#it’s important to acknowledge and discuss the flaws these characters have | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

intrulogical · 4 months

Text

🍊: The Semantics of The Orange Side

Explaining his function, understanding his role in the narrative, and debunking/dissecting common notions about the Orange Side.

To be honest, this essay was inevitable. I've had thoughts about Orange brewing since 2020, but only recently has it developed into something more concrete. For the longest time, most meta surrounding Orange began with theories about his role as a side, then extended towards narrative and side mechanics later on. I, for one, have been a victim of this pattern.

Then, I realized that asking who Orange is is a terrible opener for theories.

There are many important questions glossed over if we start that way. For example, what is Orange's role in the overarching theme of combating black-and-white thinking? What does it mean for Orange to be a side? Who is he in the context of the Dark Sides? There are many crucial things to consider when it comes to predicting who Orange is, and I feel like concrete theories can only be made if we can establish the semantics of how Orange works.

This essay definitely won't be perfect— this is literally my second draft— but I will try my best making it in a way that flows, somehow. Some sections will discuss general ideas I have, some will try to dissec popular preconceived notions to reorient our logic surrounding Orange. As always, I'm open to discussion! My words aren't gospel.

Important notes: All mentions of Thomas refer to him as a character. Moreover, I acknowledge that Remus is a flawed depiction of intrusive thoughts. Technically, he acts more of a mix of intrusive thoughts, forbidden creativity, and impulsive thoughts. Because of this, when I talk about Remus in the context of his role, please be assured that I am talking about all his functions at once, not just intrusive thoughts.

(Full essay under the cut! I worked hard on this, so I'd definitely appreciate the read. <3)

i. Orange as a Dark Side

The ways fans have characterized and defined Orange has always seemed to be rooted in their perception of what being a “Dark” Side is. That is— they are edgy, and somewhat suppressed. They are more “morally questionable” compared to the rest. More fics would even go as far as depicting Orange as morally black, in that he has no role in the narrative other than being a stirring force of conflict; a villain that needs to be defeated.

It is unfortunate to see such a surface level perspective on who the “Dark” Sides are and what they mean as an oppositional force to the “Light” Sides.

My stance on the “Dark” and “Light” sides has always been the same (if you read my past essays, you'll know). Like what Logan said in CLBG, the labels are arbitrary because no side can be argued to be “good” or “bad”. Although, it would be a complete lie for me to say there's no distinction. Rather, Thomas’ black-and-white thinking literally created one. But the distinction does not lie within the sides’ morals, rather it lies in how big their influence is on Thomas. Because the “Light” Sides are welcomed, Thomas will entertain their contributions more than the sides Thomas considers as “bad” or “taboo”.

In my opinion, Orange being morally black makes no sense in a series that is a.) thematically focused on dismantling black-and-white thinking, and b.) a man vs. self conflict. The villain is the problem of Thomas not being able to cope with his mental struggles properly. It would be odd to blame a portion of his brain as the evil of all evils. Although, I'd like to clarify that while Orange most likely wouldn't be morally black, it wouldn't be a surprise to me if he is just as dubious and mischievous as the other “Dark” Sides. After all, if they are the most suppressed sides, they would have to stick to unconventional tactics (aka looking scary) to get Thomas’ attention.

I'll explain more later when I get into what I think Orange actually does as a side. For now, I want to focus on Orange in the context of the “Dark” Sides, because I genuinely think it's an overlooked idea! While nothing is explicitly confirmed, the “Dark” Sides are implied to know something the other characters and we, the audience, don't know about.

Janus and Remus share this sense of meticulousness. They always feel like they're scheming something. Janus, for example, took his time from CLBG to SVS.R to successfully impart to Thomas that acting out of self-interest isn't the worst thing in the world, especially if your mental health is crumbling. Remus is even in on this plan, although his motivations for assisting Janus aren’t actually explicitly expressed yet. Even if Remus wanted to challenge Logan's self-restraint in WTIT to prove how much it was harming Thomas’ long-term mental health, we still don't know if Remus is doing it out of care for Thomas, or just… ‘cus. Either way, it's important to know that whatever Remus is doing seems to point to the same direction Janus is going, which is to break Thomas’ black-and-white thinking.

Assuming Orange is another “Dark” Side, it feels crucial to understand who Orange is in the context of this undisclosed plan. More than anything, because the “Dark” Sides want to be heard, it would make sense if they unionize to achieve that goal together. If they dismantle Thomas’ horrid perception of them, then all three of them would benefit. Thus, it would make no sense for Orange, if he were not morally black, to act solely out of individual interest. Yes, the “Dark” Sides seem to be introducing themselves one by one, but I feel like that's because a.) narratively, it's to pace, b.) it would scare Thomas for three strangers to pop up to him only for them to be shunned as a collective by the “Light” Sides, and c.) Janus and Remus seem to be performing specific roles in this overarching plan, so while they work separately, it's mostly for the same cause.

So, what does that mean, exactly? Like I said, the “Dark” Sides have an overall goal of being heard, strengthening Thomas’ mental wellbeing, and breaking his black-and-white thinking. If my theory is correct in assuming each “Dark” Side has a specific role for this plan, then pinpointing Janus and Remus’ roles may help us factor out Orange's role.

Here's what I deduced: Janus is there as some kind of soft launch, to set the principle. Janus mirrors Patton in that sense, although in the opposite direction. He breaks apart Thomas’ preconceived notions of the world and bandages it with better, more nuanced foundations. On the other hand, Remus somewhat acts like an alarm clock. While not all his contributions are worthwhile, his mere presence is a reminder that something has to be done. In the series, it's to cater to his deteriorating mental health. He checks if the principles Janus provides aren't being followed, and makes a good fucking clamor about it if it doesn't.

Orange, I'd argue, serves as a means for Thomas to externalize these principles. It would make sense that the last thing Thomas would need to do is to put everything into action. Janus points out how one can be disenfranchised, Remus points out when he is being disenfranchised, and Orange ensures Thomas can express his discomfort when he is disenfranchised. Makes sense, right?

Speaking of externalization.

ii. Personal and Narrative Purpose

If you’re a fan that pre-dates the release of WTIT, you're well-acquainted with the idea that Orange represents Rage or Wrath. This theory came about in cahoots with an old notion that each “Dark” Side needs to have a “Light” Side counterpart, especially if you share complementary colors. Thus, many people assumed that Orange is Logan’s foil. Consequently, most interpretations of Orange depict him as emotion-centric, specifically Rage, as that’s what most people assume is an oppositional force against logic. Moreover, because a portion of Logan’s arc revolves around accepting one’s emotions, it would make sense if Orange, as an emotion-centric side, would be part of that. We’ve gotten two hints from the series itself that confirms this: 1.) a fight sequence in SVS.R showing “Blinding Rage” as one of Thomas’ attacking options, and 2.) the infamous orange eyes in WTIT that appeared when both Thomas and Logan felt angry simultaneously.

What’s funny is, if you really think about it, we literally only have two pieces of evidence that point to this widely accepted fan theory. Although, unlike the previous section, I’m more inclined to actually believe these theories because it… does make sense! Especially narrative-wise. At the moment, miscommunication amongst the sides are at an all-time high. This is mostly because each side refuses to express their thoughts, especially since they’re at the midst of a complete paradigm shift in terms of morality and principles. Everything’s just a little too fragile, and it does not help that Thomas’ mental health is also at the brink. After SVS.R, the sides have acknowledged Thomas is on edge, but they’re still doing nothing concrete to actually fix it.

WTIT is my favorite episode of the series because it encapsulates the entire conflict so well. While Logan isn’t perfect, much of the useful suggestions he provided since DWIT never last past the moment he suggested them. Did Thomas ever see a therapist? Not really. Did Thomas find someone to talk about his issues with? Doesn't seem like it. Is Thomas taking his time with his mental health recovery? Nope. More than anything, the “Light” Sides and Thomas are very reactionary towards their problems. It’s even worse when you consider that Thomas is opting to pursue a relationship in the middle of this mess. WTIT showing us Thomas getting irrationally angry at Nico for not replying to his texts is… an interesting Chekhov’s Gun for future episodes, lemme tell you that.

Now, why am I relaying all this? It’s mostly to prove that something, or someone, needs to snap. There are grievances between the sides and Thomas that they are consciously suppressing that need out. Roman, Logan, and Thomas, specifically, need some sort of outlet for their frustrations— a way to justify them, in a sense. Logan’s eyes glowing orange while he snapped at Remus speaks so loudly of what Orange may offer. Externalization, justice, “cathartic release,” as my friend Orb (@orbmanson7) put it. Presently, Orange as an externalizing force is needed so they can actually do something about this damn issue!

And if not, I also see Orange’s role similarly to Remus’. As I’ve explained earlier, Remus’ presence acts as an alarm clock for Thomas to be aware of his deteriorating mental health. If Orange isn’t there to assist in an all-encompassing externalization of a side or Thomas’ deepest grievances, the mere presence of Orange as an emotional force can act as another kind of alarm clock. What I mean is, if we’re feeling mentally low, for example, we don’t need to express our grievances in the most eloquent way possible. Sometimes we just need to get angry. To cry, to shout nonsense. And that alone would be enough to prove that we need help. We need to do something about this.

To summarize, I think most depictions connecting Orange to emotional externalization are not off. There’s a lot of objectivity surrounding it, both when it comes to the narrative and his semantics as a side. We need a driving force that can topple the sides and Thomas over the edge to fully process the depth of Thomas’ mental health issues.

But, how does he, a supposedly, emotion-centric side, differ from Patton?

iii. Orange’s True Identity

Now that we laid our foundations, I think it would be a good time to entertain the question of: well, who is Orange?

Truth is, I have my own guess on what I believe Orange to be, but I cannot say my opinion is conclusive. My theories on Orange literally change every two months. So what I'll do, I suppose, is first, explain what makes a side a side. Then, I'll explain my own current predictions about Orange. Lastly, I'll list some popular fan theories I've heard about Orange and give you my thoughts.

a. What is a Side?

First— what constitutes a side? To me, there is no real basis in the conception of a side. Like what my friend Orb once explained to me, the interactions between sides are mental processes personified. This doesn't mean we should simply view the sides as metaphors, by the way. They're a hundred percent characters in their own right. But what I mean by “process personified” is that if we view one of Thomas' conflicts on its own— as in, without the sides— can we imagine the mental processes he's undergoing? To make it clearer, let's use an example. In WTIT, we see Remus and Logan battle out on who gets to influence Thomas more. If we saw this without the sides, we can think of it like— imagine you're having a bad mental health day. You wanted to do a list of chores but your mind is in the gutters right now. You feel guilty because of your demotivation. You try doing what you planned, but you still suck at it, and now you're spiraling, thinking about every insecurity you have, but you're also trying to combat that by rationalizing it.

I'm not gonna say that this definition solves who Orange truly is, but it does help when it comes to understanding how the sides work. Another characteristic of a side would be their multifacetedness. No side embodies one thing alone. They can have roles that are adjacent to each other, but not the same thing. For example, Roman embodies both the ego and creativity. Not the same thing, but it works in tandem in Thomas’ context. Same goes for Remus with intrusive thoughts and dark creativity. It is important to entertain the idea that Orange can encompass more than one role.

The last thing to consider would be the technical difference between a “Light” Side and a “Dark” Side. The division was created for Thomas to compartmentalize and suppress sides of himself that his Catholic upbringing taught him to believe is bad. If we assume Orange is a “Dark” Side, he must be embodying something typically thought of as taboo.

b. Who is Orange?

This brings us to our earlier question of, how does Patton differ from Orange if they both embody emotions? In DWIT, Logan confirms Remus was born from the categorization of certain thoughts as good or bad. I think it wouldn't be farfetched to suggest the same happened to Orange if he did embody emotions at a certain capacity. One of the biggest arguments I hear against this suggestion would be, if Patton already represents Thomas’ emotions, why do we need another side who does? The answer, again, lies in the themes of black-and-white thinking and compartmentalization. If Remus embodies the thought of committing a “sin”, Orange could possibly embody the actual emotions of wanting to do so. Anger is merely one possibility in Orange's roster of emotions. There are other emotions as well deemed “sinful” by Catholicism— pride, jealousy, hatred, greed, grief, etc. It would make sense that Patton would try omitting these out of himself when he was younger because he viewed them lowly.

So, what is my actual guess on who Orange is meant to embody? Well, I mean, I think my stance is pretty clear from the past 2500 words written literally before this. Simply put, if Remus is meant to embody forbidden thoughts, then Orange embodies forbidden emotions. Anger is merely one of many. He aids both Thomas and the other sides in externalizing strong emotions that seep past their efforts of suppression.

This is, of course, under the assumption that Orange is his own separate entity. I'm more inclined to believe this because Virgil confirms in CLBG that Janus has “Dark” Side friends (as in, plural). It also just feels more balanced this way if we consider the forbidden thoughts vis-a-vis forbidden emotions parallel to be true.

c. How could Logan be Orange?

But, of course, I've also considered the possibility of Logan being Orange. It's not my theory of choice but as someone who was balls deep in this theory a few months ago, there's definitely some merit to it. Here's the link to the post if you want to read my theory in full. It's pretty lengthy, but to summarize: This theory operates under the assumption that Thomas’ suppression of certain sides (ie. making them a “Dark” Side) makes them develop an additional role— the role Thomas perceives them as.

To explain better, let's use Remus as an example. Logan explained that, originally, Remus separated from Roman as Dark Creativity. Because Thomas refuses to entertain any creative thought he deemed bad, any suggestion provided by Remus was immediately labeled as intrusive. Thus, he became intrusive thoughts via Thomas’ low perception of him. Same goes for Janus, but to a lesser degree. As a side, he mostly acts out of the interest of Thomas, somewhat like self-preservation. But, because Catholic upbringing teaches that selfishness equates to evil, Thomas perceives Janus’ role of keeping things hidden as deceitful.

Thus, if Logan is Orange, then that means Logan’s role as logic is warping due to Thomas’ low perception of him. It’s no secret that Thomas views Logan as a “strict” side. In this scenario, I wouldn’t exactly say his additional role has something to do with externalization. Moreso, it has to do something with assertion or strict discipline. Think of an authoritative figure, like a teacher. Usually, when an authoritative teacher isn’t being respected in a class, they resort to meaner tactics like passive aggression, manipulation, etc. to impose their power. Logan doesn’t really transform into anything opposite to who he is as Logic. Rather, he has an additional role that coincides with Thomas’ perverted perception of logic. I’m not actually sure what this role is, but if I were to guess, it has something to do with restriction, discipline, or conformity.

Narratively, Logan becoming a “Dark” Side makes sense when you realize that his entire character arc is about him losing his sense of self-assertion. I made an essay last year that explores this if you want something to read later. To explain, WDWGOOBITM establishes how it’s important for Thomas to balance his practicality (needs) and aspirational desires (wants) for him to function as a human being. At the same time, we get LNTAO where Logan realizes that he failed to contribute to the discussion as usefully as the other sides. This creates a scenario where Logan concedes a lot of the decision-making to Patton and Roman’s hands. The result: Logan’s presence is minimized. Even in the episodes where he “saves the day” (DWIT and the Frozen episode), Thomas refused to consider his suggestions until the latter halves of the episodes. WTIT emphasizes this even more when we see Thomas prioritize his date with Nico to keep himself happy instead of focusing on the chores he promised to do. Even if we don’t know if Roman had anything to do with this, it’s obvious Thomas is naturally more inclined to do things Patton and Roman would prefer than something Logan does.

Thus, it makes sense that Logan becomes a “Dark” Side. But, and this is an important but, I don’t really agree with depictions of Logan suspending his role as logic to become a “Dark” Side. Logic is such an integral part of who we are as people, that even if you’re an intuition-focused person, you’d still have logical facilities in your head that connect one thing to another. Basic knowledge and all that. I can only see Logan be a completely new role if someone takes his place as Logic. Personally, I don’t like that idea, but you can make your own takeaways on this.

How “Dark” Sides are conceived would still be a mystery. The closest we’ve gotten to an explanation is Remus’ origin story, where he and Roman originally started as one creativity until they separated. In this sense, becoming a “Dark” Side didn’t really uproot Remus’ original role. He just changed a little. I’d like to assume the same for Logan, because if he is literally born as Thomas’ Logic, then he as a “Dark” Side would still have similar roles, just with minor changes.

d. Other Theories

Now with the main theories out of the way, let me speedrun through other theories I’ve heard and give my thoughts on it:

Procrastination: I feel like this is too surface-level for a side. As in, hHow would Procrastination justify itself to Thomas as a side that wants to help? Yes, Procrastination would be a good foil to Thomas, but Thomas’ inability to work doesn’t stem from Procrastination. It stems from bad solutions to his mental health crisis. Anyway, too cheap.

ADHD: This feels like… it’s prone to problematic territory. For real, ADHD is so multifaceted in itself, and is literally a disability? I think it makes more sense to have ADHD traits sprinkled amongst the sides rather than one character representing it as a whole. To make it its own guy is like suggesting the other six sides are divorced from Thomas’ ADHD characteristics, which feels wrong to me.

Hatred and any other suggestion that relates to “taboo” emotions: See my argument on Orange encapsulating forbidden emotions as a whole instead of Rage/Wrath on its own.

Justice: I actually liked this idea and sort of incorporated it with my idea of Orange as a means of externalization! To enact justice means to externalize your deepest desires— cathartic release.

Regret: See: the last two points, since it’s very similar.

Repression: Your heart’s in the right place, but most theories that subscribe to this literally just describe Janus. Keeping things secret because you think it’s unbeneficial? That’s one of Janus’ roles.

Insecurity: That is literally Remus’ role. While intrusive thoughts shouldn’t be viewed as meritable, intrusive thoughts base itself on a person’s sensitivities and insecurities. I also have an essay detailing how Remus is incredibly perceptive about everyone’s insecurities here.

That's about all the other theories I can recall, but if anyone else has other suggestions, send it to my inbox and I'll give you my thoughts.

Now that we understand Orange's fundamentals and who he is as a side, the question to ask next is what is he capable of as a side?

iv. Powers and Influences

Now we get to the part where I am! The most unsure about! As of the time I'm writing this, I literally just had a conversation with Orb trying to understand how Orange “possesses” Thomas and the sides, and nothing conclusive came out of it. Even if we are shown one instance of how Orange influences the others (ie. Logan's orange eyes), we actually do not know how that works at all.

I suppose we can start by asking ourselves how Orange embodies forbidden emotions. I see his insistence for Thomas to perform a certain emotion similar to how Patton would do it. It's impulsive, reactionary. They undergo a situation, then they make Thomas feel an emotion they deem apt for that situation. The only reason Orange isn't utilized as much as Patton is because, of course, Patton is who Thomas is more familiar with. I'd also like to argue that the emotions Orange would possibly encapsulate aren't ones that are constantly expressed. Most of the time, we are in a state of happiness or contentment, emotions covered by Patton. If not, we experience sadness, another common emotion covered by Patton. I would imagine Orange's roster of emotions are only experienced rarely, or if put in a continuous dire situation. Immense anger, for example, would pop up if you feel continuously disenfranchised by something. See: Thomas’ mental health crisis.

Ergo, Orange allows Thomas to feel “taboo” emotions when the situation calls for it. Pretty straightforward. But we're not done yet, because we have to consider what it means that Orange also assists other sides in externalizing their own emotions. We can't use the same argument we gave to Thomas because the sides… aren't each others’ sides. They're Thomas’. If Orange assists in the externalization of the other sides’ repressed emotions, then it has to work differently.

A widely accepted theory or headcanon I see in the fandom is that Orange “possessed” Logan to make him get angry. Or, Logan made a deal with Orange, and now he has angry spurts he doesn't understand. While I appreciate the efforts to make juicy angst, I'm not fond of the idea that these theories basically imply that Logan's anger in WTIT was not his own. In reality, it was. Logan suppressed his frustrations about everyone ignoring his suggestions, and now he snaps. Making it seem like he can't achieve these emotions on his own volition implies he has no frustrations about his predicament to begin with.

The real question is, then, why did Logan's eyes glow orange if his emotions at that moment were genuine? Well, like other segments of this essay, it's hard for me to say something conclusively. We literally have nothing else to work on, guys, pardon me if I can't be a hundred percent certain on my assertions. But if I were to guess, I'm inclined to believe that Orange cannot make the sides feel emotions that they don't already have. Rather, he's responsible for enhancing it. In Logan's situation, for example, his frustration is completely his own. But when you submit to something like, let's say, blinding rage, sometimes you lose your sense of control and simply act. In this case, Orange possibly assists the flow of emotions the side in question would be experiencing.

I'll admit though, I literally have no clue how Orange does that, how he assists the other sides to feel their repressed emotions better. Again, we are working with practically nothing here. Although, one thing we can entertain is the idea that Orange has something to do with a side's state of being. Just like how Janus causes the sides to cover their mouths when expressing a lie, the sides’ eyes could possibly glow orange just because they're feeling an intense, “taboo” emotion. If you don't want to imagine Orange as its own side, you can also factor in the popular fan theory that Orange is simply a state of being the sides experience, no additional side required. Either way, while we cannot dive deep on the semantics of the glowy eyes thing, we can at least confirm there is a link between a side externalizing repressed or “taboo” emotions and Orange himself.

v. Relationships With The Sides (Especially Logan)

Another thing I wanted to discuss is the relationships Orange shares with the other sides. The most accepted depiction of Orange shows him distanced from the “Dark” Sides, while also having a crude fascination with Logan. We've discussed enough of how I view Orange in the context of the “Dark” Sides, so I'd like to focus more on what it means for Orange to assimilate with the “Light” Sides, especially Logan.

Because Logan's first to be seen with these orange eyes, many are quick to assume this is an isolated case. Fair enough— we don't have other examples to compare this with. At the same time, I think a lot of people aren't considering the idea that, if we go by the assumption that Orange is connected to states of being, then any other side can also experience the orange eyes. I won't even be surprised if it happens to Roman in this coming season finale.

But is the much entertained idea of Logan being specifically targeted by Orange unfounded? I would say no, not necessarily. The “Dark” Sides and Logan have always had an interesting relationship. Logan in particular is shown to be the side most unbothered their presence. Again, he's the side who argued that no side can actually be categorized as “good” or “bad”. He's the most sympathetic to the “Dark” Sides, but also… isn’t.

There's an explainable contradiction here. Even if Logan is nicer to the “Dark” Sides compared to the others, he also has the reputation of being able to easily and successfully shut down their suggestions. He completely opposed Janus’ side in SVS out of Thomas’ interest. He shut down Remus not once, but twice, to protect Thomas. But that's the thing— he does not shut down the “Dark” Sides’ contributions because he disagrees with them. Moreso, he does it because he thinks that's what Thomas’ wants. For example, he admitted in SVS that even if he wanted Thomas to attend the callback, he still preferred if Thomas attended the wedding instead because he thought that was what Thomas would have wanted.

And, well, we saw how Janus responded to Logan's decision— he was confused. It's like he had trust Logan would vouch for his side. Let's remember the main goal of the “Dark” Sides: to be respected, to break Thomas’ black-and-white thinking, and to get him out of his mental slump. This goal can only be achieved if they restore the balance of want and need lost partially due to Logan's diminishing self-assertion. They know Logan can do something if he lets himself loose. That's why Remus and Janus teased him in the Secret Santa gift exchange about wanting to express his frustrations. That's why, after Logan's outburst in WTIT, Remus says, “Gee, Logan, now you're speaking my language.”

They want Logan in on their plan. For that to begin, they need to make Logan in tune with his own emotional wants and needs, to make him more assertive. Thus, Orange would have to step in. There is merit when fans joke about the “Dark” Sides wanting Logan to go apeshit— it's because it's true. It's because it benefits them.

I can only provide things to consider when it comes to the other sides:

With Patton, think of the point I made earlier about Orange being “bad” emotions divorced from Patton, in a similar way Remus and Roman were created. The main difference between them would be that Patton has more faculty over principles, since Janus has that covered for the “Dark” Sides. While Patton, influenced by Catholic morality, thinks emotions and morals are intertwined, it would make sense for the more cynical sides to view them as separate.

Roman, as aforementioned, may also be susceptible to Orange's influence as the other side tends to hide his emotions from the others. With how the narrative is building up, I won't be surprised if Roman's frustrations with the whole debacle about morals heightens in the finale, especially if something Interesting happens between Thomas and Nico. You can't use Nico as a distraction forever, Thomas. Remember Thomas’ anger at Nico not responding to his messages, remember Chekhov's Gun.

Virgil is an interesting case because he would be more familiar with Orange compared to the others. That begs the question of, is he aware of the “Dark” Sides current goals and plans? My idea is, yes, but only to a certain extent. This can go down many paths. There's the possibility that Virgil was the first part of the plan, but accidentally grew closer with the “Light” Sides before he fully completed it. This explains why he hasn't disclosed the plans to the others, especially since it may incriminate him as someone who was part of that plan. There's the possibility that he knows nothing of the plan, but is familiar with the “Dark” Sides’ antics. Thus, he can't do much but stay suspicious of the sides. Either way, we still don't know enough to conclude how much Virgil knows, but I doubt he would get along with Orange.

I pondered about Janus a little because, if Orange is meant to embody externalization in some form, what does that mean for him, the embodiment of self-preservation and secrecy? I don't have the answer, but while we know the “Dark” Sides have to work with each other, we don't actually know how close Janus and Remus genuinely are with Orange. To be fair, Janus and Remus are complete opposites and they get along fine. I'd definitely prefer it if all of the “Dark” Sides were actually close because it creates such a perfect juxtaposition to the “Light” Sides’ crumbling family.

I also thought Orange and Remus would make interesting parallels as two forbidden versions of feeling and thinking respectfully. Like I said earlier, Remus can only suggest, but he never actually embodies the emotions of wanting to do taboo things. Orange, however, could. No other points except for the ones I mentioned about the “Dark” Sides in the previous bullet.

vi. Long-Term Presence

Originally, this essay would end here and already be posted. I even went through at least half of it for beta reading. Then, Orb started a discussion where they asked what I thought Orange's purpose was, especially since most theories (even the one you're reading right now) are more centered on Orange in the context of the current conflict. There was actually a part I wanted to write during the second segment where I disclosed what I thought Orange would contribute in the grander scheme of things, but I omitted it because it felt too out of place.

I replied to Orb what I was going to write; I thought that Orange was going to be the final push for Thomas to go to therapy, and make Thomas stand his ground more instead of asking the sides for advice every time he has an issue. I've always thought this, especially therapy, was one of the ways the series would end as a whole, because it means Thomas would stop talking to his sides. Or at least, in the way we see him do it in the show. That sounds a bit cynical, I know. Why would I suggest that Sanders Sides end by Thomas cutting ties with the sides?

Well, I'm not. Not entirely. I'm not advocating Thomas does. What I mean is, an underlying conflict to the current conflicts we have now is how Thomas internalizes his problems. This is literally how the series functions. Thomas has a problem, then consults himself about it via the sides. Even c!Joan mentions it in CLBG. This issue of the problem aversion Thomas has would be fine in the former parts of the series, as the things he consulted the sides about were small. But as the series progresses, we're facing issues that call for an entire paradigm shift in morality. Of Thomas putting himself and his friends in the infamous Trolley Problem. Of Thomas facing horrible intrusive thoughts he opts to combat alone.

I once called Sanders Sides a psychological horror because we see how a normal dude's mental health crumbles as he deals with life-changing situations alone. To find a solution for this main, underlying conflict means the show has to end— internalization IS the series’ foundation!

And so Orb suggested the most batshit idea— what if Orange was Thomas’ foil? Not in a sense that confirms the Opposite Sides theory. Rather, Orange, if his role is externalization, is literally the antithesis of how the sides work. As Orb put it, Orange is there to “completely wreck the format”, making Thomas realize that consulting the sides for help has its limits. He has to literally go out and touch grass, talk to his friends about his moral dilemmas, consult a damn therapist. That is what I think Orange's true purpose as a side is.

vii. Closing Statements

In the end, I can't say that everything I've stated in this essay is pure fact, but this is the most educated guess I can give considering what we're given and what we can expect to happen in canon. While most theories I've seen easily pinpoint different issues the sides and Thomas are facing in the series, these theories would then guess that Orange would be the cause of these issues. That's where theories like Procrastination, Repression, Regret, etc. come from. More than anything, I want you to see that Orange acts in response to these issues rather than in tandem with it.

The best advice I can give you when theorizing about Orange is: ask yourself what needs to be seen in the series. Remember, Sanders Sides is a narrative. Episodes will continue to happen past Orange's inevitable reveal. Think of Orange in this context, as his own character with motivations and wants for Thomas. Only then you can make educated guesses about him.

Anyway, thank you for reading my incredibly extensive essay on Orange! Again, my words are not gospel, so if you want to discuss anything further, add onto this post or send me an ask! Please read this post though before you send me anything. And If you enjoyed this, PLEASE reblog, I'd definitely appreciate it! If you want to read more stuff from me, here's a carrd masterlist of Sanders Sides meta I've done. Happy reading!

#sanders sides #thomas sanders #orange sanders #orange side #sanders sides meta #logan sanders #janus sanders #remus sanders #virgil sanders #roman sanders #patton sanders

264 notes · View notes

gwenllian-in-the-abbey · 1 month

Note

There's this weird thing going on Reddit right now where people are claiming that legally, Rhaenyra children are not bastards. And I was wondering if you agree or disagree. I think that people are just making up their own canon lore at this point.

Hi anon,

I think what gets kind of muddled in this discussion is what "legally" means in the context. Generally speaking, children born within wedlock are considered legitimate until proven otherwise. Now in the medieval world, it's not like you were issued a birth certificate that you could whip out and say see, it says right here who the father is! There were no DNA tests, it was all a matter of word, and by and large a woman's virtue was her word, and it was what kept her and her children protected within the framework of medieval marriage. But the reason why bastardy matters in this context is also important. It's not like Rhaenyra is trying to collect child support here, nor is she a common merchant's wife whose husband has decided just to roll with it. She's the heir to the throne and the parentage of her children is a matter of inheritance and dynastic succession, so it's not a situation where a legal loophole is particularly helpful as a gotcha. There is not at this point in history a comprehensive codified law that clearly defines what these terms mean and defines the rights and obligations of parents and children legitimate and illegitimate, mostly you have combinations of precedent, tradition, oath, and a healthy dose of might makes right.

(I saw another reply to this question in which the responded basically goes, "free yourself from the shackles of this construct! Marriage isn't real it's an oppressive institution and the idea of bastardy is made up, so let it go," and while it's true that marriage, legitimacy, etc. are all social constructs and not absolute states of being, they started off as having a functional purpose within a certain social framework. And this is a basic problem a lot of people have with George's world, it's not that we have to have the views of a 12th century French peasant, or that everything has to be historically accurate, but George chose the medieval world as a setting for a reason, and it's not just an aesthetic one. Characters in even a quasi-historical setting have to act within the constraints of that setting. We have to understand that people don't know what they don't know. The medieval world doesn't have any framework for the introduction of feminist ideals. Westeros hasn't even had a Christine de Pizan yet. You couldn't walk up to a medieval peasant woman and say "marriage is a tool of patriarchal oppression and bastardy is a social construct," they'd look at you like you had two heads. And so we have to acknowledge that you can't simply start dismantling existing social structures if the framework doesn't exist to replace them with something better that offers more protections for a broader group of people, and at this point it definitely doesn't. Making an exception for one very privileged woman does not mean progress for all women, instead it often means destabilization of the flawed system that does exist, and even more violence against those less powerful in order to enforce the exceptional status).

So from a medieval point of view, marriage was pretty much a non-negotiable for a woman. And women weren't simply getting married because they were pressured into it by their families or because their fathers were opportunistic assholes, they got married because unmarried women had no legal status or standing. In most places they could not sign contracts or own land. A woman could join the church or get married (or become a prostitute, but it's not like sex workers had freedoms or protections either). Divorce wasn't a thing, and annulment was hard to get and usually available only as a tool for men to set aside their wives. So, for all intents and purposes, once you were married, that was generally it, you were stuck for life (the upside is that widows did get a lot more freedom, so marrying an older guy and waiting it out was not a bad option sometimes, all things considered). But what marriage did provide was assurance that you and your children would be protected and provided for. Marriage was a practical agreement, involving dowries, inheritances, and alliances sealed in blood. And this is one of the reasons why bastards could not inherit. Inheritance for once's children was one of the few perks of a marriage for a woman (this is, incidentally, why Alicent is so pressed about her children being effectively disinherited. There is NO reason for her, as an eligible maiden of good standing, to marry a man who will not provide for her sons, king or not). And of course, a man's bastards are obvious and are disqualified from inheriting (setting aside legitimization because it is not nearly the easy out that people think it is). You can't really pass them off as legitimate because your wife clearly knows which children she gave birth to, whereas a man might be told he is the father of a child when that child's father is in fact someone else.

In a dynastic marriage, all of this becomes even more important. Marriages were made as alliances and to strengthen the ties between kingdoms or houses. A child seals the marriage agreement by binding two bloodlines and creating kinship bonds that will last beyond the current generation. Those kinship bonds can ensure peace between kingdoms at war, trade agreements, and military aid. Passing a bastard off as trueborn breaks that agreement; it violates the very principle by which the agreement was made. And in this context, it doesn't actually matter if the father claims the children as his, because in a dynastic marriage inheritance is not just a personal matter, it's a matter of the state. The truth matters to a great many people, more than just the immediate family. A lie doesn't become the truth simply because the liar isn't caught, and there's no statute of limitations or court ruling that will ever put the matter to rest for good. Passing off a bastard as trueborn destabilizes the succession and breaks the dynastic bonds that the marriage was meant to establish. When the bastard heir in question attempts to take the throne, it won't be a smooth transition.

So what does it mean that Laenor and Corlys agree to pass Rhaenyra's children off as trueborn? It means that their bastardy cannot be proven at the moment insofar as the legal father, Rhaenyra's husband, is playing along and covering for Rhaenyra, and Viserys is backing them up by giving this his "legal" stamp of approval. But again, our view that it's no one else's business but Laenor and Rhaenyra's and that Viserys "legalized" their status is very modern. Jaehaeyrs and Alysanne were not considered married in the eyes of the Westerosi until they'd had a bedding ceremony, that is, the consummation of their marriage was witnessed. Royal marriages and the children that come from them are a public matter because the succession affects everyone in the realm. Laenor, Corlys, and Viserys can protect those children in the short term, but Laenor and Corlys and Viserys won't live forever, and they could withdraw their support for those children and renounce them as bastards at any time. Harwin could admit to fathering them, Rhaenyra and Harwin could get caught in the act, or someone else close to them might confess. Sure right now the black faction are all one big happy family, but 20 years down the line when bastard Jace takes the throne over trueborn Aegon III? There are multiple people in the family who could confess to knowledge of the bastardy, including Aegon III himself. The bastardy is too obvious and there are too many legitimate heirs of both house Targaryen and house Velaryon getting pushed aside in favor of bastard born children for it to be an issue that simply disappears because Rhaenyra and Laenor say so.

So "legal bastardy" is a pretty meaningless concept when it comes to royal succession because it's not a matter that's going to be settled by some neutral third party in a court of law. What matters in the long run is not whether or not Laenor claimed the kids, what matters is whether or not the situation is questionable enough that people with the power to challenge it might challenge it. And we see even within the actual narrative of the Dance that this is indeed the case. There is already a situation brewing with the other branches of the Velaryon family who are rightfully pretty pissed to see their ancestral seat pass to someone with no blood ties to the family (and as an aside, people will say Vaemond was self-serving, and of course he was, but that doesn't make him wrong, and maybe Baela or Rhaena should have inherited instead, but neither they nor their father were pressing their claims because they were backing up the bastard claimants, so was Vaemond supposed to do that for them?). And yes the king and Rhaenyra can cry treason and they can kill Vaemond and cut out tongues, but using force to silence people for telling the objective truth is by definition tyranny, and that's exactly the sort of situation that would get the nobility nervous. Because if Rhaenyra has to silence people already and she's not even queen yet, what will Jace have to do when he takes the throne? That's the real problem, not the "legal" status of Jace and his brothers, but the practical ramifications of hiding the truth.

#asks #the strong boys #hotd discourse #bastardy #team green #anti team black

122 notes · View notes

inkdemonapologist · 4 months

Note

What are your thoughts on joeys character in batdr and his redemption? If you ask me I like what they did with him. They gave him redemption without excusing some of the bad stuff he did. And I think memory joey could grow to be somewhat of his own character. But the redemption isn’t perfect though. Even though I said the it didn’t excuse some of the stuff he did it felt like they swept the bad stuff under the rug. But who knows. Maybe they’ll fix this in future.

But enough about what I think, what don you think?

I’ve talked about this before – the TL;DR of that post is that I think this is, conceptually, a promising way to portray Joey moving forward to be better for someone new, but in actual execution it fails to do that.

TBH I’d love to stop categorising this as “redemption”… I've grown to dislike this framing, debating whether it’s a Good Redemption or a Bad Redemption or whether Joey is Really Redeemed or Not, because it assumes that Redemption™ is even what’s happening in this story. BatDR is a story where we’re given reason to believe that Joey may have had a change of heart. That’s it! We can question and analyse his supposed change of heart, but it doesn’t have to REDEEM HIM to be real, and I think measuring things on the scale of REDEEMED VS NOT REDEEMED is not only gliding over some pretty complex ideas of What Does Redeemed Mean In The Context Of Fiction (it is the sort of concept that it is so, so easy for people to have vastly different unspoken definitions for, making discussions of “he was redeemed” “no he wasn’t” especially futile), but also not really useful here.

For one thing, this isn’t a story about Joey's change of heart. Tbh, he barely features – Memory Joey can have a change of heart and work to be better if you believe/headcanon that he has OG Joey’s attitude, worldview, and personality flaws (which I do), but he has no crimes to acknowledge or repent for other than MAYBE reluctance to get involved. You might as well ask a person to repent for the crimes of their kins!! We hear about the choices original Joey made, and we can judge those choices postmortem, but he’s not here to redeem himself through this story; he’s dead.

As to the actual spirit of your question: The big thing. The really really big thing. Is that the CYCLE IS STILL GOING. It’s still going and it’s still bad and everyone in it is still miserable!! He didn’t fix that!!! The only evidence we have of ANY attempt to make it nicer in there is that he added Allison Angel, which like, “i’ve created a new life to keep you company in the torture dimension, so it’s less bad” is NOT ACTUALLY BETTER.

It’s important because it’s the only thing Joey could still try to do. He clearly doesn’t have any money to give restitution to his victims or their families, and I’m not gonna be a cop about demanding that he return the ink machine to the corporation that’s even more evil than he was. There’s not a lot of tangible steps he could take to perform penance for what he’s done, beyond fessing up publicly to his crimes and turning himself in and definitely going to jail, and like, maybe that would be a good thing for him to do, but if we’re going to hold Joey to that standard we really should be making the same demands of, say, Thomas Connor, or Sammy Lawrence in every Escape AU.

He can’t go back and un-ruin the lives he ruined years ago. But he didn’t do anything about the cycle, and that’s something that’s still happening NOW.

That was his responsibility, sapient life that he created to suffer and should have felt a huge obligation to – yet, we have no evidence that Joey was like, trying to fix it (in fact, he seemed PRETTY FOCUSED on spending his limited time creating and then raising Audrey), so every assertion that he was a changed man falls a bit flat, because being a sweet, loving person to your family and friends while running an endlessly looping torture dimension in your basement is actually quite sinister! Even Memory Joey asserts that the only reason he can’t fix the cycle now is because he’s not really the OG Joey who made it – does that mean the OG Joey could? Audrey says she wants to make the cycle kinder; could Joey have done that? Why didn’t he? We know from Allison's appearance in the original BatIM that the hellish experience of the first game IS the version that came from Joey’s change of heart, and it’s not great for literally anyone!!

Joey was a better person to Audrey, his daughter, and I do believe he genuinely loved her. If it were just that, it would be pretty good – Joey disappears from public life and stops obsessing over Bendy and instead of barging into his past victims’ lives to demand forgiveness, he just wants to be a better man and a good father to this daughter he created. That’s a compelling story, and I think it’s probably the best direction that “Joey wants to be better” could go. But once we realise he was actively ignoring suffering that he both caused and was responsible for fixing, it’s hard to take that love in good faith anymore. Joey being good exclusively to people that he likes who are doing what he wants isn’t anything new; Joey’s delight in The One Who Came Out Right feels less like a change of heart when we see Memory Joey echo his complete lack of sympathy for The One Who Came Out Wrong.

The reason it feels like Joey’s wrongdoing was glossed over isn’t because Joey needed to record an audiolog saying “I acknowledge that my actions were without excuse, and I’m deeply sorry for the harm I’ve caused” or whatever… it’s because there was something he could’ve changed, or could’ve at least TRIED to change, and he didn’t do it -- and it feels like we, the audience, were not supposed to notice that, because the story didn’t notice, either. It'd be possible to address it; like, what if Joey's change of heart instead involved him trying to fix things for the people in the cycle, and Audrey was created accidentally in that process -- then his love for Audrey would also be a picture of how far he'd come, taking responsibility for this person he'd brought into being and seeing her as a beloved daughter instead of a mistake. Or even just an audiolog where Joey says some kind of “oh god I can’t end it, it’s just going to repeat forever, what have i done, what can i do,” and it might actually feel possible to believe in his change of heart, to believe that he really tried as hard as he could and just never succeeded. But this huge thing is barely acknowledged. It's fine. He put Allison in there, so now it's fine! Don't dwell on the past!!

Anyway, like I said in my first post, if all this were intentional, I would LOVE it, conceptually. The idea of Joey Drew being a good father to Audrey who really genuinely loved her, but also was not actually a better person in a lot of ways, was still the same guy who was uncomfortable with guilt and glossed over his wrongdoing in order to prematurely Move On from the things that made him feel like a failure and focus on the relationship with his daughter that made him feel like a success, is a compelling, difficult character! The way so many people fell in love with Memory Joey just seems like, how everyone in original Joey’s life must’ve felt about him, the way they all kept believing in him despite everything, the way they wanted so badly to believe him. Impose this lens upon the whole game, and it all fits in. But since there’s no sign it’s intentional – and, with the archive, actually some signs that it wasn’t – it sort of sits weirdly. Memory Joey isn’t framed as an unreliable narrator. The tone of his final scene clearly isn’t MEANT to be dissonant.

---

So, uh, that’s what I think. I think the concept of Joey having a genuine change of heart and being better for his daughter could be good; I think the concept of Joey presenting himself as a changed man when really he is Just The Same, He Just Likes You This Time, could also be good. But he was handled clumsily enough that I think we didn’t quite get either thing, and, as usual, you have to fill in the blanks with headcanons and inferences to get one of these stories -- so which story you get kinda depends on which way you decide to interpret everything. Nothing tells us for sure that Joey didn't try his hardest to fix everything, so if you want that story, you can simply headcanon that he tried his hardest. But my personal preference is definitely for the reading where Joey believes himself a changed man because he really does love his daughter, and that's genuinely sweet!! but he remained the same man he always was, dodging guilt and responsibility in favour of a narrative that made him feel good about himself. I'm still quite proud of the frustrated little indictment Memory Joey gives him in that one creationship comic I made:

#i know you have questions you always do #bendy and the dark revival #joey drew #we all write on the walls

105 notes · View notes

damianbugs · 4 months

Note

Hi!! First I just wanted to say your fics have been an inspo for me to write my own fics and I enjoy them immensely. Second, I’ve been wandering something and I want to ask something about how Jason Todd is portrayed after his death.

I don’t really understand why so many just kind of lie? Or exasperate who Jason Todd is and isn’t. Like the Cass and Bruce scene in front of Jason’s grave, or that scene in Gotham Knights where Alfred tells Bruce “Jason was determined to disobey him.” I know out of universe it just has to do with the mischaracterization of Jason but I’m having a hard time on finding an in universe explanation. Is it out of guilt? Out of misplaced love? It’s confusing me a bit

first of all, thank you!! i'm so glad i could inspire you that is truly the highest complement i could receive <3

secondly, this is a really interesting discussion! you're right about how in a meta way it's the deeply routed classism in jasons writing, as well as many writers (example: grant morrison) just really hating jason for some reason and doing everything they can to make him absolutely insufferable. not even in a cool evil villain way, but in an embarrassment point and laugh kind of way.

for the purpose of this discussion lets (with much difficulty) ignore the writers predispositions and implications and just focus entirely on what this means for the characters. it's good you mention the cass and bruce at jason's grave scene, because i think that example alone is a good way to deconstruct some of character's (for this post: bruce's) perspective of jason's death.

to summarise before dumping a billion paragraphs developing the point; let's not dance around it and accept that much of people's understanding of jason's death falls into the victim blaming variety, but in such way that the characters don't seem to realise that's how they perceive him, which is almost worse than them purposely retelling it in such a way. as well as that, aside from this indenial misunderstanding of jason, i think this shows the sort of flaws the other characters have.

Detective Comics #790

at first glance this seems like a really touching and emotional moment where bruce is sharing his grief with cass (especially when the entirety of #790 is about bruce struggling to do just that), but then you really read it and you're like what the fuck... why are we standing in front of this kids grave slagging him off? not only are we hearing all of bruce's regrets about how he raised jason as opposed to his son's actual death, but we are dragging steph into this too.

to bruce, jason's death is an accumulation of everything he let the boy get away with finally reaching it's tipping point. that jason's ambition to "prove something" lead to his seemingly inevitable demise.

now i do think it's important to note that WE (the readers) know jason died saving sheila. that despite being beaten, betrayed and left for dead, he tried to save someone and paid the price for it. no one else knows that, because the two people that did are dead. as a result, bruce is left with the facts that;

prior to his death, jason was acting uncharacteristically (<- important point) violent and aggressive towards himself, borderline passively suicidal. bruce himself acknowledges this.

that jason ran away from home in search of someone who may or may not be his mother. this is because losing his parents is a hurt jason has still not healed from and a topic bruce has handled badly in the past (example: willis todd). jason does not trust bruce enough to tell him about this.

once they find his mother, jason is instructed to not get involved in the joker related problem. to the extent of bruces knowledge, jason reveals himself as robin, and decides to get involved despite the instruction not to. either because he again, didn't trust bruce to believe he would handle it, or that jason was trying to prove something to bruce, to sheila, or to himself.

sheila dies, jason dies and bruce is the only one alive from the tragedy with only half the story.

All of this can be found in A Death In The Family, but I don't feel comfortable sharing panels of it given where the story takes place right now.

bruce spends the next few years blaming himself at any given point, but the blame is misplaced. bruce feels as though HIS negligence of JASON'S personality and HIS allowance of JASON'S freedom as robin is what allowed JASON to go and die. instead of seeing what he knows to be true about jason (his empathy, his kindness, his grief and loneliness) bruce can now only see how his allowance of all these things played a part in JASON disobeying him (whether maliciously or not) and dying.

in short, bruce is projecting big time onto his dead kid.

bruce is, as per usual, coping with loss by antagonising it. he did the same with babs, with steph and later on with damian. for a character like batman, who upon failing immediately turns these losses into lessons (for himself and all those forced to comply), it's the only way he seems to 'move on'. if he can understand that jason died because of all the things bruce let him do wrong, then he can convince himself that the guilt he feels for it is necessary. that jasons death is on him and that it mattered.

unfortunately, in order to do that, bruce is indenial about what he LITERALLY KNOWS ABOUT JASON! it's not like he was an absent father to jason in the slightest. but hey, if he can vitiate jason's enthusiasm to help people as jason's impulsiveness to fight (two things that can be true but not in accordance to the context he describes them in), then the blame is on jason for being brash, and on bruce for being lenient.

he shoots jason in the foot and himself in the knee to keep them both down. because, well, jason's dead anyway, and bruce unfortunately isn't. this is the closest thing they'll get to sharing the truth bruce knows he's missing and he knows it's his fault for favouring the mission of his son — so at the expense of jason, bruce lets them both be the lesson to learn from.

it is why jason is used as a cautionary tale, and why bruce is so unstable on allowing people (especially children) into his life emotionally. the second robin is a lesson for any young vigilante eager to join the mission, and batman's part in the death is a lesson for bruce wayne to... be even more emotionally untrustworthy? instructions unclear.

the final part of the grave scene is also important, because bruce is admitting that he is not so different to jason. that "for some of us [Bruce and Cass] there is no turning back". he is projecting these flaws about jason not only because that's the only way he can cope with jason's death, but he is projecting these flaws because regardless of what actually happened, he (and cass) are destined to meet the same fate. jason died for a multitude of reason that bruce may or may not have caused knowingly, and these reasons only exist because bruce knows them to be true in himself and anyone else damaged enough to find themselves on his side of the blurry line.

so, now looking a bit less zoomed in, i think it's unfortunate that jason's time as robin is often perversed by the people who should know better (bruce & alfred), and while it is bad writing on jason's character, it is great writing to show the flaws in the characters around him.

especially how it shows that grief is not always something that can become healed. bruce's guilt about his parents death amounts to something hopeful (batman), but his guilt about jason's death makes bruce cruel and childish.

tldr: no one knows the true story, so they compensate from what they do know — but by doing so they project and misinform existing characteristics of jason in order to compartmentalise the gravity of his tragic death. bruce is unable to cope normally and everyone is forced to follow the same fate, because batman's lessons are rarely wrong, even if they cause ten other problems and misunderstandings to understand.

#did this answer anything idk its exam season who even am i #dc meta #bruce wayne #jason todd #character study #saki anons #saki comic talks #put me in a box with bruce wayne and i will eat his brain #sorry idk where that came from erm

78 notes · View notes

laciere · 9 months

Text

Bo Ruberg: We Know The Devil is, as you say, about women who love other women, yet you've written online about being "against representation" in video games. What does that mean and how do you reconcile those approaches? Aevee Bee: That article was a little manifesto. When I say that I'm "against representation," I mean that representation can't just be a list of identity categories. It's not really representation unless you're creating complexity; without complexity, characters feel insincere and incomplete. The dumbed-down version of a queer person, or the queer person that never expresses their sexuality--these characters don't actually require you to empathize with queer people, because these characters have no sexuality. When you erase that, you erase their anchor, their passion, their frustrations, or their flaws even, especially their flaws. You're not doing empathy work if you're not engaging with these things, because these are the stumbling blocks for empathy. Sometimes people are like, "I like gay people who don't act gay." You know? Those are the people you're catering to when you make those sorts of characters. Identity is so important to talk about, yet it can be so limiting. I've been having a lot of discussions with queer activists and queer scholars about this desire to all call ourselves "queer," like we're this amorphous blob. That can actually be incredibly unhelpful because it doesn't acknowledge the very real differences that often exist between queer people. Our experiences are specific to our lives. Focusing only on identity, especially identity without experience, reduces everyone to an abstraction. Ruberg: Given how much you value the specifics of individual queer experience, how would you describe the complexities, as you call them, of your own queer identity? Bee: Being a woman is really important to me. Transness is also really important to me. In terms of sexuality, I tend to talk about how sexuality is practiced and understood rather than talking about specific attractions. What's the point of trying to say, "Oh, I have this very specific sexual identity" when sexuality is really hard to separate from gender identity and expression? Sexuality is more complicated than we often give it credit for. For example, I'm less interested in saying "I identify as bisexual," than I am in thinking about the ways that I love women and the ways that I love men and how those are unfortunately incredibly different because of all these social pressures, my own histories, and my internalized baggage. How do we navigate that together with another person? What does a relationship with someone like me look like? it's one thing to be like, "We have this list of labels," but we have so few models for what those labels are supposed to look like.

"Aevee Bee: On Designing for Queer Players and Remaking Autobiographical Truth", in The Queer Games Avant-Garde: How LGBTQ Game Makers are Reimagining The Medium of Video Games (2020, Duke University Press)

#the queer games avant garde #aevee bee #we know the devil #bo ruberg #reading log #video games #interviews

184 notes · View notes

i-who-has-never-had-a-name · 2 months

Text

I always think about how everyone who knows Kaz brekker, including the crows, negatively think of him as a coldhearted murderer who would do anything for money. Whenever a chapter is written in the perspective from someone who is not Kaz and Kaz gets on their nerves or seems disturbing or so they seem quick to think of him as his reputation: a murdered, a killer. And now I may be stupid for thinking this, but how many people has he actually killed, self-defense excluded? The cell member in the ice court and big bolliger comes to mind, but really other than that...

If we do want to talk about murderers we can talk about Matthias who belonged to one of the worst type of people there is disguised as warriors for a noble cause. Or Nina who was trained to be a ruthless soldier and was excited to participate in war as soon as possible, which includes killing people, even if it's for a "noble" cause. Inej has killed people too, but that's apparently okay because she feels guilty. Jesper has obviously killed. Wylan produces extremely dangerous bombs. Yet no one seems to think of themselves as murderers, but bc they are scared of Kaz (yes all of them to some extent) they think about everything people have said about him or how he talks about himself (bastard of the barrel, cruel, killer etc.)

I love all the characters and am quite fond of them, but it's important to acknowledge that all of them are also flawed. One of their flaws being their moral superiority in relation to Kaz. Even Inej tells us at the start that a lot of his reputation stems from rumors, yet she is afraid of him sometimes bc she doesn't know what rumors are true and which not (which really makes me question why she fell in love with Kaz, if it was bc he freed her and he's hot, after all she is a teenage girl, or some others reasons but that's anothwr discussion). Maybe I'm biased bc my favorite character is Kaz, but this really irks me. Time and time again he has proven that he wouldn't kill innocent civilians or children and what not. That what he and others say about himself isn't 100% a real reflection of who he is. Other than his provocative words (that he uses as a self-defense and really bc he's afraid of showing emotion, but also he just has a dry humor and a snarky personality) he isn't morally a lot worse than the other crows. The things I do find morally about him conflicting though are of course the things he has to do as a gang boss, like profiting off of gambling casinos and what not, but really he isn't responsible for the brutal capitalist system in Ketterdam and one might say that the want to become rich isn't a sin ("what a luxury to not want a luxury").

I like him for his morally grey compass and because he is a complex character but I don't think he receives as much compassion and care from the others as I think he should, but I digress. A lot of people are surprised that technically they won't stay friends, but I'm not. I have so much to say because this is such a complicated debate but I don't want to dig myself a deeper grave than already and maybe I have gotten some facts wrong. I'd love to hear more opinions.

#kaz brekker #I'm only half way through crooked kingdom and have watched the show so maybe he will become worse idk #six of crows

57 notes · View notes

randomness-is-my-order · 4 months

Text

ik we’re always protective of characters we love and especially when it comes to pjo–the fact that most of them are children and going through so much, i’ve seen people get really bothered/angry about anyone even slightly critiquing them.

obviously, since the show is bringing in alot of new fans, the same discourse from the books is coming up again–only the judgement is based on just a chunk of a whole. the character arcs are yet to be complete over the very first book, let alone the entire series. naturally, first time viewers will have their opinions and takes on a character and might not want to refer to the books to get their answers. that is okay.

it shouldn’t be difficult to acknowledge these things:

yes percy is brave and kind and funny and heroic but he is, at this juncture, still naïve and immature.

yes grover is sweet and empathetic and a guidance but he’s also easily influenced and sometimes a bit too late to take a stand.

yes annabeth is intelligent and fierce and strong-willed but she’s also too prideful and sometimes insensitive.

it is easy to come to their defence with “they’re just kids!! they are going through so many struggles!!” but what if we don’t? what if we let their faults be discussed without making it seem like a big deal by covering for them with facts we already know and should be an accepted backdrop for any discussion about them? yes they are twelve (mentally) but we were all twelve, too. we were once immature, maybe bratty, maybe too quick to anger, maybe too reckless, too stubborn, ignorant, insensitive, etc. kids have flaws sometimes just by virtue of being young and new to the world but that’s a given. we can still say, “hey, what they said is kinda mean” or “damn, they shouldn’t have done that” without feeling the need to softblow it by a defence since acknowledging these flaws is SO important. because guess what?? percy, annabeth, grover and many other characters overcome alot of personal flaws over the course of five books (and later, even more) and it is the fact that their rough edges are so prominent in lightning thief and the fact that we were able to recognise them that made their eventual growth feel that much more earned and gratifying.

we were children once too and we had our bouts of bad behaviour and the very fact that someone realised it (that someone could have been our ownselves) that led to change. sometimes, making excuses–and by that i mean, simply providing context–for characters is necessary because the pointing of flaws might be overblown to target/pile on/hate on a character but most of the time it’s just a frank assessment. writing off a character due their initial behaviour and never giving them the benefit of the doubt is, well, not something i like seeing but just giving an honest review about the first impressions the characters had through the show, even if they’re a bit critical but with the openmind to see them grown and change–that i 100% love to see.

#pjo tv adaptation #percy pjo #pjo tv show #pjo fandom #pjo series #pjo #percy and annabeth #percy jackson #percy jackon and the olympians #grover underwood #annabeth percy jackson #annabeth pjo #annabeth chase

53 notes · View notes

dearmahiru · 9 months

Text

— together in death; dearmahiru's shinjū theory

tw: this post revolves around the discussion of group suicide and a toxic relationship

Before I Love You had released, I proposed Mahiru attempted to commit a lover's suicide with her boyfriend. It's hopelessly outdated (and terribly formatted) but, given we've recieved many confirmations about Mahiru's story, I wanted to try rewriting the theory with the new information. For reference here is the old post.

Yamanaka: ❝ When we designed the characters and their sins, we tried to design them in a way that is open for interpretation depending on how each viewer feels, and encourage differences in opinions. For example, some sins may be legally wrong, or something that you can’t forgive emotionally, and some may be interpreted differently due to cultural differences and different upbringings. So we encourage people from all walks of life to participate, to increase the diversity and depth in the results. ❞

Understandably, this post will paint Mahiru in an overtly sympathetic light given my bias towards her. However, I'm disinterested in rehashing the same "Mahiru is a bad person" points when everyone is aware of her flaws. I acknowledge proposing this theory would seem like an attempt to absolve Mahiru of guilt but that's not my intention. Like every character, Mahiru is morally gray and whether the audience finds her forgivable is up to them.

So, without further ado, let's begin.

01. Setting The Scene

This particular scene in I Love You is extremely important: namely, it's the location of her victim's death.

If we look at Mahiru's incarnation records, her victim died in Aokigahara, Japan's infamous suicide forest. This makes sense given he had died by hanging.

At least since the 1960s, Aokigahara has become associated with suicide, eventually becoming known in English by the nickname "Suicide Forest" and gaining a reputation as one of the world's most-used suicide sites.

Adding onto this, we know Mahiru went with her boyfriend to Aokigahara. First, ofcourse, the two are seen walking through a literal forest. Second, in Mahiru's Undercover memories, the sleeves perfectly align with the clothes Mahiru and her boyfriend wear. There's no other day where these sleeves align—trust me, I checked.

Q. Can you drive a car? Mahiru: "I have a drivers license. But I'm only a 'paper driver.'"

A paper driver is someone who's license is only 'paper' because they don't use it. Aokigara is a two-hour drive away from Tokyo which is where Mahiru lives. If she doesn't drive then this might mean it was her boyfriend who drove them to Aokigahara.

So to recap, Mahiru and her boyfriend went to a suicide forest together. This does beg the question though: why did Mahiru come along? If she knew her boyfriend was suicidal then wouldn't she try consoling him? Unless, ofcourse, Mahiru also wanted to die.

02. Love Is Mine

When you peek into Mahiru's symbolism you'll notice one reoccurring theme: clinging onto someone until you both suffocate.

Beginning with this shot of Mahiru and her victim, she's depicted as the literal noose tied around her boyfriend's neck. However, as many have noted, it can also be interpreted as her comforting him. As opposed Haruka who's straddling ontop of his victim, Mahiru's boyfriend is laying on her lap while she gazes into his eyes. Although violent, it's a distinctly intimate scene.

Personally, I'm partial to the name theory which suggests each prisoner's name reflects something about their crime. I noted the meaning behind Mahiru's name here but I'll regurgitate it. Mahiru's name means "Midday" which fits along her description:

A prisoner who is like the sun, always chatting and laughing.

So, with the theory in mind, Mahiru's crime relates to her eternal sunny presence.

Along with this, each prisoner has the kanji for "wood" in their name and removing that kanji reflects an aspect of their crime. (For instance, Haruka (嬰) would be "baby" or "necklace" and Yuno (堅) would be "strong" or "resolute" like her real personality).

With out the wood kanji, Mahiru's name is 隹 which means means "bird," obviously relating to how Mahiru and her boyfriend are both bluebirds suffocating within their small birdcage. Their relationship was doomed from the beginning—as bluebirds are wild animals and therefore cannot survive in cages. It was inevitable one of them would've become stressed out and died. Put a pin in the birdcage symbolism since we'll came back to that.

Moving on, in her first voice drama, Mahiru reveals how her victim died:

Es: "I see. So, you became a murderer as a result of some relationship conflicts? Jealousy… Grudges… Having your partner stolen from you… Those stories aren’t all that uncommon now are they?" Mahiru: "You’re wrong. It wasn’t that. I…never even wanted to kill anyone in the first place!" Es: [pauses] Mahiru: "I just… I was… just being myself."

(honestly really frustrating how people still theorize mahiru/her boyfriend cheated when she expressed multiple times that wasn't the case. all of the victims apart from kotoko's were innocent people and mahiru "loving my bf is my defining personality trait" shiina isn't about to tap someone's elses ass. if anything this is a demonstration she was only stressed out about her partner leaving her but whatever i digress)

And then later on these exchanges happen:

Es: It was your love which killed someone, right? Despite that, will you still try to love another person? Mahiru: [thinks] Actually, I was hoping you could tell me the answer to that, prison guard… If what I did was unforgivable.

Mahiru: Ah, this isn’t good. Be careful, okay? Um… Um… If you’re that kind to me, you could die as well. Just—kidding?

So already, this theme of suffocation has been reinforced multiple times. Mahiru goes with her boyfriend to a suicide forest, she locks hands with him, she's symbolised as a noose hanging him, she's stuck in a birdcage with him, and it's her sunny disposition, her love for him which kills him.

Which forms the foundation for this theory: following her theme of clinging until suffocation, Mahiru tried to die alongside her boyfriend to forever stay with him.

Q. What is the ultimate form of Love?Mahiru: Being always together

Mahiru: My first shrine visit of the year was together with him. Obviously I know what I want to wish for. Please let us stay together like this forever. Please don’t let anyone else get in our way

Do you really think you know what love is? If you do, let's just overheat together! [Mahiru is outright singing, "Lets stay close together for so long we could die from the warmth.]

If you don't hug me, even our hearts will start drifting apart [Otherwise, "If you don't hold me close then I won't feel loved by you."

Mahiru: "Ehehe...I love, love, LOVE YOU!! Don't ever let me go, ok!"

The happiness we tightly bound up and suffocated, is no longer here

Which leads us to our third point: oh goodness Mahiru's relationship was a hot mess.

03. Love Is (Un)Dead

Okay, so we've established a lot but there's one thing missing: Is Mahiru herself suicidal?

Mahiru: It’s because I've… decided that I’m going to live for the sake of love

Mahiru: Hmm. If you can’t forgive me for what I’ve done, then there’s no point in living—to be honest. [laughs]

Mahiru: Being in love is… If there was no such thing as love, then my life would be so bland. So, if you say that I won’t be allowed it anymore, then there’s no point in me living.

An extremely unfortunate yes! Similar to how Shidou wishes to die because of his love, Mahiru only lives for the sake of love. (Infact, coasting off this shinju theory, I'd even say that both Shidou and Mahiru wanted to die for the sake of meeting their loved ones again.)

One specific detail I'd like to highlight are Mahiru's shoes.

In Japan there is a custom for people to take off their shoes before entering their homes, as to not track dirt into their houses. As a result of this line of thinking there is also a custom where people take off their shoes before they enter the afterlife as not to track dirt and such into their ethereal destination. Abandoned pairs of shoes in Japanese media have become symbolic of suicides, and they are also common in non-Japanese media.

This specific symbolism is seen an additional time with Mahiru and Kazui's victims in Undercover and Mu in It's Not My Fault, both of which are related to suicide.

In Mahiru first MV, there's always a shot where we can explicitly see her shoes. They're on in the beginning, off when she confesses to her boyfriend and they begin dating, and on again after something happened to her boyfriend.

I believe this may represent she was suicidal during the relationship. Apart from this, there's lots of little details which paint the picture she was unhappy with her life and dating her boyfriend.

When being interviewed, she tends to talk a lot, and she seems to have developed some special feelings for the prison guard, and sometimes also shows a lonely, vacant expression in contrast to her normally bright and cheerful self. [These "special feelings" for Es aren't necessarily romantic. Atleast, it's "love" in the same way Mahiru thinks of a murder prison as a romantic getaway. It's moreso developes a connection with Es because they uniquely give her attention and she finds their hardwork admirable. She finds them kind and, "if youre kind to me I'm going to start relying on you, thanks!"]

"Hello! I’m Shiina Mahiru, 22 years old! I may be incompetent, but it’s a pleasure meeting you!"

Mahiru: Right…… so you too, Mu-chan…Hmm, I guess it’s because of the environment here. Sometimes your mental state has an impact. Mu: …You’re the same, then? …that it’s gone…… Mahiru: …it’ll be fine, it’ll be fine. This sort of thing happens all the time~

I guess we can just say that this feeling is happiness I can't stop feeling like there's something missing

We can both feel lonely sometimes, but wonder if you'll get angry soon

We fought sometimes, I was happy to get hurt Let's have matching pain, this sickness is pretty bad

This is a claim of responsibility From the two of us with matching love Wanting to know everything about you, but wanting to die because it can't come true It's all because of love

Don’t lose focus even when exercising! The pastel tones mean not only do you look ready to go but also give off a cute oneesan appeal. Even for a rougher style of dress you can’t be careless! Painted toenails and a necklace show some attention to detail to make for a sexy casual style. Just because it’s outdoors doesn’t mean you can relax too much! Even when picking out a date outfit to protect you from the cold, you still want to protect that loveable silhouette.

Most damning of all I'll say is Mahiru's parasite cover. The song tells a story about a scorned girlfriend who was used for sex and seeks alcohol in order to deal with her lingering feelings for ex-boyfriend. At one point Miku throws a bouquet back mirroring Mahiru's desire for a wedding.

(hmm funny how the "mahiru is a yandere because she covered psychogram" crowd was silent about this cover i wonder whyyyy)

Why can’t you understand? I hate you! Never touch me again

Wait a second, when did things start going wrong? I loved the bad parts too, everything was fine

It’s even worse when you are nice to me, But I don’t want to be given the cold shoulder [Most of all, Mahiru desires attention from her boyfriend. In her T1 MV she mentions how he "not the brightest so he never notices that I go to the beautician." This is a likely a blow to her self confidence given the heavy emphasis she has on appearing pretty. Sporadically across the magazines there's lines about "not slacking off" in public because people are always watching.]

Hey, give me back the time I used loving you, You liar. But I still love you

Hey, please don’t leave me behind, Hey, I’m hungry [This line always makes me so sad. In Mahiru's cover there's a beep to imply she's leaving this as a voice-mail for her boyfriend. Once again fulfilling our "stay with me always" clinging symbolism quota.]

Pretend not to see spitting out saliva, You're going to throw me away as incombustible waste

It’s just a bunch of “why”, I can’t change, I want to…I don’t want to leave

Hey, I want you to let me hug you at the last moment, thank you. And now, you are too (a parasite)

It's the last line I'd like to highlight because, all in one song, we've reinforced Mahiru's happiness in the relationship and the clinging symbolism. Mahiru and her boyfriend were both parasites who's clung onto eachother and deprived eachother of nutrients. Both of you suck!!

Then there's Mahiru's two symbolic locations: the birdcage and the carousel. Both of Mahiru's mindscapes places her in the same location: her home, as evident by the couches with pillows.

Personally, I subscribe to the idea the Day 16's house belong to Mahiru or it's a shared home with her boyfriend. If the poor financial situation theory is correct then the two might've decided to live together to cut costs (or Mahiru pressured him into agreeing). Her boyfriend works at a convenience store so he's probably not as financially well-off as Mahiru who recieves an allowance.

However, on a subconscious level, Mahiru thinks of her their home as a birdcage. As stated before, bluebirds can't survive in birdcages, and this is represented by her boyfriend's feathers falling from stress. Something interesting I'd like to note is that Mahiru considers leaving the birdcage but instead decides to dive back into the feathers, causing her boyfriend even more stress. Say with me: clinging 👏 until 👏 you 👏 suffocate 👏 imagery.

"Hmm... I’m a little troubled that I can’t go home, but... It’s fine, I guess. Even if I go home, there’s nothing left... And, I find it fun talking to you!"

Then, after her boyfriend's death, she thinks of their home as a carousel ride. The ledge at the beginning of the MV implies that—rather than an expansive space like Mu's beehive—the carousel is a small space. It's only Mahiru, the couch, the carousel, and a dead corspe. All she's able to do is fall asleep or ride the carousel again by herself, knowing she'll have to get off at some point. It's once again that imagery of something which is cramped and suffocating.

Both of her mindscapes cut them off from the outside world. Within her own mind all that matters is simply her and her boyfriend.

04. The Only You Can('t) Leave

Finally, I'd like to note something which has been sitting on my mind: Mahiru's themes of destiny and rebirth.

Q. What do you think happens when people die? Mahiru: They go to heaven!

Lovers committing double suicide believed that they would be united again in heaven, a view supported by feudal teaching in Edo period Japan, which taught that the bond between two lovers is continued into the next world, and by the teaching of Pure Land Buddhism wherein it is believed that through double suicide, one can approach rebirth in the Pure Land.

(big credit to doctorbunny's and archivalofsins's work on the this is how to be inlove with you locations for pointing this out! ily2 please check them out)

On Day 8, Mahiru goes with her boyfriend to go see "Your Name." Take this with a grain salt because I haven't see the actual movie— I refuse to watch a Makoto Shinkai film until he's allowed to write yuri—but the general gist is that two teenagers from 2013 and 2016 end up swapping bodies. Later, it's revealed that Mitsuha, the main heroine, is fated to die from a comet hitting the earth in the future. Fortunately, through time shenanigans, her fate ends up being altered and both teens end up surviving.

A romance movie featuring a dead lover and a mid relationship? Why, it's perfect for Mahiru!

The two people connected by the red thread are destined lovers, regardless of place, time, or circumstances. This magical cord may stretch or tangle, but never break. This myth is similar to the Western concept of soulmate or a destined partner.

Okay, okay, jokes aside that's not the sole reason I'm bringing up Your Name. Ofcourse, what's most interesting is it's theme of soulmates and how it relates to Mahiru.

Mahiru: Yeah. – Him and I… we loved each other. Properly as boyfriend and girlfriend. We met in college… It was the first time for me, so I don’t know if it was good or not, but… I think we were just normally going out together. I thought it was fate. He said it was, too.

Q. How did you meet your lover? Mahiru: We met eyes at the university terrace. I really felt like it was fate.

On the terrace at university, when I met eyes with that person I knew it must be fate. I might have been born purely so I could one day end up together with him. Or not, am I just overthinking things?

I ran into the person I’m interested in at the bread shop. This has to be fate, right? In the end I ended up buying the same bread as he got, but maybe I don’t need this much… > < I wasn’t thinking about the calories.

We went to one of the filming locations for a movie we both like! This sort of thing can only happen in Tokyo huh! It really must be fate that even our taste in movies lines up. I feel like a totally different person to before I met him… [Once again the movie she's talking about Your Name which is one of the highest grossing anime films of all times... bestie... ily but your rose colored glasses are blinding!!!]

Namely, once again, we're reinforcing the theme of clinging together until you suffocate. Two soulmates forced into loving eachother by the hands of fate. It's a very romantic idea twisted into something heart-wrenching.

The idea of "saving your lover from death" is briefly reflected Day 8 where Mahiru gives her boyfriend a hangover cure from called Corspe Reviver. A bit on the nose, don't you think?

This sections dawdles a little bit from the whole Shinju Theory but it felt off if I didn't include it. Given Shidou's entire character revolves around killing in order to save his loved ones, I can almost imagine Mahiru's murder was to save her boyfriend as well. There's not much evidence but... it's certainly there, right?

05. Conclusion

Aha, this post kind of devolved from "heres my shinju theory" and moreso "wow, Mahiru has a lot of suffocation imagery" which is true. There's so much of it. I don't even think this is all of it!

Theres alot more I wanted to add but... I'm not good with writing long posts if you couldn't tell! If anyone would like to add onto this for me I'd be thrilled ❤️

#take a shot every time the word suffocate or clinging crops up #like qjqjajajakak its actually insane to me how many times it pops up like????#I'm not even too confident in this theory because of how much i dawdle around but it's weird right!!!!#milgram #mahiru shiina #milgram theory #<- do not follow me for that tag btw i am not a theorist i just like mahiru alot #꒰ 🕊 ꒱ ── cinnamon lead astray

78 notes · View notes

disciple-of-owen · 11 months

Text

Kataang Finale Kiss: Some Thoughts

Much has been written on the importance of Aang and Katara sharing a hug before the big finale kiss, and with good reason; the friendship between these two characters is both the most important facet of their relationship and one of the fundamental pillars of the narrative. What has been discussed far less is the finale kiss itself (or rather, the structure of said kiss), and how it is connected to the kiss on Ember Island.

We all know how the Ember Island fiasco went: a distressed Aang, upset by a play’s contents and fearful that his future might be cut short, kisses Katara after she explicitly states that she is confused about her feelings. This was a mistake, plain and simple; one which Aang immediately and unreservedly acknowledges. Some have said that the show’s writing stumbles regarding the aftermath of this encounter; that this ill-timed kiss is never adequately acknowledged or addressed in the finale. While a line or two more of dialogue might not have gone amiss, I would argue that this moment IS addressed (albeit indirectly), and in a way that cleverly subverts the ‘hero gets the girl’ trope.

While not always the case, ‘hero gets the girl’ stories often end on an uncomfortable power imbalance: the (usually male) protagonist, fresh from his glorious victory over the forces of evil, sweeps the (usually female) love interest off her feet, breaking down any of her lingering romantic reservations through the force of his newfound charisma.

What we see in the final moments of ATLA is the exact opposite. Despite being every inch the triumphant saviour, Aang surrenders himself completely to Katara. He lets her initiate all of the physical contact between them, and even when she goes in for a real, honest-to-goodness kiss, Aang declines to meet her halfway.

He declines even to meet her part of the way.

Aang does not kiss Katara until she 110% commits to it, giving her total control of the situation. This demonstrates that he not only deeply regrets what happened on Ember Island, but has chosen to improve himself because of it. Aang’s focus on Katara’s consent is further seen in the comics when, during their reunion in the South Pole, he asks if he can kiss her. When she replies, “Maybe not in front of my Dad?”, he immediately responds with a warm, “Okay”.

One of the wonderful things about ATLA is that even its purest characters are flawed. They make mistakes, just as we all do. But when we make a mistake, it isn’t enough to simply express regret; we have to grow and learn from our failures. This is exactly what Aang does in the finale kiss, expressing not only his love for Katara, but his respect for her as an individual and friend.

#kataang #aang #katara #atla

139 notes · View notes

lakeofsilverpike · 7 months

Text

It’s so odd to me how fandom discourse about the Aiel war often focuses on Laman as the cause of the war and discusses how cruel he was to his own people and discusses Daes Dae’mar. There’s all this discussion about Cairhienin society being awful that always comes with talk of the war. As if we should see Cairhien as to blame for the war.

But taking a step back, Laman cut down a tree of great cultural significance to the Aiel. This is of course bad. But an appropriate response to desecration of another culture’s quasi religious symbol, should never be to start a war. The Aiel murdered thousands of innocent civilians because of an action their king took. This reads like an incredibly straightforward situation. There is rarely a right and wrong party in war, but it’s hard to imagine a fictional war where there is a party as wrong as the Aiel. Invading a country and killing the civilians because you don’t like their leader is bad. The Aiel’s ongoing hatred of Cairhienin people even after the war is bad. Weird that it seems like a controversial take.

Similarly the Seanchan. Parts of fandom speak about them as the benevolent colonizers. Things are so great when they take over. They make the trains run on time. This is familiar colonial rhetoric, and the idea that modern fans sometimes seem to buy into it is a little scary to me. This society cannot be any more clearly evil. A slave holding society is not morally good. It can never be. The books do some very problematic things with the seanchan that I’m hopeful the show won’t repeat.

It is important to remember that the Seanchan continue to have a society structured around slavery and colonialism. And as much as there are many Aiel characters that are fan favorites, it’s important to remember that twenty years ago, the Aiel engaged in a genocidal war. Yes they went home when they killed Laman. But they were happy to kill every Cairhienin person to do that. They maintain a hatred of Cairhienin people to this day. We cannot think about Aiel society without thinking about them as having recently taken part in what is written as a genocidal war.

Part of being a good person in societies with the legacy of genocide or slavery is being able to acknowledge that these things are wrong and repudiate them fully. I think this is at the heart of why it is so troubling to see fans’ uncritical admiration for Aiel culture. Or fans enjoying Mat and Tuon as a couple. There are real world issues being drawn into the discussion. Many of us live in countries that benefited from colonialism, slavery, or genocide. To look at a fictional culture that started a war where civilians were slaughtered as if they were less than human, and see that fictional culture as admirable, is dangerously close to gazing on our real world countries, not so far out from genocide and slavery ourselves, and seeing them as admirable instead of deeply flawed.

#wot book spoilers #tw slavery #tw genocide #wheel of time #wot meta

58 notes · View notes

valittlecorner · 7 months

Text

WHAT HAPPENED IN PARAANI'S DESIRE???? I'm sooo frustrated rn😁😁. If you know me you know I spend 99% of my time rambling about Kanata. I've said it countless times, I love Kanata's character. He doesn't need to be flawless to be likeable, the show always acknowledges his mistakes and eventually he does learn. He's just very human. But paraani said NUH-UH. Desire is a key VD for Kanata. The first half was pretty well done in the anime, I'd argue it managed Iori's part way better by adding a dialogue saying "I thought making him steal them would make him realize" the foreshadowing is immaculate. My issue comes with everything afterwards😭. They managed to skip every single bit of important characterization for Kanata

The argument between Allen n Kanata was SO softened it hurts. The best part of Desire is how they're not afraid of showing Kanata being CLEARLY IN THE WRONG being stubborn as hell, showing off his flaws. He's a desperate man, and being desperate leads you to doing extreme stunts even if you know it's wrong. This VD made me hate Kanata at the time, that's how you know it was well executed, they didn't feel the need to sugarcoat their character to be likeable, they showed him being clearly wrong and later redeemed it in VDs like Family and Love. The discussion in paraani skipped most of Kanata's key characteristics. For starters, why is he SO friendly with someone he just met + had an intense argument with aka Allen?? The elbow thing feels so out of character for him I'm so serious, he'd never do that with someone he barely knows at this point, he's too prideful to do that with someone he just argued with even if he does respect Allen. The way Allen and Kanata somehow end up as buddies ALSO messes up with Kanata's character in the future. You know he's grown when he starts acknowledging Allen and being less harsh, kind of. By making them be in such good terms you INSTANTLY kill any chance of doing that. Kanata is angry, desperate and barely gave up the phantommetal after everyone screamed at him for like 6 minutes straight, he would not end up the way it did in paraani?????? Kanata struggles with trust issues, he wouldn't in a million years do the elbow thingy someone who he doesn't know + is annoyed by, are you insane!!!!

My other issue comes with Nayu. In the og, they made Nayu HEAVILY disagree with Kanata but still help him run away from Bae. Knowing this is Kanata's self conscious on the phone, it was pretty important to have it there. Kanata was trying to convince himself he was in the right and even had the illusion helping him out, but his real thoughts kept getting in the way, making Nayu's behaviour a bit confusing here. Like, why help if you disagree. That's an important detail to have before the big reveal, it helps you understand Kanata's psyche and how his feelings heavily influenced the illusion BUT his conscious always found a way to peek and try to take him out of his delusion to do the right thing. It's a nice detail they completely overlooked by just making Nayuta spawn in the middle of Kanata's argument with Allen

Conclusion this chapter wasn't 100% bad and I do appreciate the Allenkana moments, especially the last part witg Nayuta teasing him about admiring Allen (PROBS THE ONLY IN CHARACTER KANATA EVER MADE HERE😭😭) but besides that, ruining Kanata is inexcusable. That's one of your best characters and everyone loves the og version with flaws and everything, literally why would you sugarcoat it so much????? Crazy

#paradox live spoilers #I'm a little hater I know stfu #I'm too passionate about this to just let it slide #they always do amazing work with Kanata literally what happened #cozmez #paradox live #pararai #paradox live the animation #valittleopinions #kanata yatonokami

44 notes · View notes

elijahs-dumps · 2 months

Text

Cassandra and her villain arc; was it bad? Let's discuss... (Rapunzel's Tangled Adventure)

Just wanted to say before we dive in, I'm currently working on a piece about Gonzo from the Muppets and some Hazbin Hotel stuff too. So stay tuned;)

Cassandra was mainly portrayed as snarky, cold, and even a little rude. She's almost a perfect opposite to Rapunzel, which makes them interesting friends. And it's nice that Rapunzel has another girl she can rely on, since I personally believe female friendships are important in media. Within the TV series, Rapunzel's Tangled Adventure, Cassandra is often seen budding heads with Eugene or helping with Rapunzel's misadventures. And as the show goes on, we see Cassandra actively looking out for Rapunzel more and more.

Even though Cass states many times in the first two seasons that she loves and cares for Raps, their relationship is quite unstable through out the show even before she became a main antagonist. Let's take a look at their relationship pre-season two to get a better understanding:

For example, in The Challenge of the Brave (S1 E4) when Raps joins the challenge, Cass feels like Raps is being a bad friend by trying to win something that means so much to her. She's annoyed by Raps' ignorance, and jealous of the admiration Raps is receiving. Yet, Cass never even told Raps how much the contest means to her. So instead of communicating her feelings, Cass starts to act more snappy with Raps and actively tries to get Raps eliminated from the game. However, it's not unreasonable for Raps to be unaware of Cass' wishes, especially since she struggles with social cue. Regardless of the fact that Cass should've been more patient with Raps, I think this episode would've been nice foreshadowing to her change of heart in season three if they didn't try to paint Cass as the victim in this episode. I don't understand why only Raps apologized, when they both should've acknowledged their wrongs.

In Under Raps (S1 E9), Rapunzel tries to make Cass feel better about being single by making her things and showing her appreciation for Cass. When this happens, Cass sort of gets annoyed for no reason even though Rapunzel's intentions are sweet. She doesn't even really verbalize if Raps is pushing boundaries or not, she's just... frustrated?

This doesn't relate to Rapunzel directly, but in Great Expotations (S1 E8) Cass uses Varian to get what she wants. Even though she does make up for it, it's still a testament to her character. Cass often acts without thinking about how others might feel or think, and the way she treats Raps in season one is a prime example of that. She does take into account how naive and ignorant Raps can be, but she refuses to show any patience for it as Raps recovers from literally being isolated for eighteen years. And Cass is supposed to be Raps' best friend! It's the same with Varian. You see, Cass isn't really a bad person. She just wants her moment in the spotlight, her moment to prove herself. In these episodes, that's often what drives her to make these mistakes towards her friends. This would be a great character flaw, and an interesting writing concept. But this show keeps having Cass in this same situation again and again, and she never grows from it. It gets old very fast.

Not to mention, Cass also tried to force Raps not to tell Eugene how she got her hair back when it first happened. All because Cass "doesn't trust Eugene". I thought this was strange, because I don't really know what kind of friend asks someone to lie to their significant other.

In the flashback episode, Beginnings (S3 E6), we learn that Cass never wanted to be friends with Raps to begin with, and there was a lot of guilty undertones on Cass' part of the relationship at least in its early stages from what we can see. Raps clearly latched onto Cass way too fast, because she was still fresh out of the tower when they met. And Cass wasn't ready to be what Raps needed (which was therapy). Cass was Raps' first friend besides Pascal, and I don't understand why Cass would take on that role if she wasn't going to put in the effort to at least try and be compassionate and understanding with Raps.

Moving on to season two, Cass didn't really do anything of substance until The Great Tree episode (S2 E14) which is a little weird in hindsight. But I thought her insecurities about needing to prove herself and how she always feel second place to Raps were pretty justified. We saw a couple times through out the series that people preferred Raps over Cass, or gave Raps opportunities when Cass worked harder for them. Still, I don't feel like that's Raps' fault. Waiting in the Wings did a perfect job of illustrating Cass' feelings on this subject, and it even made me like her more as a character because it gave her so much more depth. Still, the song talks about how Cass is going to keep waiting until her moment in the sun arrives no matter what, which contradicts her villain arc quite a bit considering the fact she did not wait at all. Anyway, I think Cass trying to insinuate that Raps doesnt trust her judgement anymore in these episodes was BULLSHIT. Raps clearly loves and values Cass, and trusts her completely. All Raps did was mkae a call that Cass didn't agree with, I dont think this meant that Raps wasn't listening or wasn't trusting Cass. The two of them simply disagreed on it, which they do all the time.

Technically, the thing that pushes Cass off the edge is the fact that she finds out she's Mother Gothel's biological daughter. But there was one other incident that set this villain arc into motion before the episodes within the House of Yesterday's Tomorrows. Cassandra's hand wound from Rapunzel.

When Cass injuries her hand during the final fight within the Great Tree, she blames Raps for it even after they talk it out and apologize. I didn't understand this at all, because yes Cass warned Raps not to use the decay incantation. But it's not like they had any other choice! And Raps was not in control of herself or the tree when Cass got injured. Not only this, but Raps also told Cass to leave before anything even happened. Why is Cass upset with Raps for not listening to her when she wouldn't listen to Raps either?

The season three opening episode, Rapunzel's Return (S3 E1), shows us exactly what Cass saw in the House of Yesterday's Tomorrows. We learn that Cass is Gothel's real daughter, and this is a huge turning point in the series. Because in this episode, Cassandra's entire villain arc stopped being about her own struggles and insecurities and how she's felt second place to Rapunzel this whole time, it became about the fact that Gothel chose Raps over Cass. I felt like this was a lazy writing choice, to make it seem like Cass' feelings of being inferior to Raps are more justified. But honestly, I think her villain arc could've stood well on it own if they just planted to the smaller seeds of doubt earlier on, and didn't involve Gothel in it. Of all people. Gothel is a naturally selfish woman who would never do anything that doesn't serve some kind of purpose for her. I find it hard to belief she kept Cass around simply to do house work around her cottage instead of just dumping Cass at an orphanage of some kind.

I also feel the need to mention the fact that Cass was absent for almost 12 episodes in a row, during what is supposed her season as the antagonist and her moment to have the spotlight, probably has something to do with why her writing in season three came out so half-baked. Combining this with the fact that her change of heart was only really hinted at in maybe five out of the forty-five episodes, episodes in which the conflict involving Cass' character is always resolved by the end, makes her entire villain arc seem out of character at first glance.

This season went to great lengths to make Cass' actions and attitude as nasty as possible, especially by having her show no remorse or doubts after Be Very Afraid (S3 E9). This is on of the reasons her redemption arc fell flat.

In A Tale of Two Sisters (S3 E14), we see the last bit of Cass' doubt be outweighed by her need to blame someone for the way Gothel abandoned her. So, she blames Rapunzel. But Cass knows Gothel was sick and abusive towards Raps, and she also knows it's not Raps' fault she was kidnapped. After all their years of friendship, I didn't buy the concept that Cass would let her anger manifest in a way that would blame Raps for a traumatic event that happened to both of them.

While I'm well aware that Zhan Tiri has been manipulating Cass since the House of Yesterday's Tomorrows, it still didn't make Cass's villain arc anymore believable for me. It felt like the show's way of trying to excuse its own crappy writing.

Once a Handmaiden (S3 E16) is when Cass realizes Zhan Tiri has been manipulating her since the beginning, and begins to regret her choices. So Cass disguises herself as Rapunzel's current handmaiden to try and find a way to extend some kind of olive branch. This gives us a little more insight into the headspace Cass has been in these past few months, and it gives the audience more room to sympathize with her (especially in the play scene). Yet, when Zhan Tiri reveals Cass to everyone and the guards start attack her, Cass is quick to become incredibly angry, even though Raps was trying to call off the guards. Cass literally takes over the entire kingdom, almost killing hundreds of people after spending the whole day bonding with Raps like old times. While I have issues with the amber-firing machine Varian made, I feel like the switch up with Cass in this episode was absolutely insane.

Cassandra's redemption arc, if you can even call it that, completely fell apart because it was so rushed. It was similar to Varian's redemption arc in that sense, but even though Varian's redemption arc had flaws he was able to sort of get away with it. Varian's villain arc was shorter than Cass', his crimes weren't as bad as Cass'. and he served at least a year in jail anyway. Cass served no punishment for her actions and got to leave Corona scot-free. This also plays into the constant contradiction Cassandra goes through this season of soul-crushing remorse vs homicidal rage.

Considering Cass was one of our main three characters for the entire show, I just think she deserved better when it finally came time to give her some more depth and complexity. But what do you guys think? Do you think Cassandra's time as an antagonist was poorly executed? How do you think they could've fixed it? Feel free to let me know!

#tangled #cassandra tangled #rapunzel #tangled the series #tangled varian #tangled cassandra #eugene fitzherbert #analysis #moon cassandra #cassunzel #tts #rta #varian #rapunzels tangled adventure

25 notes · View notes

comradekatara · 10 months

Note

hey

do u mind sharing with us some of your headcanons about sokka&katara relationship? 🧡🪸

okay these aren’t “headcanons” so much as assorted thoughts on their relationship as siblings, how i view them and what they mean to me. this is hardly news to anyone who knows me, but they are my all time favorite avatar characters and their relationship is so fascinating and meaningful to me. which means that there will be some headcanons sprinkled in just because they do take up so much real estate in my mind that i may as well share some of the (many) thoughts i have on them. but also some analysis, interpretations, hot takes, subjective opinions, etc. and, to be clear, if you’ve been following me for a while, you’ll probably notice that i have gone over a lot of these points before, at some point or another. like i said, they’re my favorite characters, so i think/talk about them a lot lol

– first things first, i do feel a need to add the disclaimer that when approaching their sibling relationship, i do empathize with sokka more just because i am also the eldest sibling and that is genuinely a huge part of my identity, so that’s my perspective when approaching these characters. i also know what it’s like to be the only sister among brothers, but if anything my experiences with that have always made me feel like katara could have it so much worse in the brothers department. which isn’t to say that the only reason i empathize with sokka is because “he could be worse,” obviously he would not be one of my favorite characters of all time if his only redeeming quality was “he could be worse.” but i do think we need to take a second and appreciate that this sixteen year old boy is a statistical anomaly (and not just because he’s a “genius” or whatever). he belongs to the worst demographic ever invented, and yet manages to not only not be an absolute terror, but be a genuinely good person. katara could also be so much worse, by the way. fourteen year old girls are, on average, almost as much of a nightmare as sixteen year old boys! (i would know, i was one.) so yes, while they are both deeply flawed, and as much as they both think the other is so annoying and unreasonable and mean sometimes, they could both have it so much worse. angel siblings fr!!!

also, and i think this is really important to acknowledge, you can separate sokka from katara when discussing her character, but you cannot separate katara from sokka. so when talking about their relationship, as characters, specifically, sokka is more impacted by katara than katara is by sokka, both narratively and emotionally.

– okay. something that i think is so important to realize about both katara and sokka is that they both have these (different) stories that they use as coping mechanisms for the very tragic world they find themselves in, and neither of these narratives is actually fully accurate. they have differing worldviews, but neither one is entirely “right.” sokka’s narrative is extremely joyless. he is the “last man” of the southern water tribe and being a man, in his case, is about preparing himself for the day that he will inevitably die for katara like their mother did. that is his life’s goal; his primary purpose is to be a sacrifice, because that’s what Real Men do. so he spends every day training for the opportunity to eventually die in war, and even when sees more of the world, he still assumes his job is just be like, a bodyguard with no interiority of his own. what challenges that assumption is twofold: a) he has so much interiority; he soaks up new information like a sponge and synthesizes it into his worldview immediately, and suddenly it is a lot harder to be a human shield who thinks of nothing but tragedy and your own inevitable premature death, because you are also thinking about science and culture and art and sex all these things that make the world a richer, more beautiful place to live, and that inform you, as a human being, and you are suddenly a person and dying is no longer your sole priority??? but also b) he meets people who want to protect him. which is crazy to him specifically because he always thought that he is just fodder and therefore not deserving of being protected in his own right. and accepting that people will take risks to keep him safe and make him happy is basically antithetical to his very grim belief of who he is and what he is For.

and then katara’s worldview hinges upon her being the last waterbender of the southern tribe, the survivor of kya’s sacrifice, and a nascent hero. so she has a much more romantic view of the world, where survival is integral to her story (obviously she is also taking for granted that sokka is prepared to die for her at any given moment, but mostly because she rejects the premise that sokka is allowed to die dammit!!!) and she is right all the time because she is a hero full of righteous fury and driven by self-determination and belief in her own ability to create a kinder, juster world, which means she cannot be wrong. the thing about katara is that her philosophy is very good and awesome, but also extremely unrefined and naive, to the point where anything she doesn’t like is an Injustice (sort of like how in our culture the term “problematic” spans “doesn’t have a fully coherent position on whether or not being intersex inherently qualifies someone as being part of the LGBT community” to “being a convicted rapist”, but in her case it’s like “being a fire nation soldier makes you deserving of being frozen in place by my waterbending, but so is being kind of rude to aang”).

and it’s really important to understand that both katara and sokka have flawed narratives about the world and their place in it that they have internalized, and a lot of their points that are opposite (katara thinking that she is at the center of the universe whereas sokka seeing himself as an object rather than a subject, as the main example) are eventually synthesized into a healthy middle, where katara realizes that she is just one person (despite the massive person that has been placed on her due to genocide) and so is everyone else (even the Bad ones), and sokka also realizes that he is a person deserving of humanity, just like everyone else. not that i really foresee either of them fully shedding their defining narratives, bc they have both internalized them so deeply due to their formative traumas, but “the boiling rock” and “the southern raiders” are huge for them respectively in their journeys towards seeing themselves as people instead of symbols. and that is just really important to understand about them, because i think a lot of people think “this sibling’s worldview is right, and this sibling’s worldview is wrong,” but that’s not true! they’re both right to an extent, but also both deeply flawed. and challenging and expanding those worldviews is the basis for their arcs over the course of the show.

– i think my main katara&sokka “headcanon” (ie, interpretation of the text) that rly informs how i view their entire relationship is one that sort of reframes what sokka says about “seeing katara’s face” in “the runaway” with the context of “the southern raiders” to inform it. because i think a lot of people interpret that to mean that he sees/treats katara like she is his mom, but nothing about their relationship and the way they behave around each other indicates that this is the case. like i think it can be easy to take what sokka says there at face value at first, but if you apply what we know about katara as revealed in “the southern raiders” to what sokka says here, it makes a lot more sense as a whole… like you have to remember the context in which sokka is saying this. he is explaining to toph why telling katara not to “act like a mom” is hurtful to her. toph associates motherhood with femininity, submissiveness, conformity – all things that she rejects due to being forced into that mold her whole life (and obviously katara is the furthest thing from being submissive, she is literally a revolutionary, but in this moment, toph thinks that katara criticizing their scams is indicative of that, when really katara is just lashing out because she wasn’t included in the first place). but katara associates motherhood with sacrifice. katara has to carry the guilt of knowing that her waterbending is what got her mother killed, and she has to prove to herself and her mother and her tribe that kya’s sacrifice meant something by becoming the strongest waterbender in the world.

so sokka is first and foremost trying to bridge that gap, that miscommunication between toph and katara wherein they are leveling their deepest formative traumas at each other all over a fundamentally petty fight: katara wants to be included so she lashes out, the fact that she is telling toph what to do makes toph lash out, and it spirals from there. sokka is trying to tell toph that katara has a complicated relationship to motherhood, that her image of “mother” is not the same image toph holds in her mind. if he were saying that katara is a mom and that he sees her as his mom, their relationship would reflect that! but he literally treats her as a little sister. the entire show. the cactus juice incident is like the one instance of sokka needing katara to guide him, and it’s because he’s tripping balls. sokka relies on her, and yes, he relies on her care and compassion and help in many ways, but, and this is crucial, he also relies on her because she is his identity. i don’t think that’s something sokka can even truly recognize in himself, but it’s clear that on a subconscious level katara is his raison d’être, that taking care of his sister (as hakoda tells him, as kanna tells him) is his primary goal at all times. and that’s why he sees katara’s face. because his relationship to his mother is now defined by her sacrifice, the sacrifice he has inherited in her death. katara is everything to him; not because he sees her as his protector, but because he sees himself as her’s.

– ok this one may be kind of controversial……… but to be honest I don’t even really think that sokka and katara had an unfair division of domestic labor due to gender roles. which isn’t to say that those gender roles don’t exist (both in the show, as they are clearly demonstrated, or in real life, since i experienced them in my own family dynamic) or that or that sokka didn’t internalize them, obviously he did (katara also internalized gender roles, she just expresses those beliefs in less overt ways). but based on the little we know about kanna (who is the one making katara do laundry, not sokka, fwiw), i think it’s just far more likely that she kept making katara do domestic chores with her because she needed to keep her inside the house where she could see her. she’s a single grandma, she’s tired as fuck, and she knows that if given any sort of unstructured free time, her hyperactive granddaughter will use her waterbending to accidentally destroy what’s left of their village. which is more or less what happened eventually. and yeah it does suck that katara had to spend her valuable tween years washing her family’s disgusting sweaty socks instead of causing a ruckus, dating a new cute commie boy every week, and fostering intense rivalries with other girljocks, but it’s not like sokka was having a remotely better time so it’s hardly fair to blame him for that! imo her real “enemy” (ie, person looking out for her who made her do laundry) was gran gran but sokka was aligned w/ gran gran so in her mind he was also making her do laundry (the injustice!!!) …plus she did get to do all of those things eventually :)

sidenote: can we talk about how gran gran was so twisted for making katara wash sokka’s socks. like we established she’s making katara do that “for her own good” or w/e, but literally no teenage boy in the history of the world had wanted his little sister to wash his dirty socks for him. frankly, i bet sokka already washed his socks and then gran gran just made katara wash them again because she needed a way to keep her busy. katara’d be like “why do I have to stay indoors all day doing laundry why can’t SOKKA do his OWN laundry” and gran gran, who was just looking for the easiest way to keep an eye on her reckless, hyperactive granddaughter, would be like “okay then if you don’t want to do laundry you could always do your math homework instead...” “okay FINE i’ll do laundry”

– i say this from experience (my brother is younger but also like a foot taller and freakishly strong), sokka’s extraordinarily high pain tolerance (often played to comedic effect) stems from katara beating the shit out of him every single day of their childhood, and him just. not being allowed to retaliate. (we see this throughout the show; she’ll often smack him while he just stands there and barely reacts.) as the older sibling u are simply not allowed to hit back. they can punch u, scratch u (i still have scars), push u over, and u just have to take it. even if they’re only like a year younger! and sokka doesn’t even consider this unfair, because that’s just how it is when you’re an older sibling. (zuko should take notes!) but he also knows how to get under her skin the exact right amount. just shitty enough that it’ll piss her off, but not enough to actually hurt her feelings (saying shit like “leave it to a girl to screw things up” or calling every guy she likes her boyfriend). he never actually crosses the line, but he does know exactly how to annoy her. katara, on the other hand, crosses the line to the point that she doesn’t seem to realize that there is a line?? (“the stars sure are beautiful tonight. too bad you can’t see them toph”) bc katara approaches everything from a righteous rage where she genuinely believes that she is justified in everything she does and says. classic baby of the family behavior, especially compounded by the fact that she was gassed up her whole life for being the special chosen one who brought hope back to their tribe. (she and aang have that to bond over, being Unique and Special and basking in that attention, but also the inherent grief of knowing that what makes them special is also what makes them alone, and knowing that if their people hadn’t been wiped out, they wouldn’t get to be the Hero, but they wouldn’t have to be, either.)

– you probably wouldn’t know it from following me now, but as a kid i did not really care for sokka. like, don’t get me wrong, i liked him fine, but if you asked me to list my top 5 atla characters, he would not be on there. but now he and katara are tied for #1 in equal measure. and a large part of my own journey from liking sokka fine but not particularly caring about him as a child to him becoming my favorite character alongside katara as an adult was my progression from “oh he’s just katara’s brother” to “no he is actually so much more than that he’s brilliant and an invaluable member of their group” to “actually he is just katara’s brother.” but his role as katara’s brother is what makes him so awesome. like katara was always my favorite character and i think it’s very obvious as to why a young girl would latch onto this very heroic and empowering fantasy. and the older i got the more i appreciated her depth, her flaws, the ways in which she is messy and imperfect and human. and i came to appreciate sokka as an extension of katara, as a character who is entirely devoted to her, who sublimates himself to protect her. their bond is so special and beautiful to me because it is so fraught and tenuous and filled with grief, but also so authentic and adorable and genuine.

i also think that getting older just necessitates appreciating sokka more. you go from being the baby who wants adventure to being the babysitter who is so fucking exhausted. i simply was not tired enough as a kid to See sokka and empathize with him. katara was far flashier and more exciting and easier to root for and enjoy. and i still do root for and enjoy her, and not just because she was formative for me, but because i will never stop finding nuances in her character that fascinate me, but i think sokka, as this depressed kid who feels fundamentally worthless and is far more morally grey than katara, is a character who is kind of an afterthought the first time you watch the show, especially as a child, even if you like his jokes or whatever (frankly i’ve always felt like toph is the funniest atla character overall). i think i’m in the unique position of having given this show so much real estate in my mind that i do genuinely believe that sokka is the most interesting and nuanced character in atla, but most people, even fans of sokka’s character, are just like, what the hell are you talking about. but he is! katara is the prototypical hero and narrator of this fantasy adventure quest narrative, and sokka is extremely not. which is why they play off each other so well, and why picking an Ultimate Favorite between them is actually impossible.

– obviously i’ve stated before that i think katara should be chief, and i will defend that belief to the death, but i also think people interpret that as me saying that she is given a massive responsibility that she is forced to bear alone, and that’s like. definitely not. no. first of all i don’t see katara becoming chief for at least a few decades (just because aang has to be the avatar at 12 and zuko has to be the firelord at 16 doesn’t mean that there’s a power vacuum in the southern water tribe in immediate need of filling). once she becomes chief she already has a huge support network in place, including her friends and family, but also spanning beyond them, across her entire community. katara loves bonding with people and making new friends, and i definitely think she has people to help her as chief, it’s not a role she would have to take on alone. and of course, sokka would be there. i think sokka would sub in and be chief when katara needed a break (so if anyone’s like “well in lok they say that sokka was chief” this is my explanation for that lol) and they would basically lead the southern water tribe together. but also sokka would not want to stay in one place all the time, whereas i think by the time katara is like in her 30s she pretty much lives there permanently, because all her students and patients and family and friends are there (zuko visits frequently). she’d still travel with aang and go on little adventures, but her whole life she has wanted to liberate her people and rebuild her culture and contribute to her community in a significant way, and so i can’t really see her living anywhere or doing anything else.

– finally: i like to think that after kya’s death, sokka was the one to braid katara’s hair every day, and it was this little ritual for them. (in the unaired pilot, katara teases sokka for braiding her doll’s hair when he was six, and i totally think that’s canon even if it didn’t make it into the show.) but then at some point or another, after all the men left the tribe, katara decided that she could braid her own hair and she stopped asking sokka to do it for her. and then a little while after that katara was in a bad mood because she was reminded of her mom or her dad or any of the other problems in her life, so she started yelling at sokka that he doesn’t even braid her hair anymore because he’s too busy trying to be their father to be her brother, and sokka just stood there and hoped that once she took her frustrations out on him she’d feel better. and then years later katara saw sokka braiding toph’s hair and she freaked out both because she’s offended that toph would ask sokka over her but also that sokka would braid toph’s hair but not her’s. and sokka’s just like “well… she asked me to…” and katara doesn’t want to ask sokka to braid her hair since she has been doing it by herself for years now, but she also does miss having her hair braided. one day sokka walks in on zuko braiding katara’s hair for her and he’s just like “ok well now this is unacceptable” but katara’s just like “you started it when you braided toph’s hair” and so sokka has to let zuko braid his sister’s hair as if sokka’s entire life does not revolve around being katara’s big brother. yeah it’s fine. he’s fine with it.

– as for all my other katara & sokka posts, featuring a whole assortment of analyses and headcanons, you can peruse this very full tag!

#sending this ask you may as well have unwittingly summoned a demon #only.... 3.6k words and 9 pages (on google docs) later......#and i still have so much more to say tbh #goats !!!#khrystyav #asks #katara #sokka #katara&sokka #kanna&katara #don't know how to tag this #analysis #but only partially #most of it is just random thoughts #about the most insane codependent siblings of all time

74 notes · View notes