful when arguing things, we may be/end up wasting our time even more than we think. Oh and ...cartoon logic haha. Also no one loves or will ever love the Pines Family like the Pines Family can. Nor like the creators/writers themselves do. We also can not understand them the way the ones who made them can. When in doubt, it tends to be best to just trust them and their intentions, and your gut as a last resort.

- The Gravity Falls ending was meant to be a happy, fairytale-like ending. That’s how it’s been implied to be the case by the creator (probably not with the company known for fairytales, Disney, even asking him to) and is the reason why every character was so quick to forgive and forget, and why everyone but the ‘super bad guys’ got their ideal ending. Sometimes it’s really not about what would have been the most interesting or profound (or logical) to viewers when making directive choices but about what would make us feel most at peace.

Note: This was all written with mostly one perspective in mind. There are however, many others ones and I do think lots of them are valid takes too, some of them I may even agree with as well and may have hinted at. Also, although it can be hard to tell with so many questionable decisions made, things not done that should have been and even some writing errors here and there, I do think all four of the Pines Family members and those adopted into the family, truly love each other and express it in different ways. That’s what this whole show is really all about and how it ended: With Love for Family prevailing.

Gotham Jim ignoring Oswald's claim of abuse from Hugo Strange in Arkham

vs.

Batman Unburied Bruce heartfeltfully apologizing when he found out Hugo Strange was abusing Arkham patients

One of the most blatant problems in Hazbin and helluva that I see as a disadvantage for the future

too. many. characters.

Now, I understand that it is possible to have a huge cast and to be able to keep things balanced, like in one piece or Jojo, as well as plenty of other episodic series.

But the biggest issue started in the Hazbin pilot, where we are introduced to so many characters in one episode; First Charlie, then Vaggie, and Angel, Alastor, Husk, the overlords and Katie Killjoy/Tom Trench. All in one pilot. And we’re going to be introduced to plenty of other characters, overlords and angels in heaven e.g Adam and Lute

And Helluva Boss is no better with its cast. Every episode we are introduced to new characters, new problems that it becomes unfocused, as well as a lack of development to other characters, especially the women like Millie.

This is why I’m concerned for Hazbin this summer. Though I will watch the show to form my own opinions and keep things fair, it’s concerning, as a former fan, to see a huge load of characters dumped all at once, with much more to come

Anyway, these are all just my opinions and views. If you disagree that’s completely fine! Id love to hear other ppl’s opinion on this

Skadi but she's a friendly jack frost-like character who secretly helps Mash out; directly instills false happiness to the village kids who have no idea what awaits them like a fucked up Neverland; and under her smile, she's suffering under the burden of the crown

She spends a lot of her time skiing all over the Lostbelt and appears to Mash at convenient times, but then the kicker is that Skadi is skipping out on her kingly duties to use her hunting skills to try and track Odin, or any of the other gods, becuase she is in denial that she's all alone

She's goofy and silly, but she frustrated that she's genuinely not clever enough to make a functional lostbelt to Ophelia's dissatisfactions. The latter tries really hard to mold Skadi into the perfect ice queen role, which Skadi can barely pretend to be

Even though she befriends Chaldea, she fights them at the end becuase fighting for those kids' lives is the only thing she can do to make good on the life Odin gave her. She accepts that he wanted her to be happy, and she wants to pass that down now that she finally gets it

I just have a lot of thoughts about Skadi, and how they wasted her potential in Fate as a whole but also I just like comedies and tragedies lmao

A Rant About Bystander Jim & Oswald's Torture At Arkham

Jim letting Oswald get tortured and not investigating his claim that it was happening was so glossed over in the show. I'd argue that was much morally worse of him than killing Galavan.

Especially since Jim clearly suspected something was wrong the moment he saw Oswald in Arkham. He also didn't trust Strange and actively investigated him, but after finding the monsters never thought "hey, maybe Oswald was telling me the truth."

Oswald being tortured wouldn't even protect Gotham like Galavan's death, he was locked up. And whether Arkham Asylum is a hospital or prison, medical abuse shouldn't be allowed to transpire there. It's not ethical and never gonna just hurt the people Jim Gordon doesn't like.

One of Jim's defining traits is supposed to be not being a bystander but they just threw that out the window. Then they just never addressed it.

Kid!Clark Refused to Protect Kid!Lex?

You know I’ve seen a slight pattern between certain Superman-related stories whereby it’s been implied or outright stated that Clark Kent and Lex Luthor not only both grew up together/both lived in Smallville, but at times were actual close friends there too, yet Lex is beaten and abused (possibly at random) by his horrendous father/parents and Clark, even while dressed as Superboy...does nothing to stop it...? 

I don’t know if it’s a case of me misunderstanding the situations or if Clark just always thought there was nothing he could do about it; however, the idea that he literally heard Lex in pain as he was tormented everyday, but refused to help him in anyway—refused to lift a finger for him or do literally anything at all for Lex when Lex was a child—is such a deeply disturbing one for me (made worse when you consider how many other cases like this involving other children that Clark may have ignored the plight of over the years) that it pushes me to put their entire relationship in the stories where it happens, under the microscope. 

In a way, it could be argued that Clark inadvertently helped instigate Lex’s narcissistic, cynical and (sometimes self-) destructive ways. After all, if not even the angelic, protector-of-all that was Superboy would come to his rescue...then who would? And what’s stopping that protector from failing other children the world over? Why even stop at extreme child abuse? Why not let everything but the most destructive of acts go unpunished, huh, Superman? (Keep in mind that I’m not the only one who has taken note of this probably-accidental flaw of Superman’s morality/character.)

Even as recently as one of the recent issues of Action Comics from this year, Lex berates Superman for not revealing his identity to him which Lex claimed would have helped him by making him feel less alone. I interpreted that to be a reference to how a lot of versions of Lex grew up feeling ‘like an alien’ on their own planet, but come to think of it, what if Lex was implying in that moment of the comic that he was abused for being different/extremely intelligent? I don’t think there’s any main-storyline version of Lex from the past 20 - 35 years that hasn’t been horribly mistreated by their parents so it’s safe to assume that he was referencing this in particular, if not a combination of it and the aforementioned and or other things too, I reckon.

And you know what answer Clark gives after Lex calls him out on that? None!  He doesn’t even give an explanation! Is it because he doesn’t think Lex deserves one, or that they both know that’s just the excuse Lex is giving for his continued sickening actions? Or...could it be because Clark himself doesn’t know why he (when he was admittedly younger and more vulnerable himself, though never to the point of human weakness) abandoned Lex to his parents’ cruelty and expected the poor boy to fend for himself? If Clark knew what was going on then why didn’t he protect Lex when they were children? Why didn’t he at least fly up to Lionel as Superboy and yell at him to never hurt Lex again or else? Why didn’t he do anything? Why, why, WHY?

Imagine how great it would be for Lex Luthor’s and especially Clark’s characters, to finally have questions like this answered? Is Superman as super as we thought he was? Does he feel remorse for not being there for his childhood friend when Lex needed him most? I’m sorry but, you can’t just have Superman hear child abuse and do nothing about it without an explanation, writers! I honestly think this is another example of a goldmine of potentially good, compelling story-telling that DC Comics could easily tap into and utilize very well but of course, probably won’t. 

Oh well. AC and especially Superman Comics have been looking mighty interesting lately. It looks as though they have a lot to give in the future, so maybe it’s not such a big loss. Also, they can always go back to a plot idea like this at a later date. The few times they’ve tried to implement this into a Superman book in the last few decades, it more or less hasn’t worked, but I don’t think it’s because it can’t work. Like really, I believe this could be made into an amazing, award-worthy comic story!

Vox's "cult leader" status and poor characterization.

I don't really understand the idea of Vox being a true "cult leader" in life. Sure, I could see him somehow garnering a sort of "cult of personality" much like many popular and influential individuals/groups did and subsequently using it as a shield from scrutinizing individuals, but the whole "cult leader" thing doesn't really seem to suit the little we've seen of him.

For instance, his outfit, with its bold neons on a dark base and semiformal look, creates a flashy, boisterous atmosphere to his character. It radiates the aura of a murderous gameshow host much more than that of the leader of a systemically isolated group expertly manipulated into serving its leader's every whim. Additionally, based on his professions and strategy of having a broad reach and appeasing the general public rather than building a relatively small but absolutely dedicated group around him, he seems to be less of a cult leader and more of a kind of mass influencer, similar in strategy and benefit but highly different in target, execution, and societal acceptability.

But even worse than the strangeness of the decision is how it is casually dumped atop an already massive pile of character traits and archetypes. Vox's character is already rather cluttered. He is a television host, an entrepreneur, the overlord of technology, and also an entertainment producer. Cult leader seems to jumble who he is more than flesh him out.

However, the inability to pick a main profession or "shtick" for a character is not Vox exclusive. Angel Dust, for instance, is a porn star, hooker, and stripper as well as a Mafia member. Much like Vox's influential figure/television host/entrepreneur trait combination, Angel is given a trifecta of traits somewhat similar to but not truly connected with one another, while the Mafia member bit serves as an attempted subversion to the other three that is overshadowed by an already jumbled list of professions anyway.

This seems to be a superficial attempt at following the 3-to-1 characterization method, in which one is given three consistent traits about a character but one that subverts the expectation built by the other two. An example is G-man from half-life: he is a supernatural entity, he shows up to insinuate major events, he refuses to reveal his intentions, and he yet he's essentially a glorified businessman. G-man's three traits serve to establish him as a mysterious, otherworldly threat, and his subversion indicates that despite this, he's not all the powerful compared to the rest of the universe.

The issue with Hazbin's attempt at this is that the three traits are only connected on a surface level and never explained any further [we don't know why Angel Dust is in three separate sex industries, we are not given any explanation as to how Vox's technological influence connects to his media influence] and the "subversion" does not truly say anything about the characters. The most Angel being in the mafia says is that "he's badass" and the most Vox being a cult leader says is "he's a manipulator", not subverting the three consistent traits and in Vox's case actually echoing them. As such, the additional traits actively work against attempts at providing character, instead confusing the audience.

More is not always better. Yet the creators of Hazbin Hotel seemingly think it does, as they keep piling traits onto their characters which only serve to render them muddled.

"I feel like Raph, Leo, and Mikey have a lot of asshole moments that get ignored while everything Donnie does gets him villainized."

This is confession #455. Sorry 😅

Ganna go back to answering the questions in my inbox soon, but for now I’d like to say my thoughts on the Lucifer design backlash. Like Lemon-critiques has said, this whole ordeal is just freaking hilarious and enjoyable to watch, I’m literally scarfing down popcorn while watching people tear this design apart while fans or others get pissy. Here are my personal thoughts. This is me being nitpciky, but while Lucifer’s design isn’t….BAD I would say, it’s just….boring. Like I said before, I don’t mind the ringleader motif, the idea of Lucifer seeing hell as a circus to him isn’t a pretty bad idea, however like most people have been saying, he’s just your generic Vivziepop male character, a skinny twig with a fancy suit, bow tie, beedy eyes, and a sharp toothy smile. Mainly for me, I can understand this backlash because yes, I am one of those critique blogs who thinks all of Viv’s characters look the same, and the features I listed above are exactly why. Characters like Alastor, Valentino, Vox, Seviathan, Sir Pen, even Angel Dust, they all have that sharp generic smile and eyes while of course wearing a suit and being the size of a pencil, and it’s a trend that really is a turnoff for me when it comes to Vivzie’s character designs. It’s so funny because as much as I tear into Helluva Boss, literally THOSE character designs are more distinct and have more variety compared to the character designs in Hazbin, and that’s a problem, especially since said designs in Helluva Boss are more detailed and crazy compared to its spin off counterpart.

So yeah, not only do all of Vivziepop’s male characters look exactly the same and have the EXACT same boring body type, but the design of Lucifer himself is just…..meh. It’s not really something I’d get pissed at or rip into unlike Alastor lol, but I think my biggest issue with Lucifer is that he’s literally the devil, the king of hell himself, and yet he does not in any way shape or form stand out from the rest of the cast. If you were to show me his design and told me this was Lucifer, I would have just said he just looks like some regular dude in this world of Hell, because that’s just it. He looks like your generic standard Vivziepop male character, just like everyone else.

I’m nitpicking again yes….but yeah this design is just….generic. I wouldn’t really be saying this had the rest of the Hazbin cast look different compared to this but….they don’t so lol. I do remember Vivzie once saying along the lines that she was going for a “pretty” look for him, since Lucifer was once a beautiful fallen Angel. THAT I can understand, but to me her version of Lucifer looks more goofy than angelically beautiful, and like I said, he just isn’t intimidating, and there are many ways to make Angel’s look scary, though it doesn’t help that the crew describes him as a goofball. Honestly all I can say is that Viv could have just branched him out more, made him more unique compared to the rest of the cast, instead of the same generic look all of her other male characters have. The concept of a ringleader-circus motif isn’t the issue for me, nor is it that he’s “not accurate” since this is Vivzie’s adaptation, it’s just….not creative and uninspiring. I agree with what Lemon said, I think the reason why this design is getting so much backlash is because they just…flat out revealed one of the most important characters in the show with no buildup or anything. Wether it be people who haven’t heard of Hazbin or have, Lucifer was revealed in the pilot in a background portrait, however I think they should have saved his design for the show, instead of just dropping him now. To be fair however, if they HAD build him up only to reveal this, it probably would have ended in huge disappointment lol. With that, that’s about all I can say. I definitely agree with the people saying how her characters look the same and that he doesn’t stand out….because he doesn’t. I’m honestly glad more people are recognizing the flaws and issues with Viv’s designs however, it’s nice to see people critique her stuff more openly, even if it causes a whole twitter fest of people arguing lol. Mostly people keep bringing up how this is a poor attempt at a “tumblr sexyman”, but for me, that ain’t the issue with his design. Also like…of course it seems tumblr sexyman-ish, it’s literally Vivziepop lol.

“Tbh, thanks to a "certain site", I never understood the massive popularity and love for 90’s Rei/Sailor Mars. Not only she was a complete bully to Usagi/Serena up to StarS, but she was a complete bitch in her entire arc with Mamoru/Darien and always blamed others for everything, even when it was HER fault. I understand that Usagi wasn't the most mature or understanding growing up, and I know not everything has to be all sunshine and rainbows all the time in a team, but Rei just straight up always disrespected her FUTURE QUEEN, even when she had reasons for crying or being sad sometimes (especially with the whole Demande thing in the 90′s anime. Heck, Sailor Moon has even bung people (even HER) back to life countless of times!

People can say what they want about Manga/Crystal's Sailor Mars and about her not having a personality (which I do agree to a certain degree), but she BARELY was an ass to Usagi or just in general. Sure, she did had her nice moments throughout the series, but at her best, she was ok, but at her worst, she was THE ABSOULATE WORST. I personally was always an Ami/Sailor Mercury fan, but Sailor Mars is extremely overrated in my opinion.”