#there IS a justification and a completely reasonable way for characters to like | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

withlovelunette · 11 months

Text

How to construct character psychology!

– Introduction

Hello hello! :D I’ve been very slow with my writing lately due to uni work (and some unforeseen health issues), but I’d like to still be able to make content and be interactive in the writing community, so I’m here again to share some advice based on my own experiences! One of my favourite things about writing is writing characters, specifically constructing a character’s psychology. I’d like to preface this post by saying that while I’ve had formal classes in psychology, I’m by no means any sort of expert within the field, and I also don’t believe that every aspect of how a character is written needs to be rooted in realism. However, I do want to share some insights that I got from it, and also because I feel like “character psychology” has this very mystified weight to it that makes it seem a lot bigger and intimidating than it needs to be.

So! My goal is just to share some advice on how to break down a character’s psychology and work from there! If you like what you read and would like to read more, I’ve also written a post about creating “complex” characters, which you can find the link to here! Aaand yes I think that’s about all I have to say beforehand, I hope you enjoy :,)

What do I mean when I say psychology?

Before getting into the nitty-gritty, I’d like to start with the basics, just to make sure people are on the same page when reading this post. When I’m talking about psychology here, I’m specifically referring to a character’s cognition, as in how they process information and act on it/make judgments. I’m not necessarily referring to personality in this case (although personality is an aspect of psychology, but I’m more so referring to personality as a consequence of cognition here, rather than as a collage of traits and behaviour).

Another thing I want to clarify is that exactly how much of human behaviour is nurture vs nature is a hotly debated topic that I’m completely under-qualified to take a stance on, but for the sake of this post; I believe both are equally essential aspects of human behaviour, so just keep that in mind! (I’m looking at any behaviourists in the chat rn). That being said; I’m not really comfortable treating psychology as “nature” (as such rhetorics are often used in gender-essentialist and other bigoted ways of thinking), so my main focus will be nurture, since that’s what is most readily observable!

Determining character motivation

If you’re working with very little or bare minimum characterization, my recommendation is to consider; what motivates a person to act? And by this, I’m not referring to the external quest or goal behind the character, but rather, what’s the core of what motivates your character to act at all? Even in grand, epic adventures of good vs evil, where the external goal is as simple as “putting an end to whatever evil the bad guys are doing”, there needs to be a reason a character is specifically on the side that they’re on. Multiple characters can be on the same side, but they might find themselves on that side for vastly different reasons, even when their exterior goals are the same. From there, you’ll want to consider what informs this motivation in particular.

One technique I love to employ, when still figuring out my character, is to have them make some sort of bizarre decision, a decision I’d initially think to be improbable for this particular character, and then try to list off various justifications or variables that would allow for this character to make this particular decision. There’s a couple of reasons for why I do this.

1) It removes some of the pressure to have a perfectly cohesive, perfectly put together and neatly defined character from the get-go. The drafting process isn’t just for plot and story structure’s sake, it’s also there for you to experiment with characters! Having your characters make story altering decisions that possibly challenge or contradict themselves is a great way to make sure that you’re writing active characters as opposed to more passive ones, and I think the first couple of drafts should really be a playground for you to see just how far you can stretch your characters based on their characterisation.

2) It helps me clarify what is and isn’t important in my character’s decision making. I’m a firm believer that most decisions/actions aren’t inherently in or out of character; it just depends on whether or not the readers/viewers can understand the character’s thought process behind their decision, and this ultimately comes down to how well you, as the writer, conveys the character’s priorities when they make decisions. If you’re established that a character acts based on a code of honour, an exterior source to morality and conduct, then the justifications and reasonings they would use to justify murder would likely be very different than a character who acts based on their own convictions. This is also a great way to show character development; by showing how a character’s decisions gradually change as their cognition change as they develop.

3) It allows me to explore nuance and make note of potential contradictions within the character’s way of thinking—which is often the most interesting aspects of a character’s psychology, at least in what I enjoy to write and read. Most real people don’t have perfectly cohesive morals, and most people can’t always act congruently with their morals either, so allow for your characters to make some bizarre decisions! See how far you can stretch their cognition! These decisions don’t have to be canon to the story, but it’s a good way to actually solidify what line of thinking your character makes when faced with difficult and potentially morally indicative choices.

Work your way backwards!

If you already have the overall traits and behavior of your character pinned down, you can always work your way backwards! As a pantser, this is a very common occurrence for me. I have a character with a clear goal and defined characteristics, but they’re completely uninformed so far, as I usually discover the cause of their motivation and characteristics as I write the story. As such, most of my characters don’t have any sort of backstory established until I’m much further into the process, as I discover it as I go along. So here’s some things I look out for in my character writing when creating a backstory after I’ve already established a character.

1) What are some things the character is often drawn towards? Humans are typically very habitual, a lot of us enjoy some sense of familiarity (to varying degrees depending on the person), and taking note of what your character tends to gravitate towards can be a great stepping stone to fleshing out backstory. An example could be a somewhat cold, stoic character who’s incredibly picky with their relationships due to trust issues (pretty common characterization) has a tendency to let their guard down more when around elderly people. Why is that? Maybe they were raised by very old parents, or even grandparents. Maybe it’s a cultural thing to treat elderly with more respect. Maybe it’s a religious thing. Maybe it’s because elderly people have treated them with more kindness in the past, etc. Note that this can be flipped too! Maybe this character feels uneasy around people closer to their own age, or even people who are younger than them.

2) How does your character socialize? The way a character approached social settings can often be very indicative of how they were raised, as that tends to affect how people form attachments (according to attachment theory in psychoanalysis, at least). Are they very sociable? If so, why? Is it because they’re accustomed to being around a lot of people? Maybe they had a very large family, or maybe they had a family that took part in a very active social sphere. Maybe this character just comes off as sociable because they understand the value of social connections. Why’s that? Maybe their family have a political influence, or maybe they have a business they want to sell, etc. Or maybe it’s the complete opposite; maybe this character grew up with little to no family at all, and that’s why they want to make friends and connections. If so, then maybe that affects how they make decisions, leaving them incredibly loyal and somewhat co-dependent. Even the smallest character traits and behaviours can be expanded upon to inform you of how that character was possibly raised, it’s really just about digging into said behaviour!

3) How receptive are they to new experiences or other people’s perspective? This is also somewhat linked to attachment theory, but it doesn’t have to be approached that way! The reason I bring this point up is because I find that a character’s receptiveness is often a good way to gauge their relationship with their parent. For example, a character with very strict, traditionalist parents might adopt that outlook on life because it offers them a sense of stability and security. They weren’t raised to be adaptable or to adjust themselves to new experiences, and thus have a difficult time accepting things outside of their established paradigm. This would suggest that this character likely didn’t rebel much to their parents’ outlooks on things (or if they tried, they failed), since they adopted said outlook for themselves. Another way to write this character (with the same premise) is to have them react in the opposite way; maybe they are super open and receptive because the rigidness of their parents prevented them from ever experiencing anything. Maybe the status quo bored them, or maybe they see their parents as narrow minded. This characterisation suggests that there’s possibly more tension (not necessarily in a negative way) between the character and their parents.

Interplay between morals & behaviour

A character’s morals and behaviour don’t always have to align. Like I mentioned in an earlier point, humans hold a lot of contradictions, and how people cope with those contradictions can vary. However, how do you determine if a contradiction is purposeful rather than a case of out-of-character writing?

Let’s say you have a character who views all animals as sacred, and this is something they were raised with. Suddenly, this character is thrust into a situation in a different world/kingdom/region/etc. where eating animal meat is the only viable food option to survive. They decide to do it, despite their morals directly conflicting with this behaviour.

One way this character might justify this is by thinking “well, my intentions matter most, and my intention was never to hurt animals, so while I feel bad for killing an animal for food, my intentions of doing so respectfully makes this action more acceptable to me.”

But another character in the exact same situation might not be satisfied with such logic. Maybe they see intentions as irrelevant, and only care about the consequences of their actions. If it’s been established beforehand that a character is consequentialist, then this action, paired with the justification above, would feel incredibly out of character, because the logic behind the justification is not intuitive to the reader.

Whether a contradiction feels purposeful or out-of-character ultimately boils down to what information and how much of it you’ve given to the readers, so that they have the information necessary to break down the interplay between the character’s morals and behaviour.

Using other tools (cognitive functions, socionics, enneagram, etc.)

As I’ve mentioned before on this blog, I’m very interested in various types of typology (mbti probably being the most popular and well known one), and while I consider all forms of typology to fall under pseudo psychology, I often use these tools to help me better understand my own characters better! I personally gravitate towards cognitive functions (which is not the same system as mbti, even though it uses the same letter system) as they help me put into words my character’s cognition, and enneagram, which describes behaviour and motivations that arise from a person’s upbringing and coping mechanisms. There’s other things you can take into consideration as well, like socionics, temperaments, attitudinal psyche, etc!

I’m not suggesting you use these as replacements for developing characters, but they can be great supplements when trying to dig deeper into your character’s psychology! I’d also argue that you get more out of putting these systems into use if you learn about typology and analyse your characters yourself instead of taking a test for them, but I’m also very biased in this regard, since I enjoy analysing my characters myself :,) And there are times where I’ll take a few tests to help solidify my breakdown if I’m having a difficult time labelling my character correctly. Honestly, just have fun with it!!

– Outro

Sorry for yet another lengthy post! And sorry it was a bit later than I’d anticipated, I had a much busier weekend than I thought I’d have, so I kept having to squeeze writing in anytime I had enough spare time to sit down, and then I stumbled across a series of health complications that I’m still trying to sort out. Which, speaking of, thank you so much to everyone who’s been wishing me good luck! I’m still working on figuring out what’s wrong, but I’m making progress!

As usual, my asks and messages are always open, so feel free to shoot me a message about anything! Even if I may be slower with my replies ^^; Thank you for reading! <3

#original post #writing advice #writing tips #psychology #characters

812 notes · View notes

marvelstars · 2 months

Text

Anakin and Slavers

"His undoing is that he loveth too much"

George Lucas

One thing that I always liked about George´s work in relation to Anakin and slavery is how out of the left field he and Dave Filoni wrote Anakin´s relationship to the people who owned or saw him as a property at one point or another and yet it makes total sense for his character.

For example kid Anakin has no doubt that Slavery is horrible and at 9 he is actually working towards developing technology to help free his Mom, friends and himself from it. He hates with capital H the fact those people have control over the life and death of other people but at the same time he has great compassion and kindness which his mother helped nurture. This along with the fact that Watto was the only adult male figure who was around during his early chilldhood, this complicated his feelings towards slavers in a very tragic way.

Anakin feared Watto´s violence and didn´t for a moment doubt he would have been willing to sell off his mother or him if the customer got to a big enough price but at the same time he listens to his advice when he travels to the dune sea to do his work with the jawas and his pov is almost as important as his Mom´s, in the novelization of TPM Anakin remembers not to talk to strangers or to get close to Tuskens Raiders camps thanks to Watto´s advice.

So in Anakin´s mind, Watto is someone he fears but also someone he takes advice from, respects to a point, sometimes gets sassy to and actually listens to almost as a father figure BUT at the same time he has no doubt he would activate the killing chip if he tried to escape.

Pain/abuse/fear mixed with care/advice(sounds familiar?) Anakin knows slavery is awful but he can´t help but see Watto as a person because of who Anakin is, Annie is a kind and understanding person and to point may justify Watto as a "Man of bussines" and "Not as bad a other masters" "It could be worse" but he definitely doesn´t trust him in the same way he does his mother, she is blood, she is family. He and Mom are a team.They shared their secrets.

The first time Anakin saw Watto again after being freed, he was a Jedi with training, almost a knight and the first thing he does to the guy who beat him and his Mom some years ago is to ask him if he can help with the ship parts Watto is working on because he noticed Watto is struggling and his bussines is falling down compared to how it was when Anakin was a kid. When Watto noticed who Anakin was he didn´t reject him and accepted his congratulations but keep himself appart, hoping to learn about his mother whereabouts.

When Watto told Anakin he sold Shmi, Anakin doesn´t have a reaction, he takes Watto´s justification of "I am sorry Ani but bussines are bussines and anyway the person who bought her freed her and married her" Anakin doubts it´s as good a picture as Watto is talking about but he takes his justification and leaves.

When he meets Owen, Beru and Cliegg he sees they are indeed nice people and the reason for his mothers suffering is something completely different that they were not able to stop so he doesn´t blame them for her fate. When Anakin lost his mother it was only natural for him to seek a family, someone he could share how he really felt and his secrets, he could not be part of the Lars family but Padme was willing to love him so she became his new confirmed family, right along with Obi-Wan and Ahsoka but while he had to show himself different to them, he didn´t had to do that with Padme, just like he did with his mother.

In the clone wars Anakin shows again this complex view of slavers with Queen Miraj Scintel, the cartoon goes out of it´s way to show she looked at him as pretty property and he didn´t let her forget that and actually it was strongly suggested he may have been raped by her at some point to keep safe Obi-Wan, Rex, Ahsoka as well as the people they wanted to save while he got enough soldiers to stage their rescue. Anakin had a plan the whole time just as he did as a kid so he keep his cool even when he saw another slave choose suicide over keep being under the control of Scintel. Yet in the end when the Queen was killed by Count Dooku Anakin felt sorry for her, he could not help it.

So this mix of rejection/anger/hate/disgust towards slavers mixed with pity/understanding which is something that was part of what made Anakin a good person gets used agaisn´t him in his relationship with Palpatine.

He first shows himself as the father figure Anakin thought he could find in Qui-Gon before he died a better father figure than Watto had been, a father figure that didn´t reject this title like ObiWan did, Palpatine did this to get his trust as a young child and later young adult and then he showed himself as the real sith master he actually was, Palpatine knew that Anakin wasn´t a stranger to be treated as property by people who showed themselves as good advicers or somehow not as bad as others despite their actions. So Anakin´s initial compassion, kindness and understanding for people that abused him is played agaisn´t him to make him fall to the darkside and chain himself again to another worse master who didn´t just seek to use his skills and body but who wanted his soul as well.

And the same reasons why Anakin justified Watto at first when he was a young kid also applied to Palpatine, he may be a sith but he ran the Republic better than those corrupt politicians, he isn´t a perfect Emperor but in Padme´s absence he is better than the alternatives. He isn´t as bad as a master and anyway I deserve this because I fell to the darkside and nobody can come back from that, if he abuses me I got this coming because I choose this and he still teaches me the ways of the force, he rescued me from Mustafar when Obi-Wan left me to die and he didn´t have to, he is all I have left.

So once Anakin´s voice died down Vader was left with many reasons to say to Palpatine "What´s your bidding my master?" because in his mind master isn´t a word that contradicts father and Palpatine became his father in all but name, this makes George´s words about Anakin fatal flaw being the fact he loved too much make complete sense and it´s a tragedy.

#anakin skywalker #darth vader #george lucas #shmi skywalker #palpatine #star wars #slavery/rape mention #anakin meta #The tragedy of Anakin Skywalker

156 notes · View notes

acotarfrustrations · 6 months

Text

Acomaf feyre is turning into something that acotar feyre would absolutely despise and honestly it's so sad the way sjm sniped what SHOULD have been the main character of the series (bcus we all know rhys is the real mc). Like her mind raping tarquin to steal something that she could just ask for when he literally thinks they're friends.

The thing about amren making a meal of any guards that see them steal the book particularly bothers me because this should be the main book where we should see emotional consequences of feyre's actions utm and with andras. Killing an innocent fae for a stupid reason should be SOMETHING SHES VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO. ITS WHAT HER WHOLE ACOTAR ARC WAS BASED ON AND HAVING TO GO AGAINST THOSE MORALS DESTROYED HER MIND

NOw all of a sudden it's just another tuesday. Not to mention the things they're doing? WARS HAVE BEEN STARTED FOR LESS. Coming under the guise of diplomacy to a foreign nation to steal their precious artifacts, steal their jewels, and possibly kill their citizens if they see what you're doing??? Why didn't tarquin just kill them?? Those are blatant acts of war

It's so stupid because even Feyre acknowledges that what they're doing is dumb and makes no sense and asks why they can't just ask tarquin for the book. RHYS DOESNT EVEN GIVE AN ANSWER. He's just like "oh well Cresseida told me tarquin is ambitious so, uh, yeah we have to steal the book"

ARE YOU FUCKING STUPID????

It literally feels like rhys only wants to steal it because he's jealous and thinks tarquin wants to fuck feyre so he wants to steal it to not only prove a point but ruin any potential allies that feyre could have outside of IC. Anything to get Feyre dependent on him am I right?

And I feel like this would distress acotar feyre so much because she's not blinded by the rose tinted glasses of rhys' penis and she would be able to clearly see what was going on.

Rhys intentionally waited until feyre was in a very vulnerable state, forced her to come to his house, gave her things he knew she wanted and would benefit him, and uses his mind powers to cater to her every whim and give her what she wants so she can be on his side. Not because he loves her or she's his mate, because it's strategic and there's the added bonus of pissing tamlin off in the beginning. When shit hits the fan for feyre and tamlin, he immediately takes that opportunity to get her to work with him and induct her into the rhys circle jerk cult and now she's thinking like him.

He's so deep in her head that the reader is literally watching sjm change parts of a character's core values to mold her around her love interest and call it empowering feminism, using her trauma and her "darkness" as a justification.

And this "he's not 'dark' enough to be with me" thing particularly bothers me because it's actually a common mindset for traumatized people when it comes to relationships. Thinking that your trauma has ruined you for a healthy relationship and that it's something that you don't deserve so you should actually date evil people because they're the only ones who understand your trauma responses so you won't feel like a burden is a very real mindset and feyre is displaying it to a tee. And Sjm is romanticizing it.

Like yeah rhys might understand her dark side or whatever but that is because he is more evil than her. He sends her to the weaver in what feels like a cruel prank just to go get a ring, he uses her as bait, he shuts her ideas down for no reason, he only tells her what he wants her to know, he grooms her into being a tool for him instead of letting her explore her own personality, and he only shows her around velaris. The only time he takes her somewhere else, he and amren decided to be complete assholes to the summer court and pull a completely unneccesary heist to make feyre feel pressured to join in their schemes and cement this "it's the NC against the world" mentality to isolate her and prevent her from making friends

Like I just imagine book 1 feyre feeling horrified and disgusted at what she becomes and it's honestly so sad. At this point, I honestly only feel sorry for feyre but I think acowar is going to be the breaking point that actually pushes me into hating her. Like at that point, I think she actually becomes one of the IC, mentality actions and all, and idk I just feel so bad.

#anti sarah j maas #anti acotar #anti rhysand #anti sjm #anti ic #anti acomaf #anti feysand #pro feyre

270 notes · View notes

xekstrin · 7 months

Note

ok I have to- I've been sort of loosely paying attention to arknights, mostly in that "some of these people have cool outfits and swords that are on fire, hell yeah" sort of way, but the brand demands I ask: why do some of them have halos? are we just supposed to sort of go with it or is it like a Thing?

Oh you especially might go nuts about it but those characters are called Sankta, and they are literally angels chosen by (their) god, called Law.

When a sankta child says their first word, i believe, their halo and wings appear. Every one has a slightly distinct pattern for them but they are real physical items that literally glow

and impede wearing hats (not that that stops Outcast from wearing a cowboy hat)

And most if not all of them have guns because guns are sacred and angels/Law invented them, as far as I know

And they have a patron firearm that they carry around with them, a special gun that is like both an extension of and proof of their status as a person chosen by god.

Sankta are all connected to each other by a force called Empathy— they can read each others emotions and sometimes their thoughts. For whatever reason this makes most sankta COMPLETELY unhinged, as explosions are a common occurrence and everybody is shooting their guns constantly. I can only assume this is because they understand each other near-perfectly, so someone’s justification for setting off an explosion makes total sense. But they sometimes come across as sociopathic to outsiders because a lot of them don’t give a shit about / can’t connect to anyone outside their empathy.

It’s also why Mostima (who lost her halo’s glow and started growing black horns and lost her connection to Empathy) is treated so poorly for being a fallen sankta, and why Lemuen forgives the other sankta who shot her even though it left her wheelchair bound.

Fiametta here (in red hair) is justifiably angry and confused by this instant forgiveness— they understand why the other angel did it, but she doesn’t and she never will

It’s also so that when a funeral is being held, sometimes every sankta in the world is paralyzed by the grief of it

I probably missed something but that’s the gist of it

Oh and spoilers, but Law is a supercomputer hidden in the basement of the Pope’s quarters in the Vatican City.

So while it isn’t explicitly stated as far as i know, this to me says that “empathy” is actually a kind of linked network that connects sankta via the “halos” which are really more like wifi routers or satellites.

The pope has a gun too (seen on the bottom left)

And he loves sugar and sweets like all sankta too

#arknights #arknights spoilers

210 notes · View notes

sapphic-agent · 8 months

Text

Let's Talk About Bakugou's Apology

Jfc, I swear this wasn't meant to be an MHA blog but whatever. Let's get into this.

I wanted to give Bakugou stans the benefit of the doubt. I wanted to think that they would only hype something up if it was groundbreaking. I wanted to believe that Horikoshi was a halfway decent writer and would put actual effort into such a pivotal, revered moment in the series.

I was left sorely disappointed for multiple reasons.

1) A List of Excuses To be completely fair to Bakugou, he does take some accountability which was more than I expected. He does acknowledge that what he did was wrong a few times during his little speech. I have to give him credit for that. However, it's overshadowed by the narrative making sure to stress that it was the people around Bakugou who were at fault for that behavior. Which isn't true because even before he got his quirk, he still treated Izuku like garbage. He gave him the name Deku and acted like he was above everyone way before Izuku was deemed quirkless.

(I'd also like to add that the only thing that literal pre-school teacher said was that Bakugou's quirk could make for a fine hero. He was the one who ran with it and decided that it made him better than everyone and that he would be the best)

There's also the fact that every time he does point out what he did was wrong, there's always some kind of justification behind it. "I did... because I felt..." It undermines what's supposed to be a genuine apology because it's not about Bakugou's feelings, he wasn't the one hurt (more on this later).

2) Timing

So many people have brought this up and they're absolutely right; that was the worst possible time for this to happen. Izuku was injured, starving, and dirty. Not to mention his mental state is practically in shambles. He's been isolating himself for weeks in his attempts to walk a selfless, lonely path. The absolute last thing he needed was this shitty apology.

This was supposed to be an effort for Class 1A to show Izuku that they care about him and to convince him to share his burden and come back to UA with them and rest and heal. Instead that genuine effort is highjacked by Bakugou rambling on about something entirely unrelated. He could have done this during the bath scene or even right after that. Instead, it's shoehorned into Izuku's actual friends trying their best to help him.

Iida's words should have been the final ones. They had enough impact and were way more powerful. There was no reason for Bakugou's apology to be the finishing lines.

3) The Insults

It's wild to me that Bakugou apologized for insulting Izuku... right after purposely insulting Izuku.

This is something that has been detrimental to Bakugou's entire character "redemption". "Oh, he's changing!" Except he's still doing the same shit he's always done. It undermines the entire point of redeeming him.

(I hate to be pro Endeavor in any way, but at least when he decided to change he made the genuine effort to stay that way and didn't relapse into old habits)

Not only did him mocking Izuku do absolutely nothing to change his mind, it's just so shitty to do to someone who's clearly struggling. If you are incapable of showing empathy and kindness at a time like this, shut up and sit down because there's no reason for you to open your mouth. You're not helping, you're only making things worse.

And then he says, "I don't expect this to change things between us." Like bro, that's completely on you. All you have to do is not be a dick and act like your apology actually meant something by refraining from hurling insults at someone who did nothing to deserve it. But even after this apology, he continues to yell at and insult Izuku. Sato and Tokoyami even call him out on this, only it's just played for laughs.

Word to the wise kids, an apology means nothing if just keep repeating your bad behavior.

4) No Autonomy for the Victim

Not once do we get to see what Izuku's thinking. Not once do we ever see things from his point of view.

This moment is entirely about Bakugou. It's only a plot device to develop his character and make him come off better. And Izuku who was the victim gets no attention. He doesn't even get to respond, he just faints by the end of it.

In fact, the closest thing we ever get to an insight into Izuku's feelings is All Might saying that he wouldn't hold what Bakugou did against him. That's such a copout considering a) nothing Izuku did ever indicated he felt that way and b) another person is speaking for him. He doesn't even get to say this himself.

Horikoshi does this consistently. Izuku is never allowed to voice how he feels. We never get to see how things are affecting him. The only time he's ever permitted to show strong emotions is when it's in favor of someone else. You would think that by this point in the story that would be rectified. But no, everything has to be about Bakugou. Not even in his own rescue story can Izuku ever be the center of attention. No, it's all about making Bakugou better.

(Again I hate to be pro Endeavor, but at least Shoto, Fuyumi, and Natsu get to respond to Endeavor's attempts at atonement on their own terms. Natsu is allowed to be angry. Fuyumi gets to make the choice to forgive him. Shoto is allowed to ponder the decision. Both cases are terrible abuse narratives, but at least the Todoroki kids have a say in how they feel and are allowed to express it. Izuku doesn't even get that)

It feels like Izuku isn't even allowed to be a victim in any way, shape, or form. He's just there to prop Bakugou

#anti bakugou katsuki #anti bakugou #bnha critical #mha critical #anti bakugo katsuki #izuku deserves better

250 notes · View notes

eriexplosion · 2 months

Text

Had a shower thought about the whole Plan 99 thing. Specifically that when asked about why the reason is always, "Well they were going into Tarkin's lair and there had to be a consequence." But they never say why it had to be Tech. Why pick your core character that delivers not only most of your exposition but also humor moments, easy writing work arounds, everything?

Well, if I were picking a fake out character death, I would pick Tech immediately. His loss would absolutely be devastating in and out of universe, but he's also specifically the one that thinks his way out of every situation. Establish a high pain tolerance and make it clear just how fast he processes and you're basically set. You have a devastating scene in the moment and a few dozen ways you can take it from there for how he makes it out. You can even damage him enough to take away some of his utility as a character without totally wrecking it because he's both physically and mentally adept, his loss on the field can be devastating without losing his planning skills and exposition.

But if I were planning a real death? Especially in the manner they chose? It would have been Wrecker. Full stop.

He had no narrative threads to tie up, but we see how completely happy he is on Pabu, how great it would have been for him to stay there. He's been our ray of sunshine since the beginning. He bonded with Omega from the start and has always been there for her.

If he fell from the tram car, was left dangling hundreds or thousands of feet in the air, the very mutation that makes him Wrecker would have made him almost impossible to hoist back up in time, no matter how much they tried. The logic is there. The narrative justification is there - he's always been afraid of heights and now he's here with a choice between facing his biggest fear and his family's safety.

He would do it of course. Even if he can't shoot the cable he'd have an explosive on him that could take out the dangling tram car. He would see his own inevitable death from his worst nightmare and he wouldn't hesitate because his family is more important. And when we lost sight of him we would know that it was almost impossible for him to figure out a way to save his own life before he hit the ground. We wouldn't have dozens of ways to reason it out like we do with Tech. It would be immediately and long term narratively devastating without completely hamstringing their best character for getting out of narrative corners and infodumping.

Tech is the perfect fake out pick. But Wrecker? Wrecker would have been the perfect death. And I think they would have known that too. Picking Tech was intentional because he's the only one that could have survived it.

#the bad batch #the bad batch speculation #they've never given a real explanation either its always STAKES AND CONSEQUENCES #you don't pick your fan favorite known for surviving everything #give him like 3 new narrative threads #and then kill him with all 3 dangling

147 notes · View notes

howtofightwrite · 8 months

Text

Followup: Oragnized Crime Recruitment

The Godfather book and the Mafia games, specifically the first Mafia game, are the closest examples of what the Original Asker wants for his game. Goodfellas is another potential example to base the process of one's recruitment into the criminal underworld. In general, recruitment in fiction is generally based on doing jobs and earning a reputation as to one's success at doing jobs. In Goodfellas, Henry Hill started off doing simple, legal-ish errands for the local mafia before the gangsters saw his potential and entrusted him with more illegal jobs. Original Asker's character could therefore be someone who is affiliated with a mobster, but not part of the inner circle until the character pulls off jobs which makes them someone worth recruiting to the organization. Or one could go the Tommy Angelo route and save a mobster's life. -ironwoodatl01

So, it's worth remembering that Goodfellas is (in broad strokes) non-fiction. Henry Hill was a real person. (1943-2012) He was an associate of the Lucchese family. There are some historical, “inaccuracies,” with the film. Though, his arrest in 1980 for narcotics, and turning state's witness is historically accurate, though the film skims over the part where he was ejected from the witness protection program in 1987. Goodfellas was adapted from Nicholas Pileggi's non-fiction book, Wiseguy. I haven't read the book, but it's plausible that some of the historical discrepancies may have come from the book.

In this case, the OP specifically wanted to avoid a background where someone grew up in the neighborhood. Which, I mean, that is their choice, but it is a very popular recruitment method, in part because it's very effective at screening out potential cops, or even recruiting potential tame cops down the line.

Ironically, thinking back now, Mafia, the original Saints Row, and Franklin's arc from GTA5 are all potential reference points for what the OP wanted, and thinking back on it now, they were asking for input on a game, rather than prose, so I should have factored that in with the original ask. The tricky thing about each of those examples is that they're dependent on a lot of very specific moving parts in their respective stories. (Though, to be fair, I barely remember the original Mafia.) None of them are strictly realistic, but they're all internally plausible, when you start factoring in the various character motivations at work.

For some reason, I'm reminded of the Thieves Guild recruitment in Skyrim, which is one of the goofiest criminal recruitments I've seen in a non-parody. Brynjolf grabs some random psychopath wandering through and says, “ah, yes, you must be a master of pickpocketing and interested in a life of crime.” Does it make any sense? Nope. Does it go a long way towards explaining why the Thieves Guild is falling apart? Yeah, kinda, when you think about it. Does the introduction work? For some players, yes.

If the player wants to get into a questline, the justification can be pretty flimsy and still work for that player. Usually we talk about suspension of disbelief like it's a universal constant, but it's individual per member of your audience. Normally, you want to do whatever you can to ensure the suspension of disbelief is as strong as possible. However, in a game, the player's own emotional investment can help shore up weak points.

I'm going to take a quote out of context (a little), but I'm reminded of a quote from Richard K. Morgan about Halo, “[it] is full of these bullshit archetypal characters and there's no real emotional effect.” And, while he was certainly dragged for that quote (and, really the entire interview, it was a mess), he wasn't wrong. The writing in Halo isn't what does the heavy lifting, a large part of that is the player's effort to get through the story. And, in basically any other medium, this would be an exceptionally bad thing.

You won't make your novel better by forcing your audience to complete reflex tests before they start each chapter.

But, with video games, the gameplay interludes, can actually build emotional investment for the player. Even on very flimsy premises.

I've often written about how writing in different mediums requires different approaches and has different strengths. If you want gorgeous combat, then live action or animation are the best forms for you story. If you want visually striking images that linger, comics might be the right choice. If you really want to get into a character's head and live there, prose will let you do that with a level of fine control that is difficult to replicate. (And, note, there's a lot of different pros and cons, so this isn't an exclusive list.) The funny thing is, if you want your audience to do the heavy lifting for suspension of disbelief, that's one of the places where video game writing really shines.

And so we loop back to the Skyrim example. Brynjolf's approach to finding new talent is absolute clown shoes, but it's something you might not notice if this is why you wandered into Riften. It only becomes a problem when you're just there to snuff Grelod the Kind, or are looking for someplace to unload all this garbage you picked up while delving into a Dwemer ruin up in the mountains.

This doesn't mean you should abandon the idea of good writing, but if your player is on the same page as you, you won't need to worry about having something completely believable. For example, the plot-line of Mafia, or (the original) Saints Row.

-Starke

This blog is supported through Patreon. Patrons get access to new posts three days early, and direct access to us through Discord. If you’re already a Patron, thank you. If you’d like to support us, please consider becoming a Patron.

#writing reference #writing advice #writing tips #starke answers #how to fight write

186 notes · View notes

vigilskeep · 5 months

Note

is it just me or is the justification for hawke helping meredith annul the gallows completely… non-existent? i try and try to figure out why hawke would think killing all the mages for something anders openly did himself was the right decision and i always come up blank. only a really sadistic, mage-hating hawke would be okay with it. the whole annulment is so insane and senseless to me. is it just me who thinks this, or would other fans agree?

for roleplay purposes, i think there are a few mindsets you can work with beyond hawke just being foundationally comically evil. here’s a couple suggestions off the top of my head:

they believe that an annulment will sate the templars and the common people, containing the violence to kirkwall in one bloody stroke rather than causing widespread retribution across thedas

they have fought tooth and nail for their place in kirkwall for seven years and they are ultimately not willing to sacrifice it and be a refugee again, no matter what they have to do. i think it’s interesting to consider how da2 is framed and advertised as a rise-to-power game, and the crux of siding with the mages is giving all that up, whereas you can only finish your climb to the top by siding with the templars

they believe having a voice on the “winning side” is the only way they can save themself (if a mage) or their sister (if bethany is a circle mage) from meredith’s wrath. they are unwilling to risk their lives and their friends’ lives fighting for what they see as a doomed cause

for a mage hawke, a desperate desire to believe that they can be a mage who is “different” and cut themselves off from the rest, and if they have previously supported the templars, a kind of sunk cost fallacy where what they’ve done has to be worth it

for a non-mage hawke, deep-seated bitterness that they were raised for this fight, that they are expected to die for this when magic has never done anything for them but take everything they have

i think hawke is a really difficult protagonist to play pro templar because the game places you into a position where you and your family’s existence, and that of companions you have no choice but to pick up, is inherently an act of defiance against the templars. ser wesley makes that clear from the start of the game. it’s illegal for you to exist freely, and there is never any option to do what the templars require, because it would completely end your ability to act as hawke. that’s a game limitation but there’s something to be said for that as a thematic comment, as well. persecutors can put down their weapons and go home, but the only way to escape being the enemy of people who want you dead for what you are is to stop existing. there’s a reason meredith will always turn on you no matter what, beyond just wanting everyone to have that boss fight. there’s a reason writers have talked about regretting that for orsino but not for her, and there’s a reason she’s (iirc? lmao) always the climactic fight and ultimate enemy that comes last, whoever you side with

there’s no morally justifiable reason for anyone to annul a circle, full stop. it’s incredibly evil, inarguably. but real people do evil things. obviously exploring a character like that is not for everyone as a game experience, but as a thought exercise i do think it’s worth recognising that people who enact atrocities aren’t somehow magically inherently soulless. populations who collectively commit the worst evils that humanity has ever seen don’t just, like, happen to have a higher concentration of evil than everyone else in a world. it’s a human behaviour we see committed constantly by people born as ordinary as you and me. and i do think that’s something we should be aware of, rather than falling into the trap of believing there’s something that, uh, inherently separates us from those people, because then we risk complacency and blindness, right, and thinking something must be fine because our people and our leaders would never do something like that. that got a little off track and philosophical. food for thought! it’s not like every templar who takes part in the annulment is somehow inhuman, is my point, and the fact that they follow those orders is really very human, if you compare them to, you know, any military force now or in history. it’s what happens. (as is resistance and compassion, before we get too bleak.) hawke is human, too, and even when presented with only one morally acceptable choice, may not always make it

uhh my point is i do think it can be done without hawke just being an irrational villain caricature who kills for fun, and it’s an rpg literally made for you to have those options, but it requires effort and creativity and grappling with what’s involved a bit. there’s a reason players overwhelmingly support the mages it’s not a surprising response to that choice at all

137 notes · View notes

ckret2 · 3 months

Note

You know, after seeing your evil Ford au, I wonder what would happen if evil! Ford, met cannon! Ford. I feel like Cannon! Ford would hate him because he's just an example of what would happen if he haven't learned his lesson on perfection and how it's impossible to reach and how he doesn't need to impress people to be happy. I wonder what evil! Ford would think of his original counter part..would he be a little regretful? Since his cannon counterpart got more happiness than him? It's honestly intriguing to think about.

That's actually part of why I made Evil Ford: I was thinking about a dimension of lost Fords (like the dimension of lost Mabels in Don't Dimension It) and asked myself, which Ford alternate would Canon Ford most hate to meet?

So yeah you're right, Canon Ford would HATE Evil Ford—but not for thematic "you haven't learned the moral lesson about perfection & family" reasons. That's how audiences think about characters, it's not how people think about other people. When's the last time you hated somebody in real life because they missed the point of their own narrative arc—rather than because, say, they're rude to cashiers?

No, the reason Canon Ford hates Evil Ford is much simpler.

Similarly, meeting Canon Ford wouldn't make Evil Ford feel regretful because Evil Ford still thinks he made the right decision. What does he care if Canon Ford is "happier" if he only found contentment by—what—giving up on his high ambitions and settling for being a washed-up burnt-out ex-academic with no memorable achievements to his name? Evil Ford would rather die as a miserable overachiever than live as a peaceful slacker.

And he didn't spend thirty years on a completely different life path from Canon Ford without developing a totally different perspective.

Note: when Canon Ford found out Bill lied about the portal and declared he'd stop Bill no matter what, Evil Ford thinks that's Ford betraying Bill, not the other way around.

Also note: Evil Ford thinks Canon Ford is only motivated by anger over being deceived—not concern for the safety of the whole planet. Like yeah sure, he's HEARD that excuse; but that's what he thinks it is: an excuse. If he'd decided not to forgive Bill, he probably would've used the same excuse himself. A convenient, heroic-sounding moral justification for a thirty year vengence quest—but he doesn't really care that much about who's running the Earth, why would his alternate self?

(And really, Canon Ford? Thirty years? Thirty years?? You never found anything more productive to do with all that time than stalk your former mentor because you're MAD about ONE LIE?? If Canon Ford had said he thought killing Bill would net him more interdimensional fame and praise than he'd ever have as his underling, then Evil Ford could understand THAT—he himself has had misgivings about the fact that he's signed up to spend all eternity playing second banana—but as it is, though...)

Also also note: Evil Ford never reconciled with Fiddleford because he never acknowledged Fidds was "right" about Bill. He spent two-thirds of his life estranged from his brother. He moved across the country from his family. He made no friends in Gravity Falls, and likely no other college friends than Fidds. But he spent over half his life working with, dreaming with, living with Bill Cipher.

Evil Ford is evil; but he's not heartless.

Bill's the muse that gave him the blueprints he needed for his greatest invention and for the culmination of his life's work as a scientist and explorer. Bill's a near-god who hailed Ford as the greatest genius of his century, the man who's going to change the world, and via divine weirdness intervention he personally made sure that prophecy come true. Bill's the guy who—after Ford's embarrassing failure of a portal accident—welcomed Ford into his gang with open arms and the assurance that all his hard work wouldn't be for naught. He's Ford's longest-lasting friendship, his partner in crime and in science and in just about everything else by now, the person he trusts to puppet his body.

Is that a very skewed perspective on Bill? God, yeah. But it's Evil Ford's perspective.

If someone told you that all your suffering is due to the one person you trust most in all the world and the one person outside your family you care about the most—someone you've known for over thirty years—and your life would be so much better if you'd ditched this person the very first time you didn't get along—and that ditching them would have been the moral action—and that, in fact, you should have dedicated your life to killing this person...

Would you regret your life? Would you envy the life of the man who told you all this?

Or would you despise him?

How much more would you despise him if you knew he was you—had lived the same life as you—and that he had killed the most important person in your world?

Oh, Evil Ford resents the hell out of Canon Ford. Who are you—you slacker, you betrayer—to say you're "happier" than your counterpart? How do you deserve that "happy" ending? How is that fair?

Evil Ford only has one regret: not locking up his entire family before Weirdmageddon, where they'd all be safe... and where Bill would be safe from them.

#stanford pines #grunkle ford #gravity falls #evil ford au #fanart #my art #(I made these pictures much tinier than i usually draw to ensure they'd actually upload lmao)

121 notes · View notes

redhoodinternaldialectical · 3 months

Text

Finding character motivations for everything Talia Al Ghul does and says in Lost Days

People say she was manipulating Jason to be more violent but like... was she?? Why would she be doing that??? She spends years trying to heal him for Bruce and then tries to make him more violent towards Bruce because... ????????

I've read Lost Days a fair few times and it never felt like she was being cruel or manipulative and this has confused the fuck out of me for a long time. Since I'm going to be writing her into my Jason centric fic pretty soon, I figured it would be good to go back to Lost Days and really focus in on her and her character motivations.

This is a post because I do my best thinking through the act of writing essays, and figured someone out there might also be interested.

tl;dr In the text as written Talia does her level best to guide Jason to become a Hero again out of genuine compassion. It is her explicit goal to make Jason less vengeful, less violent, and more like the hero he was before he died. She is not predatory towards him, and the only times she works in ways that could be damaging to him are when she feels her own safety is threatened by him. Talia is depicted as a good but flawed person shaped by the trauma Ra's and the League has put her through.

So yeah, wildly over detailed analysis of everything Talia does and says during Lost Days under the cut:

Scene one: Ra's and Talia yelling dramatically on a lawn right after Talia uses a Lazarus Pit on Jason.

Her stated justification for doing so is "I did--what--needed to be done" (em dashes for choking). Considering she risked a LOT to do this, I figure she's probably telling the truth. She believed this was necessary.

Then we flash back to her first learning about Jason's death. She posits that his death will essentially break Bruce.

In the panels directly after this she's shown looking at a picture of Jason and Bruce, face in hands, clearly upset. Probably primarily for Bruce, but like idk she's an empathic human I feel like it's safe to say she's upset for the kid who died too, especially since the picture centers Jason prominently, with focus/close-up panels on both Bruce and Jason, with Jason's scanning first.

Then we have the sequence of her learning that Jason is still alive, through her agents who have been instructed to keep a very close eye on Bruce.

Her first big decision is to bring him to her Father. She doesn't make any attempt to hide him, so it's either a good idea to her or a necessary one. Ra's obviously wants to figure out how he managed to cheat death, and it seems likely to me, given that she's loyal to him, that she'd also want to do so. She doesn't seem to want him dead, even if she's at odds with him pretty much the whole time to one degree or another.

Then we get her investigating Jason's ressurection and the doctor she's got telling her about his brain damage and the Doc claims he's not getting better

We're just gonna breeze on passed that autistic affect weirdness...

She disagrees.

This is the third time now that Talia has had faith in the humanity and emotional capacity of people the rest of the League write off as being capable of nothing but violence. Considering she's been right the other times it stands to reason that she's right about this too. It also says a lot about her character that this is something she's repeatedly done.

She attempts to prove he's getting better by slapping Jason across the face, declaring, "He never fights back when it's me! Explain that! Never when it's me!"

This strongly suggests that she must treat him differently than the rest of the league, specifically that she treats him with more kindness and more attention. He recognizes her as someone safe, who he doesn't need to fight.

This is further backed up by the next page

Ra's then decides that all this has been a complete waste of time and demands that Jason be put out to pasture so he can't distract Talia from her work for the League.

During this argument Ra's posits that she thinks handing over a healed Jason would make Bruce love her, but that doesn't seem to be the case. I think Ra's is misreading her, in exactly the same way all of the League has been misreading everyone all issue: he's failing to understand that people are capable of actual love and compassion. He's interpreting her acts of kindness and love as something manipulative and selfish. Maybe that's something she believes or hopes for on some level, but it's obviously not her "real" motive here like Ra's thinks.

This is what makes her decide that it's necessary to make one last attempt to heal him, and get him out somewhere safer than with the League. It's a desperate last ditch attempt, but she's a competent motherfucker.

The rest of the issue is narrated as a letter Talia sends off with him in the bag of supplies she gives him. In it she says that she had other reasons for attempting to save him.

So, at the end of issue #1 we have three clear motives for why she healed Jason:

To heal Jason is to heal Bruce.

She has a basic sense of decency and wants to help a murdered kid recover. Jason healing is its own reward.

She wants to find out how Jason "survived" so that her Father might be able to replicate that for himself.

Healing Jason might bring her emotionally closer to Bruce.

ALL of these are based in love, and thus could qualify for what she meant in those last few lines of her letter. However, I think I want to emphasis that she almost certainly has to be including love for Jason himself, not just for what Jason represents to Bruce, though Bruce is still a huge focus for her.

And she didn't tell Bruce because Ra's might kill Jason. He doesn't want Batman to know he's alive, ever, and may very well kill Jason to keep that secret.

ON TO ISSUE #2

This is where it gets a lot harder to figure out why she's doing things.

Talia's first act is to refuse to tell Ra's where Jason is. Her second revealed act is that while tossing Jason into the ocean to help him escape she says this:

"Do not seek him out. You remain unavenged."

Third thing she does is check up on her loyal agents who tell her "We know where he's going You're not going to like it." This is immediately followed by the reveal that Jason is going to Gotham.

So uhhhh... Why doesn't Talia want him to go to Bruce now? Also, why does Talia think that being unavenged would mean Jason going to Bruce was a bad idea? Like how is the unavenged bit not a complete nonsequitor?

Cause the thing is, we the audience know what Jason is like in the future, Lost Days was written after UtRH, but Talia doesn't know Jason's personality, she's only met him while he was incapable of communication, so what reason does she have to assume this would impact him like this?

Hypothesis one: She knew about Felipe, thinks he killed him, and thus counts him as a killer of abusers, someone who would want revenge.

Seems pretty unlikely. There's absolutely nothing in the text to support this, it's completely made up conjecture. Also, she doesn't seem to think Jason is the type of person to do revenge all that harshly in later panels.

Hypothesis two: She's counting on the temporary adrenaline-rage-pain boost from the Pit to convince him to be mad about the whole unavenged thing.

Why tho? Like, for realsies, there's no reason for her to try to do this? If this is a plan to keep him away from Bruce, it's a dumb one, like why would that be her choice of strategy?? Also the letter contradicts this.

Hypothesis three: She believes it was wrong of Bruce not to avenge him, or at least thinks that most people would be incredibly angry to find they weren't avenged

Baring her just being fucking precognitive and knowing the future for no good reason, this seems like the most likely cause. Growing up in the League hasn't exactly given her a view of how healthy people handle their anger, and violent retaliation is a nigh daily obstacle for her to navigate. It means she told him that because she thought it was important and she probably always intended to tell him whenever he healed enough to understand it.

Hypothesis four: She assumed him finding out was inevitable, and wanted to do that in a controlled manner... uhhh... and the best controlled manner avaliable was... while flinging him off a cliff??? Instead of in the letter?????

Not buying this one.

We see Jason try to kill Bruce and then get him explaining himself to Talia.

That's... that's not how sociopathic works I'm pretty sure... whateves...

Talia seems to have believed there would have been a fight about the Joker, but not that Jason would have actually tried to kill him. Or at least not that Jason would have tried to really, truly kill him in such a cold, calculated way once all forms of Laz juice were out of his system.

So again, why the fuck was she preventing him and Bruce from meeting?! Would the Dark Knight not have survived a fist fight with an angry sixteen year old??

I don't get it. That's uhhhh- that doesn't make any sense to me. I guess she was just wary of how bad the confrontation might get, but not fully expecting this kind of rage? Maybe she was acting much more confident of her decisions in front of her father and was really worried about this outcome? I dunno, and that's all the evidence we've got!

And now we have a new problem! Why does Talia agree to help him?

She believes she's released a curse into this world. She believes that she has kickstarted a nasty cycle of violence spiral. She doesn't want to see Bruce hurt or killed by his kid.

So the only conclusion left is that she thinks she can better mitigate the damage by helping and misdirecting than she can by actually confronting Jason. Considering who she interacts with, that seems perfectly reasonable.

ON TO ISSUE #3

We get some proper answers here hopefully

Our previous idea about why she was helping him was correct, this is an attempt to keep him less violent, steer him towards other things, and let his desire for revenge fizzle or find a different target.

She's not giving him over to Bruce because Bruce would never forgive her for having kept Jason from him... And also Jason will fucking kill Bruce.

Make special note here of the idea that sex is why she isn't beating the crap out of this guy. Put a pin in that. It'll be important later.

Back down at the murder ranch, Jason finishes killing his teacher and then explains himself

I believe she's genuinely happy about this, because it is actually a step in the direction she wants him to take. He went from being completely obsessed with just killing the father who didn't avenge him, to saving a bunch of kids and delaying his own revenge goals to do it. The tin man IS growing a heart. Her plan is, miraculously, kinda working!

ON TO ISSUE #4

Further proof that her plan is working: Jason leaves Rip, the mercenary driver, alive. He's developing standards for who he is and isn't willing to kill, and those standards are evolving because he is being pushed outside his conflict with Bruce.

His treatment of the bomber's connection with the mob is further proof of this.

That little smile and her gently nudging him towards the idea that he's picking "old habits" back up is very telling. She's guiding him back to the path of actually being a Hero. I think this is meant to imply that Talia is deliberately throwing scumbags towards him to not only distract him, but also to remind him of the heroism he did before he died and give him new purpose beyond mere violence towards Bruce.

And again, her plan is working! He's doing hero stuff!

Aaaaand now we have another curveball. Why show him Tim?

Again, him finding out about this was probably inevitable. He seems more chill, the dark circles under his eyes are gone, I think she's hoping that while in the middle of a new investigation Jason will be in as good a place as she can find to tell him about this.

It's better than mid cliff dive, if nothing else.

Now, to head this off at the pass, because I've seen people assert this in other posts before: this is definitively, absolutely, 100% guaranteed, NOT WHEN TITANS TOWER HAPPENS. He hasn't even come up with using the red hood as a persona when she shows him this picture, so even if he let the extremely time sensitive bombing plot go for a day or two worth of private jetting to beat up the new guy, there's no way in HELL Tim would be able to recognize the Red Hood as Jason. Heck, Tim wouldn't even be with that set of Titans yet, the fucking HUSH plotline hasn't even happened yet!! Okay moving on...

ON TO ISSUE #5

Talia isn't in this one

Jason acts as a Hero. Tim man definitely has a heart.

I really like this plotline tbh, it's just great.

He kills all but one of the Russian mobsters that come to kill him and then he runs out of ammo on the last, and that guy offers up the Joker's location in exchange for his life.

This is when the Tin Man relapses.

ON TO ISSUE #6

CONTENT WARNING FOR DISCUSSION OF CONSENT ISSUES

He hunts the Joker down and fails to kill him. I want to emphasis here, that failing to kill the Joker is a failure to adhere to the morals that Jason has established for himself, and a failure to keep being an anti-hero the way Talia was encouraging him to be.

This is not him being a good guy. This is him getting worse again. This is him failing to care about the world and things other than his own revenge.

Once again he explains himself to Talia, and reveals that he's known for a while now that she's been stalling him.

And then they fuck, and Jason wakes up alone.

So what just happened and why?

First of all I think the fact he KNEW he was being stalled combined with his heroism prior to the Joker being brought up strongly implies that Talia's plan would have kept working and that Jason would have kept letting it work, drawing him more and more into just being an anti-hero. He has a heart, he has morals, but his rage for Bruce and the Joker eclipses those morals pretty completely. Talia's plan was always to guide him away from revenge and it might have worked if he hadn't run out of ammo at the wrong time.

Secondly, Talia has just been given a bunch of reasons to feel threatened. Her plot was revealed, and Jason no longer has reason to believe that she isn't an obstacle to his goals.

Considering the sheer amount of violence that Talia regularly narrowly escapes only through manipulation and leveraging men's emotions, it seems pretty reasonable to me that she'd assume she needed to do both those things in order to protect herself.

She tells Jason about Ra's death, claiming that she's angry with Bruce for that. I don't know if this is the truth, but it would serve this purpose either way. She's giving him reasons to believe she's still on his side. Then she gets emotional leverage on him by sleeping with him. Take that pin out of the fact that she didn't beat that other guy for talking out of turn to her because she was fucking him. Then she escapes while he's asleep and only contacts him again from afar.

She does both of these things because she is afraid that a freshly refocused on vengeance Jason will hurt or kill her if she doesn't. After all, she herself is a killer. Jason might just decide it's her turn to join his other teachers.

The scene of them sleeping together isn't framed as traumatic for Jason; he seems to be perfectly willing.

There two very important questions that need answered before we cast judgments though: Is Jason still a minor when this happens? How old is Talia in comparison to Jason?

The only indication of timeline that we have is that it takes place JUST prior to Hush, as the story ends with Jason meeting Tomas Elliot. According to the Batman Chronology Project, Tim should be 16 during the events of Hush. We know Jason is about two years older than Tim, making him 18 during this scene.

According to Dennis O'Neil "I’m pretty sure that Talia is still a young woman – young by our standards, not just her father’s." According to some random fucker on an ancient comicvine forum going by the handle "brock4618", O'Neil said in a different interview that she was 18 when Bruce kissed her and is about Dick's age, not Bruce's age. I can't find O'Neil saying that, but it does line up with the quote we know is real.

So this was a case of an extremely traumatized 18 year old boy agreeing to sleep with a woman in her twenties after he accidentally made her feel that she needed to use sex and emotional manipulation to protect herself from his possible violent retaliation.

This is still a deeply unpleasant situation, but it's so much better than the initial impression that I got!

CONCLUSIONS TIME

Talia healed Jason because

She's a kind and loving person, and was especially kind and loving when she was younger. She wants to help Bruce, she wants to help Jason, and she wants to help her father. She did it for love.

Talia kept Jason's existence a secret from Bruce because

Her father demanded she keep it a secret, then she was afraid Bruce would hate her for it, and by the time she ought to be warning Bruce about Jason, well he was a scary motherfucker and she was in too deep.

Is Talia portrayed as a sexually predatory monster?

No. A woman using sex to escape violence is not predatory; I will fucking fight you. That whole scenario was bad, but acting like she's evil for this doesn't pan out unless you disagree with some of the facts of the case. It also really doesn't feel like Winick intended for the audience to assume this was predatory. Jason never seems uncomfortable with the fact it happened, and he even gives Jason a bit of beard scruff to help convey that he's older now. (it uh... it didn't work. Because I thought Talia was like 52 at minimum. Also just the timeline. But that was the intent I feel)

Is Talia attempting to make Jason more vengeful?

No. Exact opposite actually, every lie and manipulation is in service of preventing him from going on his vengeance quest, guiding him to be a better person, and protecting herself and others.

As a side note: I haven't touched the potential misogyny or racism angles, because that's simply beyond the scope of this analysis. I don't have the time, energy, or resources to dig into this myself, you'll have to find a different post for that angle, sorry.

So... yeah. That's my findings, I hope at least one other person finds this useful!

#jason todd #talia al ghul #lost days #nightmarishly long analysis that I hope is half decent lol

72 notes · View notes

etincelleart · 2 months

Text

The more I'm on internet and the more I see harassment and call out posts every single day on various fandoms/artists spaces for all possible reasons and honestly I don't even know what to say outside of the fact that this is so freaking dangerous and wild to put labels and accusations on people you don't even know, or to not even try to understand and seek knownledge about the situation outside of what you want to see and understand. There are real predators doing illegal stuff who need to be stopped and yet people having fun and imagining things for ocs, various characters and ships are being accused of the worst things ever and it follows them everywhere. Tiny things are took as obvious signs of predatory behavior or racism or whatever and this is supposed to be fine.

I don't even mean to bring back the topic of my own story but experiencing dog piling and rumors and serious accusations for months because of a follow is just completely wild when I think about it. With some distance, I think I could have handled everything better when I spoke about it publicly. But I never should have wrote this post in the first place.

Block button exist and report button exist as well for serious problematic elements. My take is that no one deserves harassment and cruelty. But when you say "I'm against harassment and I don't want this person to be harassed", people take it as you defending "problematic" elements and completely distort it anyway. It's honestly exhausting and stupid.

Everyone has something that make them uncomfortable or that triggers them and I have my own standards as well. There are things I consider seriously weird but we don't know people and we don't know any of the intention behind the art. The way you explore something, how you do it, for what reason is what should matter. There are so much things you don't know. Nothing is black and white. I honestly think that as an artist, your art is connected to you, but the themes you work on are NOT reality. Again it's about the intention and how you go about something. I just think media literacy should really be teached at school because wow.

I just thought about expressing myself on this because it's just too serious and harming a lot of people who did nothing. I got attacked over a FOLLOW for someone who did nothing but imagine a future AU for characters and I think that's insane. Everything should be analyzed case by case. There are a real dangers who need to be exposed but this is never a reason or a justification to become cruel or to wish harm to anyone and assume the worst on people you never met. Just take a breath, go outside and learn how to block people, because that's insane the amount of people I had to block because they were being shitty but didn't block me or were still even following me.

I'm trying to not let my emotions get the better of me but that's honestly insane many others and myself got caught into this. The only thing I always did is drawing Nuts and Dolts because that's the only ship I could ever care about in RWBY. Being against harassment is not about defending "bad" people. It's so easy to judge people and make your little assumptions harming REAL people like that.

#fandom #ship #proship #anti #discourse #just rambling

57 notes · View notes

bonni · 3 months

Text

I've talked before about how I think hisoka's reputation as a "well-written villain" is undeserved and I still stand by that for reasons I'll get into at the end of this post. but I think the most frustrating thing about hisoka as a character is that I understand where that reputation comes from, because sometimes his character really works and thinking about what he could have been compared to what he is is infuriating.

hxh is, at its core, a shounen deconstruction, and one of its major themes is how the blind ambition of hunters is damaging on both an individual and interpersonal level. this is specifically reflected in gon, who's ambition and stubbornness hurts himself and the people around him (this post isn't about kurapika but obviously he is a prime example of this as well and the two have major character parallels). both ging and hisoka act as foils to gon, harboring the same blind ambition as he does but in increasingly twisted ways, with ging becoming so easily bored he can't treat a single human being with basic respect, and hisoka literally fetishizing ambition itself; gon, as a child, also finds himself facing abuse and assault at the hands of both of them, and they both use their twisted world view as a justification, with ging neglecting him for his entire life, grooming other vulnerable people in the process, and instructing them to hurt gon, and hisoka literally molesting him.

people sometimes get offended when you talk about the similarities between gon and hisoka, because yeah it feels kind of icky to compare a 12-year-old kid to the adult pedophile who's assaulting him. but the parallels exist for a reason, and that reason isn't to say that gon's going to turn out like this guy, it's to illustrate that hisoka's path is one potential outcome to prioritizing your own ambition over the lives of others. hisoka doesn't have a single relationship that isn't grounded in his own selfish worldview, and neither does ging. these are the people that gon admires and wants to surpass.

gon finally landing a punch on hisoka is an awesome moment, but in retrospect, it's upsetting. it reminds me of utena's duel against mikage; instead of confronting the ways in which they're unhealthily similar to their opponents and maybe doing some soul-searching, our protagonists celebrate the progress they've made towards their own destruction. gon's march towards a self-inflicted doom is a slow and steady one, and the chimera ant arc is the climax. gon can't be a great hunter like ging or hisoka. he cares too much about other people, and it destroys him.

so, yeah. as a foil to gon and as a source of commentary on the way a traditional shounen world encourages child abuse (not unlike our own world, hm?) hisoka is actually a good villain. the problem is, he isn't written consistently. togashi seems to like him too much and is fixated on making him some sort of anti-hero, which completely detracts from his supposed role as a villain! and, elephant in the room, he's still a homophobic stereotype. if you're going to write a predator, don't make him effeminate, and also include gay characters in your work who aren't predators (I do believe killua is intentionally gay coded but let's be honest, it's not enough). and when we look at the way gon's history of grooming and characters like palm are handled, it just becomes increasingly obvious that togashi doesn't really care about making any commentary about csa in a respectful or appropriate way. at best, it's there for shock value, and at worst, it's literally a joke. I will never respect the way that hisoka's character is handled in the series, but I do understand his appeal as a villain, and I really do wish he was written in a more respectful and consistent way.

#chatter #hunter x hunter #hxh meta

55 notes · View notes