Am I an Izzy anti?
Like, what is an Izzy anti? Is it someone who doesn't like Izzy-the-character? Is it someone who dislikes Izzy fans on principle? Is it someone who absolutely hates Izzy and attacks anyone who likes him?
I don't care for Izzy-the-character, but I don't hate people who like him. I love the OFMD fandom. I do! My tumblr dash is full of awesome stuff from smart, funny, talented people, and even the folks with takes I disagree with seem to be pretty cool. I've even been reading Izzy-centric meta every now and then in an attempt to understand where the fans I don't agree with are coming from. I still disagree with them about certain things, but that's totally fine! Disagreement is absolutely normal within fandoms, and I think I'd have a nice time talking to most Izzy fans irl.
But sometimes I read a post that drives me absolutely bonkers and makes me think well, maybe I'm an anti after all.
That's mostly okay! I don't think that Ed "made terrible abusive choices towards his crew" or that they're his victims, but I can admit that I have a kneejerk negative reaction to most mentions of abuse in OFMD meta. I think that Ed's harmful actions are often overstated and examined outside of the context of the show, but whatever. We can agree to disagree when OP's still willing to admit that Ed's still worthy of love.
I hate that, thanks! Meet me in the Denny's parking lot, OP -- I just want to have a talk about abuse and empathy.
(That's a joke. By no means should anyone meet me anywhere.)
I think that anyone who makes either Ed or Izzy the victim in their relationship -- anyone who buys into the dichotomies of abuser and abused, innocent and victim -- misses out on what makes their whole Thing interesting. (That said, I think Izzy's behavior falls more into the definition of abuse, which is characterized by an attempt to exert control over someone else. Like, I'd rather not call either of them an abuser, but if we must...) They're both messed up guys, and it takes two to make a properly toxic relationship.
But then some people will say yes, I love these fucked up little guys, and then they'll absolve one of them of any real wrongdoing.
Ed "struggles to care for his crew." He makes "terrible abusive choices," he has "victims." "He can still choose to do better" and "confront his own actions" (implying that Ed didn't choose to do better or confront his actions in canon). That's pretty damning. That's a character who victimizes the people around him and, as of the end of season two, hasn't improved.
What makes Izzy a fucked up character that OP still chooses to love? Izzy is "twisted, messy, bitter." He's used to violence and he has changed himself to fit into the violent world of piracy. He "enabled" Ed's darkness, except he actually didn't. He has a hard time accepting kindness and he's imperfect. That's... not very fucked up at all. All of Izzy's flaws are situational here; he's only "twisted, messy, bitter" because of the environment he's trapped in, and he takes the blame for darkness he didn't really stoke. At worst, he's an imperfect survivor of abuse.
I just don't like it, y'know? I don't like this trick where people say yes, both of these characters are fucked up, but only one of the characters is actually culpable. The flaws of the favored character aren't really their fault.
Look: as a thoroughly Stede-coded human with Depressed Bitch Syndrome, I adore Ed and I'm absolutely biased in his favor, but he is flawed. He has oodles of unresolved trauma, mental health issues, and he isn't all that emotionally mature. He can be extremely self-centered and dismissive of other peoples' feelings; his conviction that he's unlovable makes him quick to give up on Stede and quick to think the worst of the crew in S1E10 (in the wake of the confrontation with Izzy, Ed interprets their calls for another song as mockery). Ed has a tenuous sense of self and becomes whoever he thinks present company wants him to be, even if that person is a jerk (the fancy party) or a jackass (Calico Jack) or a monster (the Kraken). He hangs on to Izzy because Izzy might be a dick, but he's a certainty. And yeah, he loves a good maim. He's a pirate captain.
And you know what? I adore him. He's complicated and sweet and brilliant and I think he's The Character of All Time.
And Izzy... Izzy is a joyless middle-manager with an inflated sense of self-importance. He thinks he's the backbone of the whole operation, the down-to-earth guy holding Blackbeard together. He thinks he loves Ed, but he doesn't even see Ed until the end of season one, and he sure as hell doesn't like Ed until the end of season two. He tries to murder Stede multiple times because he's convinced it's what's good for Blackbeard, even after he realizes Ed has feelings for Stede. Izzy doesn't want change. He resists it at every turn, even after he's down a leg and can't live for his job. He tried to keep Ed trapped in the role of Blackbeard because Izzy's purpose and identity was tied up in that fiction. He only realizes he doesn't want the violence of Blackbeard when he's fired; prior to that, he's fine with going along with the Kraken, even at the cost of his toes.
That's all weird as hell! That's interesting! If I was isolated from OFMD fandom, I probably would've become an Izzy Jar Guy after season two wrapped up! But all of my interest in Izzy jumps ship when I see some of his fans (not all -- my sibling's an Izzy fan and they remain cool) soften him and absolve him of all real guilt.
Does that make me an anti, or just a petty Ed stan? Like, I generally feel like my take on Izzy is firmly rooted in canon, but the more time I spend in fandom, the less certain I am.
31 notes
·
View notes
the difference between zosopp and sanuso (romantic OR platonic) is that Usopp is Zoro's specialest little guy and Zoro is someone Usopp hangs out with and looks up to and hides behind when things get scary, but Sanji and Usopp are best friends. They horse around, they beat each other up, they confide their worst fears trying to one up each other. Usopp hides behind Sanji sometimes, sure, but idk, Sanji's weaknesses are more obvious (bugs, fighting women, etc) so there are times when Usopp has to stand in front of Sanji too, yknow?
Like, how do I say this, all the crewmates are equal- Usopp and Zoro are equals- but with Sanji it feels like more... comradery? Zoro's a rock in a terrible storm- even rocks tend to get weathered and chipped and worn down, but they overall stay strong and steady. He has trouble being vulnerable and there are times when the burden he's placed on himself to keep the crew safe is crushing his chest. Usopp would help with that and be very understanding, but the point I'm trying to get with that is that those moments are few and far between. So I feel like Usopp, especially after Water 7, would take Zoro's lead on something like that, and keep most of his worries to himself or only talk about them sparingly unless they're really bad and/or he can't hide them.
Sanji is like a tree in a storm; he can be strong, yes, but it feels like he bends and sways with the storm, and has more obvious breaking points. He can relate more to Usopp's struggles rather than resorting to blunt honesty that might border on callous like Zoro. And while, with Zosopp, I tend to think of scenarios with Zoro being blunt like that as a good thing- because sometimes when you're spiraling, it's nice to have someone say exactly what's great about you and shoot down all your worries with straight facts that you can't argue with- I can also see this as being a bad thing. Anxiety can really twist up your brain sometimes, you know? And despite the words, the tone could still mess someone up if they're already feeling like a burden on others in some way.
With Sanuso it's a lot more understanding and thoughtful words. It's distractions and comfort food and patience- the kind reserved for Usopp- until Usopp talks about whatever's troubling him. Compared to Zosopp, it doesn't take as long for Usopp to open up, since he's done the same thing to Sanji at times and it's more familiar to him to talk and commiserate with Sanji about his worries and doubts and such. However, there are times stuff like this has absolutely no effect and Sanji will end up at a loss, no idea what to do or how to help over the course of several days with Usopp being quiet and keeping his distance, and he'll end up working himself up about it which will only serve to make Usopp feel worse and. yeah. bit of a vicious cycle with them.
So it's like. Usopp can be weak with both of them, but since I see Sanji as the type of guy who'd be more open with his worries (at least compared to Zoro), there's less of a need to 'perform' and be his best self around him. He's comfortable around Zoro, yes, but he is constantly wanting to show that he won't be a problem to him. On the other hand, while he's more open with Sanji, and Sanji with him, they tend to relate a bit too much with each other and they both have issues with causing trouble for others and being 'deserving of love' so failed attempts at consoling one hurts the other and creates an unpleasant cycle of misery and avoidance before some other crewmate (Zoro) tells them to quit being stupid and just fucking talk to each other.
81 notes
·
View notes
Bro pls tell me more of your Meta Knight Vampire AU i really like it
Sure thing. I appreciate the interest.
So, in my Vampire!Meta Knight AU, there is one major focus which the AU encapsulates: The internal clash between Meta Knight’s vampiric nature, and his knightly one.
(I should mention that there are also heavy themes of metadede present in the AU’s plot. Their relationship (slow burn in nature) is that of a vampiric knight’s and a mortal monarch’s, and it delves deep into the dilemma the pairing of a vampire and mortal and or knight and king may have caused at the time period of the AU (middle ages). (To note, whether it be romantic or platonic, it is no exemption as I am simply an enjoyer of this trope. It has my heart.))
(Additionally, if you are interested in hearing about my headcanons regarding (Vampire!)Meta Knight, King Dedede, or their relationship you are free and welcome to send an inquiry.)
Though I digress. The AU incorporates medieval elements. To clarify, Dreamland acts as one large province which makes up the other kingdoms of Popstar within it. The AU still keeps Popstar’s respective and canon locations, and as far as medieval elements go, the kingdoms of Dreamland are large and obviously medieval in nature, though, it goes further as to add specific traditions, social aspects and elements in medieval culture such as castles, caste systems, middle age hierarchy, dungeons, mills, grindstones, horse riding, cavalry etc etc while also including more specific elements from the cultures of the middle age such as the values treasured in said cultures, the oral passing down of tales, grand halls for celebration, (think the Anglo Saxon’s mead hall), medieval cuisine and mythologies present, branching back to kingdoms of a distant past. Most if not all of this finds its way in the AU.
Speaking of, Meta Knight’s vampirism stems from the mythological aspect of the AU. Though, this is not exclusive to vampires. Werewolves, necromancers, dragons, wyverns (like Landia), demons and a plethora of undead species also come into play in the AU. There are also bandings of hunters that actively work against Meta Knight as an external antagonistic force.
In vague short, Meta Knight found himself attacked, put at the mercy of his assailant, and felled for three days before he rose, turned by an unknown perpetrator. He spends his undead days seeking the malevolent force out, all while striving (and struggling) to acclimate to his newfound nature. Meta Knight struggles as his savage vampiric nature claws at his conscience, that very same conscience that was brought up and born in the disciplined knighthood, an order that puts first the upkeep the innocent first while his vampiric one seeks to do the opposite of just that. Much happens between these points. (It is an AU with much to unpack.)
There it is. A few key concepts in regards to the AU. Thank you for your interest, and a good-hearted thank you to anyone who stopped to read this. Have a good one.
10 notes
·
View notes
This is a big text post, and I apologize :)
Recently, I saw the Barbie movie, I had thoughts and feelings about it afterward that I had to share. So once I was with friends who had seen the movie, we talked about it. I talked about how I loved the messaging that I saw in the movie. My friend talked about how amazing the representation of Barbies mental health/disorders was. It was great! My friends boyfriend didn't say much until another friend showed up and mentioned how he thought Ken (Ryan Gosling specifically) was fantastic. They said they wanted to buy the Kenough sweaters, they kept telling each other that they were kenough, and then they played every song that Ken sung.
I could kinda tell my friend had more to say about the movie, and I certainly did. More than anything, I wanted to tell them to shut up about Ken. The movie wasn't about him. It was about Barbie and how women are treated by the world. Yet here are the men only talking about the men in the film and not letting the afab people talk about anything else.
Ken being told that he isn't defined by being Barbies boyfriend or how well he does beach, and that he is kenough was wonderful. But Barbie had the same character arc, going from thinking she's only stereotypical Barbie to choosing to become human because possibility is beautiful and it makes her feel is all that matters. Barbie learned it then told Ken because it was a hard journey and she wanted to help him, yet so many people are only paying attention to Kens realization.
Looking back, I focused on Ken too, before I had even seen the movie. This is stolen straight from Google:
"He admits he found his daughters' Ken doll “face down in the mud outside one day, next to a squished lemon” which was all the convincing Gosling need. “It was like, This guy's story does need to be told, you know?”"
I loved this it just really stuck with me for some reason, but I don't like it now. Ken's face down in the mud because his story doesn't need to be told. He doesn't represent what all the little girls playing with Barbie are looking for, which is to be able to do what they want and have that be kenough. The Kens were there to mirror how men treat everyone else in the real world. This movie was for the Barbies of the world, a "guy's story" doesn't belong in it. It's okay for the movie to be made for one group, especially when the majority of movies are made for the other.
It's very disheartening see when I've heard people call the movie, "women empowering", "the most feminist movie ever" and so much more. Ironic that a movie ment to show how women get overshadowed by men is having its plot overshadowed by the men that acted in it.
12 notes
·
View notes