Figured I'd post my favorite characters of colors since this Black History month so here are mine from the show rwby

And say what you like I know a lot of people may or may not think of him that way but I see Oscar is black / mixed

When you look at the main cast unless you know that some of them are Asian you just see what looks like white characters even on the secondary team they all just seem like white passing characters even ran who even though you can tell he's Asian coded same with blake

Oscar Maria and emerald if you count them as a part of the main cast like I do or the only few characters are of a dark skin tone

Even looking back at the earlier volumes of Ruby like volumes 1-3 one of the few black characters you have that people mainly recognize our emerald there are a few others that get introduced but they're such minor characters they're not a lot of people even mention them

I'm hoping we get a few more characters whenever we get volume 10 and I do hope that they are black

I also kind of hope the writers get better at writing characters of color because every time they write a character a color in this show they just get killed off or have to be redeemed or they're making bad decisions for no reason and yeah like even with the aesops they reviewed as the enemy so the latter half of volume 7 and even all through Volume 8

But there's something about the Aesop's characters and how they were portrayed I didn't like that well besides maybe marrow he seemed the most relatable and it's not just because we actually spent more time with him on screen it's just something about how the others and even other black characters have kind of been written in the show that just rubs me the wrong way as a black person I've seen a few others talk about this like I said I just hope we get some more black characters and later volumes if we get them and that they're written a bit better

Heavy Topics: A Child's Vision of Evil

One of the first big “aha!” moments in my journey to retrofit d&d’s laughably bad lore was the realization that the way the game treated evil didn’t make much sense.  As a dungeonmaster I was asked to create dramatic stakes for my players but the out-of-the-box antagonists supplied to me were as laughably one note as the pollution loving villains in Captain Planet. Who would ever worship the demon god of killing everything that lives? Of torturing you for all eternity? Of being unpleasantly covered in slime? 

None of it really made sense until I started to understand the world and recent history through a political lens, at which point several things became clear: 

Despite how large a bogyman it played in the satan scare of the late 80s, the people who laid the foundations for the lore of d&d came from a background of conservative american christianity, and baked a lot of that ethos into the game. 

The conservative christian imagination can only see things in black and white. People who disagree with them can’t just have a different opinion, even if that opinion is objectively good, they need to be wilfully evil . In fact they must be trying as hard to be evil as the christian is trying to be good, because they’re a backwards person, a monster, a demon. 

This idea of the “Backwards Person” is the exact process that gave rise to the bloodlibel, to the witchpanics, to the redscare, and yes, the 80s fear that satanists lurk around every corner sacrificing babies and putting poison in candy because they love evil that much.  It’s the same thought that’s given rise to Q-anon and the groomer panic. “People who disagree with just can’t just have a different opinion, they must be demons.”

D&D’s classic enemies are similarly all “backwards people”, hardwired to do evil so that players always have an excuse to kill them.  While on the surface it seems harmless or even childish it leads to the default d&d world being one where peace is impossible and genocidal violence is the only correct answer.  

We can do better in our writing than a bunch of shut-ins who wanted nothing more than to play cowboys and indians while ripping off Tolkien. Whether you want to write a sweeping epic or a mindless dungeon crawler, there’s a way to reconfigure d&d lore. 

Join me below the cut for a discussion of different ways to use evil in your games.

Children cannot control their emotions nor their fear, they lack the life experience necessary to contextualize things beyond a surface level reading. If you ask a child to "imagine something bad" they're going to take something that scared them, something gross or unpleasant or threatening and imagine it blown up to cartoonish proportion. Tolkien got bit by a spider as a kid and the entire fantasy genre has never lived it down.

D&D is weird because it keeps these childish ideas about evil and drags them forward into an adult context. Those three demon gods I mentioned in the intro make a sort of sense when you realize they're fears of dying, pain, and uncleanliness made manifest. That said most of us having outgrown our childish simplicity understand that those things are neutral, Spiders might personally gross you out but we all understand that doesn't make them bad on a spiritual level. In the base d&d lore however that personal distaste is ALWAYS true: Evilness is synonymous with ugliness and monstrousness, drawing a thick crayon line between the good people and the bad things.

That's where we get our particular flavor of backwards people, because one of those fundamental (pun intended) fears d&d inherited from it's creators was xenophobia, fear of the strange, but also fear of the stranger. When the white, suburban, middle class, christian creators of d&d imagined the other they took all the bad things they had been told in their youth about people who were not them and made them into monsters: That's why the default thinking enemies of d&d are tribal primitives who squat in the ruins of greater civilizations worshipping demons while coveting the beauty and wealth of cultured people. It sounds hyperbolic, but there's a one for one parallel between between the weird sexual anxieties conservatives have about black men and orcs raiding human lands to kidnap women as breeding stock. Same fears about emasculation and race mixing and ethnic replacement, only d&d gives the good ol' boys a narrative vehicle where they can revenge themselves upon their imagined foe.

Most modern d&d is not like this, and I chalk that up to the demographic shift that's happened both because of time passing and the influx of new voices that came along with the 5e renaissance. We're all media literate enough to avoid the obvious racial pantomime... except in cases like the Hardozee when the devs port something almost word for word from an older edition and we get a thanksgiving uncle/facebook aunt screed about how the silly monkey people are really SO happy to work for the refined and civilized and white elves.

What's left behind however is that pervasive childlike worldview: Where perfectly natural things that creep us out (like rot) or frighten us (like pregnancy) are made universally villainous regardless of any themes that are going on in that specific story. Ask yourself why the creators of a piece of media made their badguys look and act like they did, rather than just accepting that it's that way because "the lore says so".

Anyway, that's my rant over, and I promised you guys some different versions of how to use Evil:

Classic demons or lovecraftian horrors make for good bossfights but are thin on character, one of the basic building blocks of story. To remedy this, pair your unremitting force of darkness and destruction with a troubled and nuanced mortal agent, someone who is trying their general best but has been forced down this low road by circumstances beyond their control. This gives your roleplaying focused players something to play off against while your combat focused ones battle a building sized monstrosity. Raw evil isn't interesting, it becomes interesting when we see what it makes morally grey people, even good people, do in reaction to it.

Extremity is one of the best ways to turn normal people into villains, a looming disaster or recent crisis that's putting the pressure on everyone and preventing anyone from thinking beyond protecting themselves and their own. Beyond the people acting rashly, you're also going to have a legion of opportunists offering to fix the problem as your higher rank of antagonists to overcome.

Similarly, if you're going to have your villain backed up by legions of faceless mooks you're going to need a reason for their loyalty. Your villain is offering them something worth dying for, which gives your heroes an alternate win condition for overcoming their numbers beyond genocide.

If you're willing to take a step into a more fanciful, cartoony universe, feel free to play with the idea of good and evil as arbitrary teams: It's the badguy's job to cause chaos and it's the goodguy's job to stop em, they're all working professionals and the dungeon is the workplace comedy. This is fun, but then lets you escalate the tension when someone doesn't play by the rules. What happens when a zealot starts executing evildoers who'd already surrendered? what happens when the villain summons something that is more interested in devastation than wacky hijinx?

Think of morality like a punnett square: There's the party, and then there's the villain who wants the opposite of what they want. THEN there's the villain who wants what the party wants, and the ally who wants the opposite of party wants. Suddenly rather than a simple binary, the party is forced to balance the interest of varying groups as well as their better judgment. This can be made even MORE complex by creating different categories of "what the party wants", which is generally how you get complex political dramas like game of thrones.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

obstacle 1 - the crews separated and struggling

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

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

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

disaster - Ricky's assault on the Republic

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spider-man Villains and Hands

If you're paying attention you'll notice often times in Spiderverse that villains are far less expressive with their hands than the heroes. That is unless it's to attack.

Kingpin clicks his pen to relieve rage he's only barely controlling and in Peter Parker's death scene, the only time we see his hands is to kill him.

With Doc Ock, we see her doing a lot of excited gesturing with her hands (pushing up her glasses, studying Peter, etc.).

But after her reveal, it's her tentacles that does most of the talking.

Moving on to ATSV, when we first meet Spot, he's experimenting with his Spots with (you guesses it!) his hands and it's a lot of trial and error. It's also a lot of slap-stick comedy in his first fight with Miles managing to take him out briefly by making him punch himself in the face.

However as he becomes more confident with his powers, we see him use his hands less and less to the point he doesn't need to use a spot to teleport between dimensions. Instead of attacking them, Spot starts fighting by letting the heroes attack him.

And by the end of the film, his mere presence has become such a threat to Miles that all he has to do to invoke fear is stand still. This is why after his colour scheme has been completely inverted, he doesn't fight or do anything with his hands anymore and it's why our last focus on his hands is when he watches it completely turn from white to black.

When we first get a good look at Miguel, we get a close-up of his claws before panning up to his watch. Firstly this shows us how unlike the other Spider-people Miguel is. He has claws and wears a cape. Peter says in the first movie, "Spider-man doesn't wear capes." Then we see a better look at his watch which tells us this character isn't just scary and powerful, but is powerful in their access to other dimensions without having their cells decay - which by the end of the movie proves to be another problem for Miles. Immediately this shot warns us that Miguel is an unstoppable and dangerous person and the sirens in his leitmotif only emphasise that, even if the characters don't realise it yet.

Likewise with Fisk and Doc Ock in the previous Spiderverse installment, Miguel also doesn't have a lot of hand animations outside of fighting and we see this visual language in his meeting with Miles. Miles offers Miguel an empanadas and calls him 'Tio' ("uncle" in Spanish) as an offer of respect and solidarity, but Miguel's response is to grab the box and throws it aside before resuming his stance.

Here Miguel isn't just refusing Miles, he's also refusing the subliminal coding of a heroic character and I feel this has a lot to do with how our human brains work. The way we understand people and animals is by the way they mirror us. We like patterns and to draw parallels to ourselves. When someone is excited, we're excited. When someone's confused, we're confused. When someone's sad, we're sad. And so on. However when we're faced with something that doesn't react how we expect or reacts unpredictably, like Miguel throwing the empanadas back at Miles, it's sets off a warning in our brains. It's kind of like a predator hunting prey, which is the exact dynamic between Miles and Miguel by the end of the film.

However in Miles' mind, he has no idea why Miguel is being so antagonistic towards him. Even when Peter says, "He's always like this." Miguel remains stoic when Mayday is crawling around him and only moves to catch her and hand her back to Peter. Like with the empanadas, this is another example of Miguel's lack of ability to connect with the people in his environment other than through aggression and violence. It's why Miles calls out, "You have claws? Are you sure your Spider-man?" Because Spider-man is defined by his ability to connect with people - hero or villain.

Then we get to another clawed antagonist who hunts Miles for the duration of the first Spiderverse's runtime. Much like Miguel, Prowler's movement is mostly unstoppable aggression. That is until he learns Miles is Spider-man. Aside from presenting as Aaron Davis, Prowler is most identifiable by his giant claws and the camera makes sure of it.

It's only when Aaron learns who Miles is does he take off a claw to hold his hand in his final moments. Unlike Miguel, the claws are not exclusively attached to his suit - they are removable and thus Aaron is able to connect with the people in his environment outside of his identity as the Prowler.

Which finally leads us to our other Prowler, who likewise is able to put on and take off the claws. But where am I going with this?

I feel like in this scene the lighting and colour grading is doing the most work in making Prowler intimidating. Because unlike Aaron's Prowler, Miles' Prowler design is very casual for a villain. Which works for the character but without the claws and the mask, Miles looks just as scrawny as his Spider-man counter-part. It's almost too casual without those key identifiers. Which is why I think we're going to see a lot of Miles' Prowler without the claws and interacting with his family in the next film, as well as dealing with his own identity. Like Aaron in the first film and unlike Miguel in the second, we're going to see how Prowler connects with his environments beyond serving as a antagonistic foil to Miles.

I really liked your post about Rhaenicent. What do you think of Olivia’s recent interviews in regards to Alicent’s character, she seems to be really pushing for Rhaenicent despite everything.

Just to start I want to make it clear that this isn’t an attack against Olivia Cooke, she’s a brilliant actress who is entitled to her opinions. As a fan however I don’t like her interpretation of Alicent simply because she’s made it abundantly clear she’s more invested in Rhaenicent than Alicent herself.

Olivia could’ve done a Lena Headey and unapologetically supported her character despite not being popular with the general audience, who cares if people think she’s a bitch, she’s your bitch and that’s all that matters. Instead she sought out the one part of the fanbase who supposedly like Alicent but also has a large universal following: Rhaenicent.

Here’s where it gets tricky, when it comes to ships such as Rhaewin, Jacegan, Laenyra, Daemyra, Jace/Baela, Alicole, Aemond/Alys, Helaemond etc. it’s pretty straightforward: you’re a fan of both characters, maybe one more than the other but you do genuinely like both. Rhaenicent doesn’t have this, it’s a lot more complicated mainly because it’s the only one that doesn’t exist in book canon.

The Rhaenicent fan base is split into three unequally distributed categories:

>1% who are genuine fans of both Rhaenyra and Alicent, emphasis on the genuine because although some claim to be they end up in either of the latter two. The problem with these fans is that they’ve succumbed to the trap of “benevolent misogyny”, reducing both women to being nothing more than 24/7 victims of evil men. They rob Alicent of her ambition, Rhaenyra of her agency, they think these women will abandon everything and run off on dragon back because they’re still silly teenage girls who only care about cake and clothes.

14% are Alicent stans, the majority of them don’t actually like Rhaenyra she’s simply a self insert because there is no one else you can ship her with other than Criston but Alicole is nowhere near as popular because it doesn’t include a fan favourite. In Rhaenicent’s case the fan favourite is Rhaenyra not Alicent.

85% are all Team Rhaenyra, the only version of Alicent they’re interested in is one who is nothing more than a personal cheerleader for the Black Queen. They don’t want to hear about how Rhaenyra’s actions negatively affected Alicent, only how Alicent still cares about her and will do anything for her despite everything.

Both Olivia and Emily Carey faced a lot of harassment on social media, someone even came up to Olivia in real life and called Alicent a c*nt to her face. I know when you’re in a fandom bubble it’s easy to think Alicent and Team Green are just as popular as Rhaenyra and Team Black but that’s far from the truth. So although the vast majority of Rhaenicents are first and foremost Rhaenyra stans, they’re also the ones most welcoming to the actresses who are having a hard time because of stupid trolls who can’t differentiate between a character and the actor playing them.

Then it makes sense why Olivia will jump on board the Rhaenicent train, but it comes at the expense of her character. I’ve read some of her recent interviews, she’s throwing not just Alicent under the bus but also the entirety of Team Green just to maintain the illusion that Alicent’s no.1 priority will always be Rhaenyra Targaryen.

“Alicent is scared of Criston”, he’s her right hand man, the only one who has her back, he’s loyal to a fault and President of the Alicent Fan Club. But he’s also disliked by Team Black for this very reason, he’s openly antagonistic to Rhaenyra calling her a “spoiled c*nt” so Olivia wants to distance herself from Alicent’s most ardent supporter.

“she’s watching him [Aemond] grow up into an absolute killer, which is terrifying for her”, if Criston is President of the Team Alicent club then Aemond is Vice President. You see throughout Season 1 how close she is to her second son, how she relies on him for support, how he truly loves and respects her. He said he wants Luke’s eye as a gift for his mother, from Alicent’s four children she is definitely closest to Aemond but he’s also the one who killed Nyra’s precious baby so fans don’t like him. Again, Olivia is detaching Alicent from her own children so she can appeal to Rhaenicents who mourned their sweet boy Luke.

“That’s what the whole series has been about: trying to get back to each other” this coupled with her saying she pushed for a Rhaenicent reunion at the end of S2 really emphasises just how willing she is to destroy everything about Alicent’s character in order to warp her into the sanitised version of a Rhaenicent wet dream.

Alicent doesn’t care her grandson was slaughtered right in front of her.

Alicent doesn’t care her 6 year old granddaughter was threatened with r*pe.

Alicent doesn’t care her daughter went insane.

Alicent doesn’t care Team Black almost killed her sons in battle.

Olivia’s version of Alicent doesn’t care about anything that doesn’t revolve around worshiping the ground Rhaenyra walks on. So as far as she’s concerned there is “still hope” because her ideal ending is one where Alicent abandons her family, agency and ambition just so she can be Rhaenyra’s personal cheerleader for the rest of her life. The Alicent she’s envisioning is one who will set her own children on fire just to keep Nyra warm.

https://www.tumblr.com/damnfandomproblems/739064506502791168/fandom-problem-4499-i-think-sometimes-people-get

Thing is op

People like to use "coded" as an excuse to harrass others over a fictional character

"this character is minor-coded therefor if you like them or draw them sexy then you are a pedo"

"this character is gay-coded so if you ship them qith the opposite gender your homophobic"

"this character is autism-coded so if you dont see them that way you are ableist."

"this character is poc coded and if you dont portray them that way then you are racist"

And then they go and rip people to shreds over it. And most of the time they are actually "coded" as anything.

Ill give you a good example as to why coding should just fucking die in fandom.

In transformers (all of them afaik) there is a sentient ROBOT named Jazz. He is often voiced by a black voice actor, even in the early days of Generation 1 in 1984. Though it changes a few times Jazz is well known for his accented voice. Jazz (the music) is also known to be pioneered by black people.

In a way jazz is black coded. He is designed with all these elements related to black people.

The thing is. Jazz is a fucking robot. "Jazz" is the name he chose for himself because his cybertronian name does not translate or cannot be spoken by humans. Jazz is also a type of music he only heard when he arrived on earth and is something he loves, hence why he chose the name. He chooses to express himself in such a way because its what he enjoys.

It does not mean he is black. A white person can do all that because they have a love for jazz music. It isnt going to make them "black coded"

He is also again, a robot. Not human. Not even organic.

However of all the problems ive seen in the TF fandom the one about whether you should draw a human version of Jazz as black or white is probably the one thats sets people who give a shit off the most.

It doesn't matter what characteristics a character has. It doesnt matter if Jazz is drawn as black or white. Cuz he isn't human. Its literally up to fan interpretation and none of them are wrong but people want to shit fling, and react hostile over others not drawing him as black anyway.

Same could be said about a certain more popular pink skinned character (who is also human and japanese but when have people ever viewed japanese people as important.)

You can have your queer coded villains. Doesn't actually say they are queer. Hell in the past it would be done as a way to demonize queerness and traits. But queer people still loved those villains because they could relate to their tragedies.

What "coding" actually is, is a part of the design process to add depth and character. It's an inspiration born from reality. But it's not always that the character is meant to be that thing.

Theres a character from genshin impact i could say is "DID-coded" because when she falls alseep or is so stressed she passes out there is another version of her that takes her place that she doesnt know about.

In the same vein theres the game "At Dead of Night" (recommend it, its a horror game) where the main antagonist is possessed and murders people. They even had to put a disclaimer that the character didnt have DID and the game wasnt made to demonize people with DID or portray them as unstable serial killers. However despite the creators saying that, fans still "DID-code" the antagonist, not out of hatred for people with DID but because some people with DID still relate to the character. Not so much the killing people but the struggle the antagonist has with "being possessed". Having DID can be a frustrating and tiring experience and not many cope with it very well even when they do no harm. Feeling of loss of control is very relatable even without DID.

Regardless the rampant "coding everything trend" in fandom has caused a new "ship war" like wave of harrassment. If you dont view a character this was your a horrible person and you deserve *insert graphic content and threats of harm and suibaiting and more*

coding can be a cool thing to discover while analyzing a character or even creating one. But its become hated with good reason because people have no reason left in them. Coding is a cool way of adding depth and nuance to a character and would actually REALLY help beginners with their "bland" characters. Unfortunately even thats discouraged, since it can be seen as "baiting" or "stereotyping" and sometimes appropriating culture. (But a giant sentient robot making his entire personality about jazz music isn't? Lol)

Posting since this is a response to a previous problem.

Why I think the character Kayne from the Malevolent podcast is Nyarlathotep.

Okay, so obviously Malevolent follows lovecrafitan logic. So let's look into that Lore.

*Spoiler warning up to episode 31*

Malevolent is heavily inspired Lovecraftian lore. With a heavy focus on The King in Yellow, as well as minor influences from The Black Stone, The Dream Cycle and others, the supernatural of the world generally has roots in HP. Lovecraft's universe. So, when it comes to unknown characters such as Kayne, listeners can't help but dissect the entity in hopes of figuring out motives as well as possible plot progressions. Following this mindset, one can only hope but wonder what it might mean to draw comparisons to Nyarlathotep. Nyarlathotep (aka the Crawling Chaos) is one of the primary antagonist in the Lovecraftian universe. He doesn't really have a reason for his "villianry", apart from having an amoral perspective, a sadistic personality, and a desire to manipulate those around him, he generally just follows the will of his father, the blind god, Azathoth. However, in his spare time he is often seen manipulating and deceiving humans for personal pleasure, often choosing to toy with them or drive them insane. Although Kayne seems to fit this bill, being the epitome of toying with people and unhinged insanity let's talk specifics parallels.

Seven Million Voices & Two Heads

In episode twenty, in a joking maner, Kayne hands Arthur (the protagonist) a coin, and states the following: "Look, I often wish I had two voices in my head Instead of, like, seven million? But when all is said and done, you can always flip a coin. Two heads and all that." At first, this sentence may seem like just another deliriously random thought spewing from Kayne's mouth but upon further investigation, we can assume that this quote is some foreshadowing into future plot points or a Nyarlathotep reveal. It is important to note in art and imagery it is not uncommon for Nyarlathotep to be depicted with two heads. This displays interesting connotations because it implies that Kayne was acknowledging that his human form is not his true form, and instead a disguise which like Nyarlathotep he often wears. This is important knowledge as Nyarlathotep is the only "other god" (powerful lovecraftian beings) that can wear a human mask. Furthermore, Nyarlathotep is also able to create avatars/minions to follow him and he communicates with them telepathically. This would likely feed into Kayne's numerous voices in his head.

Travelling the Planes

Unlike most gods, both Kayne and Nyarlathotep alike are easily able to travel through dimensions/worlds/planes. Nyarlathotep often is depicted as being able to exist "beyond the archetypal infinity", existing across every and any plane at all times. Kayne follows this pattern as we see him both The King in Yellow's city, found within the dreamlands in episode twenty, and in the mines on earth in episode twenty-eight, despite it causing other gods like The King in Yellow to break apart and split.

Biblical Imagery

Its important to note that althought unintended, Nyarlathotep is often seen as a the twisted version of Jesus Christ, or even depicted as the devil. This is because as Sigmund Freud states, interpretation of the text belongs to the reader, and offers a psychoanalytical insight into ourselves by what we understand from it. So, existing in a predominantly Christian dominated world, it makes sense that critics and fans alike have made the comparisons.

Nyarlathotep is the son of the blind God; Azathoth, sent to be his messenger and do his bidding on Earth, similarly to how Jesus was sent to earth to do the biding of his father. It's quite easy to bounce the idea of Jesus and Nyarlathotep off one another, with Nyarlathotep being to destruction as Jesus is to being a saviour. Looking at Kayne, the same can be applied, we can acknowledge the destructive nature of his being but also compare the significance of his appearance. Walking around with bare feet and hands, drenched in blood that would not stop, could easily be seen as a direct parallel to Jesus' own injuries post crusifiction. Plus there's the fact that in response to John's "Jesus Fucking Christ" swear, Kayne responded with "Present and accounted for!", something that could have been just a delusional quip but in light of everything else seems suspicious.

But what about the devil? Surely a character of evil nature should be attributed to him and well yes, while Nyarlathotep is also depicted as the devil, its interesting to instead see Lucifer and Jesus as two sides of the same coin, or as Kayne earlier said; "two heads". I could dwell on philosophy, discussing the significance between cultural understanding and the tradgey in Lucifers tale, which depicts him more as a victim that a villian, but that tangent would take me far to much of track so instead I skip to the parallel with the devil. In the bible, Earth was called lucifer's domain. He had primary influence, and as such the heavans took drastic measures to ensure there were ways to combat it. They realised fighting on his turf was to strong, so god sent his only son to create a gateway out of his domain without the cost. This had to happen because Lucifer walked amongst the humans when others could not, he would whisper into their minds, corrupting them to sin and puppeteering them into madness. When it comes to lovecraftian lore, Nyarlathotep essentially did the same. He was known to have the most powerful influence over earth compared to all the other gods, he whispered into their minds and constantly drove humans insane. This is something that Kayne implicated he had the power to do. Kayne stated that compared to John/ The King in Yellow, He is more powerful, especially using mortal understanding. He was able to exist on earth because it was his domain and considering his relationship with sanity, it hardly seems unjustified to do this comparison.

Also its important to note, Lilith is refferenced as having a close relationship with Kayne and in Lovecraftian Lore. She is Nyarlathotep's daughter.

Faustian Comparisons

Apart from Lovecraft, Malevolent takes inspiration from many other sources such as Robert Frost, William Ernest Henley and most significantly Faustian folklore. With the podcast following a similar premise to the tale (man with a dead wife, drowned child, combats irredeemable guilt by making a deal with a demon), it makes sense that Kayne and Nyarlathotep would hold comparison to the main demonic being; Mephistopheles. All three entities maintain a chaotic, trickster based personality, inspired by their willingness to play and trick humans. Mephistopheles takes this further, using contracts and deals to delude. In the episode Coda, Kayne mirrors this by offering Arthur (Our Faust counterpart) a deal, allowing him to retrieve part of The King in Yellow for himself. As the deal-maker Kayne manipulates Arthur, pressuring him into a deal in which the fine print is hidden just as Mephistopheles does to Faust. So we can only presume Arthur will meet a similar demise at Kayne's hand as Faust met at Mephistopheles.

TLDR: All in all, if Kayne is supposed to Nyarlathotep, who is essentially the antithesis of Jesus Christ. I reckon we have an interesting story ahead of ourselves. Especially considering the Faustian inspiration practically guarantees tragedy

@ viserys targaryen

i don't really understand what's the point of making viserys and daemon neglectful fathers in the show... yeah like daemon is around his girls a lot (especially baela in her childhood) and ig we could say he cares for his children with nyra, touching her tummy, searching for eggs, even clearly supporting luke and jace and their claim

but then we have rhaena's "father ignores me". we have scene when he hugs them after laena's death but it get cut so does it really count? we have him ignoring the fact his daughters were hurt during fight with aemond. he talks about dragonriders and unclaimed dragons and rhaena becomes uncomfortable (and it might means nothing for her relation with daemon but still). he ignores nyra in her labour (which is weirder when you think about jace's question. where is daemon? as if he expected him there. as if daemon was by nyra's side when she was giving birth to viserys and aegon, just like he was with laena. yes, he now plans the war to protect them but also he's wife may be dying). caring daemon - cut! comforting rhaenyra? cut! mourning visenya? cut! finding out about luke? cut!

it seems like his character as a father (i already complained about daemon as a husband lmao) was written very inconsistent, writers wanted to show he's a family guy after all but really damaged his relationship with his children, especially his own ones, as if caring for family claims were more important than themselves for him

less with viserys but still. he was never a good father, not even in the books but his character was damaged his too (especially with rhaenyra). we see him celebrating aegon's birthday, touching alicent's belly, watching his kids and grandkids training etc and after that we have "rhaenyra, my only child"?? dear gods (poppy milk blah blah whatever). not even commenting on his behaviour towards aemond and aegon on driftmark (yeah, one just commitet a treason and the other was drunk but dude wtf). helaena didn't give a fck about him while in the book she visited him regularly with her children. the fact he doesn't even know his daughter is a dreamer (that one also... ehh)? that he doesn't talk with aemond even though they both love history??

what truly bothers me that daemon is supposed to be a grey character but in the show if he wasn't in team black which is more "morally right" and also politically correct about claim to the throne we'd say he's fully antagonist cause of the crimes he commited and his good moments (as brother, father, husband) are really reduced

viserys and daemon are not good people, period. they have many flaws we could see clearly in books and show. i just can't understand why creators decided to destroy their characters as fathers (especially daemon) as if they needed to show this way that they're both bad men*. it's very one dimensional - you're bad man, then you're also bad husband, bad father, bad brother, bad friend. which is even more stupid when you see these big gestures that should prove otherwise (viserys coming to the throne room, daemon ensuring jace's claim or killing vaemond in nyra's protection etc)

*this confuses me much, viserys is shown as a "good guy" most of the time even after what he did to the realm, aemma or alicent, as peaceful king, family guy, who loves them all so dearly, but looks like him neglacting other children could in any way help rhaenyra being seen more as a rightful heir to watchers? idk unnecessary and speaks volumes, apparently as watchers we're stupid bc we don't see viserys is terrible (oh bc how could he be? he married 15yo instead of 12yo - i'm gonna write sth about these age changes too cause seven hells - such a good guy) after rping two girls and basically killing his wife at very least so they need to show us deadbeat father

Shang tsung isn't evil but a product of corruption and the environment that surrounds him. He's not evil in the sense of black n white thinking of morality. Especially from a western,psuedo Christian American perspective that so many people wanna shoehorn him into. (No shade here but im calling it like i see it nrs)

How is he evil when everyone in mortal kombat kills?

Also shao kahn quan chi and shinnok has arguably done worse

And even more so he's worked more with them,and under them(shao Kahn namely) and had no choice but to follow orders. Namely some things sure were aligned in benefit. But truly can you really argue that it was all his doing? No to say so is ignorant and undermining the other villains and antagonists of the series and their own contributions to the story narrative in opposition of protags and other characters.

The most evil is those who hide behind self righteousness and say they are for peace when they are being manipulated by promises of a better realm or timeline(cough fire god liu kang. COUGH)

Like nah guys mk12/mk1 don't make sense even for the narrative they are trying to pull. Shang is wonderful but yall missed the point even tho the storymode sucks and everything about it makes me nauseous, shang tsung shines thru because of what he represents. The story,It falls through the crack simply because of the fact

In mortal kombats chaotic and cruel world. You kill or be killed. You do what it takes to survive. Or be food for the gods. As you are nothing but entertainment for them.

Everyone kills in mortal kombat. So shang tsung killing means fucking nothing and is a moot point. He does it,everyone does it,how is he truly any different than anyone at that point. Thru mortal kombat,a supposedly Divine system,he's doing exactly what he's supposed to be doing. And what his character is designed to do. Period. So killing,moot point and argument.

Im not talking about. MK12/MK1 specifically. Tho that grinds my gears for many other reasons. Im talking shang tsung,overall as a whole as a character thru the 30+yrs the games and mk has been around. These are common arguments for that shang is "tHe EVil OnE" when there's no such thing in mks world. Truly. It's posturing and posing flowery words at that point. Period.

Stealing souls? He has to,to survive. He is cursed by the very gods and mentors that once swore to protect him. But did nothing.

Climbing for power? He does so because he wishes not to rule over. But so he doesn't have to worry about going to bed hungry,to suffer. He wants stability,comfort,and most of all security. A thing that long ago was robbed of him.

See you can't say shit about my man without having many reasons why he's not.

Could he be evil,nasty,and dowright fucking cruel? Oh you bet your ass he could. But does he enjoy it? Not really. He takes no pleasure unless it's out of necessity or you're considered an enemy.

He is no different than a hungry hunter. Trying to find his next meal or the next place of dwelling. Until he finds his true place of being and achieves a stable life.

Like ffs people it's right fucking there fine print and that still,STILL GOES OVER YOUR HEADS!

Like y'all who don't understand nuanced villains WANT him to be stereotypical,y'all want him to be easy to pinpoint. Because that means you dont get to critique your beloved "Heroic" characters. And use your brains,and critically think that maybe,just fucking maybe. Your nice dudes were wrong for once.

In mortal kombats world (if you can call it that because the world building sucks)

It's kill or be killed. Morality be damned. Shang tsung found that out long ago. Hiding behind morals in a world that could care less than about you. Gods that only see you as food,throw away entertainment,etc.

He may have respect for someone who despite all that crap,has some moral backbone. But isn't blind to the truth,it's survival. Dont be a pushover boot licking lapdog. As long as you don't hide behind your self righteousness and "goody goody" attitude. He'll respect that you have a noble heart. In fact,that may make him actually enjoy your company. But dont be a condescending jackass about your morals. And he'll be fine.

Shang tsung is just playing the game that the world is built upon. The rules,the gods,the empires,have made. And plays them well into his advantage.

And y'all pissed he plays it better than you. 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

That my dears is a truly well done villain,antagonist,and just a beautifully complex character.

That's how you do or are supposed to do shang tsung. Period.

*slams hand down on table and leaves*

🔥💯🔥

I am thinking about this interview with Judd Winick (the guy who made Jason Red Hood and laid the foundation for his entire modern characterization) because it's very telling with regards to the motivations for why Jason was made into a villain.

"I've said this before, but think anyone would agree that Batman is a hard character to write because we've done so much with him already. He's the most psychologically analyzed character in the entire superhero genre. Even when he makes the jump to second media stuff, it's equally about what goes on in his head as it is about his fists. So he's been explored inside and out. For me, Jason represents a whole new avenue of story in the Bat-universe, both as Batman's greatest failure who has come back to haunt him, as well as a character that is interesting to explore as an individual."

To me, this is him saying that the decision to bring Jason back as a villain was primarily to serve as a good antagonist for Bruce and keep Bruce's story fresh rather than being for Jason. Exploring this new Jason as a character in his own right was a secondary motivation. Winick's character decisions are not rooted in what best serves Jason and what makes sense for him, it's to serve Bruce.

"Yes, Jason sees what he's doing as making himself into a better Batman, the Batman that the world actually needs today.

But some of that is just Jason fooling himself. The truth is, all of it is based in the fact that Jason is just damaged and tortured and angry with Bruce. And this is a constant revenge upon him."

So, the justification for Jason being a villain is that he's traumatised. It should go without saying, but saying "this guy is evil and broken because trauma, you should write him off because trauma" is not a good way to write survivors.

"So do I understand him? I don't know. It's a scary thought that someone would have an affinity with someone who is as messed up as Jason. I do think he's wrong. I don't think he's going about justice the right way. Maybe I'm able to get inside his head a little, but thankfully he hasn't started rooting around in mine."

Winick not only views Jason as a villain but as one no one should have affinity with. He's not meant to be relatable, as above you're meant to write him off. There's no room for the idea he might have a point.

It reminds me of the leftist villain trope where they don't actually care about equality, they're just jealous or they do care but they go too far so you shouldn't listen to them.

"I also like the fact that Jason's actions aren't black and white. Sometimes he functions in that gray area, and it gives you the license to be somewhat hypocritical, because he is. I used to do that with Oliver Queen in Green Arrow, and people would go crazy, because I thought it was interesting to explore that sometimes he's a bit of a hypocrite. I find that likable about the character. And in Jason's case, he professes that he's trying to be a better Batman and he's trying to rid the world of evil, but then he's also just trying to stick it to Batman. It's very much a man-child thing going on."

If by "go crazy" you mean "hated it" then yeah, you're right. A lot of Green Arrow fans do not like Winick's run precisely because he does not understand the character and misrepresents him to make him look worse, like a hypocrite. There's a parallel between how Winick treats Ollie and how he treats Jason because in both cases he's taking pre-established characters and making them look worse because he does not respect them. He writes Jason as having very legitimate grievances with Bruce's ethics and then writes him off as a man-child. He is not approaching him in good faith.

I see Jason being a villain as a choice the writers made not because they thought it was good for the character, but for secondary reasons and then justified by villainising trauma survivors.

This is exactly why I don't take Winick's word as gospel with regards to Red Hood.

And post Winick, DC only seems to create stories where Jason is nothing but an edgy anti-hero divorced from righteous anger or strong ideology and stories where Jason has to change and throw his ideology away so he can be reincorporated back into the Batfamily. It's not great.

But that being said, I do think there's potential for Jason as Red Hood. I don't want it scrapped altogether because I would love to see a Jason who is actually trying to serve victims and help people in bad situations by both destroying what causes harm and constructing alternatives. Jason is a character with a lot of potential that I would like to see realised.

max having thoughts about lucy and how the fandom treated her. this also goes alongside with the way people treated rex

just generally it comes iffy to me how people downgrade lucy's character to her stereotype and don't understand that tlm is based around deconstructing said stereotypes and that people are much more complex than you think and trying to put them on a black or white perspective completely misses the point

and how they either don't recognize that her behaviours towards emmet weren't the best, or they do but completely take it only to the extreme

this also applies to rex's character although leaning more on the second one, since he is the antagonist per say

what troubles me the most i think is that i think that both rex and lucy are really good at deconstructing the stereotypes/main ideas they're based on and people demonizing or not focussing on it sucks ass.

like with lucy they genuinely do forget the implications of her genuinely being happy pre-wyldstyle until everything went down and how the guilt is eating her alive since something she created with so much love caused so much pain at the same time. like the reason as to why she's like that for almost all of the two movies is because the pain and guilt is still there with her and it fucking sucks. it gets worse on the second movie because she does genuinely think that they're on danger and meanwhile she genuinely wants to protect emmet, she also forgot that they're a team and that proper communication is the key. that's why her arc goes around growth and opening her heart again. she took the wyldstyle persona so she wouldn't be hurt again anymore, and possibly so people don't view her as weak.

so that's why her losing her hair dye means so much to her actually growing. she can't keep hiding herself any longer and she has to accept that hey, maybe, she has to be more versatile on her point of view. that things can still change. just like emmet said. she genuinely cares about her friends and didn't take the best decisions because of that but that is okay ultimately. she is not perfect but like that's the thing. she doesn't have to be. the second movie allowed her to grow and to heal.

which is also a parallel with rex.

but we do know already that people constantly treat rex as a monster just for having terrible mental health and shitty copying mechanisms when like. depression does that to you. being isolated does that to you. thinking that your friends left you behind does that to you. and like that is super messed up actually. people more than often don't get that the reasons as to why rex got to that extreme was because he genuinely didn't want emmet to be hurt the same way he was on the past. he cares about emmet. he is so hurt by seeing lucy but he doesn't hate her. he is a mess of emotions and thoughts and the way people demonized his struggles with mental health is genuinely fucked up.

because. yeah. rex DID shitty stuff. but he had very fair reasons. he was badly hurt and left behind. he thought that his friends left him just like that. he thought that they never cared. hell, his whole persona is an copying mechanism because he didn't want to be hurt again.

he was emmet once. and people forget that always. he is not abusive nor is he a terrible person nor is he completely innocent he's hurt and tired and angry and sad and misses his friends. and lucy isn't cold hearted or uncaring or one dimensional,hell, even if we go by the hints of her band, you can even argue that she's going through survivor's guilt.

what i'm saying is that the tlm fandom doesn't understand that mental health can be awful and shitty and that it won't get better unless said people who are going through it have a support system or are trying themselves and that struggling and making bad decisions, especially with good intentions, doesn't make you a bad person.

hell the whole theme of the movie is about CHANGE and GROWTH. rex and lucy ALSO had those. but anyway what do i know i barely remember anything of the movies as of now but as someone who kind of is going through the same thing. having a character portrayed as abusive for having terrible mental health and making bad choices that DID HAVE GOOD INTENTIONS MIND YOU is terrible and i genuinely hope people get that at one point. like hell rex didn't even. fucking want to hurt emmet. sure he lied but that's because he thought it was for the best. same goes for lucy.

tldr: shut up about your twink (benny) and actually start focussing on rex and lucy on the proper way

"Politics infects everything and it really, really sucks. Especially with this retarded attitude that if you just want a break from politics you're automatically a bad person because it's a "privilege" to be able to ignore them."

Agreed.

Next time people say all art is political or something has always been political, maybe we should just say "Ok, can we make it political in the way it was before then?"

Satire and social commentary used to be an art within art. These days, it's been reduced to writers facing the screen and lecturing the viewer. Which, in addition to being lazy, is self-defeating.

There's an original series Star Trek episode where the crew is stuck in a civil war between an alien species that has skin that's half white, and half black. Eventually they discover that the war is happening because some of the aliens are white on their right half, and black on their left, and the others and black on their right half and white on their left. It's incredibly effective social commentary on race relations, because when that's revealed as the reason for the conflict, few, if any, of the viewers would have caught onto it. Because it's not something we would ever think about. Tying that to race relations shows how silly it is to judge people by skin color, because we're being just as irrational as those aliens are. They're very obviously the same species, to the point where we don't even notice the difference until it's pointed out to us. And the message that episode is trying to present is that so are humans. And it makes you think about pre-existing biases and racism and why we think about certain races the way we do, but it does it all within the context of the show and the plot.

Contrast that with how most modern shows would do the same thing. There would be the protagonist who is clearly in the right, and the antagonist who is clearly in the wrong. One member of the main cast would think the antagonist maybe has a point, and the rest of the cast would pounce on him, rhetorically beating him down and telling him that he's wrong. That cast member would meekly sit there and take it, and then later on in the episode admit that he was wrong and everyone else was right. The antagonist will be a bad person in every aspect of his life. He'll beat his wife, or be a murderer, or commit other crimes and those actions will be tied to his beliefs even if they have nothing to do with them. He won't be a wife beater because he's a bad husband, or because he's a drunk, or because he has anger issues; he'll be a wife beater because beating your wife is Bad and Bad People beat their wives and only Bad People have Those Opinions. Eventually he will be caught, or killed, or defeated, and the episode will end. But nowhere will it ever be highlighted why the antagonist is wrong. He'll just be wrong. And nowhere will it be shown why the antagonist is the way he is, or why that one cast member was sympathetic to his views. The antagonist is the way he is because he's a Bad Person. And the cast member was sympathetic to him because he has some of that Badness in him--most likely because that character is almost always a straight white male--and he needed the Good People to tell him he was wrong.

There's nothing to think about, there. If you find yourself watching that show and seeing your own views in the antagonist, you're never given an opportunity to reflect on why you hold those views or whether or not you might be wrong. You're just told you're wrong, you're evil, and you're going to always be a bad guy until you repent and agree with the Good People. And that's bad social commentary. All it does is confirm the biases of the viewers who agree with the cast and the ones who agree with the antagonist. The ones who agree with the cast are reassured that they're the Good People because they have the Right Opinion, and the ones who agree with the antagonist have yet another piece of evidence that the people telling them they're wrong don't even understand the issues they're talking about. Because the antagonist may hold their views, but he doesn't act like anyone they know who also shares their views. He certainly doesn't act like those viewers, because those viewers aren't cartoonishly evil. They don't have the supposed wrongness of their beliefs backed up by objectively bad actions that have nothing to do with those beliefs. His reasons for holding those views are also never explored, so there's no connection to him even for people who agree with him. If a bad guy says "illegal immigration is bad" and the good guys say "no it's not, bigot" that does absolutely nothing to get people to think about an issue they already likely have an opinion on. And that's why the art of social commentary in art is all but dead these days. Because the people making the art have no interest in exploring issues fully. They just want a strawman they can knock down and feel good about themselves afterwards. It's not about changing people's minds or making them think, it's solely about getting validation from people who already agree with the artist.

Sorry for the whole big thing. But this is something I think about a lot and I just felt like going off a bit, lol

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

"Naruto is generic and trope-y. It's not a deconstruction."

Naruto manufactures a whole myth about himself following conventional shonen archetypes. From the start we get this clear basic narrative from Naruto about how he views the world and in this narrative he is the "underdog hero main character" and in this narrative Sakura is his fated "love interest" and Sasuke is his "arrogant rival antagonist". Tropes taken straight from any basic shonen ... But this is not the reality. It's a myth manufactured by Naruto. Naruto isn't a hero. He is an oppositionally defiant, attention seeking kid who will do anything to get attention, who constantly demeans others, or, as with Sakura, harasses her to the point that he'll even disguise himself as Sasuke to trick her and almost steals her kiss (today we'd call this sexual assault actually). It's actually very understandable why sakura and the other kids disliked Naruto.

What's not understandable is why Sasuke of all people stands up for him and defends him. Because despite how Naruto narrates it, Naruto initiates every early conflict between the two, and Sasuke responds extremely graciously. In the first chapter we see Sasuke stand up for Naruto after Naruto had just attacked him. Sasuke offers Naruto his own food and who pulls team 7 together. Sasuke is the one who protects Naruto. Sasuke even asks Naruto for help and Naruto responds by throwing it in his face. Sasuke goes out looking for Naruto after he's been out all night. And Sasuke is the one who dies for Naruto and tells him to go fulfill his dreams with his last breath. But the problem is that most people buy into naruto's myth and see Sasuke and Naruto as these archetypes, when actually the story is deconstructing them. Naruto isn't a good guy. He isn't a superman. Or a Mary sue. Or a character who doesn't have development. He starts off as a neglected kid who is angry at the world, hiding behind the grand narrative he has manufactured for himself to give himself a purpose. How else could Naruto ask with all seriousness, "why a great ninja like himself was getting put on a team with a bad ninja like Sasuke?" Naruto lives in this delusional shonen narrative following basic archetypes of shonen because that's how kids think. Naruto sees the world in black and white and he imagines himself as the hero of his story, as all kids do. Sakura too has a generic shojo-like narrative in her head at the start which also gets completely torn apart. Why? Because the story is deconstructing these narratives. It takes Naruto until the end of part one to completely step outside of his imagined narrative and face reality. And only because he sees how it has actually hurt Sasuke. He takes responsibility for the part he himself played in destroying sasuke by treating him as if he were only a rival he wanted to defeat.

In reality Naruto felt a connection with Sasuke and admired him, but his fear led him to manufacture this fake narrative that kept him constantly treating Sasuke like the bad guy and keeping him at arms distance. And Sasuke believes that that is all Naruto sees him as. Not a human, but a means for Naruto to use prove himself. Just like most of the people in sasuke's life. That's why Sasuke says: 'this is what you've been waiting for' to Naruto. Because Naruto's acting like he only wanted to defeat Sasuke to prove himself has led Sasuke to believe it. This forces Naruto to shed his illusions and be honest with Sasuke for the first time. It doesn't stop Sasuke from leaving, but it does bring him back to holding onto his humanity and he won't kill Naruto for power.

Yes Naruto is a deconstruction. No, you're not supposed to just take things at face value or trust everything you're told. It's a show about ninjas and we are literally told in-story that you have to look beneath the surface. Itachi literally sums up one of the biggest messages, that people see reality as they expect it to be based on their own preconceptions. And the entire show is an example of that. People expect Naruto to be a typical shonen protagonist and Sasuke to be the typical shonen rival. And that's what people see. But if you actually look at the story you'll see that that is actually an illusion.

"Naruto and sasuke aren't actually two sides of the same coin. They're nothing alike actually."

If you think this, you don't understand the characters or the story. Mario and Sasuke are mirror images. Yin and yang.

Naruto is born with no identity, overlooked and underestimated. He dreams of becoming Hokage, the highest point of the social ladder and getting loved and respect by everyone, but he is neglected and alone. And then he is betrayed by someone he trusted... but right when he's at his lowest point, right when he could have lost his faith in humanity, Iruka comes in to restore that faith. And then he gains a team and a sensei.

And then Jiraiya.

And Tsunade.

And many others who come along beside him, and support him. Throughout the series Naruto gains more and more. He experiences the light of the ninja world.

Sasuke is born into a prestigious clan with a loving family, even if his brother and father are distant. Unlike Naruto, Sasuke doesn't dream big. His dreams are modest and driven entirely by filial piety. And then he is betrayed and tortured. No one comes in to rescue him. And Sasuke loses everything. And his family's reputation is now in the gutter and looked at with derision and scorn, and all eyes are on him to see if his clan were just frauds who never deserved their reputation. Sasuke constantly has eyes on him, evaluating him. People trying to defeat him just for the bragging rights. Sasuke gets put on team 7 with Naruto, but that's as far as his good luck goes with relationships. Because he's being targeted he never gets a chance to connect with his peers. He's rushed right out of the preliminary chunin exams and then arrives at the last minute at the arena for the actual event. He is targeted by Gaara, Orochimaru, and itachi. Except for Kakashi Sasuke has no good adult figures in his life who try to protect him, just adults who want to kill him or use him to further their own purposes. Sasuke experiences all the darkness of the ninja world. Literally. He literally spends three years underground. Everything sasuke has gets taken away.

And then taken away again.

And then taken away again.

So, yes, Naruto and Sasuke are two sides of the same coin. They are mirror images. Naruto starts the story desiring to be a heroic character, but his idea of heroism is shallow. In actuality he's more like the arrogant, jealous rival. Sasuke doesn't want to be a hero. Probably doesn't believe in heroes. But he's secretly kind and is empathetic to Naruto. And he's the one who makes the big heroic sacrifice at the end of the first arc.

And then they reverse roles.

Naruto starts to shed his insecurity and gains confidence. And Sasuke starts to lose his confidence and gain insecurity.

Naruto loses his distrust of people and stops being so antagonistic. Sasuke loses his trust of people and starts becoming very antagonistic.

Sasuke plays a big role in Naruto's rise, getting Sakura on board with trying to show Naruto more empathy, getting the team through the bell test, teaching Naruto the meaning of fighting to protect what is precious, teaching Naruto what self-sacrifice means. And Naruto plays a role in sasuke's fall, constantly antagonizing him. Looking to pick at any weakness. Keeping him distant. Of course these things on their own aren't enough to push him over the edge. In fact, at the start he takes it all in stride. So you'll forgive Naruto for believing he couldn't actually hurt Sasuke.... But then Sasuke gets targeted more and more and feels more and more useless, in a society where he's valued because of his usefulness. Naruto's jibes and attacks start to make an impact.

And the transposition of roles is completed.

Very convenient to turn off reblogs on that post @henrysglock after you went on a tangent about Billy fitting the profile of having a conduct disorder using extremely decontextualized bits of his story twisted in the most negative way possible while giving Henry the benefit of the doubt at every turn despite evidence to the contrary. Let's see:

Comparing Jonathan and Billy is your first mistake. They're not the same because the context of their abuse is not the same. Jonathan has a biological brother who he grew up with and loves. Billy and Max didn't have a choice in becoming step siblings, and they have no strong attachments to each other. Not only that, but Billy is parentified by their parents who make Max his responsibility creating tension between them.

He never was going to kill anyone with his car. If you genuinely believe that then you either take things way too literally or you've never heard of playing chicken. He was pissed off because of the move, which he blames Max for - and Max blames him. Max notes that this behavior isn't a pattern. It's new, and it's triggered by the move. It's fucking ridiculous for you to sit here and confidently say Billy was trying to kill anyone at any point while you give Henry every benefit of the doubt.

Be serious.

Billy also didn't attack Lucas "simply because he was black" and as a side note you don't have to have a conduct disorder to say and do bigoted things. You remove very important context to simplify the situation which isn't helpful for any character involved. He doesn't just push Lucas. He tells him to stay away from Max, and I'm going to need you to think about why Billy who wants nothing to do with his step sister would care about Max hanging out with Lucas, especially when Billy had just before been abused for "letting" Max run away.

Billy didn't want to be there, so to say she had to take a bat to him in order for him to leave her alone ignores that context. He was also incapacitated on the floor, so the bat was excessive. He also does leave her alone. He leaves everyone alone after that. The antagonistic behavior was an acute response to the move, and he settles into relatively normal but still dick-ish teenage boy behavior.

And picking on kids at the pool remorselessly? You're really stretching it. You are judging him based on one line that may be mean but it's in response to a person running when they're not supposed to. He's also 18. He's not a full grown adult man who is so much older than the children there. Again. Be serious.

...and don't even get me started on façades. Billy is literally trying to survive his father's wrath and you are using his responses to it to make the most disingenuous and vile assumptions about him. He isn't trying to get what he wants. He needs to find Max, or else. Teenagers lie. Teenagers put on acts, especially when they're in trouble and abused teenagers like Billy get preyed on by adults because of it.

Conduct Disorder is not just being a dick or being mean, especially when its reactive or related to an irritating situation a person is in. All of this in depth "analysis" of Henry and you cannot get the most basic details about Billy correct or give him any benefit of the doubt to him in return. Billy does not persistently disregard the rights of others. That's inconsistent, and his control over Max is a direct result of being parentified. He does not attempt to take their autonomy away. He even tried to defend Max's right to independence by saying she doesn't need a babysitter. He does not try to manipulate people into giving him what he wants. If you are looking at a teenager seeking attention from other adults as manipulative and "charming" then you sound no better than the people who blame teenage grooming victims for leading the adult on.

MISTYNAT

THANK YOU I CAN ALWAYS COUNT ON YOU FHDJJS

ship it and i am SO serious about it lately. and s2 is so fascinating in that it solidified my mistynat brainrot while making me fear that the writers are about to destroy misty as a character - through walter - but! fears aside lets talk about them and how i see those characters and their dynamic and the ways in which s2 is now influencing my thoughts. SO!

my take on misty is that she's fucked in the head (that's everyone's take but bear with me) and so she doesn't want the same earnest obsessive reciprocation reflected back at her. which is why i hope whatever they do with walter crashes and burns cause it can only be INTERESTING and good for misty as a character if ultimately she doesn't WANT that (i just also think she's a lesbian but i know she won't be ~canonically so) and hear me out!!! with crystal it was different cause it was the first time misty even felt a connection to anyone who seemed to like her back AND she was a teenager. plus the thing about mistycrystal is i think it's PART of the reason she's like that. she had this illusion of complete acceptance and understanding from someone so similar to her only for that person to take it back right before dying. so that explicitly made it clear to misty that she can't have that. it's unhealthy yes (cheering clapping throwing confetti) but i think she feels safer if someone is - like nat - vaguely antagonistic towards her and yet seems to care. not only does that feel safer it also gives her that RUSH. the thrill of winning someone’s affection or i guess manipulating her way into getting it lmao it's like. a game to an extent. and BECAUSE of what happened to her in the wilderness there IS NO ONE WHO CAN GIVE HER UNCONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE. it wouldn't MATTER if walter was fine with the black box secret cause he wasn't TRAUMATIZED TO HELL AND BACK BY IT. his acceptance means nothing. and misty CAN'T "heal" and she cannot form Healthy Attachments much like other survivors (again. cheering and throwing confetti)

and the nat part of this? LIKE LISTEN. nat who lashes out at perceived rejection? nat who can make it impossible for anyone to stick around (like the only relationship she seems to have with like anyone is with travis and if i understood correctly they haven't BEEN together for a long while and it was just seeing each other once in a while to do drugs. so. she's downright incapable of healthy relationships. like all of them obviously but i am just making a Point) so anyways. she can make pretty much everyone give up eventually cause they may care deeply but they're just not sick in the head enough to put themselves through it. enter misty. misty WON'T EVEN ACCEPT IT'S A REJECTION. AND SHE LIKES THE HIGH OF THE EMOTIONAL ROLLERCOASTER. fucking perfect i want to read 300k of this disaster

on top of that you have the really messed up way they can relate to each other (although i don't think nat would admit that) in that both of them miss the wilderness. i mean to an extent that's true for all the survivors but we start the show with nat saying she lost her purpose when she got rescued. and in s1 we are sort of led to believe she meant that she was the hunter who was HUNTING ANIMALS and providing for the group i suppose but then we get to s2 and the implications are much different. and we end on nat being embraced by her peers in a way she's NEVER been before. which is such a parallel to misty feeling finally accepted after the crash. so you have those two characters who were both socially stigmatized and mocked/bullied during their teenage years and are still facing social rejection in adulthood. for different reasons (like. with misty lets be honest most people like her coworkers aren't aware she's like actually dangerous and whatnot. they just don't like her because she's very in your face not neurotypical. and nat is a depressed addict with an attitude) but like the social consequences are the same really

and to end on a happy note. Of Course i ship it. if something can have this in the summary of a fic and be insanely in character OF COURSE i ship it

[link to the fic which you absolutely SHOULD read it. best mistynat one EVER]