#my point is. people act like protagonists doing a thing is equivalent to the story that theyre in supporting the thing | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

darklinaforever · 3 months

Note

Why are you all so serious when it comes to imaginary characters? This works for both teams btw. It's okay to love books, characters, and so on, but you act like we live in real Westeros and choose who will rule us. Or as if the Targaryens are your real relatives during a real war. For God's sake. The fact that people love the blacks does not give them any moral superiority. The fact that people love the greens doesn't make them immoral or anything.

In fact, you really don't read any of my posts, and are you really content with the fact that I'm team Blacks and loving Daemyra to spit your venom in anonymous messages in fact ?! It’s just crazy at this point. You look like a bunch of weirdos.

I never claimed to be morally better, or that people who liked the Greens were immoral. Liking the Greens doesn't make you immoral. They are good villains, and most people, including me, like good villains. I'm literally a fan of the real Alicent in the book. She's a great villain that I love to hate.

And for your information, I also never said that Team Blacks were morally superior people. My god, I even once had an argument with a pro team Blacks and pro Daemyra person who hated the Velaryon children and the fact that they were illegitimate ! I never decreed that those who liked the black team were 100% good people VS those who liked the greens as bad ! Where does this bullshit come from ?!

On the other hand, what I denounce are those who claim that the Greens are not villains / antagonists. When that's literally what they are. This is their narrative function. They are not morally gray characters, anti-heroes or worse yet, misunderstood virtuous characters as some like to claim. Once again, there is no problem with liking Team Greens, but there is a problem with believing that they are justified in the story for doing what they do and that they are anything other than villains / antagonists. If you read Fire and Blood and end up being Team Greens at face value, you either have questionable beliefs or you simply have significant problems with reading comprehension (and I hope this is generally the second case for the ASOIAF and Fire and Blood community). The Greens are literally a bunch of misogynists fighting for patriarchal traditions, are blood purists and mostly rapists like Aegon II and Aemond.

The Blacks team is not perfect. Certainly, there are noble people among them, but also and above all morally ambiguous characters. However, they are not the antagonists and villains of the story. They are the protagonists. Team Blacks fights for a woman's right to ascend the throne. About keeping your promises and oaths. And even if it is not for feminist purposes, Rhaenyra on the throne would have given a precedent for women to subsequently also have the right to power. In short, Rhaenyra on the throne would have set a precedent to probably improve the situation of women in Westeros in the lines of succession. To be Team Greens in the first degree is in fact to deny power to women and change in a society. That's what it implies narratively.

It's the same thing for those trying to say they are neutral, trying to make people believe that the two teams are on the same level, probably to avoid feeling guilty for loving the Greens beyond simple villains, refusing to see them as such. To speak of being neutral is to deny that the Blacks are fighting for a much nobler cause overall than the Greens. Once again, the Blacks are fighting for a woman's right to the throne and respecting her words and oaths. While the Greens are literally treated misogynists and usurpers who fight for patriarchal tradition... Just like the simple fact that the number of war crimes are not at all equivalent depending on the team.

It's not the same thing. These are simple facts.

The narrative purpose of GRRM's for the Rhaneyra character is simple. She was usurped because she was a woman. By misogyny. And people who are first degree team greens or neutral have this great tendency to deny it. Simply because otherwise, they couldn't justify defending the greens.

Reading Fire and Blood and ending up at first level being team greens or neutral, once again demonstrates a huge reading comprehension problem. GRRM didn't write this story thinking that the Greens were right or that both teams were on the same level, otherwise, the Greens wouldn't get karmic punishment.

I realize that everyone can see what they want in a fictional work, but there are limits to stupid interpretation. Fire and Blood is very clear that the Greens are the villains / antagonists with very bad motivations, going against the law itself. Because yes, the word of the king is the law. Supporting the Greens or being neutral at first glance, without seeing them as villains / antagonists, is at this stage being willfully blind, unless once again you have questionable values or quite simply very, very poor reading comprehension, which you should be worried about.

The excuse of "it's fiction, so we can think what we want, it doesn't matter" is bullshit. An excuse for not thinking about the fiction you consume. This is proof of intellectual laziness. Do you really think GRRM wouldn't want you to think about his work ?

It's a naive and simplistic way of thinking, designed to justify supporting a misogynistic team, wishing to maintain patriarchal traditions. Once again, either it comes from your own problematic morality that you do not accept, or it is simply not having reading comprehension and supporting the fact of not thinking about what you consume in order to avoid not be aware of the problematic things about what you love in order to simply not give yourself a bad conscience.

Again, there is nothing immoral about liking the Greens. Most people like a good villain / antagonist. I've always said it. On the other hand, yes, it is problematic, to pretend that the Greens are not villains / antagonists, then trying to make them pass for more complex characters than they are, even anti-heroes, or worse, downright misunderstood characters who would be morally superior to the Blacks team. That's always what I talk about. Nothing more. And if this truth bothers you, you should question yourself...

Reflecting on the fiction we consume is not stupid. That should be the basis. And I won't apologize for thinking about what I consume.

And it's still cheeky to come and tell me that I'm lecturing people when it's me that people come to harass with private messages to wrongly explain to me that I romanticize grooming, that I'm a Bitch who doesn't understand anything about the characters I'm talking about, that I should be ashamed, close my tumblr, that Daemon Targaryen is the real rapist from Fire and Blood and that Aegon II is just a normal prince of his time doing his best. Ironically, it's the Greens and Neutral team who always come to me to spew their superior morality to apparently understand that poor little Aegon II is a complex and tragic character while Daemon is the real monster of the story and that the real The goal of Fire and Blood is to choose your favorite war criminal. Lol. That couldn't be further from the truth, and it's complete bullshit. Who once again tries to impose moral superiority on others ? (And again, I'm also entitled to this for liking Kylo Ren / Ben Solo and the Darkling) I think you're clearly talking to the wrong person in terms of promulgating moral oaths.

Love what you love. Just be aware of what it is and think about it. That's all I'm saying.

Once again, I have nothing against those who like the Greens. I have a problem with those who try to make people believe that they are not the villains / antagonists that GRRM made them out to be in the story. To try to make them appear as complex characters, anti-heroes, misunderstood characters who would have reasons just to act as they do. Worse still, to come and tell me that their favorite characters are morally superior to those of the Blacks team or even on an equal footing. Things that are completely false. And if these simple truths bother you that much, don't read my tumblr ! It's simple to do, isn't it ?

At this point of stupidity, I'm going to end up losing my faith in humanity...

@aleksanderscult

22 notes · View notes

bidokja · 11 months

Note

If yoohyun knew the world was going to end, what exactly was the point of building an empire and causing yoojin's sufferings? "I won't leave the earth without my brother, there is too little time left for us then I shall make him believe that he's nothing to me and after his life is completely ruined we will die together." ┐(´•_•`)┌

it's almost impressive how confidently you people admit to not knowing how to interpret text like. genuinely astounding how blatant you are about refusing to examine narratives from different perspectives, especially when that different perspective is SPOON FED TO YOU in like, chapter 3. you're so bad at interpreting stories that if SCTIR was written from Yoohyun's POV i'm 100% certain you'd be sending me equally pointless Yoojin hate right now instead. like, you're free to dislike whatever character you dislike, for arbitrary or more serious reasons, but at least don't be outright incorrect about canon events in my inbox over and over again. i cannot believe the audacity you had to try and sound assertive while on anon, which is the online equivalent of hurling insults while hiding around the corner.

anyways, fuck it, let's actually examine the story from another angle, shall we? "causing Yoojin's sufferings." hoo boy. lots to unpack here. do i think he treated Yoojin well? no. do i agree he hurt Yoojin, emotionally? absolutely, that is a fact. do i think he CAUSED Yoojin's suffering? no, and if you keep trying to assert this you are going against Yoojin, against the narrative, and against the entire point of SCTIR. that is not an understatement.

the ONLY thing Yoohyun did initially was to cut Yoojin off. he pushed him away. that is literally the only actively harmful action Yoohyun ever took against Yoojin in the first timeline. go back and reread if you doubt me. of course it's understandable that this hurt and confused Yoojin, and we sympathize because we - the readers - know Yoojin didn't do something to initially cause that. but if this was real life, it'd be weird and creepy that Yoojin kept trying to contact and meet him after that. but it's stupid to try and push that real life moral angle because they are in fantastical and extreme circumstances and these events are written to convey a specific story. so why do people toss aside that fact when it comes to Yoohyun. like, genuinely it's bonkers how hypocritical people are when applying moral standards to fictional characters.

back to the point, Yoohyun never forced Yoojin to do anything aside from trying to get Yoojin to stop contacting him. yes he was mean about it. yes he was cold. he had to be or it would not work, and Yoojin would be killed by other S-Classes or the FPAs before the story even began. do you think if he sat down and told Yoojin nicely "don't contact me since it will put you in danger" that would make Yoojin leave? really? cause if you think that would work you have zero understanding of Yoojin as a character.

caused his suffering. jesus christ. the uwu-ification beam you are putting Yoojin under is insulting to the writing in SCTIR. he is not some happless victim that only has things happen To him. he is the protagonist and the decisions he makes on his own are a driving force throughout the series. Yoohyun cuts him off. Yoojin decides to keep trying to contact him. Yoohyun acts coldly to him. Yoojin keeps trying to contact him and shows up where he works. Yoohyun has him thrown out. Yoojin, instead of trying to find whatever safer job he can (normal real-world-levels-or-risky manual labor jobs still exist!! not everyone is a hunter!!! but these jobs won't get him closer to Yoohyun) he decides to try and become a hunter, hoping he will awaken as someone at least a bit strong and this will get him closer to his brother again. he is an F-Class. instead of accepting this and trying to find a tough-but-normal job, Yoojin insists on entering dungeons. he gets injured. yoohyun - coldly, harshly, cruelly if he has to - tries to drive the point home to Yoojin that he needs to stop doing this or he's going to die. he doesn't pay for Yoojin's recovery, because he hopes it will keep Yoojin out of dungeons. Yoojin makes the choice not to stay out of dungeons. at this point it's mostly out of depression and spite and loneliness.

Yoohyun pushed his brother away. Yoojin insisted on defying that. the point is both of them drove each other to this point. the point is both of them were driven by love. the point is Yoojin is as crazy and reckless and stubborn as his brother!!! when will people understand this!!! this is key to understanding Yoojin as a character!!! they're both fucked up and twisted and it's almost entirely because of their love and interdependence on each other!!! that's what SCTIR is LITERALLY all about! so if you do not understand the core aspect of this series then like. what are you reading it for. why are you here.

oh and i haven't even really gotten into the reasons why Yoohyun decides to do all this in the first place.

"i won't leave the earth without my brother, there is too little time left for us then I shall make him believe he's nothing to me and after his life is completely ruined we will die together." god i wish i could think this surface level at all times i'd have way less headaches. anyways. "i won't leave the earth without my brother" is one point. the other point is "if i leave the earth, my brother will die alone, and then i will be alone." if you remember like, any of SCTIR you remember how much it fucks with Yoojin knowing that Yoohyun died, while he lived on, and his body was left alone in that dungeon. same thing would be true for Yoohyun. "i shall make him believe he is nothing to me" yes. because no one else will believe it if Yoojin does it. and the point is to make other people (y'know, just, powerful s-classes and unfathomably powerful enemies like the FPA's. no biggie.) believe Yoojin is nothing to him, and therefore it's not worth it to threaten him or hold Yoojin hostage. if these forces thought they could control Yoohyun by threatening or killing Yoojin, they would have IMMEDIATELY done so. how do we know this for sure? for one, because they constantly try to do that in the current timeline, when they're still close, and this is a CONSTANT danger to Yoojin's life and safety. for two, because as soon as they thought they could get away with doing so that is exactly what the FPA's did the first time around. and Yoohyun died protecting Yoojin from them. "we will die together" this is not some murder suicide, Yoohyun died. Yoohyun died. For Yoojin. he Died. Painfully. there was poison and blood everywhere. he did not hesitate or regret it. he spent his very last moments trying to make sure Yoojin could escape safely without getting poisoned. and then Yoohyun died, right there. he did not come back, even after time got "rewinded." he died. do you understand that he genuinely actually died. knowing that the world would end anyways and Yoojin would die anyways. he still leapt into the way to protect Yoojin, who was literally trying to get himself killed. and Yoohyun died for him because the entire point of it all was for Yoojin. it was all for Yoojin! every fucked up little thing. every miserable choice. right til the very end.

And that's how SCTIR is even possible. Because he died for his older brother.

why didn't Yoohyun do this, why didnt Yoojin do that. because it's a story. it's a story. it exists as it does because it is trying to be told. it's a atory about two fucked up brothers and their messed up love that is so fucked and messed up it may just end up doing something that changes the entire course of the story. why are you here if you're hell bent on shoving half the story into a box and refusing to understand it.

#i was nice about this multiple times and have explicitly told y'all not to send me this shit #play bitch games win bitch prizes maybe have some basic human decency and respect someones boundaries next time #and even if you think 'dont send me character hate' is a silly boundary. its a VERY SIMPLE line in the sand you crossed #just cause you felt like it. idk how to tell u this but that makes you an asshole lmao #don't be a dumbass in my notes i'll just block you and turn reblogs off #sclasses #ky speaks #ask

7 notes · View notes

theophagie-remade · 2 years

Text

Spiritually succeeding this other post, I'm here once again to go on and on about some things I see outside my little protective bubble, and while the language barrier prevents me from knowing bnha's actual target audience's (i.e. young japanese men) thoughts on things, as always reading those of its western equivalent is... an experience

I always go back to this BUT the fact that Midoriya can (and will) bring himself to the extreme should he believe it to be necessary has always been a recurring theme, and his "recent" rogue arc is something that encapsulated this very well. And it was incredible [with negative connotations] to see readers rejoice for it, and complain when class 1A intervened to get him back on track again

Whenever Midoriya got like that, Horikoshi made it a point to highlight how irresponsible it was, how unfair to himself he was being, and up until that arc everyone had agreed. So why is it that him destroying his body made him a dumbass who needed to get his shit together, but then suddenly him isolating himself and shutting everyone out made him cool and badass?

And in general what I'd like to do is grab these guys by the shoulders, look them in the eye and just. I promise you that masculinity is not just red meat, muscles, and sweat. Midoriya is a Boy and he's Sensitive and Awkward And That's Okay, any other man who likes bnha and isn't as insecure as you are has no problem with this, you are making up a Flaw to be angry about

Then there's Bakugou, a character whose arc has been incredibly emotion-driven, which isn't as common for male characters in shounen, and what made it stand out even more is what kind of emotions it has involved and towards whom, which again is something that sets him apart from the usual "bad boy who eventually turns good" archetype

Many guys dislike Bakugou because his current relationship with Midoriya betrays any "bullied person never forgives and/or takes revenge on they bully" power fantasy, but I recently read a comment that brought up the similarities between these people's attitude towards him and the one that they have towards female characters from other shounen manga (calling him a bitch, commenting on the way his development has taken place for how unusual it has been, arguing whether he's actually important or useful to the story), which I know may sound absurd at first, but it did get me thinking

God knows I simply refuse to entertain any thoughts™ on what Horikoshi has in mind, but narratively speaking - especially lately so - his role has been one that's stereotypically associated with female characters more so than with male ones* (love interests specifically, but again: you will never have me, Hope) (always worrying for the protagonist more than anyone else, evoking protectiveness and possessiveness from the protagonist, the protagonist acting and reacting to what is said and done to them specifically, being individually targeted for their closeness to the protagonist, etc), and after having read that comment it has been interesting to notice a small but still very real subset of dudebros, not that it has been a good thing

[*: obviously it's very misogynistic that the things I listed are almost exclusively associated with female characters to begin with and that it's surprising for a male character to be put in that spot for once, No One Is Arguing Against This. If anything, this shines some light on the fact that the world of shounen manga (and not only that tbh) would benefit from novelties like this one since people are acting like clowns over it]

While most of them (dudebros) still refuse to acknowledge how close Bakugou is to Midoriya, there's a minority that... has a funny way of indirectly acknowledging this, because of a combination of see: above reasons and see: homophobia. I don't really think that it's a coincidence that whenever something bkdk flavoured becomes popular, among the various kinds of hate comments, a number of people always comment that Midoriya isn't gay. Midoriya, not necessarily Bakugou as well

Horikoshi managed to go beyond quite a few stereotypes with Bakugou's character arc (ironic when you compare it to someone else's but I digress, this conversation specifically isn't about her), so it is sad to see people turn it into a chance to be bigoted towards other fans, because obviously all the comments they make aren't merely in "defense" of the characters themselves, but they're meant to be read by and hurt the often queer fans who share their theories/headcanons/interpretations etc

#studying so many of the cishet men who allegedly read and enjoy bnha as if they were microbes in a lab #bnha #animanga #mytext #char tag #midoriya izuku #bakugou katsuki #bakudeku #long post #salty

17 notes · View notes

maxtothemax · 9 months

Text

okay i finally finished miraculous ladybug (minus the movie; i'm about to watch that tonight) but i have some Thoughts on the season 5 finale (putting it under the cut bc spoilers)

so adrien's whole deal is that he's always been sheltered and coddled and controlled by other people, specifically his father. it felt extremely unfair that cat noir, our secondary protagonist, had to miss out on the final battle with monarch because adrien's father had him locked up in some padded room (?????), AND it felt even worse that the narrative reason for him not being present was so that he would never find out that monarch was his father.

like, yes, finding out that his dad was the villain he was fighting this whole time would have crushed him, but he deserved to know!!! he deserved to have context for why his father acted the way he did, not just vague parallels (i.e., cat noir fighting... whatever the fuck akumatized gabriel agreste called himself) that didn't give him the full story.

oh my god. the fact that marinette knows everything and she won't tell adrien??? how fucked up is that?? how is she not riddled with guilt lying to him about that???? and the fact that she's doing it because gabriel asked her to, because he didn't want to break adrien's heart even though everything ELSE he ever did broke adrien's heart???? why would marinette ever agree to that???

and that brings me to my second point, which is that gabriel finally making his wish was so... anticlimactic. see, i was kind of under the impression that there would be world-ending consequences for the wish, not just ... an equivalent exchange. it feels like if you're bending reality like that, there should be more consequences than just an equivalent exchange. the only thing that happened was gabriel dying, and that doesn't even feel fair bc he was literally about to die anyway!! he had hours left!! taking the life of someone who was about to die anyway isn't really an equal trade.

it kind of doesn't feel fair that after all that fighting, and after all the atrocities he committed to get there, gabriel just got what he wanted. true, he's not around to see it, but he did get his wish, and the whole conceit of the show was, like, stopping him from doing that, because there would be catastrophic consequences. it's so frustrating that he made his wish and now everything is perfect (as if adrien isn't gonna have to adjust to a new family structure all over again, deal with the trauma of his father's death, etc). and he even got marinette to protect his fucking secret from adrien, too!!!! he didn't deserve that!! he didn't deserve to be remembered by his son as a savior when all he ever did was control him!!

it's safe to say that the writers genuinely lost the fucking plot here. it was a happy ending, but it ignored the main points of the show in order to make itself happy.

#they speak #miraculous ladybug #miraculous spoilers #it was frustrating to watch lmao #the action sequences were still pretty cool tho

2 notes · View notes

gunkreads · 1 year

Text

I think I’m actually going to be quite brief (future gunk here: “so that was a fucking lie”) about Seven Blades in Black by Sam Sykes, given how much I enjoyed it. Putting my critique goggles on is revealing it to be more derivative and flawed than I felt while reading.

This book is one of those “bear with me” kinds of stories. It presents a very over-the-top, indulgent, hamfisted approach to what is, in my opinion, fundamentally a very simple story. It’s an American Western revenge story with a pretty solid magical world laid over it. If you’ve ever seen The Outlaw Josey Wales--it’s genuinely kinda like that. However, as I’ll explain in about three paragraphs, this isn’t exclusively criticism.

The author has a bit of fun with the whole format of “protagonist telling a character a story in-universe” and plays very simply with unreliable narration (”simply” meaning it’s easy to tell when something’s narrated unreliably and the factual truth is pretty apparent). I feel kind of mean making this comparison, but it’s an all-around clumsier and less-artful version of Patrick Rothfuss’ style. That’s not necessarily to say it’s clumsy--though you may find it to be--but the book is... not the most elegant thing I’ve ever read.

Its setting is very fun--basically, the protagonist Sal is fucking around in the “no-man’s-land” area of this big war going on between a corrupted and rotting Empire and a fascist Revolution. Not exactly the newest thing on the block, and the reasons for the war aren’t necessarily that original either. There are some extra layers to it, but those would have to come up in later books, if at all.

Sal as a character is very fun to read, and there’s a particular phenomenon in the book’s prose that makes her that way. See, there’s this piece of writing advice that sticks in my brain like a shard of glass that goes something like “not every line has to be a masterpiece, or an emotional revelation, or a dust jacket quotable.” Personally, I don’t like this mindset, because I believe that striving for an impossible standard is the only way to find out how far Zeno’s Paradox goes when chasing perfection. Sykes doesn’t seem to like it either; his book is written like every single paragraph is supposed to make you have a physical reaction. It doesn’t land every time--in fact, early in the book, it’s so annoying that I almost put it down--but eventually you come to a realization: it’s fun to watch someone try to reach for the impossible.

Sykes really, really wants everything Sal says and thinks to be a tooth-cracking showstopper. In chasing this ideal, he necessarily misses most of the time. However, he chases the idea with a kind of earnestness that I rarely see in fantasy. I actually think that Sykes does “gruff antihero” the same way Sara Douglass does “highfalutin paragon of justice” or Tolkien does “unbreakable brotherly bonds”: with an absolute commitment to and love for the concept that allows you (or at least me) to forgive any misses (this is not commentary on whether Douglass or Tolkien miss on these).

I found myself cringing at this book pretty frequently up to about the end of the first act. It took a while to get a handle on how far Sykes was going to take this writing style. After that point, though, it grew on me enough that I realized he did the same thing that Pierce Brown does that I love so much: they create a world where People Just Talk Like That.

See, there’s this magical thing in fiction called “internal consistency”. If something does not align with reality, but aligns with a work of fiction the same way every time, it becomes real within that fiction. This is why “acting out of character” and “plot holes” are such an issue: they dive in the way of our suspension of disbelief. Internal consistency creates and aids suspension of disbelief. Have you ever heard a white guy from Seatlle say “y’all”? It’s the fictional equivalent of that. He doesn’t fucking talk that way. Why’s he doing it now? Sykes has People Just Talk Like That 24/7/365 and it lets you suspend your disbelief in a way that you couldn’t if he just doled out the hard-hitting lines once in a while. Keeps congruity in the prose.

Once again, this isn’t to say Sykes is consistently good at it. He goes overboard a lot, asking me to find gravity in things that are decidedly low-gravity or asking me to laugh or cry over things that I didn’t already want to. However, the through-line of over-the-top narration works.

Wanna know why it works? Because Sal, who’s constantly shown to be a dickhead with her entire skull shoved up her own ass (love those kinds of characters btw), is narrating. Of course this egotistical asshat wants you to think everything she does is the coolest thing ever. She’s even telling the story to someone who’s going to execute her--there’s no reason to put the brakes on. Of course, this is all a choice made by Sykes, so everything leads back to that, but it’s there in-universe.

The action in this book is fun. It’s not amazing in a kinetic way, but it has pretty stellar setpieces and never feels pointless. Sal navigates violence and chaos in a very entertainingly Nathan Drake kind of way--taking her licks in a mad dash to either safety or whatever she came here to do. The action tends to be of a very physical variety, with plenty of gory details and a solid dash of body horror mixed in.

However, here’s a pretty chunky issue with Sal’s character: her motivations do not feel consistent. I get that this is meant to reflect her complicated feelings about her current life path, but there were a lot of points where I didn’t understand why she took the hard path when the easy one seemed so obvious (and often had been pointed out by her). It felt like sometimes she took the hard path for one reason, but later she took the easy path for that exact same reason. The context had changed, sure, but it didn’t change that much. Just something to watch out for.

BUT ALL THAT SAID.

I had a really good time reading this book. If you like anything gritty and grimy and bombastic and dark and fun, I think you’ll enjoy Seven Blades in Black. It’s brain candy, for sure, and it’s a little more on top of that. It’s got all the same things right with it as Kings of the Wyld, just with a few more things wrong. A very fun choice and a good book to slap up on your in-progress pile while taking breaks from more serious reads.

#seven blades in black #sam sykes #grave of empires

3 notes · View notes

audreydoeskaren · 3 years

Note

do you know Chinese symbolism for homosexuality?

tw homophobia, pedophilia

Hi again, for gay men there are a couple really well known ones but I’m not sure if they were real or fabricated, because all the articles describing them always cite the same couple sources from Antiquity... I tried to verify them but the only articles that didn’t copy and paste from the same source came across as extremely homophobic, so I decided to give up. The most common and reliable one is probably 断袖 or “cut sleeve”, which I mentioned in a previous ask. I would like to use this opportunity to talk about some tangential but more important topics regarding homosexuality in China though.

As a followup to my previous ask where I said I'd look through some Ming and Qing novels to see how homosexuality was perceived at the time, the conclusion I (unfortunately) came to was that homophobia was very much alive and well in Chinese literature and society. A lot of people like to argue that gay people fared pretty well in China historically by either pointing to emperors who were or were rumored to be gay or time periods where gay sex was prevalent as a form of consumption. This is extremely shallow and also kind of Orientalist in my opinion, these arguments always go for the emperors and do not take nuance into consideration or dive into wider societal discourses on homosexuality in imperial China. If you research homosexuality in Europe by only looking at royalty, you’ll find plenty of homosexual behavior too, does that mean gay people had it very easy in Europe historically?? Not to mention that they usually don’t differentiate between dynasties, let alone centuries or decades, even though public opinion on homosexuality in China (or anywhere in the world tbh) could change very quickly. This is also sort of Orientalist, assuming “imperial China” to be a never changing entity with a never changing stance on homosexuality. Since I know nothing prior to the Ming Dynasty I’ll share some of my random findings on homosexuality and homophobia in the Ming, Qing and 20th century.

Gayness as disease

Nowadays the symbol of the cut sleeve is just a benign historical allusion but historically it seems that it was used in a negative and condemning sense, implying that people thought of homosexuality as a disease or deviation from the norm. The common phrase used for the cut sleeve is "断袖之癖", usually translated as "the passion of the cut sleeve" nowadays, but the meaning of the word 癖 here leans more toward "fetish", "obsession" or "hobby" with pathological connotations. I thought maybe this word had a different, nuanced meaning historically but it seems that it was used to describe what it means :(( The only silver lining is probably that with the progression of language it isn’t offensive anymore.

In a lot of popular novels from the Ming and Qing, homosexuality was depicted as a "perversion" and a decadent lifestyle that plagues morality, and gay characters were often either killed or straightened out by the end of the story. An example of this is the story 黄九郎 Huang Jiulang from the series 聊斋志异 Strange Tales from a Chinese Studio by 蒲��龄 Pu Songling written in the 17th century. In this story, one of the protagonists was gay; he died after confessing his love to the other guy in a very fast paced bury your gays arc which somehow reminded me of the Supernatural finale, and reincarnated as a straight man because of his piety. Thanks I hate it. Pu uses the symbol of the cut sleeve to refer to the protagonist, presumably in a negative manner.

Gayness as power/status symbol

Another thing was that historically in China a lot of people confused homosexuality with pedophilia. This is a global thing, but its presence in China is often overlooked. This could be seen in the popularity of another term for homosexuality, "娈童", meaning something similar to "pederasty". I read somewhere that since the late Ming, pederasty was considered a type of tasteful consumption for high society, along with things like fashion, food, music and art. This was not equivalent to the "cut sleeve" or homosexuality as we know it nowadays, which refers to a personal sexual orientation, pederasty historically often refers to an imbalanced power dynamic where a wealthy, privileged man takes advantage of a young boy as a leisurely activity. It’s more to show off that someone in a position of privilege and wealth has the power to procure sexual objects, gender and age don’t matter much in this regard. I cannot help but cringe violently whenever someone brings up pederasty as proof of China’s historical “openness” toward gay people. Talk to me again when in this time and place you could marry someone of your sex (not a minor) and be considered a respectable couple instead of two jerks with a degenerate fetish (not saying that gay people have to marry, it’s just that the ability to do so is an important indicator of equality imo). Pedophilia and homosexuality are not one and the same good heavens.

I hypothesize that the reason why Chinese society was historically homophobic despite having no religious condemnation of homosexual individuals was the idea that having many concubines and male children was a status symbol for men. Women of marriageable age were seen more or less as commodities and male children could supposedly "continue the bloodline" 传香火 and were vessels for passing down prestige, so having them were of utmost importance to a privileged man. Being just gay or lesbian, however, meant that you didn't perform the "man strong working woman weak making babies" heteronormative family prototype, and was thus prone to criticism. When gay men didn’t have children they “couldn’t continue their bloodline” and were emasculated, when gay women didn’t have children they failed to “fulfill their duties as a woman” and were shamed.

It kind of makes sense considering how being bisexual was never a problem in comparison, especially for men. If you were a rich guy who had both male and female partners, you would still have children and concubines both male and female so nobody gives a shit. Emperor Zhengde of the Ming (reign 1505-21) was presumably bisexual and had both male and female lovers, nobody had a bone to pick with that; he famously liked to fuck around but those who criticized him did so for his debauchery instead of focusing on the gender of his partners. This is different to homophobia in Europe where same sex attraction was considered evil and immoral in and of itself because of religious reasons, in China it was rather the other practical implications of homosexuality (not having children or a family) that attracted hate.

By the way can we just take a moment to talk about bi erasure in Chinese history. From all accounts of Emperor Zhengde I’ve read he comes across as extremely bisexual, but a lot of people try to make him a gay icon? I mean, he liked women too.

One interesting homophobic angle in ye olde China which I find kind of funny was straight women who wanted to climb the social ladder by marrying rich men talking shit about them after figuring out they were gay lmao. Historically, there were not so many work opportunities for women, so the easiest way to improve social standing was to marry a rich and powerful guy. Not saying that women didn't work, they did but their upward social mobility was restricted because they couldn't enter the imperial examination system which was how men became rich and powerful. This angle is relatively benign and kind of helps illustrate that historical Chinese homophobia was indeed fueled by classism and patriarchy.

Gayness as crime

I used to think that there were no anti-sodomy statutes in China (laws prohibiting sex between gay men), but it turns out that there was one decree in the Jiajing era (1521-67) and one in 1740, and private gay sex was not actually decriminalized until 1957. Same sex marriage is still not legal in China at time of writing. I couldn’t find detailed information on what these laws entailed or how they were enforced, but they’re enough to prove that homosexuality in China was legally punishable from the 16th century onward. On top of that, even when there was no law prohibiting private sex acts between people of the same sex, displays of gay affection such as kissing or holding hands could still be legally punished under “public indecency” or “hooliganism”, which was frequently what happened in the 20th century.

#lgbt #queer history #chinese history #gay #mlm #ming dynasty #qing dynasty #republican era

702 notes · View notes

ceaselesswatchersspecialboy · 3 years

Text

The time has come for me to put some wild thoughts I have about Jekyll and Hyde and stuff I‘ve discussed with @journeys-collide

Gonna get right into it and I have no idea how long this is gonna be!

When you think of Antagonistic characters in TGS the first thought is probably Dr Moreau, Frankenstein and even sometimes Hyde himself but there is another.

And that is Dr Henry Jekyll himself.

To explain this we need to look at the definition of an antagonist

In Jekyll’s case, the person he opposes and is hostile towards is himself - Hyde.

The Glass Scientists is written from the two main perspectives of Hyde and Jekyll, only occasionally deviating from these two. With these perspectives we see shifts in how people are viewed, especially themselves.

The first perspective we get in the story is Hyde, but later switches to what we can assume is Jasper’s. And Jasper’s perspective is the perfect introduction to Jekyll. At the start he’s portrayed as he is in most media through character interactions and colours too.

He’s a benevolent and well-loved man, charming, seen by Jasper in a way that he’s literally shining. We have yet to see that much of him, and by using Jasper’s perspective, by using these soft colours, it disguises a very quick nod to his flawed self - he’s subtly manipulating the police in this.

I should say I don’t believe Jekyll is a bad person, but he’s not a good person either, and he knows exactly how to get what he wants (which is something that translates over to Hyde) and this only fails when people start to see through him.

Another important thing is the two different introductions we get of Hyde.

The first few pages of the comic are Hyde’s perspective (which makes the choice of vibrant colours so interesting and gives us an idea of how Hyde sees the world and London but I digress)

He’s not shown to be dangerous in anyway, if a little dramatic, wild and a bit rude.

But then we get this.

We see Hyde from Jekyll’s perspective and we see how Hyde can act towards him. He’s less subtle with his manipulation, but it’s still effective. He’s Jekyll. He knows what Jekyll fears, what he thinks. And he uses that. It only becomes ineffective when Jekyll, like the policemen did to him, sees through him.

At this point we have the understanding Hyde is the antagonistic character to Jekyll. It fits well, once again, with what we see frequently in media. Jekyll is the weaker one and Hyde has power of him… until he doesn’t.

This scene turns that well known narrative on its head and its Jekyll who takes charge in this scene, but it’s understandable. His logic makes sense and he’s very much on the right end here.

From Hyde’s perspective later on it feels as if Jekyll is the dramatic one, locking him away in their mind, until you realise it’s been a week at most and Hyde doesn’t have long left to go, and that’s what a simple perspective switch can do.

Jekyll here is thinking logically and is still, in this situation, acting as the story’s hero (I don’t want to use protagonist because that’s a general term for main character and antagonists can be protagonists but I again digress)

For this portion of the story, Hyde becomes an antagonist again. He torments Jekyll and lets loose the nightmares. He’s honestly pretty terrifying, and he’s doing this all for the equivalent of an illegal mall. Iconic.

With Hyde it’s also an important thing to note that he runs on adrenaline. He doesn’t think before he acts or speaks - he’s highly impulsive.

With stuff like this it’s hard to say how true it is and how much of it is just Hyde on a rush. In the mind it’s much clearer because he’s not half-high on HJ7, but when he’s out and transformed it’s entirely different. He’s wild. Unpredictable. He’s desperate to get out because that’s what Jekyll wants. It’s not in a burning desire sort of way, more-so Jekyll’s stress and fear pushing these ideas onto him, and that’s what Hyde was created for in the end, so it makes sense for him to act the way he does.

Yet Jekyll still acts as if he’s above Hyde.

And it’s these pages that show it.

Hyde may be an antagonistic force towards Jekyll, but it goes both ways.

It’s actually quite similar to the scene where we first see Hyde and Jekyll properly interact. Despite the perspectives, there is no bias. This is truly what’s happening. There is no over exaggerating or sugar coating.

Jekyll genuinely treats himself as above Hyde here, even if they are one in the same, and he may do so without even entirely realising it. He refers to him as a stupid child for one thing. He talks down on him. Mocks him.

You could argue that his anger and mockery is understandable. Hyde tormented and tortured him for freedom he could have just waited for. He almost got them in serious dangers too. And you’d be right.

And then Jekyll does this.

And this is where Jekyll finally hits his peak as Hyde’s antagonist. As his own antagonist.

A very important thing here is the way the panels are laid out. In the image above we don’t see Hyde’s mouth but we do see is eyes which are arguably the most expressive facial feature. His eyes are wide and in fear, there are scratchy bag under his eyes and you genuinely feel for him.

Jekyll on the other hand only has his mouth visible. He’s smiling. It’s impossible to tell his true feelings and it makes it feel empty and cruel. It’s still from Hyde’s perspective, it’s MEANT to do this.

If it’s not obvious by my multiple repeats of perspective then what my dumb brain is getting at is that whoever’s perspective it is, the antagonist changes! It’s really neat honestly.

Even when we see Jekyll’s eyes, he still looks cruel. He’s practically at war with himself now. He loses nothing by getting rid of Hyde because it’s not a split down the soul, it’s more or less an addition that was filtered down to remove it of fears and anxiety and restraint. But, without Jekyll, Hyde loses everything.

Honestly writing all this has only made me love TGS Jekyll (and Hyde) more. Making him a complex and flawed character like in the book rather than the staple of good we’ve come to know is something I’d love to see more in J&H adaptations. Its made for a seriously interesting duo who function as both the protagonists and antagonists of their own story.

Honestly I had so much more stuff to say but there’s a ten image limit and I need the images so I can actually focus on my point and not go on an unrelated tangent… which I probably ended up doing anyway pff.

#the glass scientists #tgs #tgs analysis #dr jekyll and mr hyde #tgs henry jekyll #dr henry jekyll #dr Jekyll #tgs edward hyde #edward hyde #mr hyde

50 notes · View notes

i-want-my-iwtv · 3 years

Note

I hope the rumours of Louis being a brothel owner aren't true, but if they are I can sort of see why they're going for this route? I mean, with a black Louis they can't have him being a slaver anymore, so maybe they're trying to find something that is also morally reprehensible for him to be.

TL;DR: My kneejerk reaction was to be saddened, and I don’t like that this is starting up, and will continue to fuel, fandom drama. Ultimately, if we want peace, we’ll embrace the fact that the existence of this adaptation doesn’t take away from the existence of the books, and it also doesn't mean we have to acknowledge it.

It makes me wonder whether AMC wants us to make a storm about this. We’ll see...

After all, what makes this adaptation any more important than the graphic novels of the ’90s, the graphic novel Claudia’s Story, movie!IWTV, or movie!QOTD? In fact, many fans here on tumblr consider VC to be a trilogy only!!! and don’t accept the majority of the PUBLISHED CANON so what makes anyone think we have any obligation to swallow this AMC adaptation as some kind of gospel?

I see movie!QOTD as a buffet of ideas carried in an official fanfiction work, and I don’t accept as my headcanon the various things it changed about the books that I didn’t particularly like, such as merging Magnus and Marius (which, IMO, effectively made both characters more morally reprehensible). I accepted the things I did enjoy, like casting a Black/POC actress to play Akasha. I see this AMC adaptation as a buffet of ideas, some can be taken, and some not, it’s just another official fanfiction work.

[Anon, I need to catch other ppl up on the information, too.]

Deadline.com informs us that in the AMC adaptation for Interview with the Vampire, Jacob Anderson has been cast as Louis. I'm not familiar with him, but it looks like he’s a successful actor, from Game of Thrones and other things, he’s also joining Series 13 of Doctor Who. I’ll have to check him out from an acting standpoint!

Aside from his talent as an actor, this is by far the most controversial thing that's happened in VC fandom recently. I've been thinking about this for a few months now, talking about it privately online and offline, still gathering my thoughts. So this post is not engraved in stone, it’s initial thoughts on this.

I’m glad to see ppl talking about it and I’m sure we’ll have more public discussions. I’m trying to discuss it very carefully, but also, this is an entertainment blog, my opinions are mine alone, and I’m not looking for dogpiling on anyone, I have no obligation to respond publicly or privately to anything. Plenty of other ppl have differing opinions on this. So take all of the following with more than a grain of salt, I’m not being salty, I’m providing the links to the little info we’ve seen pulicly, I’m giving my initial thoughts, and I’m also trying to add a little levity because ultimately, again, this is an entertainment blog, and I try to add a little humor to help with such serious topics, humor can help ppl talk about controversial things.

-----

The casting of a POC/Black actor (I’m sorry I don't know the preferred terminology, let me know if you know what Anderson prefers) confirms at least one part of theilluminerdi articles that stated that Louis’ race will be different from the books. I didn’t post about these before bc I wasn’t sure how reliable theilluminerdi’s sources are (and I'm still not sure), but this was one major aspect that theilluminerdi announced before Deadline did, so now seems to be the right time to share those articles. For now, you can go check them out yourselves rather than have my reposting of the information, trigger warning: mentions of sex workers and race in the changes to the canon story of Interview with the Vampire.

>>>theilluminerdi articles from May 21, 2021 and July 15, 2021:

www.theilluminerdi.com/2021/05/21/interview-with-the-vampire-amc

www.theilluminerdi.com/2021/07/15/interview-with-the-vampire-amc-2

^Meme of Dr. Ian Malcom from Jurassic Park reads: “Your writers were so preoccupied with whether they could that they didn’t stop to think if they should.”

I’m using that meme with a little levity here, clearly an AMC adaptation of vampires in which the producers/writers have chosen to change the race of a main character (arguably the original protagonist of the series) isn’t in the same VICINITY as the dinosaurs in Jurassic Park that broke out of containment and killed visitors to the park, but John Hammond’s intention for the creation of that park was very good, as I assume this race change was intended. Time will tell.

“But with this place, I wanted to show them something that wasn't an illusion. Something that was real, something that they could see and touch. An aim not devoid of merit.”

“Creation is an act of sheer will.”

- John Hammond, Jurassic Park

Race is a more complicated subject than ever, so for AMC to make this bold change, I hope they have POC and Black writers on staff and are handling this very carefully. Even then, no racial group, including POC and Black people, are a hivemind, disagreements are bound to happen in the writing room, whether in good faith or bad. People have different intentions and motives, compromises will probably be made with the story in many ways, we all know how it goes with collaborations; the end product is a shared vision among multiple creators. This could be a potentially controversial adaptation, I don’t know whether they’re aiming for that or not, but with the elements it has so far, it seems to be headed that way.

Here's a comment by "Angellus" on the 5/21 article. It's undeniable that there's going to be the accusation of racism thrown at anyone who has any negative view of this change, regardless of their reasons. I find it unfair and narrow-minded that any negative response is automatically assumed to be coming from a racist point of view. To say that changing Louis' race is unequivocally an improvement fails to take into account how that change has a Domino effect on all of the other parts of the story. Not the least of which is that, if he is still a slaver/slave holder/plantation owner/(insert your preferred term) that adds a whole new racist element to his owning Black/POC people, even though, apparently there were Black/POC plantation owners.

Not the least of which: How will this change impact his relationship with Lestat? Particularly when Lestat has the added issue of being described in those articles as having “mind control abilities” and “insistent that he gets what he wants and when facing rejection,” a terrible combination in terms of consent, even in a relationship of the same race, let alone invoking Caucasian/white dominance over Black/POC people, AND Lestat being the catalyst to Louis’ questioning his sexuality:

Lestat is insistent that he gets what he wants and when facing rejection, petulance can quickly turn to ruthless rage which causes frenzied acts of horrifically brutal violence. Lestat also has mind control abilities. Lestat initially infuriates Louis, but this soon turns to fascination which leads Louis to question his religion and sexuality.

^Screencap reads: "I love how racist everyone is in the damn comments, this doesn’t pervert the story you’re all racist and it’s disgusting. I’m looking forward to it, I hope you keep crying your salty racist tears asswipes."

It makes me question whether Angellus truly believes what they wrote, if this is an ideology, or a troll. I would suggest their use of the term “pervert” is correct though, pervert means: “alter (something) from its original course, meaning, or state to a distortion or corruption of what was first intended.” That’s what this race change does, factually. Although, in this context, “distortion or corruption” carries a negative connotation. It would take a lot to show how this change does not meet the definition or “to pervert,” though.

I hope the rumours of Louis being a brothel owner aren't true

I agree 1,000%, I was hoping that these were just rumors. But, aside from the race change, if this were the only change, I find Louis being a brothel owner to be equivalently morally reprehensible to being a slaver/slave holder/plantation owner/(insert your preferred term). Ideally, they’d change his career to something that doesn’t involve benefiting from the bodies/labor of others in any morally reprehensible manner.

I mean, with a black Louis they can't have him being a slaver anymore, so maybe they're trying to find something that is also morally reprehensible for him to be.

He might still be a slaver. Who knows. Being morally reprehensible as a mortal man didn’t seem to me to be crucial to the story, but they still could have chosen something better. It seems to me like they want a brothel so they can have eye candy for an audience who want to see sex workers, maybe full frontal nudity.

-----

What also gets my attention is that Anne and Christopher Rice have not yet posted publicly about it, which leads me to believe that this change wasn’t their choice. They take every chance to brag when they’re proud of something, every chance to crowdsource about casting ideas or which VC books Anne’s fans liked best, etc., and in this case, as of Aug. 31, 2021, (and to be fair, maybe I missed it), I haven’t seen either of them post about this on the official VC FB, Anne Rice’s FB, Annerice.com, Christopher Rice’s FB, or christopherricebooks.com. If it had been their choice, I think they would have gladly trumpeted their credit by now, but maybe they’re waiting to do it in a specific venue. Time will tell.

#vampire chronicles #interview with the vampire #louis de pointe du lac #race #racism #tw race #tw racism #tw sex worker #jurassic park #memeything #ian malcolm #anon #ask #anne rice #christopher rice #long post #iwantmyiwtv has opinions #Jacob Anderson #vc casting

77 notes · View notes

edwardelricsrightarm · 3 years

Text

"A lesson without pain is meaningless. For you cannot gain anything without sacrificing something else in return, but once you have overcome it and made it your own...you will gain an irreplaceable fullmetal heart." - Edward Elric

In honor of disability month and the FMA 20 year anniversary I wanted to address some Thoughts™️ about the series.

It's not often you see a disabled protagonist in media where their disability is integral to the story without taking up their entire character, even more so with anime. Yet, Fullmetal Alchemist has not just one disabled Protagonist, but two. The Elric Brothers are an exemplary representation of disability in media that I find myself reflecting on often as a disabled person myself. If you haven't completed the manga or Brotherhood, skip this as it will be brimming with spoilers.

(Mangahood will be my point of reference because while 03 is good on its own merits it's not as fresh within my immediate memory, and I am far less familiar with it. Keep this in mind, I've watched FMAB 10 and a half times whereas I've finished 03 only once years ago.)

The story highlights their disabilities immediately, Edward being a double amputee and Alphonse being without his ENTIRE body, only having the senses of proprioception, sight, and hearing left. Yet, despite this being key to the story and an integral part of their characterization, it is only one facet of their motivations and doesn't take center in the narrative, which is refreshing. It's not inherently negative to make a narrative centered on the characters' disabilities, but often this model of a story goes very wrong very fast and starts to feel hollow (no pun intended). FMA avoids this by making their disabilities a clear part of the plot and their motivations without allowing it to consume the entire story, so the Elric Brothers don't suffer the "my disability is all of my character" problem that many disabled characters are relegated to in a vast portion of media, all while being strong and competent.

Recap:

The brothers wished to revive their mother, but their good intentions cannot change the atrocity of their mistake, Truth makes this abundantly clear from the start. Edward loses his leg first, a punishment for "stepping" into God's shoes and transgressing the place of humans in their world. Alphonse loses his entire body, unable to feel any warmth or simple comforts like food and rest, when all he wanted was to feel the warmth and comfort of his mother's embrace again. At first, Alphonse's entire being is consumed by the gate, but Edward acts immediately, refusing to lose his little brother and refusing to allow his arrogance in this plan to cause his brother's death for only following his lead. Edward gives his right arm to have the gate give back Alphonse's soul, and stated clearly in his panic that he'd give his entire self to save Alphonse if that's what it would take, but Truth took his dominant arm only, showing something akin to mercy, although the character of Truth is capriciously strict and hard to describe as "merciful".

Through giving up his right arm, Edward regains his Right Hand Man, his little brother and best friend. His only remaining family, who he feels responsible for protecting in the absence of their parents. He felt immediately that he'd made a grave mistake, instantly full of regret as he realized the gate had taken his brother. In that moment he was willing to give anything to take it back and undo the suffering his arrogance caused his brother, yet Alphonse was still to suffer more to come. Ed tied Alphonse's disembodied soul to one of Hohenheim's collected suits of armor, managing to at least keep his brother alive in some way. One could say that Alphonse's punishment functioned as a secondary punishment for Edward, showing him how easily his hubris could have cost him what he has left in his obsession with regaining what they'd lost, their mother. A very clear symbolic reminder of the weight of his actions and how he'd misled his brother in his own naive ignorance. Even in giving another limb away to drag his brother's soul back out of the gate, he couldn't offer enough to bring him back intact. Thus is the law of equivalent exchange.

Now that we've reviewed some of that basic symbolism and the motifs the story draws upon with limbs and body parts in relation to characters, let's move on to each individual brother and break it down, shall we?

Edward Elric is a very realistic protagonist, this is one thing a majority of us familiar with this series can agree upon. He feels like a believable teen boy, with layers of complexity to his character while also showing arrogance and immaturity that is unsurprising at his age. He expresses unwillingness to kill and avoidance of unjust violence from the beginning, and has a strong moral code after the ordeal of committing the taboo.

In some characters his cocky personality would typically become grating, yet the story explains in itself why he is this way, then builds upon this to develop him into an incredibly mature character who is willing to admit when he's absolutely wrong and adapts to new information and context for the crisis unfolding around him as it comes, even if he remains crass. This arrogance is shown from the start to be a manifestation of insecurity, self loathing, and repressed guilt. Edward is a logic driven person, he has a very unique thought process, which is where my interpretation of him as autistic comes in. Edward's awkward social demeanor, somewhat abrasive and cold approach to some, and his trouble coping with nonsensical societal structures all stand out in this way. Furthermore he clearly shows hyperfixation, hyperactivity, special interest, and infodumping behaviors that are all too familiar. He's picky with food (*cough* the milk thing), has very little filter and speaks his mind bluntly even if this can warrant conflicting responses, yet at the same time struggles with vulnerable emotions, and he is frustrated when his own routine or itinerary are interrupted by forces beyond his control. All of these things Scream autism with comorbid ADHD. Many traits are shared between the brothers, and I'm quite certain they're both on the autism spectrum based on behavioral patterns. Neurodivergence aside, Edward's physical disabilities are undeniable.

Despite his bratty persona, Edward is fundamentally kind and uncharacteristically gentle and soft around the edges for a shonen protagonist in many ways. He cries openly on many occasions even if he struggles talking about his trauma and burdens in words at times, he feels pain, grief, and compassion so intensely it throws him into action on a regular basis in the narrative. In this way he's also a fantastic example of non-toxic masculinity (though in other ways he has displayed more toxic traits, he's just a kid). He acts on his heart, even if he's led by his mind and logic in most things. His humanity, value for life, and care for others will always win over his logic, and he shows a sense of personal responsibility for doing the right thing even if it harms him in the process. Ed is clearly shown having ghost pains in his lost limbs which is honestly an interesting detail to include, I don't think I've ever seen that aspect of amputation shown in media aside from FMA. It's also shown that when Ed's automail arm breaks this is a HUGE problem for him, but he's also shown to be very good at working around this in difficult circumstances. He doesn't become completely helpless, even if majorly weakened.

Alphonse is an extremely lovable and compassionate boy, brimming with altruism and care for others. Even in his noncorporeal state he pursues a better future and he's not helpless by any stretch. Edward clearly states Alphonse is the superior fighter for example, and it's not just because of his armor body being so large. He's *talented*, that's a fact. Al is every bit as clever and capable as Ed, moreso in some ways, and I love that about his character *because* he's so clearly disabled. He has no sense of pain, he is completely incapable of sleeping, he can't eat, can't relax or find comfort, he can only exist and think. This causes him to overthink in all his time alone, this is debilitating. He clearly is absolutely sick of the loneliness this causes, and he often feels helpless though he's not. He has doubts and fears that consume him in relation to his armor body, he questions his own personhood, even. Yet, Edward is stubborn and staunch in affirming that no matter what he's dealing with, he is fundamentally still a human being that is loved and irreplaceable. Alphonse is powerful and his body gives him some advantages, but it also sets him back, and the brothers know this even when others claim Alphonse's state is somehow a good thing. I have hEDS, a disability that comes with advantages as well as the major downsides, so I can understand and relate to Alphonse here. I too am told my disability is a boon because of flexibility and because I'm less likely to fracture bones, but I'm twice as likely to injure my ligaments and joints, which people ignore.

The brothers are both disabled, both flawed, both show weaknesses, but they are competent, determined, and strong in their own right. They are rounded characters that exist for more than to be pitied or condescended to by able bodied characters around them. They put their entire being in everything that they do no matter what that is, and they don't know the meaning of giving up. These traits that they're made of truly make them a shining example of disability in protagonists for others to look to for reference when writing their own disabled characters.

Even though by the end Edward has regained one limb and Al has regained his body, this also doesn't just deus ex machina reverse their disability or make it go away. It's clear that Alphonse's body is weak and has to be rehabilitated upon recovery, and Edward is still missing his leg and bears the scars and pieces of the port from his automail arm. They weren't suddenly made able bodied upon recovering these things, they reclaimed what was lost through struggle and grit, but the narrative didn't give the impression that their disability in itself was something to be fixed, which is important. They wanted to recover their bodies, but this doesn't erase the effects of their disability.

It was about Edward atoning for leading Alphonse into their mistake and saving his brother from suffering further, it was about them proving they can keep moving forward no matter what, not about getting rid of their disability in itself or putting themselves down because of the disabilities. This, to me, as a mentally and physically disabled viewer, is so important. They achieve their goal, but this doesn't in any way erase or undo the effects of their initial losses, they find ways to adapt and move on but they're still affected and still disabled. They always will be. That can be so important to see in comfort characters, and as a disabled individual who's had both brothers as comfort characters since I was a child, their impact on my own journey is surprisingly tangible for fiction.

#fmab #fullmetal alchemist brotherhood #fma #edward elric #alphonse elric #elric brothers #character analysis #disability month #disability positivity #disabled #fma 20th anniversary

119 notes · View notes

the-crimson · 2 years

Text

With Dream’s new lore video I hope people will stop trying to excuse c!Dream’s actions or calling him “morally gray”. This boi is evil. Full stop. And you know what I LOVE THAT for him. This is a post I’d been considering making for a while and the new lore drop gave me the motivation.

All discussion about the character not the content creator.

The Dream SMP is a story filled to the brim with morally gray protagonists and antagonists who are the heroes of their own stories. That is awesome and gives for a lot of really in depth discussions between the fans and interesting conflicts between the characters. However, when creating a narrative like this with so many morally gray characters, there is one plot device that is necessary to highlight just how grey these characters are: A Pure Evil Villain. Which is the role that Dream has grown to fulfill after Shlatt hit the bucket.

Now, I’m going to say this here. Watching Dream be evil and run around the server causing chaos is my favorite thing. It’s the same reason why people watch Death Note or enjoy classical Disney Villains. Sometimes... watching fictional characters do unapologetic evil... is fun.

What gets unfun is when people try to justify his actions or call him “morally grey”. No. He isn’t. He is my evil little meow meow who enjoys committing war crimes. You are allowed to enjoy watching fictional villains do their villainy. A lot of villains are written specifically so that the audience is enthralled by them and enjoy watching them reap chaos- but you are not supposed to root for them or justify their actions (unless the heroes are really insufferable lol)

In my mind, Dream is equivalent to a classical Disney renaissance villain. He certainly has the villainous pinash, charisma, and queer coding for it. These villains are extremely enjoyable and have a wonderful stage presence but in the end, you can’t wait for them to hit that third act breakdown and fall apart.

All the apologists trying to justify his actions are missing the point of Dream as a character. He, a pure evil villain, is meant to highlight how morally gray everyone else is. Every single person on the server has committed war crimes and hurt other people so how do you determine who is good and who is bad? Well, you put them up against someone who consistently and unapologetically abuses, manipulates, tortures, and straight up murders people for his own goals with no tragic backstory or sympathetic motivation in sight.

That is why you have duos like Azula and Ozai in ATLA or Hordak and Hord Prime in SPOP. You have an extremely complicated and morally gray villain working right next to a pure evil villain to highlight just how complex one is, and how evil the other is. In the case of the dsmp, that duo has changed over time but right now it seems to be Punz and Dream. Punz, a morally gray character who we have seen waver but remains loyal to Dream and his goals.

In the end, Dream is my favorite* character because he is a pure evil villain and that is incredibly FUN to watch. Stop worrying about morality and sit back to enjoy the ride.

*I love many of the characters equally but evil Dream squeaks ahead by a sliver because he is just so fun to watch and I can’t wait to see what fucked up evil thing he does next.

#dsmp #dream smp #dream #c!dream #dreamwastaken #discorse #i guess?#yall apologists need to stop #your ruining a perfectly evil villain #separate fiction from reality #and enjoy the evil character cc!dream is playing #you can love cc!dream and acknowledge that c!dream is an abusive murderer #it isn't that hard #some times pure evil villains are necessary and fun in a story chalked full of morally gray characters #in the end #its just a story #yall need to chill

18 notes · View notes

nocek · 3 years

Note

Don't spare us the long rant! We want to hear your thoughts!

Oh you are going to regret this ;P

So here goes my loooooooong angry rant about Taskmaster and also the Black Widow movie in general.

Let's start with my point of comparison. Captain America the Winter Soldier was a good movie. It's still in my top 3 Marvel movies as I'm sure is for many people. And statistically speaking everybody likes Bucky. He is like the most beloved side character right after Loki. I guess.

Anyway. My point is that Taskmaster and Winter Soldier have bit for bit the exact same building blocks: hypercompetent antagonist that is a serious threat to our hero who just can't win with in one on one combat. But then plot twist: our antagonist was just a victim and puppet without free will in hands of actual villain who is bland bureaucrat.

So why did Winter Soldier worked really really well and Taskmaster was just ehh.. ok?

Well the short answer is that catws was a much tighter movie that had clearer goal (and also that goal/theme was singular: good things get corrupted with time and sometimes you get to start over) compared to black widow which had to jump through too many hoops and still somehow managed it but it wasn't as graceful as it would be if they (as in executives) resigned from one or two hoops and flips and explosions.

And I'm omitting a BIG disadvantage of making a prequel movie about a character that they killed off in shitty way. Though that created one of extra hoops for them to jump through: quickly build up Yelena as a character.

And character build they did. Because srsly Yelena is awesome and I love her. BUT. That came at a price.

Lets compare to catws. The new character there is Sam (and kiiiiiiiinda also Natasha a bit but that's a topic for a different rant) who is nowhere near as well build as Yelena. At the beginning. Because he had time to be fleshed out and naturally grow in few different movies and then we got a deep dive in the Falcon and the Winter Soldier.

But Marvel can't give Yelena few movies because she will appear in Hawkguy an Hawkeye series and also Marvel is generally dividing their assets into: outer spaaaace, down to earth heros and magic stuff (aliens, androids and wizards ;P). But also they can only create so many things in a year.

So yeah. Yelena offtopic can be summarized that I love that we have her as we have her but it came at a cost of air time of the movie.

So comparing the movies again:

Catws had the theme of good things being corrupted with time. And the theme was underlined 3 times through Peggy, Bucky and then Shield/Hydra. Which are interconnected and also make nice scale from inner conflict of the main character to the outer conflict of the movie.

In Black Widow there is the topic of the past evil that never went away and is still taking away free will from people. And again we have it shown through 3 outlets: Yelena, Taskmaster and Black Widows. But there is also whole family subplot attached to Yelena and there is Red Room attached to Black Widows. So as you can see things are getting crowded. Which in turn make the theme a bit blurry.

I mean, sure, the Red Room should be the Shield equivalent. Even it could take smaller space because good Shield turns out to be evil Hydra is generally more time consuming to explain than Red Room bad. But still combining Red Room and Black Widows make things a bit crowded.

(There is a reason why the surprise subplot of there is more Winter Soldiers was in separate movie and was kinda handwaved and cut to minimum. But they couldn't do that here).

But it's time to stop my ranting about whole Black Widow movie and focus on comparing Taskmaster and Winter Soldier.

Because to be honest both are bare bones of character and more of an carte blanche in the movie. Both have barely any screen time yet there are colossal difference which stems out of:

first introduction: as I mentioned they are hypercompetent and unstoppable threat that you can't win with, you can only hope to run away (both done equally well)

programmable killing machine:

For Taskmaster we just get a scene with her watching other heroes fighting at the screen. For the sake of building up the mystery of character we think that "he" is just watching. Maybe learning or more likely just being creepy. The information about the chip and literal programming is given to us much later in the movie which makes this scene lose the power. idk how it will work on rewatch? Maybe better? Hopefully. right now there is too many new movies in cinemas to go for a rewatch and disney+ still isn't available here -.-

For Bucky we have literal torture scene. You just can't be more blunt than that. It also hammered the next point in.

there is human behind the mask:

Winter Soldier is introduced with full face mask which he gradually loses and then we have the big reveal of not only: that's a human but also that's a human our main hero cares about deeply.

With Taskmaster they fucked up it for chap plot twist. We are learning quite late that oh snap that's Antonia (that we don't really care about) and our main hero kinda feels guilty about her.

I think the big difference is what kind of character Steve and Nat are and also the way they reveal this secret. Steve actively recognizes Bucky by himself and is very openly shocked. Nat is passively told and shown that hey, this is Antonia. And there is no time in the movie for Nat (and for us) to be shocked because that's the 3rd act and we need time for explosions and stuff.

Besides, the problem is that all the big plot twist reveals are boring on rewatch (stil big props for Pacific Rim and giving us the monster reveal in like second minute of the movie, I will never not appreciate that).

Also on related shitty note. We the audience. Bucky is handsome and vulnerable and we can drool all over him (and oh man, we the fandom did a fair share of drooling). Antonia is disfigured and not sexualized in any way. Which I'm actually grateful for but there is no pretending that doesn't make a hell lot of difference. But that's a whole different, ugly and big topic I'm not remotely qualified to write about. I'm just angry ranting here.

they don't have free will:

For Winter Soldier we have amnesia + torture tropes which to be honest have been done over and over again and it shouldn't have worked as well as it worked. Bit it did. In context of Black Widow movie it worked because it was just one guy that actively broke through brainwashing with active help of the hero.

In Black Widow there is a lot of characters that are pasively "woken up" out of mind control over and over again by active protagonist. Unfortunately the repetition kinda cheapens it. Especially in comparison to main gut punch right in the feels scene in the other movie. Which is why it's not fair to compare the two.

So lets talk about lack of free will aspect itself. To be honest the mind control aspect in Black Widow was done really great from story perspective. Evil scientists perfected it to the point it being (bit handwavey but) completely impersonal but also completely dehumanizing to the subject. So I'm buying that it can be completely switched off in equally efficient and impersonal way. Even the way they explained it with Alexei the pig was great and terrifying... to a point. Because then kicked the main problem with this movie. Clearly some execs came and saw it and went whoa... that's too dark for pg13 blockbuster. Let's put some cheap jokes here. And it happens over and over again in this movie :S

humanizing flashback scene that ties them to main hero:

For Bucky, sure we had Captain America First Avenger but a movie needs to stand on it's own legs. That's why we have the flashback scene which shows us that Bucky cared about Steve. Leaving it at the narration in Smithsonian of "best friends since childhood" would be just telling us. And we needed to be shown and we needed a space for the "till the end of line" so it could come back and stab us right in the feels.

Also because we are ignoring previous movie Russos cleverly made us care about Winter Soldier because Steve cares about Winter Soldier. And we already know and like Steve so building up our main character gives us more mileage out of new bare bones character (because let's be honest, Winter Soldier is just that). Two birds one stone thing.

In Black Widow there is no such thing which IMHO is the main reason Taskmaster doesn't work. We just get information about cardboard cutout: insert cute little girl here (only told, not even shown actual cardboard) and all of the emotional connection to Natasha is: I know that my boss that I hate has a daughter, she got in the crossfire. Which means nobody cares.

All it would take is adding a short flashback scene. idk Dreykov is an asshole and doesn't care about Antonia but she is she cutest and most adorable little girl. She treats the Black Widows as older sisters. Hell if you want to make it more horrorish copy of the idea of Thor wanting to be a Valkyrie when he grows up or T'challa wanting to be a Dora Milaje. Little Antonia wants to be Black Widow when she grows up because they are badass and they are nice to her (and are also slightly confused by her) because she is nice to them and is only person that treats them as humans. Hell we could have short interaction between her and Nat. Just a smile between them would be enough.

You could get a lot of character buildup mileage out of such a short scene.

But it couldn't happen partially because the movie didn't have time for that but we didn't get that mostly because it would show us instead of telling that Nat killed a cute little innocent girl for her own personal gain. (well she thought she was destroying Red Room but mostly wanted to get away - vide she didn't check on Yelena or other widows. But I wouldn't hold that against her. It was put your oxygen mask first kind of situation. But still it would make her look bad)

Besides, that would take guts to actually show.

And technically they could have afforded to have that guts. That was last movie with Nat anyway. It would actually make this plotline about her feeling guilty about Dreykov's daughter and red in her ledger work. But well... It was last movie so they wanted to leave us with the most goodest and bleeding hartest and heartwarming mary sue version of Nat with just telling us without showing hey, she got dark past.

On the other hand if we had the rumored Endgame plotline of Nat running an orphanage. Damn that would tie to this plotline so well. We could tie the loose widows also. Dam we were robbed here I tell ya >.<

Ok I'm overdoing offtopic about Nat. Sorry

design

So yeah. Design wise Winter Soldier is like great. For Taskmaster, she sure looks cool but also kinda generic? If in 10 years you'd show me her and say it's antagonist from GI Joe or something I'll believe you :S (not touching the debate that in comics something something because unfortunately I don't know Taskmaster from comics. Although I hear that few recent ones were quite good so I'll check them out sooner or later)

snapping out of mind control

I mentioned before. It would be unfair and there is no point comparing main emotional scene of the movie versus means to an end that were repeated several times through a movie.

Natasha freeing Antonia even if she thought that Antonia will kill her because that would fair was great. What I'm annoyed is a cheap fakeout that went with that. It was just after the bombastic finale with explosions and all the cgi shit. Even without looking at the movie runtime it was obvious there will be no extra fight scene.

In catws it worked because the cgi pew pew extravaganza was a background noise and was part of a continuous fight. In BW helicarriers fell already, there was a second of dust settling and then Nat throws away the shield (uses that capsule). Tension just fell from highest place in a movie (quite literally lol), trying to rise it again for such a short moment just doesn't work.

But that's the general problem with Marvel movies. Bombastic CGI fest as grand finale that probably is "outsourced" and then actual director comes back and needs to end movie super quickly.

disappearing act at the end

So in catws there is mystery of what will Bucky do. We are given some hope since he dragged Steve out of river and visited the museum but thats all. I mean there is this annoying Marvel thing of skipping over the interesting ending of last movie and starting with next plot point. We were hoping for the grand roadtrip/hunt for Bucky but nope. We must run ahead with all the plotlines (same way I'm sure that the Spiderman is Peter Parker and he killed a guy thing will be already dealt with in the beginning of the next movie -.-) But that's bonus mini rant.

In BW they needed to wrap up to many plot lines too quickly so Antonia wakes up and that's all. We don't get a suggestion what she may do. The problem of the chip she still has installed is omitted. There is nothing. She just fucks off to lalaland with other Black Widows the end. Because we needed ending for Nat's actual family which was ok but also kinda rushed.

As I mentioned waaaay before (god, this rant is pretty long) too many hoops to jump through.

Which really sucks because if they added that one flashback scene just for Antonia and spared few more minutes for the overall ending it would work so much more better.

And I even know where they could have saved few minutes (besides the explosions thingies). The supply guy. One extra character in a movie with too many characters. In catws the supply problem (with wings) was solved with nbd shrug. If you wanted to show that Nat has her own web of contacts it should be more than one guy. IDK in Budapest there could be 10 second scene with neighbor saying hi nice to see you again we reinforced the walls after last time. In Norway we could see her visiting some special secret supply stash run by some rando before getting to the mobile home.

But oh she was on the run so that would be too many people. Then cut the people entirely. The shitty helicopter can be worked around with joke that I'm not on speaking terms with Stark rn and that's the best we can have on short notice.

Eh.. side rant again. Sorry.

So to wrap it up. I actually really would love to see what will happen with the loose Black Widows and Antonia because here they were really underdeveloped. And while widows were more of a group hero and we have Yelena as a representative so in a way it balances out but Taskmaster needed so little extra care to make her character so much better and I'm a tiiiiiiny bit salty about it.

#text post #long post #very long rant #black widow #black widow spoilers #black widow movie #black widow 2021 #taskmaster #antonia dreykov #i kinda doubt we will see her again #but one can hope #if anyone actually read through all of this congratz!#and thank you #let me hug you #(and I'm sorry it's so long)

58 notes · View notes

thesublemon · 4 years

Text

planning ≠ coherence

I talk a big game about liking coherence in art, and it’s probably clear that I have an apophenic tendency to enjoy textual interpretation. And this might lead people to think that I have a preference for carefully planned and plotted art, or that I look down on the messy and improvisational. But this is actually almost the opposite of the case. Not because I don’t really like coherence, but because artistic coherence is something more complicated than planning, and isn’t even necessarily possible to achieve with planning.

The thing about improvisation, is that at its best it’s about finding the choice that feels right. I listen to jazz more than any other kind of music, and one of the reasons I like it so much is the exhilaration of someone landing on a musical idea that simultaneously makes a song feel bigger and more complete. A solo isn’t fun if it’s just a bunch of disconnected ideas (similar to how whimsy isn’t fun if it doesn’t also “work”). It’s fun if it picks up on the things that the other players are doing, or ideas that showed up earlier in the song, and then makes them feel like they go together. Even if they “go together” in the sense of being coherently discordant, eg repeating ideas that don’t work multiple times. If beauty is fit, then the joy of improv is finding fit in unexpected places.

This goes for narrative too. In long-running stories like comics, book series, and TV shows, much is often made about whether certain choices were planned from the beginning. If things were planned, that’s a reason for praise, and if things weren’t planned, that’s a reason for derision, either towards the showrunners or towards people attempting to interpret the work. Say, “This plot point only happened because an actor wanted to leave the show. Therefore it has no meaning to read into.” But making things up as one goes is not what makes a story lose its plot, so to speak. Making things up is only a problem if the things the artist makes up don’t go with what came before.

In Impro, a very excellent book about the craft of improvisation, Keith Johnstone calls this process of making-things-go-with-what-came-before “re-incorporation”:

The improviser has to be like a man walking backwards. He sees where he has been, but he pays no attention to the future. His story can take him anywhere, but he must still ‘balance’ it, and give it shape, by remembering incidents that have been shelved and reincorporating them.

Johnstone is big on the idea that satisfying narrative depends on a sense of structure, and that reincorporation is one of the most important tactics for creating structure. To paraphrase him, a story where a character runs away from a bear, swims across lake, and finds a woman in a cabin on the other side, and “makes passionate love” to her has no structure. It’s just a series of events. Whereas if the bear then knocks the cabin’s door down and the woman cries out that it’s her lover, then suddenly it feels like a story. Because not only has the bear been reincorporated, it has been linked to the woman. From this perspective, if a story has no sense of reincorporation, or new developments don’t make sense with what came before, then it will feel incoherent, no matter how planned out it was.

I also keep thinking about Paul Bouissac’s discussion of gags and narrative in The Semiotics of Clowns and Clowning. He explains that what makes a scene funny is not whether it strings a bunch of gags together, but how those gags are organized. To use an example from the book, it’s one thing for a clown to pretend to hurt its thumb, and ask for an audience member to kiss it. It’s another thing for it to keep hurting different parts and then finally hurt its groin and act scandalized at the idea that someone might kiss it. Bouissac calls this sort of repetition “anaphor”:

Anaphor is one of the main tools of textual consistency. In linguistics, it designates the use of pronouns or any other indexical units to refer back to another word or phrase in the text. It links together parts of sentences and bridges the grammatical gaps between clauses, which is a consequence of the linearity of language. In rhetoric, anaphors are repetitions of words or structures that build up the cohesion of discourse and create momentum toward a climax. In multimodal communication, words, gestures, objects, or musical tunes can play the same role by reminding the receiver—that is, the spectator in the case of a performance—of signs and events produced earlier in the act.

One of the things that fascinated me about Farscape as a teenager, was that in contrast to other scifi of the time, it made no pretenses of having been planned—unlike say, Babylon 5. Or even shows like The X-Files, Lost, or Battlestar Galactica that gave you the “feeling” of a plan whether or not they had one, or were capable of following through. Farscape felt incredibly coherent, both in terms of theme and plot, but this coherence came about purely on the strength of the writing’s ability to ideate and then reincorporate. It would take someone’s weird costume idea, like the villain having glowing rods that screw inside his head, and snowball that into a whole storyline where the villain is a half breed of one hot-blooded race and one cold-blooded race, and can only stay alive by thermo-regulating the inside of his brain. And then decide that his vendetta against the hot-blooded race has motivated his obsession with the protagonist since the first season. Yet these twists never feel like “ret-conning” in a pejorative sense, because it all feels narratively and thematically sensible. (Unsurprisingly, making the show was described as “more like improv jazz than plotting out a symphony”).

None of which is to say that I dislike planning or polish, either. Stephen King, as a so-called “discovery” writer, famously writes off the cuff, without outlines. As he puts it in On Writing:

You may wonder where plot is in all this. The answer—my answer, anyway—is nowhere. I won’t try to convince you that I’ve never plotted any more than I’d try to convince you that I’ve never told a lie, but I do both as infrequently as possible. I distrust plot for two reasons: first, because our lives are largely plotless, even when you add in all our reasonable precautions and careful planning; and second, because I believe plotting and the spontaneity of real creation aren’t compatible. It’s best that I be as clear about this as I can—I want you to understand that my basic belief about the making of stories is that they pretty much make themselves. The job of the writer is to give them a place to grow (and to transcribe them, of course).

But his best stories feel like whatever bloat might have been generated from this narrative improvisation has then been pared down to what that improvisation was really getting at. And I can’t lie, I get a particular joy from reading or watching something and feeling without a doubt that the artist is in complete control of my experience. It was one of the most gratifying aspects of rewatching The Wire recently: the feeling that the little meanings and foreshadowings I was seeing in each choice were almost certainly intended. Nothing is more satisfying to an apopheniac than feeling like the patterns you see are actually real. And nothing is more annoying than a story that tries to pull some sort of reveal on you (“Dan is gossip girl!” “Angel is Twilight!” “Rey is a Palpatine!”) that doesn’t make any sense because it wasn’t intended from the beginning. Just because those characters existed in the story before, doesn’t make it good reincorporation. So if a story is a story because of structure, then if the choice is between a planned structure and no structure, the former is almost certainly going to be better.

Point is, it’s not really the process that matters. All creativity is improvisational in a sense, because all creativity involves making things up. What matters is how dedicated an artist is to the integrity of their work. If a writer has carefully planned their whole story out, with every twist and every theme clearly in mind, but can’t adapt if they start writing and find out that something they planned doesn’t actually work, that’s one kind of failure mode. The narrative equivalent of designing a perfect castle and then building it on a swamp. On the other hand, if a writer tries to go with the flow, but can’t reincorporate that flow, then that will be another failure mode. To the extent that I respond to improvisational art, it’s because improvisational art is often more attuned to these questions of whether something is moment-to-moment right. But what matters, above all, is the rightness. That’s what defines coherence. Whether there is a sense in the work that it is oriented around something, and whether the choices contribute to that something.

#posts: art #i could've also connected a pattern language to this #and the post about how it's the solution to high modernism #but hopefully the castle-on-a-swamp analogy will encompass that #the philosophy of 'here are things that generally work but also any solutions must be adapted their environment'

413 notes · View notes

rachelbethhines · 3 years

Text

Tangled Salt Marathon - The King and Queen of Hearts

The existence of this episode just baffles me, as it undermines so much of what season three was trying to accomplish.

Summary: Rapunzel continues to try and restore the memories of her parents, King Frederic and Queen Arianna, and hopes to use the journal of Herz Der Sonne to remind them, but they do not understand the significance. Arianna still lusts for adventure, while Frederic cannot get over his obsession of egg collecting. Rapunzel recruits her friends to try and set up the perfect date for them and while they cannot find anything in common personality wise, they share a mutual love for Rapunzel. However, King Trevor arrives with the intent to woo Arianna using an ocean crystal he found.

So What Exactly Is the History Here?

We have no context for this sudden love triangle. All we know is that Trevor hates Frederic because he’s still in love with Arianna who wound up marrying him instead.

But like, I don't know why Arianna married Frederic. I don’t know why Trevor is still hung up on her years later. Did she actually choose Frederic or was it an arranged marriage cause that’s what royalty did back then? Was she having an affair with Trevor this whole time but couldn’t/wouldn’t leave because of duty? Was she and Trevor pining star crossed lovers, or is Trevor just an incel?

I know what the story wants me to assume; that Arianna deeply loves Frederic and that Trevor is just a jackass loser; but the series has done such a poor job of making Frederic likable and giving him and Arianna any sort of chemistry that I’m inclined to side with Trevor.

For all we know, he may be trying to rescue Arianna from both her memory loss and her abusive relationship while at it. Especially now that she’s no longer needed as a ruler and has no reason to stay in Corona.

Why Not Just Use the Potion from Rapunzel: Day One?

While any Varian cameo is appreciated, it doesn’t add thing to the story. In fact it only raises more questions. We already had a cure for the memory loss, why aren’t we using it?

Even if we write it off as Rapunzel no longer having that particular Saporian spellbook on hand, she still has a whole dungeon full of actual Saporians who know magic that she could gain information from! There’s also Xavier, who already knows everything under the sun about Saporian/Coronian history and magic and owns spellbooks galore. You’re telling me he just has mood potions lying around but can’t brew up a cure for memory loss?

Then there’s also the fact that the amnesia spell doesn’t work on Rapunzel’s parents the same as it did on Rapunzel and we’re never given a reason why. Like just some basic consistence is all I ask show.

I also can’t figure out what Varian is even trying to do here. Where’s is the science to this? What does strawberry goop and lighting have to do with memory? It’s just a cheap reference to Frankenstein and nothing more.

We’re Already Pass Seven Months Since Rapunzel’s Return.

Ok, I have gotten into frequent debates with people about the timeline of season three. Many a story board artist and writer on the show have came forward and stated that season three was only one year. But the very existence of this episode disproves them!

If you remember season one, Hearts Day took place after the Goodwill Festival, but before Queen for a Day. Even when putting episodes back into their intended production order that still remains true.

Hearts Day has to be at least seven months past Rapunzel’s birthday, if not eight months, because the Goodwill Festival is six months past and her parent’s anniversary (QfaD) is nine months past.

Now Rapunzel’s Return has to be Rapunzel’s 20th birthday because season two was a full year, and even if you say it’s not, then that still doesn’t explain Once a Handmaiden (the Goodwill Festival) coming after this episode.

And no you can’t move the episodes around, Once a Handmaiden has be the second to last episode of the series and Under Raps always comes after Rapunzel’s Enemy in any order you watch the series in.

No matter how you slice it, we’re missing a birthday episode for Rapunzel and season three has to be more than a year; a year and a half at the very least, if not two full years.

Look I’m not trying to be disrespectful of the talented artists who worked on this show, but their word isn’t law. The very fact that they’ve had to tell us the timeline after the series was over with indicates bad writing, and the very fact that the show itself contradicts them indicates either a lack of communication behind the scenes or a lack of editorial oversight. Either option is just poor management.

We Have Yet Another Failed Narrative Promise!

Are we seeing a pattern yet?

This is the third time in a row where the episode flat out states that Rapunzel needs to learn something and then, just, never has her learn it; four if you count her non-apology to Varian. Instead the show rewards her for her bad behavior by just giving her want she wants on a sliver platter for no adequate reason.

In fact, one could argue that this episode is the worst offender in the show because divorce is a real thing real kids have to go through. Children that will undoubtedly watch the series.

How upsetting would it be to such a child to watch Rapunzel force her parents back together with zero consequences and realize that they can’t do that in real life? It can potentially feed into misplaced delusions or make them even more bitter, either way it’s unhealthy and super irresponsible to tackle such subject matter in this way. Even Sesame Street handled the topic of divorce better than this supposedly ‘mature’ show.

It’s a Castle! Why Can’t Frederic Get His Own Room?

Frederic is the king. He still technically owns everything even if he’s not the one still in charge. He could have his pick of any room so why is he forcing himself on Eugene? Hell he doesn’t even have to stay in the castle. As pointed out during The Return of the King review, there’s other accommodations within the kingdom that’s suited for royalty. Why not head up to that mountain retreat?

This is a Really Bad Message

I understand that this is meant to be a joke, because of how ridiculously over the top it is, but because the series gives Rapunzel what she wants in the end without ever having her acknowledge how she is wrong here, it winds up validating her toxic world view anyways.

Divorce is not inherently a bad thing. We should be working towards both normalizing it and promoting healthy coping mechanisms for those that go through it, adult and child alike. What Rapunzel is doing here is just repeating puritanical fearmongering. And while I can understand why she might behave in this way, I don't understand why the show refuses to call her out on it. Or any of the other million bad behaviors she displays repeatedly through out the show... like the example below for instance...

Why Am I Suppose to Like Rapunzel Again?

It’s like the writers don’t understand that a joke can damage a character, especially if it’s overplayed. Super sweet upbeat Rapunzel snapping because she finally met someone who was annoying or a situation she couldn’t just solve with a positive attitude was funny maybe like the first time; but we’re three seasons in and this is supposedly her closest loved ones.

Look at them! They’re fucking terrified of her! All they did was point out that she maybe should do her job and deal with real problems instead of poking her nose into her parents business where it doesn’t belong! And this brat is now the ruler of the whole kingdom!? No one can legally stand up to her.

Like where’s the Eugene that stood up to her in Under Raps for trying this same bullshit? Why hasn’t she learned her lesson? She also pulled this same bullying tactic on young Lance and teen Eugene two episodes. Cass left her ass, supposedly, because of her bossy thoughtless ways. And this is also the same woman who abused a child back in season one and still has never acknowledged it.

Yes characters should be flawed, but they should also face real consequences for their actions, and if they’re a protagonist they need to learn and grow past their flaws.

I actively started to dislike Rapunzel after this scene. I already felt something was off way back in the season three opener, but this is the point where I stopped and went “What the fuck?” She used to be my second favorite character behind Varian. I didn’t go into this wanting to hate her, even after this episode I still held out hope that they were trying to purposefully lead up to some sort of falling out with everyone and with Rapunzel having to own up to her bullshit in order to win. You know like a classic third act “the hero is now alone due to their past mistakes” type story. But Nope!

There’s no pay off for any of this. Rapunzel is just mean for the sake of being mean in season three, and no one is aloud to call her out on it. She’s now the same type person as Frederic, a tyrant. That’s not a good development!

She’s Literally Bullying Her Own Parents Now, and I’m Suppose to Find that Funny?

Yes, Frederic is her abuser, and yes some people might find this scene cathartic if they hate him. But this isn’t actually calling out his past abuse. It’s just Rapunzel treating a now powerless old man with that same abuse and denying him bodily autonomy. An old man who has both less political rights and less power within the relationship than her; since due to his memory loss he is now dependent upon her.

In the real world it’s the equivalent of picking on an Alzheimer's patient who is in your care. I don’t give a shit how much of dick they were before the illness set in, you don’t fucking do that!

Why Should I Want Arianna and Frederic To Be a Couple?

The show has done nothing to sell this relationship. In fact one could argue that the show is trying to purposefully sabotage it.

Before the memory loss Frederic was proven to be abusive, to the point where even his own wife was afraid of him and wouldn’t stand up to him. Meanwhile Arianna was shown to be a shell of her former self who’d all but given up upon the things she actually enjoyed in life. And now that they both have had a second chance they have even less motive to stay together.

Look at Arianna up there? She’s clearly not enjoying her time with him. While he doesn’t want to engage in anything that she likes. I mean a couple doesn’t have to share their interests in everything, but there still has to be some sort of connection and the series just does not give us that connection.

There’s no reason why they should stay together. They no longer have any commitment or duty to fulfill as rulers and their daughter is fully grown. Contrary to what Rapunzel says, the kingdom isn’t going to fall apart if they separate. It actually would probably better for everyone, including Rapunzel, if they got divorced. At least then she’d have to grow up somewhat and stop being a controlling asshat.

Why is Attila Here?

I thought Attila got a job running his own bakery and that it was Lance who became the new cook at the Snuggly Duckling? Even if you argued that Attila was just doing Rapunzel a solid that still wouldn’t explain who is running the place when Lance isn’t there.

If you’re going to set up developments like that then you need to either stick with them or give an on screen reason for why these previous developments are no longer relevant. Flat out ignoring them like this is just lazy.

Lance’s New Outfit is the Best Thing About the Episode, and It’s Also a Complete Waste.

Lance deserved a new outfit because the team was too lazy to give him one for season two, even during the island arc. This however is a waste because it doesn’t add anything to the narrative. People were paid to make this thing for it to only show up for a few seconds of screen time.

This Whole Exchange Is Gross.

Oh let me count the ways in which this is so, so stupid.

Neither Rapunzel nor Frederic has ever proven themselves “thoughtful and responsible.” In fact both of them being irresponsible is intentionally a plot point in the main story arc.

How would either Frederic or Arianna know any of this? Not only have they lost their memories, but they didn’t raise Rapunzel themselves and those traits aren’t inherited; they are taught.

Gushing over your grown daughter isn’t a point of connection!

Why would anyone be compelled to kiss a practical stranger, that they previously didn’t even like, just because they both admire some woman they also barely know and happen to be related to? What is the thought process behind this? “Oh we made that? Then lets make another one!” What the fuck show? I’m ace and even I know that’s not a normal thing to get titillated over.

The Series Turns Frederic Into a Literal Baby In a Last Ditch Effort to Make Him Likable

The whole point behind the amnesia plot was to absolve Frederic of his past wrong doings. You can’t call out an old man with Alzheimer's for being a dictator, I suppose. (not like that’s ever stopped me from criticizing Ronald Reagan, tho) But from there the series then takes it one step further and actually infantilizes both Frederic and Arianna, because Chris assumes that if he makes Fredric as pathetic as possible the audience won't hate him any more. Well guess what, it didn’t work. Frederic isn’t suddenly a poor woobie just because he’s useless now. That’s not how that works.

Rapunzel Literally Physically Assaults a Person, Kidnaps Them, Threatens Them With Even More Bodily Harm, and Causes an International Incident; All Because They Asked Her Mom Out On a Date!

You can’t hear it in the screen shots, but there’s very clearly a clanging sound to indicate that Rapunzel just wacked Trevor upside the head and knocked him out.

Let me repeat, a Disney protagonist just committed armed assault against a guy, simply because she doesn’t respect her own mother.

What the Fuck!!!???

Arianna is fully grown woman. She is perfectly capable of making her own choices and she agreed of her own volition to go out with him. In fact she’s the one who asked Trevor if she could come along on his sea voyage. It’s not Rapunzel’s place to interfere with that.

Secondly, Rapunzel shouldn’t get a free pass to attack people just because she’s doesn’t like them. And she most assuredly shouldn’t get to write off her cruelty as justice because she's royalty! What the hell? You just turned one of your official princesses into a literal tyrant for the sake of a joke, Disney!

Where the fuck was the oversight on this show!?

And to top it all off, Trevor is a ruler of a competing kingdom. This could easily have been deemed an act of war. Thankfully for everyone involved Trevor has far more sense and compassion than Rapunzel and doesn’t push the matter.

Yes that’s right! The intentionally annoying prat and comedic antagonist is a more upstanding person than the main heroine! Let that sink in!

Wait, If Laws Don’t Apply Out In the Ocean, Then Why Did Eugene and Max Have Jurisdiction to Arrest Lady Caine in Peril on the High Seas?

Max shoved this same rule book into Eugene’s face when Eugene rightfully questioned if it was his job to arrest the mutineers. This book said that it was not only his job, but that he was also legally required to stop any and all ‘wrongdoing’ no matter where he was at nor whether he was on duty or not. While also failing to specify what ‘wrongdoing’ entailed.

Now that’s very problematic and ridiculous for a whole host of reasons that I’ve already covered back in my review of Peril on the High Seas, but this scene now adds a whole new layer of stupidity to the mix.

If zero laws apply out in open waters than yes, Eugene and Max were acting out of their jurisdiction. Not only that, but the pervious dumb rule regarding their duties is also now null and void. So, Justice For Lady Caine!

Oh, but were not done yet, cause it gets dumber.

If laws, including marriage don't apply, then getting married while out at sea also would not apply. Thereby rendering Trevor’s plan useless, unless they got married back in Equis. Which if they did that, it would bypass the entire pointless rule book completely because Equis is not subject to Corona’s laws anyways.

There’s not even any ‘inter-kingdom’ laws that they would be subject too because Equis isn’t a part of the seven kingdoms. Any treaty they did previously have with Corona would be something else entirely, and Trevor would be within his rights to end such an agreement.

Also Trevor is a king. He can do whatever the fuck he wants. Same goes for Arianna.

Ummm, No You Don’t Rapunzel

Trevor can’t marry Arianna without her agreement to it. It’s already been established that she’s physically capable of taking care of herself and she’s also mature enough to make her own decisions. If she did wind up marrying him it’d be because it’s her fucking choice to and Rapunzel has zero right to interfere with that.

There’s no one to rescue here. Rapunzel has no reason to go chasing after her mom. All this is doing is denying a grown woman agency over her own life. Why should I or anyone, root for Rapunzel here?

You Do Know That Arianna Has More Than Just Two Choices Here, Don't Ya Show?

Arianna doesn’t have to be in any relationship. That’s also an option. While I personally like Trevor, this shouldn’t be a choice between him or Frederic. The show should be asking what Arianna, as a character, would want for her life, instead of just shoehorning her into just being a wife for someone else.

I still don’t know what Arianna really wants in life, but I do know that being a domestic housewife and a queen does not suit her. She doesn’t actually like being tied down with commitments and responsibilities. She’s repeatedly indicated over and over again that she feels uncomfortable in her role.

But the show reduces her into trophy to win and turns her into a damsel in distress multiple times. Then it further neuters her so that she complacently walks back into that life over and over again for no logical reason. She’s treated not as a person but as a prop.

Really, Arianna? Are You Really Sure About That?

These aren’t Arianna’s words. They’re Chris’s.

Arianna has shown zero interest in Frederic up to this point. The closest they got was during that creepy boat scene where they just jumped to almost kissing for no real reason. While before now Arianna was making actual goo-goo eyes at Trevor earlier, before Raps stepped in and broke them up.

They actually do have things in common and had a genuine point of connection. They even almost kissed themselves until Raps started being a dick. No forced and icky conversations about their grown children needed here folks!

While I still firmly believe Arianna should just be single, the show does far more to convince me that she and Trevor should be together more so than her and Frederic. Everything about this scene on the boat feels forced and hollow because it doesn’t ring true to what was previously established.

This just isn’t good writing. It’s the animation equivalent of a six year old smashing their Barbie dolls faces together and shouting “now kiss!”, all because a middle aged man couldn’t get over they fact people didn’t like his self insert.

No, wait, I apologize. That’s being mean to six year olds. They usually have more interesting plots and established characterization than this.

Hey, Remember When the Series Villainized an Orphan For Stealing This Stupid Book?

Yeah, stealing the book was treason and the mains ruined a child’s life over it, but apparently it just doesn’t matter any more cause no one seems to give a shit about Trevor taking it. Like, yes, as the king of another kingdom, Trevor isn’t beholden to Frederic’s bullshit, but you would think that the characters would treat this as a bigger deal than what they do, given how they responded previously to it being taken.

Unless Rapunzel was just talking out of her ass back during The Alchemist Returns. That’s also quite possible.

This Literally Has Nothing To Do With You Rapunzel

Just because Rapunzel herself is a woman, doesn’t mean that stealing the agency of another female character isn’t misogynist. Especially when their both written by primarily men.

Every guy who was involved with the writing of the episode, should be fucking ashamed of themselves!!!

So What Exactly Has Trevor Done Wrong Up To This Point?

Yes, the story board artists and voice actors do a lot of heavy lifting here to try and make Trevor seem like a creep. Arianna’s body language and tone of voice when dealing with him here will be very familiar to a lot of women, I’m sure. I know what it’s like to have a stalker and not know how to turn them down because you’ve been trained all your life to ‘be polite and nice” to people, and I’m not unique in that regard.

But here’s the thing, it’s not set up properly. There’s nothing backing this sudden shift in the characters’ dynamic. Up till now Trevor has been a perfect gentlemen. Sure he was over the top as always, and you could call it an act when regarding his politeness to Frederic, but he seemed to genuinely respect and admire Arianna and clearly desires genuine affection in return from her. Why would he suddenly stop behaving in a way that worked for him and start talking over her instead?

Also why wouldn’t Arianna just tell him no to begin with if that’s what she wants? She had no trouble speaking her mind before now. But that begs the question why she wouldn’t return his feelings as well, because as stated above, she clearly showed interest in him previously.

This is So Fucking Forced

Yeah, okay, you’re daughter has no reason to be here to begin with, disrespected your wishes, and attacked Trevor first. At this point I’d argue he has a right to retaliate. Especially since, if Rapunzel was allowed to board, you know she’d just attack him again, because she knows no other way to resolve conflicts other than to hit people very hard.

Arianna’s actions here only make sense if she’s kept in the dark about what an awful human being her daughter really is. That’s poor writing.

Also, having a woman just punch people while denying them actually agency and choice within the plot is not ‘girl power.’ It’s fucking misogyny!

How Does Doing the Bare Minimum, and Just Showing Basic Human Decency Count As ‘True Love’?

What was she suppose to do? Let him drown? I mean I wouldn’t, and I despise the man. Not to mention anyone else could have done the same thing. They’re all right there. If Lance had jumped to the rescue would Trevor have proclaim them lovers too?

Trevor Is Still the Better Man Here

Here he is rescuing Rapunzel even after she treated him like shit.

Best. King. Period.

This Still Doesn’t Redeem Frederic

So through out the episode Frederic has inexpiably shown an obsession for eggs. He now collects them even though this was never an established trait before now. But whatever. He’s just been through something traumatic and looking for something to ground himself. Far be it from me to make fun of someone else’s special interest. If you like to collet eggs than good for you. Go live your life to fullest.

That’s more respectful than how the show handles it, as everyone dismiss his interest and it’s treated like a joke through out the episode. Only to have said obsession save the day. But this isn’t here to teach the others about respecting other people’s hobbies, oh no, it’s here to try and give Frederic a big hero moment so you’ll cheer for him.

Except one nice thing does not erase his past actions! I don’t care what your hobby is, if you deliberately try to cause grievous harm to people you’re and asshole! And you will continue to be an asshole until you can admit what you’ve done wrong and try your best to make up for it.

I Hope You Made Back Up Copies of The Tunnel Maps

A bunch of people are more upset over this development than I am, because it is a historical artifact and preserving the past is important. But the only story function the book held was a map to the tunnels, and said tunnels were never utilized properly through out the entire show.

To this day people still don’t understand that they’re meant connect the island to Old Corona or that Herz Der Sonne is the one who built them into order to invade Saporia because the show is so bad at its world building. And come season three, they’re all but irrelevant anyways. Such a wasted concept.

Once Again the Whole ‘Memory Loss’ Subplot Is a Copout

Ok that’s not how the spell worked previously, but that’s not what I’m taking issue with here.

If the whole point behind the amnesia plot twist was to sweep Frederic’s awfulness under the rug, then I expect his past actions to be addressed once he’s regained his memories. They are not.

This episodes reverses the very thing that the season was trying to achieve and just hopes the audience is too stupid/attention deficient to notice. Well guess what, we noticed and we’re far smarter than you Chris.

Conclusion

I don’t understand the point of this episode. It shoots everything season three is trying to do in the foot. It screws up the timeline, makes Rapunzel even more of an irredeemable dickhead while preventing her from learning yet another needed lesson, undermines Arianna as a character once again, and it puts Frederic back in the crosshairs of the audience’s scrutiny.

Oh and look, it’s written by the same guy who wrote Rapunzel’s Return. Why am I not surprised.

Anyways another one down and only 15 more to go. You can support my continued marathon by dropping a tip in my ko-fi if you wish. I’m currently back to job hunting yet again and anything you can give is appreciated.

https://ko-fi.com/rachelbethhines

#Rapunzel #rapunzel's tangled adventure #anti-tangled #anti-rapunzel #ferderic #arianna #tangled #tangled the series

62 notes · View notes

herinsectreflection · 3 years

Text

An Episode Within an Episode: An Analysis of ‘The Zeppo’

The Zeppo is one of those episodes that so consistently shows up on fan lists of “underrated” episodes, that I don’t know if it can really be considered “underrated” anymore, but I think it deserves a little extra appreciation. It’s definitely an episode that takes a second viewing to appreciate, thanks to how oddly it is constructed, in a way that isn’t immediately advertised to the viewer. Other episodes with unusual styles such as Once More With Feeling or Hush very much wear their concepts on their sleeve; you can’t watch them and not immediately realise what they are doing. That’s not a knock against those episodes - part of what makes them so great and iconic is that they get right to the point and so can do interesting things with the concept. The Zeppo is just a quieter kind of unique. It uses the limited perspective of both the characters and the audience themselves to show a cracked-mirror version of the world. It’s an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer told from the perspective of somebody looking in on another episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. It’s fun and weird and I want to dig into it a little bit.

We start off with a very typical Buffy scene. In its third season now, the show is pretty aware of and confident in its own tropes, and trusts the audience to be too. We don’t need any build-up explaining exactly what Giles has found out and what spell Willow is performing and what these monsters are doing and exactly how Buffy and Faith know how to kill them. We’ve all seen an episode of Buffy before, and we can fill in the blanks pretty easily. This confidence in the show’s own tropes and what the audience expects of it is key to what makes this episode work. We know exactly how a typical episode of Buffy goes, so we can receive this barely-cliff-notes version of one and understand it perfectly. It’s an episode that can only be done in a show’s third year, when viewers have become fluent in the show’s language.

After the fight and exposition is over, Xander stands up from the garbage, as out of context as we are as viewers. As this is a Xander-centric episode, he becomes the audience identification figure. As the one character not supernaturally gifted or linked in any way (as the episode points out several times), Xander makes sense as the viewer stand-in. Xander comments on how he wants to be more involved in the fights but is firmly rebuffed - and it’s clear he wouldn’t be able to impact them anyway. All he can do is watch the fights and plots happen from a distance. In this sense, Xander is no different to the viewer, watching an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, unable to affect it in any way.

This is where the structure of the episode comes into play. The A plot is a fairly meaningless runaround with zombies, while the B-plot is a finale-worthy epic apocalyptic showdown. We only catch glimpses of it, but it seems to contain all the standard hallmarks of a Buffy apocalypse - an evil cult, opening the hellmouth, tearful Buffy/Angel melodrama. Specifically, it echoes the previous two season finales, with the final showdown apparently featuring both the literal monster from the S1 finale, and some kind of sacrifice that involved Angel (evoking the S2 finale). The very last bit of dialogue we hear during this plot is “Faith, go for the heart!” from Buffy, encouraging her to kill the demon in the library, which you could argue foreshadows the S3 finale, where Buffy will use the Mayor’s love for Faith to kill him in the library. This plot is a facsimile of a Buffy season finale, giving us everything we expect and have seen before, stripped of all context, the very bare bones of a story.

What this achieves is that it alienates the viewer from this story-within-a story, forcing us into an intentionally uncomfortable position, where it feels like we’re watching an episode through a keyhole. It intentionally exacerbates the divide between viewer and show, to highlight our inability to fully perceive or at all impact this world we tune into each week.

Xander is very purposefully chosen as the POV character for this experience. He is feeling very insecure and ineffectual - unable to help with either brains or brawn, and not having a whole lot of impact on the story. He feels alienated from his friends, fearful that they will leave him behind. The structure of this episode highlights this feeling of ineffectualness. Xander feels so alienated from the events and people around him that he, like the audience, becomes separated from them. A character from Buffy the Vampire Slayer becomes an outsider to the story, watching an episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer. We are encouraged to empathise with Xander because we are in the same position. We too have been robbed of our usual intimacy with this group of people, forced to perceive the shadows of an episode. This meta-emotion dovetails with the character’s internal mental state nicely.

I think my favourite instance of this meta-perception being played with is in the scene between Buffy and Angel, where we are dropped without context into a tearful, dramatic argument where apparently Angel’s life is in the balance, filled with declarations of love and poetic exaltations, backed by this sweeping orchestral score - and then Xander pops his head in. The music immediately stops, he exchanges a few awkward lines with them before realising they have bigger things to worry about. As he leaves, Buffy turns back to the melodrama and the sweeping music surges back in. It’s brilliantly funny - it feels like Xander put an episode on pause for a quick interjection, then re-started it where we left off. It’s a joke relying entirely on the audience’s expectations of the kind of epic melodrama we might get from Buffy and Angel, and it works really well. In this moment, Xander completely becomes the viewer, peeking in on these two actors, observing through glass.

The Zeppo is very concerned with meta references, TV, and the act of watching. Obviously the title is a reference to Zeppo Marx, and there is also a running gag likening Xander to Jimmy Olsen. We are encouraged to think of Xander in relation to his narrative function as a fictional character, and so to watch this episode through this meta lens. One key shot just after Faith and Xander sleep together shows the two of them literally reflected in a TV screen. We are literally seeing a distorted reflection of reality in a TV screen, which on one level is essentially all we do whenever we watch any television show, but is also what we are seeing within this episode - a fuzzy reflection of a Buffy episode within a Buffy episode.

There’s another shot later that I like, of one of the zombies pausing during the final chase scene to look through the library window at the demon emerging from the hellmouth. We see him looking through the glass at this apocalypse monster for a couple of seconds before continuing on with his chase, like a channel-hopping viewer taking a brief glimpse of Buffy, momentarily enraptured, before switching back to what they were watching before.

One thing that stood out to me on this rewatch was how the villains are described. We purposefully get very little on the group, but what we do get is telling. “’Sisterhood of Jhe. Race of female demons, fierce warriors...' Eww. '...celebrate victory in battle by eating their foes.’”

A race of all-female warriors sounds very much like Slayers. They apparently eat after battles too, which according to Faith is also a feature of Slayers. The villain in this story is kind of a representation of the central concept of the show, which makes sense since it deals with Xander navigating around a typical episode of the show. You could also read it as representative of Xander’s pathologies when it comes to women and specifically women who are stronger than him.

What I like about this episode is that it doesn’t conclude by giving Xander a big important role in stopping the apocalypse, proving his worth to the group. That’s what a lesser show might have done. I like that here, Xander never gets involved with the epic finale-esque plot. He carries on existing in the spaces around it, becoming instead the hero of the monster-of-the-week runaround episode he has found himself in. Xander cannot be the hero of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, because he’s not Buffy. But he is still a human being, and all of us as human beings are the protagonists and heroes of our own stories. He can be the hero of his own life.

S3 is largely about identity and forging one’s own path in life - obviously Buffy starts by having given up her name, then has to deal with facing off against her dark equivalent and making major decisions about her future. This season’s focus-episodes for the other characters reflect that: Giles is stripped of his role in Helpless, Willow rails against hers in Doppelgangland. This episode is all about Xander coming to terms with his narrative role within Buffy - as the non-powered comedic relief and occasional pep-talker. He could become frustrated with that, throw up his hands and let himself be at the mercy of his narrative function. But this episode allows him to find his own space, his own story. He accepts that he can’t colonise Buffy’s story, but he is still in control of his own decisions, and he can still have his own story. He can create a little one-off episode of Xander the Zombie Fighter that can co-exist peacefully with the episode of Buffy the Vampire Slayer happening at the same time. It’s a smaller, quieter story without the same world-shaking melodrama - but that’s OK. As Xander says himself, he likes the quiet.

As viewers, we can never shape the course of the media we watch. That’s part of the appeal - we don’t always know what we want or need - a problem Xander faces himself when he clutches at things like “being cool” or “a car” for things that might make him happy - but a good show gives us what we didn’t realise we needed. But it remains an eternal frustration, that we can connect on a deep emotional level with these characters, but can never help them or solve their problems. A good set of characters can feel like family, but a character can never love you back. When Xander faces up against this same uselessness as he observes an episode of Buffy from afar, it is the same uselessness the viewer feels. When he accepts this and inhabits his own story, it reminds us that we can do the same thing. Television can be a great comfort, but it is not our lives. Because we can affect our own lives. We aren’t in control of them, but we can guide and impact them, and we can each be the hero of our own individual existences.

#xander harris #the zeppo #btvs #buffy the vampire slayer #meta #s3 #theme:meta #theme:identity #theme:choice

81 notes · View notes

snakeassassins · 3 years

Text

Rabbit Dad Theory: A Weapon to Surpass Dad for One

okay so. I know that the theory about local big bad of the series being the protagonist’s father , but I’m pretty sure the real reason that midoriya’s dad hasn’t shown up in the plot is because he’s a rabbit

no really

[ WARNING: LONG post under the cut ]

Part 1: Rabbit Motifs

To get this party started properly, let’s begin with a bunch of the rabbit symbolism regarding Midoriya himself.

The most notable of which being that his hero costume is literally him dressing up as a rabbit

His freckles are even stylized to look like little rabbit whiskers. fuckin naruto kinnie

It bleeds into his fighting style too

Two big innovations he has that aren’t based on previous users of one for all

are hopping from place to place

and his big, rabbit-like kicks.

(which would also go a ways to explain why the plot thought Midoriya having legs was a big deal)

A lot of this goes into his characterization as well. The most notable bit being how much the first chapter of bnha parallels the story of the moon rabbit.

(Sometimes referred to as the jade rabbit which. Green)

Anyway, the story goes that a rabbit, along with a bunch of other animals (it varies depending on region) decided to gather food for the full moon as an offering, believing that the best one will bring a reward from the gods.

All of the animals bring plentiful amounts of food, sans the rabbit, who brings only grass.

Eventually, a starving old man comes along.

The other animals have food to give him, but refuse to do so to meet their own ends.

The rabbit, sympathizing with the old man,throws itself into a fire he was kindling so that he can be fed.

The old man, touched by the rabbit’s actions, reveals himself to be a god and saves it.

In honor of the rabbits deeds, the god imprints his image on the moon, bestowing special gifts to him.

Along with this there are a number of other mild rabbity traits tho.

Such as his skittishness.

Not to mention his general resourcefulness.

The show regularly conflates Midoriya being himself with him looking and acting more and more like a rabbit. This isn’t too hard to understand from a Doylist perspective; Horikoshi blatantly just likes bunnies. (I mean just look at Miruko)

What’s interesting here is that we’ve never been given an in-universe explanation for why midoriya himself identifies this way. In a series that is otherwise really invested in dissecting the ideal versions of themselves that characters want to live up to, the show doesn’t provide any justification for a character motif Midoriya has that is almost as present as all might himself.

Judging from the title of this post, you can probably guess what my reasoning for this choice is.

**Part 2: Hisashi’s Quirk **

“But snake,” you may be asking yourself, “We already know what Hisashi Midoriya’s quirk is. He breathes fire.”

This is true. he probably does. Consider what we know in-universe, though.

Characters with heteromorphic quirks don’t have their physical attributes listed as a part of their quirks if they have a secondary characteristic.

Tokoyami is the most obvious example. He’s a bird person, but his quirk is dark shadow. The fact that he’s a bird man goes unmentioned because as far as anyone is concerned, the shadow monster is his power.

Characters like Spinner have their animal attributes listed as quirks, but that’s only because he can’t do anything a gecko wouldn’t. If he didn’t make his lizard powers his quirk he’d have nothing to put.

If Midoriya’s dad happened to be, say, a rabbit that could breathe fire, the fire quirk would be listed while the rabbit bit went unstated. In fact, in a roundabout way, the fire quirk makes rabbit dad even more plausible.

You see, most of the animal character designs in bnha are actually recycled from an old series horikoshi did called oumagadoki zoo. Mind you this isn’t a knock at horikoshi or anything. A lot of mangaka do this sort of thing. I’m mostly bringing it up because one of the main characters is a rabbit called Shiina

and one of the early gags in the series is him smoking a carrot like a cigar.

This would be very easy to translate to my hero academia’s setting if said character happened to breathe fire.

I should also say for those keeping score at home that I don’t necessarily think Hizashi is a Shiina expy specifically (tbh I kinda imagine him being more like a fluffy spike spiegel). At most I think it’s probably just some design motifs and some VERY loose plot points.

There is also the somewhat mild rebuttal of Midoriya never attempting to do anything rabbit-like while trying to see if he had a quirk, but I think that’s self explanatory. If Izuku was a rabbit he’d notice right away, so of course he didn’t bother checking.

**Part 3: Why He’s Absent **

Of course, another big question that might be on your mind is why he’s not present if that’s the simple truth of his identity. Why have him fail to show himself for what has now been 300 chapters?

I can think of two simple reasons:

1) It’s really funny

Just fuckin. The Mystique of it all. You can’t tell fans a character is going to show up eventually and fail to have them appear without piquing someone’s interest. It’s bound to make fans speculate, especially with the canon dabi twist hanging in the air. Years to imagine what his presence might entail if it was something big enough to be worth planning ahead for.

And then. Boom. Bunny.

Fucking. Hysterical.

2) The themes. Oh god the themes

You might have noticed by now but Horikoshi has a tendency of making like. The Shounen Jump equivalent to that rpg character you make as a joke that then has like. an undeniably tragic life when you’re actually forced to tackle with the implications of your own character building.

I would not be surprised if the Midoriyas ended up falling into that category.

So let’s get into that.

One of the big things that my hero academia attempts to tackle is the concept of normalcy.

Mostly how it’s kinda bullshit and, in many cases, outright harmful.

What makes this bit interesting within the context of Midoriya family is Izuku’s sort of. Artificial Plainness.

He is a character deliberately designed to look as normal as possible. The key word there is look. Basically anyone who’s been following the series long enough to be reading this post knows that the kid often struggles to keep his head down

which also makes it interesting that the only two scenes where Midoriya wears his rabbit cowl are scenes where he is actively questioning the status quo.

Methinks there is some symbolism here.

Which I guess brings us back to square one.

At the end of the day, the concept of Midoriya’s dad being a rabbit is funny because it’s so unexpected. Without him around, the Midoriyas look like a normal family.

But that’s also the kicker.

Without him around, the Midoriyas look like a normal family.

A lot of people are quick to call Izuku’s dad an absentee father, but technically speaking, we don’t quite know that yet. We’ve only been in a position where we don’t see him as the audience.

And, well, when your kid is being bullied for something as banal as being quirkless, you might not want to give society more ammunition to use against him.

It wouldn’t strike me as strange if he just avoided being seen in public with his son to keep him safe in his own way.

They say that the nail that sticks out gets hammered down the most. Under those circumstances, it’s not too hard to understand why the loosest nail might just feel safer wriggling out of the wood altogether.

#izuku midoriya #boku no hero academia #mha #bnha #bnha theory #my hero academia #bnha spoilers

74 notes · View notes