#I think it ultimately doesn't matter except when it becomes a problem

[atomicc]

Had a huge thought but it ended up just boiling down to how I think people should focus less of their energy on shipping or whatever but also do what you want just don't be a misogynist i don't know

[jeonscatalyst]

https://www.tumblr.com/jeonscatalyst/760242773222883328/this-all-of-this-and-every-single-bit-of-this?source=share

I do agree with this person's analysis of Jimin and Jungkook personalities, and I also agree that to some extent Jungkook's affection being rarer than Jimin's does make it more special to some fans, but where I disagree is that I don't think that's the main reason why fans seem to put more weight in what Jungkook does than what Jimin does.

Because while some fans will put this much thought on the differences in jikook's personalities, I don't think it's the majority that does. It's kinda of a problem we have actually. If people realised that Jimin and Jungkook are two different people with different ways of showing affection, then we wouldn't have to keep seeing the same stupid takes on their relationship over and over again. It's people expecting jikook to always do to the other the exact same thing the other did to them that causes so much annoying discourse.

But you know what a lot of shipper do love doing? Competing with one another. Competition is one of the main things in every k-pop fandom and sub-fandom, shippers are no exception. And when it comes to jikookers we all know the competition is with taekookers. We're always at each other's throats, let's be honest. And some spend just as much time taking about the rival ship as they do talking about their own ship.

Which leads me to what I believe is the real main reason why both sides (not just jikookers) view Jungkook's actions as more important. It's because he's the in-common person to both ships. He's like the main character in a love triangle. He's the one that ultimately decides who gets together in the end, not the two love interests, so their actions don't matter as much.

The point of contention with shippers has never really been whether or not Jimin or Taehyung like Jungkook, that's already assumed to be the case. With solos it's definitely an argument, but jikookers and taekookers focus more on each other than in solos. No, the real question has always been who does Jungkook like more: Jimin or Taehyung?

If Jimin declares his love for Jungkook jikookers will of course love that, but if Jungkook is the one who does it it'll matter more because it can be used against taekookers. Taekookers don't care if Jimin loves Jungkook or not, what he feels doesn't matter to them. Nothing Jimin says can prove anything to them. The confirmation has to come from Jungkook, that's the only way they'll care about it. And jikookers do care about one-upping taekookers. If we didn't we wouldn't spend so much time trying to prove to them that we're right.

There's been plenty of times when I've seen something that used to not matter suddenly become important the moment people realize it could be used in the shipping competition. It's a sort of 'I didn't care that much about that thing I have until I realized it could make the other side jealous'. Or 'I didn't want that thing until the other side got it and now I want it too'.

Things naturally hold more importance to people when those things have not only their own inherent value but also when they have the added bonus of pissing off someone you don't like. Jimin's love for Jungkook is important by itself but Jungkook's love for Jimin is seen as more important because it will also piss off taekookers.

I'm pretty sure that if the two biggest ships were jikook and vmin instead, then the most important thing suddenly would be Jimin's affection, regardless of how affectionate he is with everyone.

Again, I do agree some fans do consider jikook's differences and that that does influence how they value their actions, it's just that I think there's a bigger reason here.

I hope this didn't come across as me being a contrarian for the sake of it, I just wanted to add a separate perspective on the subject because I've had this opinion for a while and it seemed relevant to the topic. I also hope I was not to harsh on my opinions of other jikookers, but no fandom is without it's flaws and I think it's important to acknowledge them.

Anon, I owe you a cold beer right now because it seems like you read my mind.

This is exactly what I think too. It’s just mostly about the competition, the shipwars, the fights and the need to “win”. That’s really why people think Jungkook’s actions hold more meaning that Vmins. It’s like Jungkook is the prize that Vmin are desperately trying to win and every action or word of his is used as an affirmation or debunking. “Jungkook did this with Tae but didn’t do that with Jimin so Tae is his boyfriend”….just an endless cycle of bullshit.

Anyone who is mature and experienced enough understands that Jimin and Jungkook don’t have to express themselves exactly the same for things to be mutual. Jimin could say “I love you” to Jungkook and Jungkook wouldn’t say it back but would prefer to make a video of Jimin. So many people would say Jungkook didn’t reciprocate just because he didn’t do things exactly the way Jimin did when the truth is that he did, just in his own way.

When I see people coming up with useless takes or comparisons about their bond it pisses me off to no end because it’s the little things that Jungkook does. People would get pissed at Jungkook and say that he doesn’t show love to Jimin as much as Jimin does just because Jimin would constantly touch him, ask him to eat alot and is very vocal about his affection but Jungkook remembering that Jimin likes his food spicy and trying to make it just how Jimin likes it apparently means nothing because Jungkook wasn’t shouting on a roof top or Jungkook thinking of what to cook in Jeju and knowing that Jimin would love it doesn’t matter because he didn’t stand on a podium and announce it or Jungkook quietly getting water for Jimin and giving him to drink without him asking doesn’t mean a thing because he didn’t carry Jimin on his head. Sometimes I don’t even have the energy to argue because if only people understood Jungkook they would know that Jungkook doesn’t treat anyone the same way he does Jimin.

I personally can see how someone might naturally value Jungkook’s actions more because Jimin is a natural caring, nurturing and loving person to everyone so sometimes it is hard to tell if his actions mean more or it is just him being himself but with Jungkook, he tries as much as possible to be impartial but he just cannot help it when it comes to Jimin. He is pretty kind and caring towards everyone he loves too but not the same way Jimin does it plus Jungkook tends to go big when he expresses his affection for Jimin. So with Jimin we get little bits of love and affection more frequently than we get from Jungkook but once we get one from Jungkook, it is usually news worthy and kinda exclusive to Jimin so it hits harder.

I dunno. I might have gone off topic but like I said, I 100% agree with you.

[lynamei]

Political plot: where to start

Well, some people would try to seem wise and say something like ‘at the beginning’. Here we are, then, trying to figure out what that beginning would be.

Before we dive head first into perfecting your plot, there's some important nuances that you should decide on. And you should keep them in your head through the entire process of planning your plot. So the question you should find the answer to is the following:

Why do you want to write it, what do you want to tell your reader with it?

That's important lest you lose the thread and become caught up in the excitement of intrigues, power plays and winning moves. Because then you risk overcomplicating the plot and creating too many unnecessary tangents that wouldn't make sense in the end. Or worse: you’ll pause at some point, look back and feel lost at what you should do with all that mess.

So yeah, the reason your plot is what it is.

It doesn't have to be something socially important (like the dangers of introducing computers to governing to guarantee impartiality and equality). Even if you think that your reasons are too simple or silly, they exist and they are important to you. That's all that matters. You don't have to share your reasons with other people, just keep them in mind to ensure that the story progresses as it should.

Then comes another important detail.

You have to decide whether it's your central plot line or your subplot. And it's not because a central plot demands more attention and knowledge than a subplot, though some might think like that. But there is a fundamental difference between the two. For your subplots you have to decide how they are connected to the main plot. So, there's one more point for you to think through.

The first option obviously means that your story actually is about politics.

It doesn't have to be only about politics, stories with multilayer plots and complex problems are as interesting as the ones featuring single focus. So, no need to make everything a political move. But you will have to remember that politics are in the centre.

One of the most well-known examples of political plots is George Martin’s ‘Game of Thrones’ series. Now, I won't comment on the quality of it, but the fact remains - the story is about the struggle over the throne that is the symbol of the ultimate power. Other storylines are tied to this one. Even the supernatural subplot with Others and the Long Night is somewhat dependent on the political turmoil of the Seven Kingdoms.

What does that mean? Only that most (probably not all) of your subplots will be to some point defined by the main plot or coloured by it. Like, marriage of two people loving each other isn't only marriage now, but a political alliance, obstacle on the path to power, or a hidden danger. Possibilities are numerous. Also, not everything has to be touched by your political plot, but that should be an exception, not a rule.

The second option is writing a political subplot. It obviously must have some importance to the story (why would it be there otherwise?) and some ties to the main plot.

A subplot can be:

a way to better unfold a character’s personality and/or history (the storyline of Ciri’s origin from Witcher books series)

a component of some bigger conflict (Landsmeet quest in Dragon Age: Origin);

a background to the main story (pretty much most books written by Remark);

a side of the complex and multifaceted central plot (like in Harry Potter ideological side is the part of struggle between good and evil).

There are, of course, other possibilities of political subplots. You only need to think up the thing you want and tie it logically to your main plot. Remember: you are the author. If you decide that some action, behaviour or other element of the story is political and you show it to your readers then everything is as you say.

Now, when you decide why you have this specific plot, you must understand that politics is all about power and influence. It might be not the political power in its pure form (like a throne, a post of president or conquering a neighbouring tribe), but it's power nonetheless. Each of your characters wants it, needs it for some reason or is in possession of it, and events unfold around it.

And if you went for a political subplot instead, you should determine what parts are relevant for your story but still trace the entire line at least in your head. Because if some attentive reader notices that something doesn't add up, you’ll have to fend off a series of critiques, not always kind. Slacking off isn't worth it.

Next up, we’re delving a little deeper into political worldbuilding, going over the main elements you’ll have to account for. Those are all things that will be important in your plotting. How the political system is built and functions. Which political institutions can and cannot coexist. What place political culture has in the system and what are sociopolitical implications in everyday behaviour.

Until the next time. Stay safe.

[raayllum]

Sometimes I think about the gap between the thematic perception of a theme/character versus how they themselves perceive the same thing. There's not too many gaps routinely like this in TDP except for antagonists — Karim comes to mind most notably, in how he earnestly believes he's doing the right thing with no pretense while becoming increasingly hypocritical — nor are all these gaps negative, per se.

But I think about it in regards to Rayllum a lot.

For example, in their actual relationship, they're pretty healthy. Rayla in particular has struggled with open and honest communication, but they're getting there, and we see that Callum has given her an unconditional, rather than an ultimatum base, upon which for her and both of them to build upon. They can teach really good lessons about taking time for yourself so you don't yell at your partner, that you have to work on yourself and a relationship won't fix your problems, that approaching things together is good and that you should support one another, etc etc.

However, thematically — identity wise — they are codependent to a super intense degree, wrapped up and incredibly dependent on the other person's construction of their sense of self (Rayla struggling to be a good person when she's reeling in the S4 fallout, because what does she have to show for it? Callum trying in 4x07 to push them both into their worst roles if the worst comes for him). And this codependency as well as intense desire to protect one another can cause them to make dangerous or self destructive choices in the name of love (or both), like Rayla leaving to protect him and luring Sol Regem away, or Callum doing dark magic and jumping off the Pinnacle.

Thereby, playing with this push and pull, how they exist and perceive themselves vs how they exist in the narrative (and may be seen as other characters) is well, a lot of fun.

This is also true for the "Rayla as Callum's method of destruction and salvation" theme that's been running through every season of the show, with Rayla being the lynchpin to burn down his old life / understandings of self and trust, and usher in new ones.

Callum doesn't see his relationship with Rayla as anything negative, ultimately; she's loving and brave and she saves people, she saved him, and he saves her right back. He'd do anything not to lose her, because that's the Right Thing to do to him, even if it's not automatically 'the right thing' for the rest of the world's safety.

But we know, thanks to their pattern (1x03, 1x04, 2x07, 3x09, general S4, 4x07, general S5, 5x04, 5x08) that it's something that can and has routinely gotten him into trouble in the past, particularly in S2 and S5.

We also know that Rayla fundamentally doesn't see anything wrong with Callum, either. "It doesn't matter" that he did dark magic before (2x07) and it likely won't ultimately matter to her again. She has so much faith and trust in him and his ability to do the impossible that the idea of Aaravos possessing him again in an awful way is downright hard for her to fathom. To her / in her mind, Callum is sweet and nice (even on the rare instances he yells at her), caring and loving and compassionate. And he is all those things, but even when one another's worst traits come out, both have a tendency to forgive and accept.

Now, part of this is because they have a mutual basis, for lack of a better word, of lines the other would never cross that are all conveniently the lines the other could never forgive (Rayla putting Ez at risk on a whim, Callum killing Stella for dark magic ingredients) which just perpetuates this cycle of support, forgiveness, and unconditionality.

Because unconditional love is great — until it's not.

And I think this blend of "they are actively healthy and actively working on being healthier" mixed with the "oh God quarantine them and their codependent shit together elsewhere for the good of society" is why they 1) have the range that they do and 2) the subsequent appeal that they do.

[itsnothingofinterest]

So it’s looking like we might be getting the ‘AFO gave Tenko his quirk’ theory confirmed and I gotta be honest; I am not in favor. I’m hardly the first to take this position, both before and after this chapter dropped, but if I may attempt to put into words why; it’s that I don't think it can really add anything except reveal postmortem some new way AFO is bad in the best case & handing Deku a potential deus ex machina in the worst case.

Like, the best case result of such a revelation at this point in the plot is that it's just to make AFO seem more evil by making him the root cause of the Shimura tragedy, except…only in a way that doesn’t even matter. Like, this reveal shouldn’t change any of Tomura’s motivations or talking points; he already knows AFO manipulated him & hates him for that, but he also hates Kotaro, Nana, All Might, and the greater hero society for the role they played in his tragedy, and AFO giving him Decay wouldn’t change how much everyone else I listed deserves that ire. It just means that some of the tragic happenstance of the Shimuras that seemingly could've happened to anyone was instead purposefully cause by that jerk we know.

It’s like if we learned AFO killed Endeavor’s father, leading him down the path to become the domestic abuser we know him as. Thus the tragedy of the Todorokis would also come back to AFO...but y’know…not in anyway that matters. Endeavor, Touya, and everyone else involved still made their choices; AFO’s just the root cause of it all by sheer technicality. How diabolical, I might care if he were still relevant.

The worst case result of such a revaluation of course is that it gives Deku an unearned & largely uninteresting easy out to solving the problem that is Tomura's rage. Because if AFO gave him Decay, then he's actually the one ultimately responsible for near everything, if not just everything wrong in Tomura's life (even if, again, just by technicality in some areas). Never mind the rolls Kotaro, Nana, All Might, and greater hero society played in it; AFO's the real root cause of it all whose been manipulating Tomura for longer than he even knows, so he should just stop caring about that other stuff.

Plus it'd also mean Tomura doesn't exist to destroy because Decay isn't his true quirk (never mind how that's not why he thinks that & he never even put much stock into that quirk-identity stuff anyway) so he can just stop being a villain now please.

Yeah this all just doesn't seem like the most interesting way for Deku to tackle Tomura's trauma, talking points, or motivations.

Plus, like a live action Disney movie, the idea's kind of felt like it’s tying up a ‘plot hole’ that didn’t need tying up; that might even work better as a coincidental tragedy. Like; people act like this can’t be just a tragedy, it's too convenient, it has to be some master machination of the grand demon lord who…is already beaten, dead, and doesn’t factor into anyone’s plot lines or themes anymore. At best, to make him seem more evil long after the point we have any reason to care; at worst, to give Deku an easy out (with the side effect of making him seem like a worse hero who can’t save villains in Tomura's position without unique circumstances to make it easy).

Also like a live action Disney movie, this almost feels like it opens up a plot hole in trying to tie one up. Because as we know; Tenko’s circumstances are identical to Eri’s, down to the signs of their quirks being random mutations. When I said the tragic happenstance of the Shimuras we're blaming AFO for could've happened to anyone; I know this because it happened verbatim to her. So if those circumstances (just so happening to get a deadly quirk that kills their families, which just so happen to be connected to the villain who'll use & abuse them, etc.) are seen as suspicious, early signs that AFO gave Tenko Decay…did he or another villain give Eri Rewind? Almost certainly not; but if not then why does she get a random mutation-caused tragedy, while Tenko must have been the victim of some villain’s plot that's already been foiled?

So my point is: I really hope this is just a red herring. Revealing that AFO gave Tenko Decay kind of feels like it undercuts the Shimura tragedy as something that could've happened to any kid in Tenko or Eri's shoes; and I don't think any payoff you'd get for that undercutting is worth it.

We should instead get the much funnier revaluation that the man who brought Tenko home that day was, rather than AFO, a completely different man who Deku would coincidentally recognize: Hisashi Midoriya.

[onwhatcaptain]

Spirk Meta: Connecting Star Trek SNW & TOS

I'm going to try to connect TOS and SNW's character arcs for Kirk and Spock's relationship with one another. This is part analysis and part prediction of where the writers are headed in shaping SNW into the TOS narrative.

With the most recent SNW episode, I think it's really fascinating that Spock is coping with the consequences of his attraction to Chapel and infidelity to T'Pring, while Kirk reacts to his attraction to La'an by showing a strong sense of loyalty to Carol.

I've been discussing with friends and they believe the two situations aren't comparable. However, I believe they're not only comparable, the writers completely intended them to be compared.

Spock has always served as a foil to Kirk. If you've seen TOS, you know this is true. Spock is logical, Kirk is unpredictable, and so forth. I don't really need to go into details about this, it's been explained to death. For me, it says a lot that in SNW E9, Spock is uncertain of who he is as a person and Kirk is uncertain of who he's meant to become as a commander.

Kirk has his mind on command, hence his discussion with Una, where he concludes that he needs to connect with people. That's the point of that song. Meanwhile, Spock's takeaway from his song is that he needs to specifically stop connecting with others on a personal level because it was a mistake to do so. It's a very internal-facing narrative, as it should be. But as we know, it doesn't work out that easy. For either of them. Ultimately, Spock does connect to people and finds himself emotionally compromised, and Kirk has trouble getting close to others. But Kirk is looking outward for answers, to other people, while Spock looks inward. To me, this extends to how they cope with difficult relationships, problems, and each other.

Kirk, like Spock, is attracted to someone he's not in a relationship with in this season. He clearly feels something with La'an but explicitly chooses not to pursue it seriously because he's in a relationship (some of the time) with Carol Marcus, who is having his child. Spock, on the other hand, says he wants to feel at this time. He doesn't want to let his relationship get in the way of experiencing something new with Christine Chapel, even at the detriment of his core beliefs. The really interesting thing about this is that these two characters arrive at the same conclusion even by making different choices. They both end up incredibly lonely, a major thematic arc for both men throughout TOS.

How they react at these crucial moments in SNW is a representation of their priorities in relationships, in life, and how they even become with one another. Kirk is married to the idea of command, costing him his relationships to other people. Spock is so deeply internally focused that he only has a few real friends by the time TOS rolls around, and can't accept that he cares about them, always couching it in terms of duty and obligation.

Spock essentially thinks, I need to not get close to people because I'll be hurt by those people. Kirk thinks, I need to get close to people where it matters, for command, but not so close that I'll hurt them. This ends up with both of them being painfully reticent to connect with anyone, to the point where in The Final Frontier, Kirk thinks he has no family.

MCCOY: It's a mystery what draws us together. All that time in space getting on each other's nerves and what do we do when shore leave comes along? We spend it together. Other people have families.

KIRK: Other people, Bones. Not us.

He eventually changes his mind by the end of the film, but you can see that this theme of loneliness goes all the way from SNW to nearly the end of their lives. Kirk's conclusion at the end of the film is that McCoy and Spock are his family.

But we see this idea of loneliness repeat so often that Kirk has a several ex girlfriends in TOS show up, all on good terms with him except one who we won't talk about here. Spock, on the other hand, has mostly closed himself off to relationships of all kinds by TOS, even shaming himself for whatever it is he actually feels for Jim, who is his best friend at that point. And they both fight this loneliness aggressively in TOS and the films. Spock insists he feels shame for his friendship with Kirk, Kirk feels like his ship owns him and he can't have anyone in his life. This excerpt from The Naked Time, which I abridged significantly since there was a lot of interspersed discussion about physics, is revealing:

SPOCK: My mother. I could never tell her I loved her. An Earth woman, living on a planet where love, emotion, is bad taste. I respected my father, our customs. I was ashamed of my Earth blood. Jim, when I feel friendship for you, I'm ashamed. Understand, Jim. I've spent a whole lifetime learning to hide my feelings. KIRK: I've got it, the disease. Love. You're better off without it, and I'm better off without mine. This vessel, I give, she takes. She won't permit me my life. I've got to live hers. I have a beautiful yeoman. Have you noticed her, Mister Spock? You're allowed to notice her. The Captain's not permitted. Now I know why it's called she. Flesh woman to touch, to hold. A beach to walk on. A few days, no braid on my shoulder.

They're both completely focused on their inability to love people. Spock is focused on talking about how he can't because of his identity, and Kirk is talking about how he can't because of his job. We even see Spock turn down an appeal from Chapel, as Chapel turns him down here. These two episodes have major parallels.

Just like in Subspace Rhapsody, Spock is thinking of himself, his faults, his issues, and Kirk is thinking about how he never stays in one place long enough to love someone. I think this sense of inability to experience deep love is actually setting up their friendship arc. Obviously, they eventually do love each other (in some way or the other). But it begins at what is clearly friendship, and notably, Kirk is eventually able to look past his marriage to command for Spock, and Spock is able to look past his reticence to relationships for Kirk (see Amok Time).

What's of interest to me is that we don't know how Spock and Kirk become close in the first place, but we will. It's clear they're very close friends by TOS, but in SNW currently, we haven't got an inkling of how that forms. My take on it is that it forms because of their respective struggles to connect with people. They're both struggling in precisely the same way: neither of them thinks they can or should get too close to people. For one another, they act as the only person they're able to completely let their guard down with. And that's possibly how they get close; that's the basis on which their relationship forms. They trust each other. Because they think they're not allowed to have or experience love, they end up more or less using one another as a stand-in for that need. In doing so, it brings us full circle. Kirk and Carol have a conversation about their relationship briefly in The Wrath of Khan.

KIRK: I did what you wanted. I stayed away. Why didn't you tell him? CAROL: How can you ask me that? Were we together? Were we going to be? You had your world and I had mine. And I wanted him in mine, not chasing through the universe with his father. Actually, he's a lot like you. In many ways. Please tell me what you're feeling. KIRK: There's a man out there I haven't seen in fifteen years who's trying to kill me. You show me a son that'd be happy to help him. My son. My life that could have been, and wasn't. And what am I feeling? Old. Worn out.

Kirk is terrified of aging. In this film, his past has come knocking, the same past SNW is exploring now. He's terrified of growing old and he's terrified he made the wrong decision when he was younger. I'd argue that that's because it's led to him feeling deeply alone, to the point where McCoy says they're treating his birthday like a funeral. Kirk not only feels like he belongs out in space because it's where he's meant to be, but because he doesn't feel so deeply alone, so much like a fish out of water, when he's out there adventuring. So he second guesses himself here: what have my choices cost me? Should I have not gone on to become who I am?

And the answer to that for him is no. This all ties together when Spock dies to save the ship at the end of this film. It's only in a few places in TOS and then finally here where Spock is able to talk openly about friendship and love:

SPOCK: I have been and always shall be your friend. Live long and prosper.

Kirk is devastated but while grieving, he can't help but feel young. And even then, feeling young isn't enough, because he can't stand not being in control, which we see in the next several films. He essentially can't handle life without command or without Spock.

SNW is attempting to bring us full circle on The Wrath of Khan and its cast. I guess what I'm trying to say here is that the character arcs we will eventually be given by the writers of SNW between Kirk and Spock is completely bookended by their feelings of loneliness, self doubt, and connection with others beginning from this episode through the TOS films. It's extremely interesting that they choose to do this on the SNW end by showing us where Kirk and Spock are both failing in their respective relationships with others and how they grow into that with one another, only to experience violent ups and downs throughout the films as they finally try to come to terms with who they really are as people, and who they really are as friends.

I'm interested to see how that will begin from season 3 onwards.

[zarekthelordofthefries]

People defending Frieren's fantasy-racism has me pissed off again, so I'm gonna try to channel the energy I could be using to argue with losers online into a more productive analysis post.

The thing that frustrates me most about "always evil" species in fantasy isn't actually when a story just has a species that's always evil. That's racist and boring and I hate it, but it's not the kind that gets me really angry.

The kinds of Always Evil that really get my goat are the times when the writers actually put a little more thought into it. They give some explanation for why the species behaves a certain way. And ostensibly, that should be a good start; Always Evil species are typically born out of simplification, incuriosity, and artistic laziness, so actually putting some thought into it should fix the problems, right?

But what ends up happening so often in these stories is that any exploration of the reasons behind a hostile species' behavior has a specific narrative purpose, and that purpose is to justify hurting them. Lemme give a couple examples:

Frieren. The show (I haven't read the manga but from what I understand it's similar in this respect) demonstrates that the reason demons are so dangerous is that they don't fully understand human morality. Demons look human and can speak, but they developed those attributes as a survival mechanism. We see a demon child who repeats phrases she explicitly doesn't understand because it makes humans hesitate to hurt her. She kills someone, but does it in an attempt at altruism, because she thought it would make other humans happy with her. She's not cruel, she's just trying to survive and doesn't understand what makes humans scared of her.

But while the demon child is a fascinating character who presents incredible story opportunities to explore social contracts and neurodivergence and xenophobia, the show...doesn't do any of that. All of that background, the entire character of the demon child, exists to justify the main character's belief that demons are inherently duplicitous and should be wiped out. And the narrative doesn't push back on this at all -- according to the story, she's right. Demons don't understand morality and that means they should be driven extinct.

Another example I think about a lot is the vorcha from Mass Effect. Codex entries about the vorcha as a species have some really interesting worldbuilding that I genuinely like a lot; they're aliens who heal rapidly and are highly-adaptable to physical trauma. As a result of this, they've become one of the setting's Warrior Race Guys, always showing up in the games as mercenaries and gangsters and hitmen, but their reason for having such combat-focused societies is a side-effect of their biology: what doesn't kill them literally makes them stronger, so hurting each other is also helping each other. They don't put moral weight on combat because if you survive, they've done you a favor. The more they beat up on each other, the stronger their whole community (and their whole species) becomes.

Which is really cool! Except...they don't matter in the games. Vorcha are not one of the species that is especially relevant to Mass Effect's story. Ultimately what all this adds up to is...an excuse for why the vorcha show up as mooks throughout gameplay. That's all they are, as far as the narrative cares; they're stupid, violent goblins, and all that fascinating worldbuilding isn't used to characterize any of them in interesting ways, it's just there to add some set dressing to a species of gun-toting mobs that you mow down in numbers.

These examples bug me so much because there IS thought here, there's consideration for verisimilitude, but what does that consideration actually serve in the narrative? All these explanations do is move the "evil races" they involve out of the territory of the common flimsy excuse for these things: the idea that it doesn't matter if it's unrealistic to have "always evil races," because it's fiction, so who cares? This excuse sucks, obviously, but these examples can't even hide behind it, because they've put enough thought into it to try to make it realistic. Ultimately what they're saying is "Actually, here's how it would be realistic for an entire race of people to all be evil and for it to be okay to murder them en masse. It is possible under these circumstances!" which...is honestly a vastly more sinister idea, I think.

But besides that, besides any moral element to the narrative...it's so boring? It's so disappointingly boring?? I think there is room for xenofiction and exploration of alternate modes of thinking that other species could exhibit, I think it's realistic that an alien species might struggle to think the way we do about something and vice versa. But these stories are using that as a flimsy excuse for oversimplification, a handwave, a thin veil over the actual narrative purpose of these species, which is that the writer wants intelligent species as enemies without any of those pesky concerns about murdering people. While individual ideas in these examples might be interesting and nuanced, when you take the stories they're wrapped up in as a whole, all they amount to is a pretty hat on top of "you can kill these human-shaped Things freely, because it's fun."

[silverview]

I love your tlw thoughts sm!! :D

I'm on like my sixth rewatch currently and I've been curious about how Chas seems to handle the "Mick" situation and I was wondering if you had any thoughts on that in particular?

aahh thank you so much!! ❤️❤️ that's such a good question! i will say as much as i have to say about it (very incoherent i'm afraid) + then would be VERY curious to hear your thoughts on the matter as well

it makes sense to me that chas doesn't react to the mick thing straight away. well, he tries to deny/avoid it, appropriately enough. he internalises the stress of it to avoid making it joe's problem. not necessarily the right or smart thing to do, but i genuinely think he is trying to be kind & generous by trying to ignore it. when he finally brings it up, it's reluctant – apologetic, even. he only mentions it because he can't help it anymore. i think he dislikes being (or seeing himself as) the sort of person who always has to say what he's thinking. and he feels bad for bringing down the weekend.

so, focusing specifically on the confrontation scene, as it turns out i have a lot of feelings about that (i mean how could i not, it's such a good scene). it's serving an important purpose wrt chas's characterisation and, because it's a very well-written episode, it's all in service of making the final twist more painful

firstly: "i don't mind. it's just that we normally tell each other when we're flirting with someone, and we laugh about it." just to make sure you know it's not the texting someone else that bothers him, it's the possibility that joe could be keeping a secret from him. because oh how very OPEN and TRUTHFUL they usually are with each other! how they always tell each other everything!

secondly, when he finally works up the courage to confront joe about it, he is .... i want to say gentle about it. he's not angry, he doesn't even speak loud enough for joe to hear him. he's sad, vulnerable, apologetic & clearly ready to forgive; all he wants is the truth. he confesses his own kiss with another guy, even though he could easily have gotten away with not saying anything, which i think is particularly significant for once again underlining the value he's placing on honesty & openness. and he instantly accepts the explanation joe gives him with no evidence. } all of which to say:

essentially what we're seeing here is chas reaching a character development apex. literally in that confrontation scene i think we see the culmination of his personal journey over the past nine (or eighteen, or forty-eight) years, where he has finally become the sort of person who will handle this situation in this specific way. (draw a parallel with reaching the penultimate/"depression" stage of grief, where it falls in the episode.) in a different context, it might be something to celebrate. on the positive side, he is no longer the angry person he was 18 years ago! he no longer lashes out! he has learned compassion and is willing to take responsibility for his own mistakes! and to look at it through a darker lens: joe has finally finished manipulating him into the perfect victim! narratively this scene is the end of the road for chas, there's nowhere else he has left to go except his finale

when he finds out mick is a woman, he says: "i've never been so happy." :) that's how you know the end is nigh of course. the betrayal isn't brutal enough unless it comes at the exact moment of maximum contentment, trust, and love. essentially the whole mick ordeal is there to test his trust in joe, to make sure it's finally 1000% solid and ready to be exploded

– by that i mean the script put it there to test him as a narrative device, but i suspect it was also an in-universe test/game. you're telling me joe has maintained this elaborate deception for years, and now suddenly he's leaving his phone lying around? he was doing it on purpose, to set chas up for the "worry -> relief & Peak Happiness -> ultimate betrayal" pipeline. absolute mad lad. someone capable of that has got to be INCREDIBLE in bed. makes you wonder what other little games he set up to torment chas over the years

[thescentofrainonstone]

It's the voice. It's what He says YOU and only YOU directly into your ears.

Or "fanfics, audios and self esteem building"

Let me explain.

There's an addendum to be had on the matter of where we go for escapism, when it's stories or fanfics that then become books if that experience of disappointment in current life, frustration and longing is shared enough (like in the case of twilight and fifth shades).

I seem the only one vocally noticing when one writes a self insert is because of their need ultimately to feel special, chosen by the character for whatever reason is desirable to them (usually tall, dark, handsome, immortal or thereabout and wealthy but not ostentatiously because money exists as preventative from problems).

But what hit me recently, and admitedly late, relates to audio. And the baldur's gate 3 people who fell hook line and sinker for Astarion might probably back me up on this because from what I understand, as someone who hasn't played and doesn't even know the game but got still hit by the way the pale elf got into the zeitgeist (at least of nerdy people whl play d&d old fashionably around a table monthly) is that most of the heavy lifting and heart throbbing is due to the work of Astarion's voice actor Neil Newbon.

Now, audio is a peculiar thing, go check out GoneWildAudio on Reddit and see for yourself the quite literal mind🦆it can be to have someone, speaking in your ear, addressing YOU and then go convince your brain that is *not* an actual human referring, adoring, and talking to YOU.

First: audio recordings have been around a little over 150 years. So in a way you'd think we haven't evolved to understand the difference between a recording and someone there who really whispers in your own ear.

But then again, film shocked the first time they saw the locomotive but nowadays no one would dream what's in their TV is actually part of their surroundings. And to that I argue: audio has no frame. Nothing physically breaks the illusion like the screen and its separation from your actual surroundings.

Audio doesn't have that. Put on headphones, close your eyes and with a good quality equipment (or binaural) it's freaky what audio can give the impression to your brain that's going on.

Now personal vulnerability moment: years ago I went into a rabbit hole that led me to the work of a certain GWA Voice Artist. I was writing a paper and supposedly "researching and studying" like a good observer of the human condition when I suddenly found myself nothing short of addicted to sound in the form of their very unique specific voice. to the point I took it upon myself to try and understand what kind of ton of bricks hit a performer when they share something seemingly personal and vulnerable... Via audio. Which as said above, doesn't have a defined frame that separates it from how our brains differentiate everything else that affects any of our other senses in reality. Let's just say that I realised the experience of someone whose voice presented male is vastly different from someone like me whose voice was coded femme. And that's because cishet men don't know how to respectfully interact with the subject of their porn. At least that's what I saw in my brief but intense experience as a virtual sex worker, basically.

But beside the point: voice and sound create such a good illusion because of how many more human facets come through with timbre, every breath intake, every exhale, all those imperfection that communicate "human".

Now here's where it gets tricky: there is an agreement on the swoon-worthiness of words spoken to YOU about YOU in Your ear. How "unique, amazing, exceptional, beyond whatever he dared to imagine You are, how You affect his entire world and way to see at every human after you who doesn't hold a candle to your being". Which reflects in the popularity of audio and I suspect justifies the success of Astarion beyond the video game world like, to my knowledge, no character had breached before.

But.

What struck me is one specific effect Audio has on people, and I mean beyond the physical effect of the rightfully horniness. I refer to:

self-confidence.

Please consider this an invitation to confirm or deny, but after spending days, listening to a voice telling you how amazing, and special, and sexy you are, how crazy you drive him/her/them and how they only have eyes for you, don't you start to walk a little bit taller? Head a little bit higher? Hips a little bit swayer?

And this is to say: I don't think most people have the ability to do that for themselves, to write themselves into self inserts and yet being able to praise themselves like they clearly yearn to. And audio then becomes I guess like you're masturbating with someone else's hand voice?

Btw: again kudos to fanfic writers in the Astarion realm because at least they are a step ahead the last fandom I checked and if not praising their self insert enough (ever for me, but maybe I'm just a praise slut) they definitely spend more time in the pale elf's head than I ever witnessed in the last twenty or so years I've read (and occasionally written but I will forever deny under torture) Fanfiction

In this air, if you are looking to disconnect from reality with amazing heartfelt smut go check our @again-please and @fangswbenefits ❤️❤️❤️

[allthistrashtalkmakemeitchin]

Kenonnie Playlist <3

Okay, so the playlist has almost fifty songs, and I thought it would be cute if I explained why each song is on it or why it is a good recommendation.

Obvious - Bonus Track (recommended) ~ At a glance, Ronnie understands Kendall is sad and lonely, but it's obvious he's repressed all his feelings. No one notices—or at least they don't acknowledge it, even though it's common sense. Kendall watches from afar, curious but unable to approach. His friends get close to Ronnie immediately without knowing her moral code. He takes his time only because he messes it up along the way. "When it's glaring and staring right at you, so obviously." It makes me think of how Kendall does not stop glaring at her, even when they get along. However, it is also obvious that they end up liking each other, and everyone knows how they feel about them.

Suddenly Seymour (recommended) ~ It's kind of like the "oh shit" moment when Kendall finally finds someone who understands that he has someone to help him with the heartbreak. And no matter how stubborn he is, Ronnie doesn't walk away like the guys. She knows beneath that smile is a despair so wicked and cruel, but the guys saw a smile and shrugged it off.

Check Yes, Juliet (recommended) ~ I was told this song is very Kendall-esque. It makes me think of how the circumstances of the narrative try to do everything they can to pull them apart and keep them that way: paparazzi, music producers, company CEOs, you name it. It's giving Kendall suggestions that they both drop being famous and go back to how they were before so they can be expected as ordinary people together.

The Only Exception (recommended) ~ If I recall correctly, after Jo breaks up with him, Kendall vows not to date again because it crushed him completely. I think Kendall/Jo was his first shot at a relationship, and first love hurts. When Ronnie shows up, the universe punishes him for what happened with his first girlfriend, and he unintentionally falls in love with her. He tries to deny himself the satisfaction of dating again. He doesn't think his heart is worth the risk, but he falls anyway, and it's more than he could have hoped for.

One Less Bird (recommended) ~ This is the love that hurts even worse. It's kind and comforting, and it helps Kendall's heart stop hurting. But I feel they have split ways after Big Time Rush is finished or if Ronnie leaves to become a producer or start her own music career. They let each other go, but they shouldn't have, and they hope they'll cross paths again. Kendall mostly reminisces about the girl who could see through his unbothered facade.

You And Me (recommended) ~ But because he fell in love, it was like a band-aid to the underlying problem. In a way, he forms a co-dependency; sometimes, he feels he won't have the best day if he doesn't see her. I don't want to go ahead and say his happiness depends on her because she picked him up from a dark place he was in, but that's the kind of vibe I'm getting. Of course, to keep Ronnie happy (even though it doesn't make her happy), Kendall shoves down all his bad thoughts. "What day is it? And in what month? This clock never seemed so alive."

She Had the World - Alternative Version ~ "I don't love. I'm just passing the time. You could love me if I knew how to live." Okay, Kendall doesn't view it as love and is somewhat of a placeholder until Jo returns. Ultimately, he's still hung up on Jo and often compares his relationship with Ronnie with his ties to Jo. A momentary lapse, and he'll feel all better when Jo returns. But he is subconsciously falling in love with her.

Telephone ~ This ties into how fast Ronnie and Kendall click once they get along. It's fast-paced and chaotic. Ronnie doesn't want to waste a minute getting to know her new friends because she's excited to have friends who like her both at and outside of work. She gives her all to these guys even though she just met them because she feels they'll be lifelong friends.

Pretty Face ~ Kendall lets her go. He sees that she really likes Curt, and he doesn't want to get in between them. He keeps seeing her around Palm Woods (duh, she lives there), and for some reason, it hurts. Kendall doesn't yet realize that he cares about her a lot and wants to be in Curt's place instead. But when he catches her eye across the room, he can't help but think she might like him too, or it's all in his head. Kendall wonders if it would even happen if Curt didn't exist.

Like or Like Like ~ They're tiptoeing around each other, unable to tell each other how they feel. Kendall is denying his feelings, and Ronnie is trying to rationalize it all because she's still with Curt and likes Curt. It's awkward, and it sort of gets in the way of their job because, at this point, they are trying to avoid each other. Kendall goes on one of their dates to ruin said date but is stopped by James because, at the end of the day, Kendall wants her happy.

Hey Lover! ~ Of course, Ronnie thinks she's plain and dull. She feels she can't compare herself to the girls in Hollywood, but Kendall tries to convince her otherwise. She doesn't feel this way because of Curt, but rather the Jennifers who have been assholes to her. Kendall takes her on all sorts of fun dates to prove that she doesn't have to be like the girls in Hollywood.

Disenchanted ~ PAPARAZZI. The paparazzi ripping them apart. Kendall can't be seen with Ronnie because the tabloids know she is dating the next pick for an open spot on the L.A. Kings. But it wasn't a scandal he wanted to be in if she wasn't dating someone. Still, Kendall struggles to make a relationship in Hollywood, and the paparazzi strain their friendship/feelings.

I Don't Love You ~ Ronnie feels like she's putting in all the emotional effort, and Kendall is just half-assing it. She can't handle it when she does all the emotional things and tries to connect with Kendall, and he just.. shoots it down. He makes a lame excuse for not talking about his feelings and then promptly runs away. Ronnie doesn't think he cares, other than getting his mind off Jo. It's like she's pleading with him to be a good boyfriend or even a good friend. She doesn't think he cares to connect with her and that he's keeping himself guarded. "I don't love you like I did, yesterday" Ronnie's feelings for him waver and change. She realizes she didn't think this through.

I Like Me Better ~ Second try. Kendall works through his shit, and Ronnie finds that Doc Hollywood is a great therapist. They both like this second try. Kendall likes what he's becoming while trying to better himself. He's more open and trusting. He still pisses Gustavo off, but he likes being honest.

Fallen For You ~ Okay, I picked it because it's the only Drake Bell song that gives me their vibes. Neither of them expected to fall in love, and neither of them was expecting anything. It's like waking up in a dream. Love has turned them upside down. Simultaneously, they also fight and argue a lot. They still haven't resolved much between them, and Kendall still hasn't apologized for what happened at the Hollywood party.

Talk To You ~ Ronnie is always on his mind. This is before they get together, but after he realizes his feelings. They hit him like a brick. He finds it hard to talk to her and gets embarrassed when he does try to speak to her. He wants to tell her everything and lay it all on the table. He needs her to know everything.

Drop the Guillotine ~ Kendall is hooked, but Ronnie doesn't know what she's doing. He is whipped. And she can't understand why.

Part 2!

[iamnmbr3]

Do you think Dumbledore was evil?

Because I do not. I don't say, that he did not make terrible mistakes, because he totally did, but I don't think it was intentional.

I think Albus should not have gone to the orphenage, becaue he still was full of Grindelwald trauma. Grindelwald convinced Dumbledore that they were special, and therefore deserved to rule. Albus now understood that this was wrong, but Tom calling himself special reminded him of that.

Grindelwald "seduced" Albus to follow him, so Dumbledore assumed that Tom did the same thing to his teachers and followers.

I don't think Dumbledore was evil or had creepy intentiones, he was just totaly not over what happened with him and Grindelwald and never wanted to be fooled again.

Do you think I could be right with this?

I mean ultimately everyone is entitled to their own opinion and interpretation. I personally think Dumbledore is very convinced of his own goodness. Not only does he believe he is justified in pretty much everything he does but he also, I believe, has a deep NEED to believe this. He needs to feel that he has changed, that he's a Good Guy TM now and all the stuff he does is Good TM and for the greater good and that the parts he dislikes about himself are successfully cut off. This leads to a lot of mental gymnastics because he can't acknowledge that any of the things he does are still bad or that he still enjoys having power over others and manipulating others for the sake of it and struggles to admit when he is wrong etc. If he could accept these parts of himself more he might actually be a humbler and better person. But he's not.

Now from an out of universe perspective a lot of this comes from plot holes and hypocrisy on the part of JKR herself, so the character that she meant to be the human and flawed but still ultimately deeply moral and good voice of reason in the story, is wayyy more self serving, cruel, and wildly hypocritical and manipulative than she intended. I actually like that. I think it makes Dumbledore a much more interesting and engaging character. But I also think it was mostly accidental on her part.

I think the fact of the matter is, Dumbledore does a lot of evil things. Just look at his treatment of Harry. He kidnaps him illegally instead of letting him go to his legal guardian Sirius. He places him in an abusive home. (And then disgustingly justifies this by saying it's good because it will make sure Harry doesn't get a swelled head from his fame. That was not Albus's decision to make. And abuse is not beneficial. Except in the sense that it makes Harry isolated and easier for him to manipulate and ultimately send to his death). He does nothing to shield Harry from the abuse he suffers even though just a few threats from wizards would certainly have kept the Dursleys in line, nor does he allow Harry and contact with the wizarding world. There's no reason he couldn't have been raised knowing who he was or had visitors. Also, the Fidelius Charm could have protected him in any house. It didn't have to be that one. In fact at the height of Voldemort's power he stays safely at Grimmauld Place in book 5 and with the Weasleys (protected just by wards) in book 6.

Out of universe this is because JKR wanted the cool setup of Harry being raised in an abusive home and then discovering this whole secret world and backstory that he didn't know about. The problem is due to the introduction of various plot elements in later books it becomes increasingly clear that Harry did not need to stay with the Durselys and that even if he did he certainly could have been given access to the wizarding world and his wellness and safety could have been assured. This is a plot hole. However, in universe it means that Dumbledore allowed this to happen and the logical conclusion is that he did this for his own purposes to give himself more control over Harry and to make him more primed to die. Which is absolutely immoral and wrong.

This is just one example but there are many like this. I think in terms of Dumbledore's relationship with Tom there were a number of factors that fed into his instant dislike of and bias against him, none of which were particularly fair. And I think him seeing echoes of Grindelwald in Tom was probably one of several factors. That's really a whole separate post though and I don't want this to get too long. I keep meaning to do a meta series on the Riddle memories so maybe I'll get into it there. I will say that whatever his reasons, perceiving an 11 year old as being "seductive," assuming that other adults will see him that way and then blaming the child in question rather than the adults in that situation is...appalling and repellant. And also I think deeply revealing about Albus himself.

Again I don't think JKR meant it to come across that way. The narrative presents Albus's actions in the orphanage memory in a positive light and the purpose of that scene is for us to see how the villain of the series was always evil and to give some fun and relevant backstory for him. Unfortunately, JKR fails again and the result is that in-universe Albus's actions in that scene are wrong as I have detailed elsewhere.

It is kind of hilarious how 80% of the plotholes and bad writing decisions are fixed by assuming Dumbledore is about 450% more evil than JKR intended lol.

[asherlockstudy]

I had this in my draft but don't really post randl so I thought you'd get a kick out of it (sorry). Slight neg incoming

Honestly, Rhett and the crew mocking Link for a lot of his mannerisms that are also symptoms of adhd is very off-putting to watch. I usually have to stop watching an episode when it gets too much. I don't know or care if Link has adhd. That doesn't matter. It is still several common adhd struggles that they continuously make fun of.

I can mention some, like his inability to do two things at once, which rhett constantly brings up. Same with paying attention and focusing on the task or what is said. The way he talks, skipping words or repeating himself, same with reading, skipping and missing information. His clear struggle with impulse control, which yeah sometimes is dangerous but most times harmless and a non-issue, something to work on in private. And the whole episode-intervention for Link to stop interrupting others - again, something to work on, but not for everyone of your friends to bully you for and make into entertainment.

And all of this he gets hounded on all the time. And as someone who does struggle with these things, hearing people ridicule someone for it makes me kinda embarrassed and hurt. Yeah, these things are issues to work on or adapt to, but it's kinda dickish to make mocking-comedy of it for millions to see. Quite ableist if you ask me.

Two thoughts I can add to this. When it comes to Rhett in specific, I noticed how he did with his wife too, when he joked that he made a leaflet of sorts to guide her about their date, because he felt she needed it. The more comfortable he gets with a person, Rhett tends to become condescending, either as a form of teasing or to stroke his own ego. The problem is that Link is so used to taking this that people who are around them a lot (i.e the crew) have jumped on the bandwagon. This is human nature, I don't know why, trying to find the target in the room that can take your asshole side *smh* (Of course this applies only when the camera is on, as I suspect Link is the "bad cop" boss when the camera is off. This could maybe mean that the crew also lets out their frustrations during the show because that's the only opportunity they have to do this.)

Anyway, it could be also ableist to some degree but certainly none of them thinks they are guilty of ableism. I will say, part of what annoys me is that 90% of the time they even make a huge deal of something Link says or does. Link may have ADHD (we can't know for sure as long as he isn't officially diagnosed) but whether he has it or not, he does nothing to the degree Rhett and the crew claim. Rhett goes on and on about how Link can't drive and talk, yet he does this easily in many Car Biscuits. Then Link will say a fully logical thing and Stevie will go like "WHAAAAT" and everyone will look at him as if he's an alien. Also, again I am not saying he does not have ADHD but his tendency to skip stuff at times seems to be at least partly due to being super bored of what they have to do. Like, he doesn't care to keep track of guidelines / information in the context of those ever repeating games because he's fed up with this content and doesn't truly want to hide it. He wants out. He is in this perpetual reckless abandon (whereas we have been informed he hasn't always been like that), because he doesn't care but also because he has figured out that his absent-mindedness and the inevitable mistakes will lead to some comedic moment. To me it seems like he has given up and decided to let people feed on it, which is ultimately what makes the potential ADHD or other neurodivergent indications seem more intense than they would be otherwise.

In short, regardless if any of this is true, which is fine either way, I feel he gets disproportionately criticized and mocked for whatever it is he does / says*.

*The times he's rude are an exception he deserves to be told off for. They are an exception because for the reasons above I believe he understands it very well that he's being rude yet he does it all the same.

[darlingkirstein]

Can I ask you how you feel about the depiction of Valyrian culture in the Targaryen family, both in ASOIAF in general but more specifically in HotD?

tw / incest (it's the targaryens so yeah LOL)

sure! i love the targaryens so happy to! i think the targaryens are interesting because of how they're perceived as something greater than human — both in beauty and because of their command over their dragons. it's interesting because it enables them to get away with things that other houses are not able to do — particularly their practice of incestual marriages, which was a problem in the times of jeahaerys i/alysanne and aenys i/maegor i. marriage between siblings was typical, but the faith denounced it as an abomination, though this largely doesn't stop anything. maegor even says that the faith cannot possibly dictate those with the blood of the dragon — and though maegor is not representative of his whole family, this generally seems to be the attitude of the targaryens. jaehaerys and alysanne have no qualms with defying their parents/the faith to marry. so, their valyrian culture almost seems untouchable — no matter who disagrees, the targaryens triumph.

this is visible in house of the dragon, too, and it spreads into families outside of the targaryens as well since they've started marrying outside their house. even the non-targaryen marriages before were still related to the targaryens. the velaryons, like queen alyssa, and the baratheons, like orys and rogar and jocelyn, were connected to the targaryens. eventually, they have to start branching out to form alliances with other houses! so, the marriage of alicent hightower to viserys i is interesting to see!!! mostly because alicent does not seem to protest to the practice of sibling marriages — her children are married to each other and have children in these unions. so, i find it notable that these marriages persisted even when the influences of other families, like the hightowers and arryns, come into play. it presents itself as enduring and untouchable. in fact, when rhaenyra and daemon marry, it seems to concern the small council more for daemon's instability than it does for the incest involved. it's become so normalized in the family, an expectation that isn't worth protesting. people might remember what maegor did to the faith militant. the targaryens silence their foes.

in fact, later it is targaryens who begin to protest against sibling marriages — aegon v "egg" targaryen tries to avoid those marriages by betrothing his children to other houses, but they all protest and marry who they want anyways. his children jaehaerys and shaera were betrothed to members of the houses tully and tyrell, but rebelled against their father to marry each other anyways. this shows to me that not even the targaryens can control other targaryens from practicing this tradition of incestual unions. nobody seems to be able to fully destroy this practice, even as it grows less common. aerys ii and his wife rhaella were siblings too, and in the books, dany assumes that she would've been married to viserys or aegon, if she lived.

so it seems to be that the targaryens are portrayed as untouchable — except by themselves. in the dance of the dragons, it is targaryen versus targaryen that finally threatens the stability of the family/house. the transition from only marrying in the family was a deliberate choice for political advantage, not fully because of the influence of others — even if it might've aided them to make that decision. their culture persists through different conflicts, all the way until the total destruction of house targaryen. i think it is interesting how they seem to be above what other houses are — marrying a targaryen is the ultimate goal of a lot of people, like olenna and cersei, who discuss the targaryen princes of their time, olenna's betrothal to daeron and cersei's fixation on rhaegar.

this was a bit of a disorganized ramble so hopefully i answered your question — i really like discussing asoiaf/targaryens so feel free to ask anything else you're interested in!

[litsnobconfessions]

Date: March 18-19, 2025

Day: 77-78

Content Watched: The Dragon Prince, Season 7, Episodes 5-9

Year: 2018-2024

Rating: TV-Y7

Run Time: 130 minutes

Let's start this time with the ATLA references. These include "hello, Terry here," which... is not my favorite. I guess it just feels like it's cashing in on "hello, Zuko here," and it's not improving on it or changing it enough to make it interesting for me. But there's also the moment when Ezran tells Runaan that he doesn't know how, but he's going to try to forgive him, which is almost word for word what Asami tells her dad in the last season of Korra. And, of course, if you didn't catch it, Zym's voice actor is Dante Bosco. This still doesn't explain what dragons can talk when, but it was a fun little scene.

Speaking of ATLA, I think I may actually like the themes and the storytelling of Dragon Prince more. I know that's probably an unpopular opinion, but the themes just feel so much more complex and fully realized, especially in this final season.

For one thing, Aravos feels like a more nuanced villain. I've talked about the villains in ATLA before, and how I feel they're a bit flat (with the main exception being Zuko, who is better classified as a hero by the end.) He feels much more like the villains in Korra, who, for the most part, have good ideas that they take too far. Aravos feels that it wasn't fair to kill a child to save the precious "cosmic order," and I'm inclidned to agree with him, considering these other elves haven't seemed to do anything to stop his tyranical rampage (not to mention the question I keep asking of why it's so important humans don't have magic in the first place). Nevertheless, he lets anger and hatred take over until what was a good cause became a campaign of vengeance and violence.

Karim actually reminds me of Kuvira a bit. He believes a change needs to be made to the kingdom and fights for that, but in the end, he becomes more concerned with his own power than fixing the perceived problems with the current regime, and in the end, his own selfishness is his undoing. For that matter, that's a good way to describe Viren as well. What may have once been a noble cause eventually gave way to a desire for strength and power, and by the time he realized how he had harmed himself in these pursuits, it was too late.

But I'd hazard to say that the villains in Dragon Prince feel even more nuanced than in Korra. For one thing, most of the Korra villains are already full out villains by the time we meet them. And even Kuvira has very little screen time before season 4. But I feel like we get to see more of the downward spiral of both Viren and Claudia (as well as Viren attempts at redemption.) And then there are all the heroes who do villainous things. I mean, Zubeia puts a hit out on King Harrow. Runaan actually kills him. Harrow himself helped Viren murder Avidandum. These are not heroic acts. But none of these characters are presented as particularly villainous. Instead, they're good characters who have let their anger get the better of them--just like Aravos. The Dragon Prince shows us that we are all capable of this, as well as showing how these battles begin within ourselves and how difficult the choices are to make.

Of course, there's something to be said about ATLA being simpler in this way. I like that Aang ultimately doesn't have to choose between his morals and ending the war. But I also like seeing Terry and Soren faced with the hard choices of how to stop Claudia. Like Aang, Terry believes there must be a nonviolent way of stopping her, and I appreciate this pursuit. But Soren, faced with the possibility of having to kill his sister, shows just how complicated conflicts can get. Honestly, it reminds me of numersou friends I've had who struggle with family members who they love, but also treat them poorly for being gay, trans, or their religious or political beliefs, etc. etc. Even if you're only faced with cutting someone out of your life, not killing them, it's a heavy burden.

On the other side of that, I like Amaya's conversation with Karim. I really like that Dragon Prince didn't try to simplfy things. Amaya very specifically does not say, "I used to hate elves, then I fell in love your sister. Now things are great." Instead, she talks about the work that it took to change, and how much it was worth it. I do think there's a nobility in those who hold out for their loved ones to change--whether it's Callum hoping his brother will forgive Runaan or Soren and Terry hoping Claudia might turn away from dark magic.

And then there's Callum and Rayla's final Big Choices. I don't know what it is about the moment that Rayla picks up Runaan's bow and yells, "my heart for Xadia!" Maybe it's just that I've seen in a lot of other shows and movies where characters can't kill their loved ones at the crucial moment. And not to say there's something wrong with that, I think I was just impressed that Rayla decided to do this. Though, I suppose, she made a promise to Callum.

Which brings me to... why Callum? We're told that if Callum uses dark magic one more time, Aravos can possess him, and then trapping him is a moot point. But it can't just be because he doesn't dark magic because then Aravos could possess Claudia, and no one is concerned with that. So why Callum? Is he just particularly suceptible to dark magic? Is it because he also does primal magic? I don't know. And I wish I did.

And while we're talking about potential plot holes, I do feel like I need to mention that Zym's super-flight-storm-powers kicked in at the nick of time, and Zubeia's wound didn't really have any stakes. The mushroom mage says, "oh no, have her back in a few days. She'll be fine." Of course, she dies in the supernova, so maybe that's a moot point.

Nevertheless... I said in my last review that season 7 is my favorite of arc 2, and I think the finale is my favorite episode. Even though the battle ends surprisingly early, I like how much they do in this episode, and how we get to see life carrying on. Quite frankly, even though it was a surprise, I really like the show ending where it does. In fact, this is one of my favorite types of endings--where the battle is won and the heroes are taking time to find joy in life, even though the war is just beginning. I suppose the messyness feels more real to me. This is how life goes. Things don't typically get tied up with a neat little ribbon. There are ups and downs and we carry on. In fact, this ending reminds me a little of Lost Girl, which ends a decade plus later, as the remaining characters are riding into battle. I guess I would say that for me, endings like this are filled hope.

Tomorrow, we start in on Australia's greatest export.

[licncourt]

Have you read TVA and Blood and Gold? I would LOVE your rundown on all the historical inaccuracies in BaG.

Unfortunately yes, I have read those with my eyes :/

(the Marius/Armand pederasty conversation I've been meaning to have for like a year below the cut btw)

I wish I hadn't read B&G so young, I didn't have the breadth of knowledge or the foresight to mark anything for later when I was sixteen. I'd reread it for this exact analysis but really I don't think I have it in me so memory and ctrl + f to confirm will have to suffice.

Honestly, the biggest problem I had with it wasn't inaccuracies so much as the fact that the whole book reads like a Wikipedia entry. It's so clumsy and dry, it feels like AR just wants us to know how many Roman Facts she learned. It overshadows the story rather than adds to it. Literally read this (if you can stand it).

There was not one reason in the world that she needed to explain the Battle of the Milvian Bridge in that level of detail, and that's coming from me. This sounds like a bad undergrad paper from a student who wants to prove they did the reading.

The whole book feels like this except when it detours into creepy and pedophilic, and I just don't need my vampire book to explain the Council of Nicaea AND the Edict of Milan AND the Parthian Wars AND the Vatican wall frescoes AND the Medici bank and a million other things to me like I'm in a survey lecture. It's mind-numbing for me and this is literally what I DO, so I can only imagine how other people must feel with no context or particular interest in this stuff.

It's not that she's WRONG per say, it's more that she clearly has no understanding of these subjects outside the rote recitation of facts. It's just regurgitated bullet points about Roman history and the Italian Renaissance. She also repeats some well known apocryphal stories in there, but I'm going to be generous and hope she doesn't think these are facts (like the Chi-Rho epiphany).

If anything seems suspicious and I don't remember it though, feel free to send it to me and I can yay or nay the information to the best of my ability!

*cw here for discussion of CSA*

With that said, I do think AR had a very skewed understanding of the pederastic dynamic or was choosing to ignore it, which is unfortunate considering how attached she was to the idea. A lot of my thesis research coincided with Greco-Roman pederastic tradition, so it's a pet peeve of mine when it's misapplied. It's not an uncommon problem (Call Me By Your Name has this going on too), but authors sending gay relationships with a rapey age gap through a "pederasty" funnel always pisses me off.

The history of pederasty is very long and complicated and ancient (we're talking Homer and Iliad kind of old here), but the bare bones explanation of the process and logic is this:

The ancient Greeks were deeply invested in turning their upper class boys into good citizens. To accomplish this, sometimes an established adult man would woo a younger male (most often starting at 14-19 years old) with gifts and attention over an extended period of time. Once the courtship was complete and the boy's self control had been proven, there were sexual relations between the two for a period of time.

The purpose of this relationship was ultimately to educate the boy, and the physical pleasure was used as a teaching tool to establish rapport and intimacy that could then be escalated to instruction on matters of philosophy and intellect in general. Essentially using the mastery and maturation of one's body as a stepping stone to the mastery and maturation of the mind. Once the boy was appropriately prepared to enter elite male society and/or had become physically developed as a man, the relationship ended.

It's pretty obvious that she's trying to do a whole pederastic erastes/eromenos thing with Marius and Armand, but she took an already very bad and gross practice from history and muddled it up with her own awful ideas about consent from minors and sexual fantasies of a kinky student/teacher savior relationship in her vampire books.

I hate the erotic and romanticized version of pederasty that's become weirdly popular in gay media, and AR was one of the first to really do this. It just picks up the historical thread of CSA under the guise of a kid's "consent" and continues to normalize it to modern readers with a new sexy twist. Using a bastardized version of a fucked up ancient practice to implicitly justify or downplay the severity of statutory rape is simply not the move, especially when gay and bisexual men already face stigma around being predatory and pedophilic.

[fantasyinvader]

@deathbirby

Regarding the whole “empathy” thing, I think there might be a bit of cultural disconnect going on.

In the parley scene, Dimitri calls Edelgard out on wanting to push her ideas on others, saying it's the height of selfishness. This is where the issue lies, it's not him saying it's bad. It's that Edelgard is taking a very individualistic approach to what she perceives as problems, that she has to take action rather than relying on others to do so, and wants others to do the same as her.

In Japanese media, this is a negative trait at times as it ties into Japanese values. Personal aspirations is balanced against one's duties, individuality is balanced against conforming to the group and it's valued to have a place to belong to. There's an expectation to know where you stand in the world. An aggressive ego can cause suffering to oneself and others, and causing suffering is seen as immoral in Eastern spiritualism. But these sorts of things can be lost on Western audiences, for instance these same elements were misinterpreted back when Final Fantasy 9 came out. McGillis Fareed is meant to be the bad guy of Gundam IBO (he's basically a male Edelgard), despite being an ally of the protagonists, trying to reshape the world into one where people can simply take what they want if they have the strength to do so. He was more hated in Japan, but in the West people are more upset his big plan didn't work. Or even in protagonist characters, it can be seen as a negative trait. Digimon's Mimi, who lived in America and adopted their mindset) was called out in Adventure Tri by her classmates for being bossy and selfish, trying to get them to do what she wanted. Not to mention, her taking action to try by fighting to prove to people that not all Digimon are bad, only for a helicopter to accidentally be hit in the process.

Edelgard says it during the parley, she believes people are weak because they rely on others rather than themselves. Even her ending, in Japanese, is based around this. Her trying to build a “Free” country was added by the translation team, as various endings for Safflower are supposed to show that she's oppressing her will upon the people such as banning plays she hasn't seen, or having Hubert spy on them and put down any threats. As for independent, that's there but it's meant to be in a “doesn't rely on others” way. It's a society where the people will strive to become stronger by relying on their own power. This is what Fodlan was like before the Church, except the game tells us it was an era of bloodshed and wars as people stole and killed in order to gain more power for themselves.

But of course, this is all a matter of balance. Claude also expresses a belief in relying on your own power and is working towards spreading his own ideals to the world, but with Hopes in mind doing so as Edelgard does is wrong, as his Houses version ultimately works to achieve this through diplomacy and cultural exchange rather than violent conquest. Dimitri needs to learn how to live for himself, not just for the duties to the dead he believes he has. And Byleth's arc is about them becoming their own individual, not just being soulless.

Now, look at Edelgard. She says in Hopes she starts the war because of her ideals, which is consistent with her depiction in Azure Moon. She talks about how she's fighting for the weak, but she only rewards those who she sees as “strong” and if the weak don't become strong she blames it on them. She says this is for the silent, except that Edelgard silences those who don't support her regardless of their strength. She says she's doing this for the commoners but talks about how awful it is that the nobility have duties and responsibilities attached to their power with Hopes even has a reveal that she's intended to let the nobility keep their power but free them from their duties and responsibilities (her name even means “protector of the nobility”). She also sees it as her right to sacrifice her people for her beliefs despite her talk about how she needed to act to prevent more people from being sacrificed to the status quo, and her endings reveal that she causes even more bloodshed to uphold her rule. Despite her words against a false history she lies so often that she has a chapter named after her, The Lady of Deceit, where she starts by lying about her target to take Arianrhod by surprise only to end up lying to her army when it blows up in her face. Even the whole “relying on yourself” thing is undercut by how she needs the support of the likes of the Agarthans, Byleth, or Shez to win the war, Hubert to put down opposition from the shadows, Ferdinand to make her ideals workable, Petra to keep Brigid in line, Caspapa to get the army to support her. So relying on others is wrong, but everyone supporting Edelgard and her ideals is alright in her book. She even says she'll protect you if you believe in her and them.

Edelgard starts this was not out of empathy, but egotism and selfishness, so much so that she expects people to conform to her and her own goals. If you don't, then there's really no place for you in the world she wants to create, but at the same time she subverts her own ideals and rhetoric for her own gains. She can't understand why people would oppose her, or do so only to surrender at the very end. This suggests that Edelgard has very little empathy or understanding of those around her and is simply projecting her own thoughts, opinions and experiences onto others in order to justify her own actions. The fact her ending title is Flame Emperor indicates that she didn't grow from her experiences in Flower, she's still the same person she was when she put a hit on her classmates. Dimitri is given the title of savior king, Claude the king of unificiation, Edelgard remains the Flame Emperor.

And it's not just a case of her being an individual, as she's essentially the state and fighting to further increase her own power by centralizing it on herself while eliminating anyone who could challenge her. This is what the game talks about when it refers to her as a hegemon, or to her path as military rule (English) or “the path of supremacy” (Japanese). She's using her power to enforce her will upon an unwilling population. She's even depicted as using Argarthan technology to do maintain her rule. If anything, Dimitri's policies of giving the commoners a voice in politics does more to allow them to be individuals and support their own aspirations rather than simply following the orders of the strong.

In short, Edelgard's reforms are for Edelgard's benefit and no one else. Heroes even clarifies that no other lord in the franchise views their responsibilities to their people as a bad thing, as they can use their power to help others and Edelgard (even post-Flower) never considered that option. For all her anti-religion crap, her ideals are compared to Duma's and how they failed (with the added bonus of Edelgard having taken over the Church) with the question of whether Edelgard's attempt will be any different. This is someone, despite all her for humanity lines, is willing to turn people into mindless monsters as war assets, and is even willing to toss aside her humanity itself in order to rule the world.

Edelgard is everything she supposedly is fighting against.