That is certainly - a statement.

What about Jim, who both metaphorically and literally discovers a path for themself beyond what they were raised to be? What about Pete, who learns to overcome his toxic masculinity, his posturing and self-importance? What about Ed, whose entire story is about deconstructing the performance that is expected of him?

What about, oh, idk, our main fucking character Stede Bonnet, whose arc starts with him literally breaking out from the hetero marriage he was forced into despite never fitting in? Who tries (and initially fails) to build a community where he can be himself? Whose entire story is about discovering his own queerness! He starts out not even able to put a finger on WHY his marriage made him feel so suffocated, and then journeys through s1 until he reaches the emotional climax - "His name is Ed"!

Contrast that with Izzy, who has to be dragged into a supportive community kicking and screaming. Who rejects care and compassion, even at his worst, who has to be forced to accept help. He receives the leg and calls the crew a homophobic slur for it, ffs. Only after that, only when people refuse to let him push them away, is he able to poke his nose into something approaching positive human connections. And that's a powerful narrative, sure, in it's own way; but it's hardly the Ultimate Queer Experience, and it's definitely not the "only queer arc".

And Izzy never lets go of the old ways. He never abandons the Blackbeard-era pirate lifestyle for something more positive, not fully. And that's okay, because ultimately, his arc isn't even about himself.

It's about Ed.

Ed keeps repeating toxic relationship patterns, and Izzy is a part of that. He's linked (on purpose, and I wish it had been done more explicitly) to Ed's father; because Izzy represents the poison that was instilled in Ed from a young age, and that has become so entrenched in his system that he can't imagine a life without it. He keeps Izzy around despite being hurt by him because Izzy is predictable, and in that, is safe, even though he hurts Ed; at least it's a hurt Ed is familiar with and can rely on.

When Izzy slowly changes it's to show that Ed is growing beyond the little voice in his head telling him to reject softness, that he can never be loved, that We're just not these kinds of people. If Izzy can evolve from someone spitting boyfriend at Ed like it's a slur to someone congratulating him on getting laid by that same person, Ed can overcome his inner demons telling him the same thing.

That's the point of Izzy's arc. And this is why he has to die, because Ed can never be truly free as long as Izzy is around. So Izzy goes, quietly, peacefully, and releases Ed of the poison; apologizes to him, tells him I was so wrong, and I am so sorry, because that's what Ed needs to hear to move forward.

And that's such a kind, positive way to end the story of Izzy Hands.

Musings on OFMD Season 2

I’m feeling a bit sad today for the OFMD writers. After rewatching S1 & 2 a couple times, it’s become blatantly clear to me that Izzy’s arc this season was a very obvious love letter to both Izzy fans & the great Con O’Neil. Izzy was very clearly written to be an obstacle to Ed’s healing & personal growth, a snare that Ed needed to be freed from, albeit with plenty of nuance hiding under the surface. It would have been much easier for them to kill Izzy off while he was still the toxic, abusive, sadomasochistic terror of S1E10.

Instead of taking the easy route, though, the writers flipped the trope on its head! They utilized every bit of the potential buried beneath Izzy’s super fucked up shell. This season Izzy got

• a fully fleshed out redemption complete with terrible consequences of his 1x10 actions

• a realization of the possibility of another way of thinking & existing that he’d spent all of S1 running from & trying to destroy,

• genuine love & support from his crew mates which he was actually able to accept,

• exploration of the long abandoned softer side of his nature,

• an apology from Ed w/o first offering one of his own,

• a powerful, devastatingly poignant speech that mentally demolished a new nemesis, and finally

• a beautiful, meaningful death in the arms of the man he’d dedicated so much of his life to, known that he was truly loved by him & completely accepting of the fact that Ed’s love was not in the form he’d always hoped for.

It was so much more than we could have hoped for, and was very obviously done in service to the MANY fans that had fallen in love with Izzy even after S1, as well as to give Con a storyline worthy of his immense talent. Considering the face that Izzy was never going to end up becoming the show’s third protagonist, it was more than we could have hoped for!

OFMD has two protagonists, Stede & Ed. All the secondary character narratives that haven’t directly involved Ed and/or Stede have been icing on the cake, but the cake has always been the Gentlebeard love story. I feel like some people forget this, expecting them to treat the secondary characters as if it were an ensemble show instead of a show with leads.

Izzy’s arc really was an amazing gift! The writers gave us this incredible journey for Izzy this season, and what did a disgraceful number of people do? They attacked David directly, insulted the entire show, the writers, & other characters, even wishing actual harm & misery to other characters or even to David himself!

While I know that comparatively speaking, the percentage of show fans who reacted this way was relatively small, it was still an astounding amount of hatred & vitriol thrown at the people who had obviously worked very hard to give Izzy fans something beautiful to hold on to after his inevitable death. Much of the discourse honestly shocked me, considering the fact that OFMD isn’t even an adaptation of another work.

When fans get angry at shows written as adaptations of books, it’s a bit more understandable for them to have extreme reactions. They’ve had certain ideas and headcanons about characters they’ve felt very strongly about for a long time. It can be really jarring & painful when expectations like that aren’t met, the characters or plots are taken in totally different directions, or even excluded entirely.

OFMD, however, is an original creation. This is David Jenkins’s story. These are David Jenkins’s characters. He knows his story, his plotlines, his characters far better than anyone else does because they came from HIS brain! So while we as fans can have our own interpretations & head canons, they are always going to be at risk of being proven totally wrong by the ACTUAL canon.

One of the worst aspects of fandoms, in my opinion, is the way people become so proprietary over the story & characters, insisting that their own interpretations & theories are the only correct ones, which is exactly what happened with Izzy. Fans’ individual & collective interpretations, theories, hopes, & other head canons became concrete & true in their minds. So much so that when the actual story didn’t meet those expectations, so many of them lashed out in some truly unpleasant, sometimes hateful ways.

My only hope is that the rest of the fandom’s love, appreciation, constructive criticism, heartbreak, pain, joy, & excitement has been enough to drown out the deluge of vitriolic comments directed at David & the other writers.

If you stuck with me through this unintentionally long diatribe, thank you! Maybe take a moment to give the writers some comments or replies on social media, showing your love! I know I will!

Since insomnia is kicking my arse of late, I naturally tilted into the thoughts about the nature of the 3-act structure and why S2 of OFMD may have felt off and incomplete to a lot of people.

I am fully in agreement that we lost a lot of valuable time with only 8 episodes and a lot of it did feel rushed, but for the amount of story and set-up and growth and development they needed to fit into 4 hours of television, they did astonishing things.

DJenks has said from the very start that this is a story that has been planned out to take 3 seasons. It's literally a 3-act play and we are currently right in the middle of the worst part of that timeline according to every traditional 3-act structure.

Act one/season one is self-explanatory. Like New Hope in the Star Wars Trilogy or Fellowship of the Ring, this is the set-up. We're introduced to our protagonists and antagonists, the relationships are given a foundation.

The beginning is Stede's journey to becoming a real boy. The inciting incident, the one that actually pushes his change beyond "playing pirates" is meeting Ed. The second thoughts come together in episode 8/9 after his confrontations with Jack and Chauncey and episode 10 is the climax.

Act 2/season 2 is never going to be as smooth and simple as act 1/s1. A big part of the A2/S2 job is set up for A3/S3 and this is what we're seeing and why a lot of story threads seem to have been left dangling.

Again, to call back to Empire Strikes Back and The Two Towers, the structure is much the same: the original batch of people are divided and scattered, the big enemy from A1/S1 is looming, new allies make themselves known. In SW, this meant the introduction of Lando and Yoda as allies plus the hint of the Emperor lurking in the background. In LotR, we have the Rohirrim, Gondor and the Ents as allies and the expansion of Sauron's forces in Helm's Deep, Osgiliath and the winged wraiths.

There's a clear trajectory following the A2/S2 structure:

obstacle 1 - the crews separated and struggling

obstacle 2 - the end of episode 2 and the repercussions of his actions

twist - just when things start to settle, the Ned Low situation happen and Stede kills for the first time

obstacle 3 - Ed's struggle with his identity leading to him leaving

disaster - Ricky's assault on the Republic

crisis - do-or-die battle because they have no other choice

climax - the last 15 minutes of ep. 8 live here.

As with SW and LotR, there's an ending, but weighted with the knowledge of a story that is meant to continue. Each of those act 2 films end with the heroes still aware of the looming threat, some of them heading out on new missions, and some of them resting and healing. There's brief pause, brief respite, a moment to take a breath.

We have all the characters in place now and the battle-lines have been drawn. Luke still needs to confront Vader (I see you, impending Ed and Hornigold confrontation), Frodo still needs to destroy the ring, Aragorn still needs to lead the army against the Black Gate, the second Death Star is still hanging in the sky.

I'm so excited to see what S3 brings because we have so many arcs ready to go: Zheng's vengeance trip, the inevitable enforced out-of-retirement arc for Ed and Stede, Hornigold, Ricky trying to maintain his tenuous control of the republic given how many of his people were killed when the crew escaped, the pirate rebellion gathering forces.

Also how often do we get shows/films where the supporting cast are given this much storyline? We have a named/speaking-role cast of upwards of 15 central characters. That is a staggering amount of people to work with, when most shows would only focus on the leads and a couple of their friends. Six is the average for most TV shows, while comedies can inch higher because ensembles, but most ensembles don't get as much as our crew did.

I know a lot of people aren't happy about Izzy's death. I know I would have liked to see him a lot more, because he's such a grumpy old bitch and I love him and him affectionately roasting Ed and Stede would have made my entire month. But I'm also aware that narratively, as a figurehead of the old ways of piracy and "we were Blackbeard", it was a symbolic death as well - a sign of the death of the old ways of piracy and of Blackbeard as was.

(Also, they Obi-Wanned him. I'm not over that. Gave him the "if you strike me down I will become more powerful" speech. I'm just... guys, your star wars nerdery is showing XD)

So while it was flawed in places and pacing, given the scale of the story they're telling, the number of pieces and characters they had in play, and the arcs they have been setting up while also still keeping the humour, I am giving a standing ovation for a remarkable piece of work.

Izzy and Media Literacy

I keep seeing variations of this:

The show established that a wound on the left side isn't fatal, so Izzy should have survived!

Is that what the show established? Not at all! What the show established is that a wound only matters as much as the plot demands. It's the same internal logic as the travel: people pop in and out of locations as the plot demands it.

For example, Stede was gut stabbed in 1x3 and 1x6, but only 1x3 had any lasting physical effects on screen in order to set up his meet cute and bonding with Ed. The one in 1x6 was just to show that Stede was a maniac who could beat Izzy unconventionally, and Stede was just fine afterwards. I mean, Ed was saying this "left side" stuff while his intestines had been perforated and had doomed himself to a death by sepsis, but the plot demanded he lived.

And, really? If we're talking wound logic the show established, Geraldo died of the same wound.

Where are the cries that it's so unfair that Izzy didn't die instantaneously? Well, Geraldo didn't have to give a dramatic monologue, so his death was instantaneous. Izzy had to stick around to help give Ed closure, so he didn't die right away.

Izzy was a dead man walking in the show. There was nowhere for his story to go. This post really summarizes the options. He was never going to supplant Ed and Stede as a protagonist, and he was never going to be allowed to survive threatening and coming close to murdering the romcom leads. He had no character traits besides being the antagonist of S1 and being narrative embodiment of the what was holding Ed into the pirate life he hated and was throwing him into a suicidal spiral.

Ed: You ever heard of retirement? Izzy: That's not much of an option in this line of work.

And here is the media literacy point: the writers weren't spraying bullets at the cast and it was only your favorite blorbo who got caught in the crossfire. They didn't accidentally shoot him and say "Ope, it's on the left side! Let's kill him anyway!" Izzy was going to die in 2x8 no matter what and he was going to give a final apology deathbed speech to Ed no matter what. Is there a way they would have done this without angering the canyon? Absolutely not. This "left side" argument is a distraction.

In media arguments, look at what they put on screen and what was highlighted. These characters aren't real people, and they are just vehicles for a story. When people say that Izzy isolated Ed, it's because that's what the show emphasized. When people say that Izzy was a terrible pirate and leader, it's because the show never demonstrated him acting competently (Dunning-Kruger: high confidence is not directly linked to high competence). When people say that Izzy tried to kill Stede, it's because that's what was on the show! When people say that Izzy threatened Ed unless he performed properly, it's because that's what was on the show! (If I see another person give a reductive "People don't like Izzy just because he was mean to Ed and Stede in S1", I swear...) Izzy may say things to the contrary (and people like Geraldo or Steak Knife may fall for the High Confidence), but we're in a medium of Show, Don't Tell, and Izzy is an Unreliable Narrator.

What the show didn't show was Izzy doing any "protecting." He wasn't protecting Ed in S1, and he wasn't protecting the crew in S2. If he had, it would be easily read on screen. Just in S2, we see him whining to Ed that the crew isn't doing their job, we hear Archie calling him a dick, we see Izzy shaming Ed in front of his crew with a lie that it was Ed's soft feelings that was the problem, and we see Izzy trying to pass off equal blame of the situation onto Stede. There is nothing onscreen that supports a "protection" reading. The crew has sympathy for him because they're kind to people, not because they think Izzy is a protector or really care about Izzy as a person specifically.

(Aside: this media reading is also why I don't abide "Izzy and Lucius should have bonded because they were both traumatized!" Well, Lucius was just helping Ed and got pushed overboard as a thank you, and Izzy, well, *waves at his reign of terror in S1* Izzy was a great and fun antagonist of S1, and I don't like this sanitization.)

When we look at Izzy's death, I'm sure the next argument step is "He should have sacrificed himself while protecting the crew!"... and... why? He had never had a protection arc. That wasn't his place in the story. He was a pirate, The Pirate, who antagonized and threatened the crew in S1, who put Ed on the spiral at the beginning of S2, the pirate who SOLD THEM ALL OUT to the English for personal gain. He was a Walking Plot Device for Ed, and his use was over. His luck had simply run out at the hands of the likely S3 villain, someone from the English navy, and this has allowed Ed to move onto the next stage of his life.

Ed, no. No, I deserve this. At some point in a man's life, he has to face the music, for the things he's done, and the people he's hurt.

Stede really foreshadowed Izzy, didn't he? (Appropriate this was on one of Izzy's many attempted murders of Stede.)

And if we're going there, what kind of physical wound would have been acceptable in this heroic sacrifice scenario?

So, that's what I got. If you're upset at this appearing in the #izzy hands tag without an "appropriate" marker, might I suggest getting your friends to start using a properly curated #canyon izzy or #fanon izzy tag instead of harassing people who want to talk about canon? Stop trying to scare people away from the fandom. I'd sure like to post about what I liked about Izzy in S1 without people thinking I'm in the canyon.

Im sorry about this i need to rant. I thought things were getting better but Izzy stan Twitter is at it again with their whining, truth bending and self-victimising.

'Do you like OMFD but wish the queer disabled hero didnt die?' IZZY IS NOT THE HERO OF THIS SHOW!!!!! He is at best a reformed antagonist. What an insult to the other disabled characters, and what about the actual heroes of the show??

'We've been betrayed by straight man writing queer stories'. First of all, way to dismiss the other writers. Also, its not his fault you project your personal traumas and mental health on a fictional character on a show with death in the title.

'GB's ending is comphet (?????) because 'we only need eachother' and theyre breaking away from their queer community' ED HAS BEEN WANTING TO LEAVE PIRACY SINCE LAST SEASON!!! also, its progress that Stede was able to resist basic flattery. And David made it clear that they still have work to do. This one truly broke my brain.

Im just sick of all this. Izzy stans have been coddled for the past week, being told its ok to grieve, but theyve crossed multiple lines. I do wish some things had been more explicit in this finale, only because David overestimated the maturity and media literacy of some people.

Sorry for this but i needed to talk to people here. Its beyond annoyance at this point. Im angry and sick of petty crybabies actively working to poison what we've built.

go off anon my inbox is open to your ranting let the rage flow through you [insert palpatine dot gif] but ngl the best thing you can do is just block liberally. block everyone. block left, right, center. do not be merciful. do not hold back. block until the ceiling comes down!!

because like, some of these fans have spent the last 18 months convincing themselves that their little guy was of equal importance to the main characters, the secret third protagonist, and he just got put in a box.

🎶izzy's in a box 🎶izzy's in a box🎶izzy's in a box🎶

izzy was never a hero of this show. he was a villain and then a side character on a rushed arc to redemption for the specific purpose of making him into the kind of man who could apologize to ed for being a shit. but that's hard to swallow for people who were convinced he was always right, so. also let's be honest: they don't give a shit about the other disabled people on this show. a bunch of them were trying to figure out a way for it to be wee john who was killed, and kristian is actually a queer disabled actor. they're just mad it was their little guy who they latched onto.

also yeah like four of the writers are nonbinary people of color, and there's definitely more queer writers on the team, but somehow this was totally the decision of a straight white guy. alright folks come on now to quote your idol pack it in.

gentlebeard's ending is them deciding to give their relationship a go in a more relaxed and sedate environment than the high stress locale of a pirate ship. their friends ARE going to come see them again. just because they don't all live together in the same frat house i mean ship doesn't mean they're suddenly forever alone. also there is nothing comphet about shacking up with your gay lover in a soon to be literal loveshack.

but like you can't expect these folks to care about ed or stede or gentlebeard or anything that doesn't center their white man of choice. the only thing you can do is block because anyone still throwing a fit a week later is simply not worth it.

no need to apologize anon. return to my inbox whenever.

I feel like you might agree with this;

It bothers me a bit when people refer to Izzy as a main character. It's usually said in statements from people angry about his death/ arc. He is important but he is not a main character! The main characters are Stede and Ed. Izzy is a secondary character and an antagonist.

If people watch the show because of Izzy, to them he may seem like their main character. Yet, he does not fit any literary definition of a main character. Of course the show will seem unsatisfying if you expect Izzy to be treated like a main character when he isn't.

'It's bad that Izzy's death partly happened to further Ed's character development'. Yes! That's the point! Secondary characters can exist to aide the development of main characters. This isn't a new thing or a flaw!

'A main character deserves a more in depth ending than what Izzy got'. Correct... if Izzy was a main character. The show has a big ensemble of other characters, if all the focus went to Izzy there'd be less time for the main story (Ed and Stede's romance) and other important characters.

'OFMD shouldn't have killed off a main character, it's a comedy show'. OFMD didn't kill of a main character. Ed and Stede finished the season thriving, so did all the other characters. One character dying does not cancel out all the joy at the end of S2. Also death in comedies is not new.

yeah i agree wholeheartedly

the people who are super angry about izzy dying have contorted the entire show to fit their view that izzy is the only protagonist

the funny thing is that in their version of the show they're very happy to let other characters die for the protagonist's development. shit like 'ofmd should've killed ed instead so izzy and stede could get together and realise how much better off they both are without him'. like okay 1. you're racist 2. so you agree? characters can die to further the development of other characters? interesting!

honestly i've said over and over that izzy has been treated with nothing but kindness. him being able to have an arc that let izzy have lots of screentime and let con o'neill show off (e.g. the singing) is one of the pillars that s2 itself is structured around. for better or for worse he underwent a transformational change and then got a death scene that was treated seriously and had a significant emotional impact

one character dying does not cancel out all the joy - unless that character is the only one you gave half a shit about in the entire show

ed and stede's joy literally doesn't count in the canyon's minds bc they don't want ed and stede to experience joy. when they say they want kindness and joy, they mean they want kindness and joy for izzy and suffering for ed

they were never going to be happy with how the show went in s2 bc it's entirely different from the show they think they've been watching. they never liked ofmd in the first place. they liked rotating fanon izzy in their brains all day every day and ignoring canon entirely

Finally getting around to watching the newest season of Ted Lasso and I’ve just finished 4-5-1, where we first meet Zava and I have thoughts.

I’ve seen spoilers for the whole season but everything I’ve seen about him indicated that he was a 2D character. A sort of, Jamie if Jamie had no soul, sort of character. But I never should have underestimated the Ted Lasso writers so he’s deeper than that.

Before anyone says anything, this is not me stanning Zava, I still think he’s an asshole and doesn’t deserve to be on the team, but I find his character fascinating.

He gives me the vibe that if this show was a different genre, he would be the main character. If this was a sports movie about a superstar no one saw coming, with unusual ways of getting into the zone, and how he copes with fame, Zava would be the main character and no one else would be even a little important.

But that isn’t the genre we’re in, so he comes off as out of place. Like he’s been plucked from a different story and dropped into this one and refuses to adapt. And that’s clearly on purpose, we’re supposed to feel like he doesn’t fit.

But he still has some of the characteristics of a sports movie protagonist. In that first meeting with the team where he stands in front of Ted over and over he says he’s about to address the most important person in the room. Everything we’ve seen of him up until this point implies that he’s about to talk about himself. But no, he says the kitman. Will, who even the team has ignored in the past. And think about the contrast between this proclamation and the way Nate was treated when he was the kitman. Objectively, this is a nice thing for Zava to do. There’s no asshole connotation, he certainly seems to mean it, and it makes Will happy.

When Zava first meets Ted he asks Ted to mold him. From what I’ve seen, I do think Zava is being sincere here. He’s just not a very socially aware person. His version of “molding” is different from everyone else’s. But he’s not saying it to be ironic, or sarcastic, he genuinely means it. This coupled with the forehead touch to Higgins, it’s all strikingly sincere, if not socially aware. He’s so full of himself that other people don’t really exist. His actions are performative, he is the only person who judges himself and he judges every action to be good because he’s that arrogant. It’s the kind of mindset that is sort of healthy and sort of not. If Zava was taking part in an individual sport, like long jump or diving, this mindset would be more healthy. It’s because he’s playing a team sport that it isn’t.

Even his acknowledgement to Keeley that his actions have made her job harder, while it feels more deliberately manipulative in wording, it’s still relatively sincere.

He’s doing the “right” things for the wrong context.

Kicking from the halfway line and not including any of his teammates in his success: right action for an individual sport, display of talent, not right for the context of a team sport.

Stealing the goal from Jamie: display of talent, extra assurance the goal is going in, an action focused on winning above all else, not right for the genre.

It’s so fascinating to me that he’s not necessarily malicious, he’s just wrong.

And the fact that it comes off that way is brilliant writing and acting. Even without Jamie and Roy beginning to look at all of this askance, I’d recognize that something was wrong from the way the character was written alone.

It’s a brilliant writing choice, to introduce a character that is simultaneously sincere, honest, dedicated, arrogant, ignorant, and unaware.

He reminds me a little bit of Izzy from OFMD (nobody kill me for this comparison) in that he’s just not genre savvy. He’s in the wrong genre, wrong context, so while he’s not technically wrong, he still is, within the story.

Anyway those are my thoughts, feel free to weigh in.

hello i love ofmd but im not in the fandom (i log onto tumblr every few weeks and see some fanart but that’s the extent of it!). my partner and i loved izzy and were sad when he died but thought it made sense. i am so curious: what is the discourse about??

oh boy. i am probably not the best person to explain this, but i will try to do so very, very briefly.

since season 1, Izzy has been a controversial character in the fandom and the central point of a massive amount of discourse. others (who have actually been involved, which i wasn't) have written much better posts about this.

in any case, this resulted in a bunch of Izzy fans sort of isolating themselves from the rest of the fandom, and somehow coming to believe that Izzy was the true protagonist of the show, plus some mind-boggling headcanons, ignoring what actually happens in the show and throwing away any reasonable character analysis (again, won't go into details here). very delusional. hearing these people talk about ofmd, it felt like they were watching a completely different show than everyone else.

so when Izzy died, these people did not take it well (<- understatement). some of them spewed vile shit at the showrunner, David Jenkins, and around social media, generally throwing a tantrum. the discourse took off when allegations started coming out of it being "bury your gays" and queerbaiting (and worse) to have Izzy die, which are bizarre claims in a show with a majority of queer characters (and when every other marginalizing attribute Izzy had was shared by at least one other character, who didn't die). i keep my dash pretty curated but have seen some truly rancid takes. i suspect that it's just a small number of people being extremely loud, and algorithms promoting controversy, but it set a negative tone right after the finale. my impression is that it's largely died down by now, and there are still far more people loving the show.

just like for you and your partner, it is possible and extremely valid to be sad that a favorite character died (and yes, his death does make sense for the narrative!). but it can never justify the amount of vitriol and hate that has been thrown at real people. i'd say the discourse about Izzy's death is not due to anything the show itself did, but because it didn't magically become the made-up version that a group of people had convinced each other it was through more than a year of staying in an echo chamber.

anyway i hope this answered your question somewhat and that you and your partner continue to enjoy ofmd!!

Things are rough for Edward Teach, a.k.a. Blackbeard. Everything had been going so well after he met Stede Bonnet, a fancy and extremely handsome gentleman pirate, who everyone assumed would be Ed’s narrative foil. However, to everyone’s surprise, Edward is actually the protagonist in an anachronistic 18th century swashbuckling romantic comedy, so Stede and Edward fall in love!

Ed goes on a journey of personal growth, becoming the most open and emotionally available that he’s ever been. Unfortunately, Izzy Hands, Blackbeard’s first mate and not-so-good friend, decides to get involved. As it turns out, Izzy is not only an antagonist but is also the physical manifestation of toxic masculinity and homophobia as it relates to colonialist imperialism!

As Ed navigates his first heartbreak, he finds caring and encouragement from his new crew, who allow him to work through his emotions in a healthy way. But behind Izzy is the power of hundreds of years of repression of indigenous ways of being, so with one push, Edward is back to where he started. Except now, he has no hope that life could ever provide him joy.

At least Edward, even at rock bottom, would never let the physical manifestation of toxic masculinity pound him in the butt, no matter how handsome the actor who plays him is.

This tale is 0 words because it's literally just the show.

i feel like ppl (izzy fans especially) rlly get hung up on the toe scene and seeing it like "what if this happened in real life??" or even just "what if this happened in a realistic show that placed moral judgement on characters for enacting physical violence??" and like YEAH in real life i think having your toe cut off and fed to you would be Pretty Fucking Traumatizing and you'd probably be the victim of the situation, not the guy feeding you your own toe. and in MOST shows, if someone's feeding ppl their own toes, that's probably a bad guy

but one of my favorite things abt ofmd is how it DOESNT make moral statements about physical violence. like, ever. this show never takes a stance on when it's okay to kill people, or how much violence you can do while still being a good person. because all the important characters are fucking pirates! if this show tried to take a realistic approach to the morality of physical violence it would get really hypocritical really, really fast!

what matters in ofmd isn't whether the characters are physically violent or not, it's how the characters feel about being the ones to enact violence.

buttons and roach both enjoy violence in a slapstick goofy way that's meant as comedic relief. jim clearly has no regrets about murdering the man who killed their family, but they're not that enthusiastic about going on a whole revenge killing spree and hunting down six (or five, now) other guys. stede at the beginning is somewhat afraid of violence, and is insecure about how afraid he is, but i do think his feelings about violence are changing and will continue to change in the next season(s).

izzy considers violence a requirement to be a real pirate (aka a Real Man) and is loyal to ed so long as he thinks ed is willing to use violence to maintain power and control

and ed. ed actually doesn't like physically hurting people! he's deeply traumatized by murdering his own father, so much so that he's made up weird rules about when someone's death is his fault as a way to distance himself from the violence that is necessitated by his profession! when those rules are called into question, and his responsibility in people's death scrutinized, he gets uncomfortable! all ed wants is to leave behind his violent lifestyle and go enjoy a hedonistic lifestyle for the rest of his life!!

but it's not that ofmd doesn't have a moral compass. in the fictional world of ofmd, "morality" (aka When Characters Are Rewarded/Punished By The Narrative) has two axes: colonialism and emotional vulnerability

the first one is pretty straight forward and has been talked abt a lot already so quick summary: in ofmd, when characters are explicitly and maliciously racist (british navy in e1, rich french people in e5) or side with european colonizers (izzy in e9), they face physical harm. british soldiers in e1 get beat up, the french ppl in e5 get their ship burnt down, and izzy nearly gets thrown overboard in e9, and in e10... yknow. toes.

as for Emotional Vulnerability, that's the whole fucking core of the show. people being their authentic selves, openly expressing their emotions and clearly stating their emotional needs, that's the end goal for every character who's gonna get a happy ending. characters denying parts of themselves, suppressing their desires and contorting themselves to fit into a certain box they feel obligated to get into��that's what our protagonists are trying to unlearn.

in e10, izzy is trying to force ed back into the blackbeard box. he demands ed return to the role that makes him unhappy, a role that requires physical violence to maintain. and ed goes, and we know, we are told, like, multiple fucking times before and after that this is not what ed wants to be doing. ed has stated, over and over again, that he's tired of being blackbeard, that he wants to pack it all in, that he wants to do the things that make ed happy. we learn in e6 that he's actually been traumatized by his OWN PHYSICAL VIOLENCE!!! and he even talks about feeding ppl their own toes as a fucking example of shit he Does Not Want To Do!!!! and the last fucking shot of him we have is him literally sobbing his eyes out!!!!!!!

yes, in real fucking life, and in almost any other story, izzy would be the victim of the toe scene

in the fictional world of ofmd, in the narrative of a slapstick pirate romcom that we're being told, ED IS THE PRIMARY VICTIM IN THE TOE SCENE. ED IS THE ONE WHO IS SUFFERS MORE IN THAT SCENE

did I miss anything?

I'm putting together a list of fandom rewriting izzy's motivations to fit the idea that izzy is the protagonist of the show and/or for their ships. these are all interpretations I've seen on this site.

this is inspired by a post I saw saying that ed will abuse stede one day since now izzy isn't there to protect stede from ed.

I think that ofmd's story and themes are incredibly, blindingly obvious, so seeing other people's interpretations is... interesting...

izzy tried to kill stede in the dual in 1x05 because he was worried that ed would be unable to carry out his duties as captain, not because he was jealous and hated stede.

OR izzy tried to kill stede in 1x05 because ed was cheating on izzy with stede, or about to cheat on izzy with stede, and izzy was trying to save their relationship.

izzy sold ed and stede out to the English in 1x07-8 because stede was endangering the crew by not being a serious person, not because izzy was jealous and thought that if stede was gone ed would go back to his version of normal (aka miserable).

OR same as number 2, izzy's motivation in selling ed and stede out was to save his and ed's relationship.

izzy told ed to stop f*gging it up in 1x10 because he was worried that if the crew saw ed as soft they'd mutiny against him, not because he was grossed out by ed.

OR izzy told ed to stop f*gging it up in 1x10 because ed was too sad to be captain anymore and their lives are super dangerous so ed being sad was endangering all of their lives, not because he was grossed out by ed.

OR izzy told ed to stop f*gging it up in 1x10 because he knew this would snap ed out of it because ed has done this in the past and izzy and only izzy understands how to get him back on track, not because he was grossed out by ed.

izzy was upset in 1x10 when ed cut off his toe and was super traumatised, even though he practically came in his pants when he said blackbeard is himself again.

ed cut off izzy's toe in 1x10 because he's a monster and not because his first mate threatened to kill him (and that the toes thing was previously referenced in 1x07 and seems to be a common pirate punishment?).

ed shot izzy in 2x01 for mentioning stede's name and not because izzy was clearly about to be super shitty about ed's feelings again.

OR ed shot izzy in 2x01 for telling ed he loved him because that's what izzy said in 2x08 but like... come on, izzy... that's not what happened, we all have eyes and ears, you nut.

izzy protected the crew in 2x01 and was taking punishment on their behalf, not that he told ed directly that the crew was refusing orders.

izzy took the blame for ed tearing up the ship in 2x03 because he wanted to protect stede from ed's violent behaviour, not because he thinks stede is too soft and weak to handle ed's breakdown and thinks he's the only person who understands ed and stede will never get it.

izzy has been protecting everyone from ed because ed has always been a violent manic. s1 ed was OOC for ed and eps 2x01-2x02 are the real ed and izzy and only izzy knows that, not that 2x01-2x02 was ed hitting rock bottom and behaving like an insane person even for ed.

one thing I've never seen is an izzy is the protagonist fan interpretation of why izzy was a such shitty captain that the crew tried to drown him in 1x09.

There were two great posts about Izzy yesterday, and I would like to expand on and add my 2 ct to the things said in them a little. One, by @celluloidbroomcloset (with additions by several others), about how Izzy immediately falls back into old patterns of manipulative behaviour after his supposed redemption in 02x07, only this time with Stede as the focus of said behaviours instead of Ed. The other, by @batsarebetterthanpeople, about how Izzy's behaviour in 02x06 and onward is more akin to the development a homophobe coming around to a queer loved one, than an arc of queer self-discovery.

Izzy's story isn't about himself. I think this is the first, fundamental mistake people make when engaging with it. He's not a protagonist; he doesn't exist in the story for his own sake. So when ofmd asks "How to reform a toxic person? What does it look like and is it even possible?", the starting point isn't one of empathy with Izzy.

It's one of empathy with Ed. ofmd is asking these questions not because it wants to understand Izzy better. What it wants to explore is the possibility of Ed having the relationship with Izzy Ed wants. Whether Izzy can be brought around to understanding Ed's wants and needs, whether he can understand the hurt he caused him.

This is a fundamentally different approach to how these stories are usually told. Usually, we start out with the unspoken assumption that the toxic person is well-intentioned, good at heart, and whatever pain they caused our protagonist is more akin to a misunderstanding than deliberate harm. Yes, they may have have caused hurt, but if you just see things from their perspective, you'll understand that they only had your best interest in mind, and that will enable you to forgive them.

Obviously this can't not veer off into victim blaming. "The abuser had a good reason for what they did, and therefore, it's your own fault. Or at the very least not theirs."

ofmd fundamentally rejects this. It is very careful to never let the bullies and abusers have a valid point. Abusers are abusive because they get something out of it. To truly reform an abuser, they would have to be willing to build a life for themselves that is a lot less comfortable. Where they have to consider other's feelings, communicate and compromise, meet other people on equal footing, instead of putting themselves in a position of authority. It means letting go of patterns of behaviour that they have so far been quite successful with*.

And Izzy - tries. He is interesting because part of him clearly wants to leave the toxicity behind. He gets to see what positive relationships, human connection, being part of a community look like; he's offered an outstretched hand, and, after biting it a few times, tentatively starts to take it.

But he can't quite get there. The temptation to fall back into what he knows is too strong. celluloidbroomcloset's post linked above talks mainly about 02x07, so I'm not gonna repeat all that, but I'm going to add two little scenes from 02x06 that further cement this. In the beginning of the episode, Izzy finds Ed as he's standing on deck, watching the sea, and the conversation that plays out is a clear mirror to, almost repeat of the Frankfurter clouds scene from 01x04. Ed tries to share an observation with Izzy in an attempt to reach out to him ("Something's wrong. Feels like a storm's coming but I can't see it."), which Izzy, of course, immediately dismisses ("Or maybe you're just a mopey twat and there is no fucking storm").

The second scene is, when Izzy is the only one discouraging Ed from following Stede to his cabin after he kills Ned Lowe. Discouraging support, discouraging connection and emotional honesty; Izzy will continue to try to isolate Stede.

Now, I do not think this, or the things happening in 02x07, are put in there deliberately to show that Izzy has ulterior motives. Rather, they are an illustration of how deep these maladaptive patterns of behaviour go. Izzy isn't able to fully admit to himself the extend of the harm he caused and this is what prevents him from truly changing his behaviour - even when he has just experienced the benefits of a loving, supportive community!

All of this is the explanation to the answer the show gives to our starting question: Is it possible for Ed to have the relationship with Izzy that Ed wants? And the answer is: No. Just because growth is possible, doesn't mean it is enough. Doesn't mean anyone's entitled to forgiveness. Sometimes, the only compassionate thing to do, is to take yourself permanently out of the other person's life.

But Izzy did learn, and he did grow. It's just that the purpose of said growth wasn't to heal him; it was to enable him to understand the hurt he caused to Ed. That doesn't have to mean people like Izzy can never be reformed, it just means that this isn't a story about the reformation of a toxic person. It's the story of leaving this toxicity behind.

And this is why Izzy's heartfelt apology followed by his immediate death is a positive ending. It represents the conviction that no relationship is so broken it can't be mended, but also the assurance that no relationship is so important it can't be ended.

Ed gets to hear the things he needs to hear most - I am sorry, I was wrong, you didn't deserve this - and then Izzy disappears from his life, and with him, all the toxicity he represents.

They can part on good terms, but part they must. So Ed can go into the rest of his life, unburdened.

*read Lundy Bancroft's "Why does he do that", seriously. The whole thing is on archive.org.

10 Characters 10 Fandoms 10 5 Tags

Tagged by @iliiuan

Rules: choose 10 favorite characters from 10 different fandoms -- no double dipping! Then tag friends or mutuals to complete the game as well.

(Oh god oh god picking favorites what did I do to deserve this???)

Top 10

Rand al'Thor of Wheel of Time - I know that like, virtually every major character in the series has a bigger following than this boy, but dammit people he's just a regular dude on an epic quest that takes and takes and takes until there's nothing left but it's not done taking yet. I love every POV section he gets and every bit of suffering he has to go through.

Uncle Iroh of Avatar: The Last Airbender - Normally it's your Sokkas or your Zukos or your Tophs who would grab me but in a cast of shining stars Uncle Iroh is a particularly radiant entry. I would die for this man. He makes me feel I'm not drinking enough tea.

Koshirou "Izzy" Izumi of Digimon Adventure - I think part of the reason Digimon stuck with me all this time is the belief the first series had (and really the shows as a whole, but especially the first one) that none of the kids were bad or flawed for being who they were, only for how they might be hurting the others. Izzy was more comfortable with computers than people but his skill set kept the kids alive on plenty of occasions and he was never any less part of the gang for being a nerd except the times he hyperfixated while the others were in need.

Karkat Vantas of Homestuck - Homestuck was... Yeah. That sure was a thing, huh? But Karkat's constant shouting and cross-temporal feud with his past and future selves was endearing, as was his obvious hate-crush on the protagonist that was resolved in the most embarrassing way possible. And frankly, his continued disbelief at the late-comic antics more than made up for how shitty the late parts of the comic were.

Mercymorn of The Locked Tomb - Virtually every character in these books is iconic, but Mercymorn, the Saint of Joy is the sort of character who would have hundreds of gif sets of her if only she existed in a visual medium. Immortality and waging an impossible war give her nothing but contempt for our heroes, our villains, and frankly anyone else she's in the room with.

Jak of Jak & Daxter - I think I just have a thing for dudes who get tortured beyond all reason and struggle between their innate heroism and the corruption that's been burned into them by outside forces. Also he gets some cool guns, you know? Can't argue with cool guns.

Garak of Star Trek: Deep Space Nine - An exiled spy doomed to spend his days in a port/fortress owned by one set of enemies and administrated by another? A wide array of possible backstories, each one equally plausible except for how they all contradict each other? A slow onset of madness from the grief and isolation kept at bay only through chemical abuse and a homoerotic relationship with the galaxy's smartest idiot? And he's not even a main character!

Sheila "Dr. Girlfriend" / "Mrs. the Monarch" Fitzcarraldo of The Venture Brothers - Sheila starts out a complete joke (but then, who isn't a complete joke in her series) but grows into one of the most competent and compelling members of the cast. I'm still not quite sure what she sees in the Monarch but I enjoy how she's both fully supportive of his goals while still set very much on her own thing with the Guild of Calamitous Intent as well. I hope the show comes back so we can see what she gets up to next, or at least see her in that pillbox hat one more time.

Max of Sam & Max - Hyperkinetic lagomorphs are always a plus, and I enjoy the way he's pure id in a franchise where superegos are already in short supply. I'm gonna hafta replay the games one of these days.

Susan Ivanova of Babylon 5 - Learn the Babylon 5 mantra: Ivanova is always right. I will listen to Ivanova. I will not ignore Ivanova's recommendations. Ivanova is God. I have nothing else to say on this particular front.

@checkoutmybookshelf

@notmuchtoconceal

@butterflydm

@mashithamel

@bashircore

So, if you don't mind, I was thinking about that asshole who was rude on your Thessaly post by insisting that Morpheus is meant to be a bad person. I'm curious if you could expand on why you think he's not. I keep going back and forth on my own rereads, especially since the Thessaly relationship and The Kindly Ones writing seem to try and push in a "he IS a bad person" direction. I can't tell if my arguments that "he's just flawed and mentally ill" are fangirl goggles or legit interpretation.

Hey! I don't mind. So when I first got that comment, initially I thought the response was genuine, because it's been a while since anyone has responded to one of my posts in a bad faith way. I frantically tried to wrap my brain around the idea that I had missed something somewhere and that I was supposed to view Morpheus as a "bad person" because even after The Kindly Ones that has never been my interpretation. I then realised the response was just a bad faith troll from an asshole and felt relief that I wasn't wrong.

But I suppose it's all up to interpretation.

The issue is really with what you consider makes a person inherently good or inherently bad. It reminds me of that line in Good Omens:

“It may help to understand human affairs to be clear that most of the great triumphs and tragedies of history are caused, not by people being fundamentally good or fundamentally bad, but by people being fundamentally people.”

Because I genuinely think this line has inspired a LOT of Neil Gaiman's characters, whether human or not.

I also get a bit wary nowadays when certain sections of fandoms start labelling characters, especially protagonists as "bad" because that causes a slipperly slope into accusations of "if you like this character YOU PERSONALLY are a BAD PERSON" (Example: OFMD fandom and the forever bizarre reaction to the character of Izzy Hands).

Dream is not bad. He is not good either. He is entirely neutral. He may occassionally do things that may be considered bad, depending on your perspective, but he also does a lot of good things as well. How do we weigh him on a scale of judgement? Are we to act as his judge and jury for every decision he makes in the comics? I suppose we could do, if we wished to, such is the fun of analysis, but I think the end result would again depend on the perspective and morals of the individual reader.

But I will at least give my own interpretation. I'm putting on my Anubis hat and weighing Dream's heart against my trusty feather. Let's see how he does. Under a cut as its long.

I personally think that for a character to be labelled as "bad" their actions and motivations must cause harm, whether to individuals or larger groups, without them showing any care or concern for those they hurt, in their pursuit to achieve their goals.

For example, Lucifer in The Sandman is still a "bad" character even though there is a LOT of "Sympathy for the Devil" type of perspective in The Sandman. Ultimately Lucifer is still selfishly motivated. He doesn't care about the souls or creatures that reside in Hell, and he certainly doesn't care about humanity. When he kicks everyone out of Hell in Season of Mists it causes havoc on Earth, and leads to the death of at least one child that we know of. It is implied that he does far more damage than is explicitly shown.

Thessaly, as previously mentioned, is definitely a bad character. She is entirely motivated by her own selfishness. She doesn't give a shit who she hurts, or the damage she causes in her persuit for revenge in Game of You. She is cruel and malicious and yes, also a TERF. She does not show any empathy or consideration for any character at any point, and honestly, even her little speech in The Wake comes across as crocodile tears.

Desire is a more complex character but still falls on the "bad" side of the scale because Desire also shows very little regard for others when playing their games or implementing their schemes. Desire is going to do whatever they want regardless of who might get hurt because like Thessaly, Desire doesn't give a fuck about your feelings. Desire is cruel. This is stated textually. Desire's motivations are also usually selfish. The only time I found Desire remotely redeemable was in Overture. Desire saved the universe. Though it is made clear that the only reason they saved the universe was because they wanted to keep living in it. It's worth noting that even though Desire is very much "bad" I absolutely adore them and consider them one of my favourite Sandman characters.

Now to Dream. Unlike the above mentioned characters, Dream's motivations are rarely selfish. Even in The Kindly Ones, I believe even if you interpret the whole thing as Dream's own elaborate suicide plan (which is only one limited interpretation) I don't believe he ever meant for as many people to get hurt as they did, it's just that he found himself in an impossible situation where things escalated to a point of no return. Also, since most casualties were Dream's creations, arguably he probably assumed that either he, or his successor, would simply recreate them once the situation was back under control.

Dream is a lawful neutral character. He has his rules and he must abide by them because "I contain the entire collective unconscious, without my rules it would consume me. Humanity would be consumed." (I know this is Netflix!Dream talking but I'm still gonna use it cos its such a good line).

The big difference between Dream and the above characters, is simple. Dream cares. He cares about everyone. He cares about literally everyone - the entire collective unconscious of the universe and he is so bursting to the brim with care and love for them that he is buckling under the weight of all that care. It is what is destroying him and it is WHY he is so depressed and so susceptable to making bad decisions on a small scale.

Every motivation of Dream's is for the greater good. When he sees what John Dee did with his ruby, he is almost crippled by the guilt of it. He blames himself for giving the ruby so much power that it could corrupt a mortal that much. He is easily swayed by Constantine to give Rachel a peaceful death, even though at first he doesn't think about it, it's not like he laughs it off and walks away - like any of the above mentioned characters would do. He listens to Constantine and agrees to show that compassion.

When he realises he once again has to kill a Vortex - something that is part of his duty as Dream of the Endless, something that is very much carved in stone as one of his rules, he still hesitates, even though he knew what happened last time and all the pain he suffered because of it. A fundamentally bad character who does not care would not have hesitated in killing Rose Walker.

In Brief Lives, whilst his initial motivations were selfish, he realised that his trip with Delirium to find Destruction was causing harm to others. When he realised that people were dying because of their quest, he put an end to it. He hurt Delirium in doing so, unintentionally, but his reasons for stopping weren't because he was bored, or because he had given up on finding Thessaly, it was because people were getting hurt and he didn't want to be responsible for that anymore.

When you look at Dream's actions on a wider scale, he is a good character. It is only on a more personal level that his flaws start to show through.

Where Dream's behaviour gets bad, it is usually because he has been hurt, and when he is hurt, he acts like a petty child throwing a tantrum. It is when his cruel side comes out, and its when he is most like Desire.

Nada is the most obvious casualty of this side of Dream. She rejected him, he threw a tantrum, and condemned her to Hell for hurting him.

Calliope tells Dream that she believed the "old you would have left me here to rot." We don't know how true this is, even in the comics, but the idea that there once was a version of Dream who might have discovered his ex wife was being frequently raped and abused whilst imprisoned and bound to evil mortal men and refused to help her simply because she left him is horrifying, but as I said, we don't know if it is or ever was true.

Ultimately, on the small scale, all it takes is for someone to tell Dream that he is in the wrong for him to relent and accept his misgivings. Constantine called him out on Rachel, so he did what he was asked to do. Calliope didn't even HAVE to ask for him to free her in the comics, he just showed up and saved her without question. When Death told him what he did to Nada was "shitty", he immediately put plans in place to make it right, even though doing so was risky and put him and the Dreaming in danger.

Even the situation with Orpheus, whilst seemingly harsh on Dream's side, his son told him to his face "you are no longer my father" and so Dream, hurt and with wounded pride, walked away from his son and refused to look back - but he still arranged for the priests to take care of him.

His choice of Thessaly as a lover is messed up, but he was messed up at the time. My view as mentioned in my previous post is that she was a rebound. They make it clear in the comic that he never approved of her murderous ways (and I have no doubt that he would also dissaprove of her transphobia, even if not mentioned explicitly).

In The Kindly Ones I don't view the situation as Dream being a bad person. I view it as everyone else being bad. Dream is caught in a huge cloud of depression and shitty circumstance and he is unable to free himself from that situation, and even when others can sense his desperation and pain, no one actually helps him. Dream's biggest flaw in The Kindly Ones, in my opinion, is not asking for help.

Because he is prideful, because even after all he has been through, he could not shake off that pride. It went full circle, he was back in his glass cage refusing to ask for help. Only this time, the glass cage was his realm, his subjects, his role as Dream of the Endless, and he could not change himself enough to free himself without making the drastic worst case decision.

My hatred of The Kindly Ones as a story, is not because I think it does a disservice to Dream, but because it does a disservice to every other character involved. By the end of that particular story, I hated every character who WASN'T Dream. Because I desperately wanted one of them, ANY of them, to actually help him. To see past his stubborn pride and hold him in their arms and shake him until he saw sense. Because the message in that story seemed to me to be that people are inherently selfish and so wrapped up in their own lives that they won't help you when you need it most. That there isn't even a point in asking for help. So what's the point?

But then I am fully aware that my feelings are complicated and partly projecting onto the characters and the story and well, that's all not really relevant to the point of this post except to ask you all to take my opinion with a grain of salt.

So back to your original question. I don't think Dream is a bad person. He is flawed, he is a character who when pushed to the limit will do drastic stupid things, but then wouldn't we all if pushed to our absolute limit? He is extremely depressed and buckling under the weight of the collective unconscious. All that unchecked emotion carried within him, and it is literally killing him.

So when weighing his heart against the feather of judgement, I think I can forgive him some bad behaviour towards some ex lovers in the grand scheme of all he has done. As flawed characters go, he's hardly the worst, and the feather is still heavier than his heart.

idk if this is appropriate since it isn't about canon izzy directly but i need somewhere anonymous to complain about 'the canyon.' i'm not in a lot of fandoms so i don't know if this is normal fandom behavior or what. I hope it isn't. this has been a uniquely upsetting experience for me. I have, like, next level autism for this show so of course i had to find Every single scrap of information about it and in the course of my obsessive 'research' i encountered these guys a lot, almost from the very beginning.

at first i thought it was funny and cute, like when people are hot for hannibal lector or some fucked up little guy. they wrote the worst ever fanfiction. that was fine, I could forgive that. but then they started saying things like 'if you watch it from izzy's perspective you'll see that he's the real hero and ed is the villain.' like girl no I've watched it 96 times and never once found this authoritarian incel karen good or relatable. the one that really got me was 'in any other show he'd be the protagonist.' yeah bro that's why i like this one? go watch one of those?

by like the fourth month they already had a bizarre victim complex. I just avoided talking about him completely because they would get really rude and start in with the guilt trips if you mentioned izzy even in a neutral way, let alone if you said anything about homophobia or psychological abuse. they called people abusive and homophobic and racist (?) if they said anything negative about fictional white man izzy hands. they threatened to sue someone. remember when there was an essay about him in a zine that was actually pretty positive? and most of the comments online were about how the actors and writers would definitely read this and be heartbroken. probably cry. maybe not even want to make the show anymore. it was a fan zine.

i didn't even like izzy except as an antagonist, but somehow they almost convinced me that i was watching it wrong. i started to seriously think, like, what if the writers were on his side all along? what if they really were making the main (queer, indigenous) love interest abusive and my very favorite thing was not as good as i thought it was? why not, when i've always had to twist a story to pretend it's for me? maybe i'd done it without realizing this time. i would have been so disappointed. and the way season two was done, there was like a week where i think i really believed it. it made me feel like i couldn't trust my own judgement. probably I was depending too much on this one tv show for serotonin because I cried a lot during that time, but you know how it is. the point is, it should have been a fun time for me but it was not.

i was so happy when he died, though. that cheered me right up and i'm fine now. i know I'm being dramatic and none of my complaints are very important in the grand scheme of things (i didn't even get into the racism) but they almost fucked up my Autism Favorite Thing for me and i want it to be documented somewhere that i will never forgive them for that <3 <3 <3

#31.

related posts: #29

(so i'd have posted this anyway bc of recent posts talking about questioning their views of izzy bc of the prevalence of canyon takes insisting he's a protagonist etc. but even without that, this blog was literally created because of a need for a space to talk about canon izzy and a need for acknowledgement that fanon izzy has become very widespread, mostly due to the canyon actions you mention. so it's difficult to separate the two when the blog was partially born from people thinking they were the only one to feel this way!)

More of a general confession than an Ed-specific one: It feels like the whole fandom has lost its mind because they need easy answers for who is the true victim so they can project at will. It’s fine if they want to argue that Ed benefits from protagonist bias and that Izzy is treated like the devil when he’s mostly just an ineffectual funny villain (I have my own opinions about Word Of ASherm being that Izzy wasn’t written to be racist but that’s besides the point), but the way they act it’s as if they care less about the actions and framing of the characters in canon and just want the moral justification to fuck and/or overly identify with them. Everyone wants to be right so bad. Media can be fun, meaningful and healing but is railing against total strangers on the internet the best outlet for navigating your trauma? The danger of projecting onto fictional characters is that you put all your power and self-esteem in the hands of showrunners who have their own biases. You can’t be 100% certain of what direction they will take the character, especially not when you are involved in fandom and have your POV colored by public opinion. When your fave does something fucked up it’s taken as a personal attack. If you build your whole life around your history of abuse to the point you can’t handle a story not sticking to your internal script, you risk letting external forces write your story for you. It’s distressing to realize being a victim doesn’t mean you can’t still do harm, especially when coming to terms with your victimhood is hard enough. Being ND and having black/white or rejection sensitive thinking can complicate that even more. I don’t want to sound like I’m not empathetic to both Ed and Izzy stans. Not to sound like a centrist or anything, but I’ve seen both sides make really good points and I’ve seen both sides act horrific and hateful. We’re all traumatized! But part of being good at media analysis and not losing your mind in fandom is understanding what’s canon and intended by the showrunners, what has real life oppressive implications, and what are the stories we tell ourselves because they’re the most convenient or personally validating. It’s not easy and it’s not supposed to be. I just hope that at the end of the day, people care more about being ethical real life human beings to each other than going to war for/against fictional characters. I personally believe fiction affects reality, but there are levelheaded, compassionate ways to discuss that. If you wouldn’t talk to your boss like that, why would you talk to a stranger like that? I’ve never been a fandomy person because these spaces are basically guaranteed to get vitriolic, and the OFMD fandom has a particularly despised reputation, but it would be great if we all worked to prove them wrong. It will be hard work but I believe it’s not too late. I hope more people take that to heart.

59