#and deeply flawed and problematic | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

cenvast · 10 months ago

Text

"Toshiro Is Sexist," "Toshiro Owns Slaves": What's Really Going on With This Guy?

I've seen a lot of debate on whether or not Toshiro is problematic because he's a slave owner or because he's sexist in the context of his crush on Falin. While I do want to examine his relationship to Falin, I'd like to take a few steps back and unpack his upbringing first. We'll dive into the gender and class dynamics he was raised with and how it impacts his behavior in the main storyline.

Like all people, Toshiro is shaped by the environment he grew up in. Toshitsugu, Toshiro's father and the head of the Nakamoto clan, is the most impactful model of authority and manhood in his life. Toshiro does recognize some of his father's flaws and tries to avoid replicating them. But whether or not he emulates or subverts his father's behavior, Toshitsugu is often the starting point for Toshiro's treatment of others, particularly marginalized people.

The Nakamoto clan exists under a patriarchal hierarchy with Toshitsugu at the top. As noted by @fumifooms in their Nakamoto household post, his wife has more authority than Maizuru. She's able to ban Maizuru from parts of their residence, but despite disliking his infidelity, she can't divorce him or stop him from cheating on her. Their marriage is not an equal partnership.

On an interpersonal level, Toshitsugu and Maizuru also have a fraught relationship. While she does seem to care for him, she's often frustrated by his thoughtless behavior.

For example, he drunkenly buys Izutsumi for her — without considering how she'll have to raise this child — and invades her room in the middle of the night. When he cryptically says, "It's all my fault," she replies, "I can think of a lot of things that are your fault." She calls him an "idiot" and "believes that [Toshiro] will grow up to be a better clan leader than his father," implying that she takes issue with Toshitsugu's leadership.

Because Maizuru and Toshitsugu are described as being "in an intimate relationship" and "seem[ing] to be lovers," Maizuru appears to be a consensual participant. Still, this doesn't negate the large power imbalance between them as a male noble clan leader and his female retainer. This imbalance introduces an insidious undertone to Maizuru's frustration with Toshitsugu. Like Toshiro's mother, Maizuru doesn't have the agency to do as she pleases in their relationship; he has the ultimate authority. For instance, she doesn't seem to want to raise Izutsumi, but she has to anyway.

While Maizuru's role as Toshitsugu's mistress is significant, she's also the Nakamoto clan's teacher and Toshiro's primary maternal figure. She cares deeply for Toshiro: tailing him, feeding him, and taking responsibility even for his actions as an adult. While it might seem sweet that she cares for him like a son at first, Maizuru was notably fifteen years old at the time of his birth. In the extra comic below, he's six years old and has already been in her care for some time. Even if we're being generous and assuming that she didn't start raising him until he was six, she was still only twenty-one at the time she was parenting her boss/lover's child with another woman.

Maizuru's roles as mistress and maternal figure, in addition to her role as retainer, demonstrate the intersection between gendered and class oppression in the Nakamoto household. Despite her original role being a retainer trained in espionage, Toshitsugu presses her into performing gendered labor for him and eventually, Toshiro. She's expected to be Toshitsugu's lover, perform emotional labor for him as his confidant, care for his child, and carry out domestic tasks like cooking. She says, "Even during missions, I was often dragged into the kitchen." If she was a male servant, I doubt she would have been expected to perform these additional tasks. She can't avoid these tasks either, stating that her "own feelings don't factor into it."

Toshitsugu disregards his wife's and Maizuru's desires and emotions to serve his own interests. Because he has societal power over them as a nobleman and in Maizuru's case, her master, neither woman can escape their position in the household hierarchy.

As a result, Toshiro grew up within a structure where men and male nobility, in particular, wield the most societal power. The hierarchical nature of his household and society discourages everyone, including him as a clan leader's eldest son, from questioning and disrupting the existing hierarchy.

The other Nakamoto household members also internalize its sexist, classist power dynamics.

For example, Hien expects that she and Toshiro will replicate the uneven dynamics of the previous generation, regardless of her personal feelings. She sees her and Toshiro's relationship as paralleling Maizuru and Toshitsugu's relationship; she is the closest woman to Toshiro and his retainer, so she's shocked when Toshiro doesn't attempt to begin an intimate relationship with her. Notably, she doesn't have actual feelings for him. Her expectations are centered around the household's precedent of placing emotional, sexual, domestic, and child-rearing labor onto the female servants without any regard for their personal desires.

Hien also probably knows that her position in the household will improve if she is Toshiro's lover because she's seen it improve Maizuru's position. However, the fact that being the future clan leader's lover is the closest proximity she, as a female servant, has to power further reveals the gendered, class-based oppression she and the other women live under.

It's important to note that the Nakamoto clan bought Benichidori, Izutsumi, and Inutade as slaves, so they have less power and agency than Maizuru and Hien. The clan further dehumanizes Izutsumi and Inutade as demi-humans; their enslavement contains an additional layer of racialization.

Toshiro isn't oblivious to the gendered, class, and racial power dynamics of his household. He tries to distance himself from participating in its exploitative power structure. He walls himself off from Hien, who he's known since childhood, to avoid replicating his father's behavior and making his servant into his lover. He disapproves of his father's enslavement of Izutsumi and Inutade, and he lets Izutsumi go when she runs away in the Dungeon.

But does any of this absolve him of his complicity in his household's sexist, classist power dynamics and racialized slavery?

The short answer is absolutely not.

Despite his distaste for his father's exploitation of his servants and slaves, Toshiro still uses them. He refers to his party as "his retainers," and he has them fight and perform domestic tasks for him. You could argue that Toshiro doesn't like to and thus, doesn't regularly use his servants and slaves. In the context of him asking his retainers to help him rescue Falin, Maizuru says, "The only time he ever made any sort of personal request was for this task." But it shouldn't matter whether exploitation is a regular occurrence or not for it to be considered harmful. Toshiro asking Maizuru to cook him a meal still constitutes asking his female servant to perform gendered labor for him. He's also very accustomed to her grooming and dressing him.

Maizuru sees feeding, washing, and even advising Toshiro romantically as fulfilling Toshitsugu's orders to care for his son. They aren't fulfilling a "personal request." But just because her labor has been deemed expected and thereby devalued doesn't mean that it isn't labor or that she isn't performing it.

Maizuru's dynamic with Toshiro is also complicated by her role as his maternal figure. She loves him and wants to take care of him, and she doesn't have a choice in the matter. During Toshiro's childhood, the onus was on Toshitsugu to cease exploiting his lover and release her from servitude, but Toshiro is now an adult man. Seeing as how Maizuru defers to his wishes and calls him "Young Master," they still have a power imbalance that he's passively maintaining. Ideally, he would not ask anything of her until he has the authority to release her from servitude.

Throughout the story, Toshiro acts as if he has no agency and quietly disapproving of his father's actions absolves him of his participation in maintaining oppressive dynamics. While his father still ranks higher than him, he's essentially his father's heir. He has much more power than Maizuru, the highest-ranked servant. At the very least, he could leave his slave-owning household.

Unfortunately, his refusal to confront injustice is consistent with his character's major flaw: he does not express his opinions, desires, or needs. While this character trait obviously hurts his friendships, it also furthers his complicity in the injustices his household runs on.

Toshiro's relationship with eating food — the prevailing metaphor of the series — also parallels his relationship with confronting injustice. Maizuru mentions that he was a sickly child, so the act of eating may have been physically uncomfortable for him. As an adult, his refusal to eat crops up during his rescue attempt of Falin. Denying himself food might have been punishment for not accomplishing important tasks like rescuing Falin and/or a way to maintain control over something in his life when he felt like he'd lost control over the rest of it, again in the context of losing Falin. (Note: I suggest reading this post on Toshiro's disordered eating by @malaierba.)

But he cannot and does not avoid consuming food forever.

Similarly, Toshiro keeps his distance from his retainers and tries not to use them until the Falin situation occurs. His efforts to avoid exploiting his retainers amount to inaction — things he doesn't ask of them or do to them. But his inaction does nothing to dismantle the existing hierarchy that places his retainers under his authority, denies them agency, and often marginalizes them as not only servants or slaves but as women, and he ends up using them as servants and slaves anyways.

Returning to the narrative's themes of consumption, Toshiro cannot avoid eating just as he cannot avoid perpetuating the exploitative system of his household. The Nakamoto clan consumes the labor and personhood of those lower in the hierarchy. The retainers' labor as spies and domestic servants is the foundation of the clan's existence. Thus, the clan consumes their labor to sustain itself.

Within this hierarchy, the retainers' personhood is also consumed and erased. As Izutsumi describes, they are given different names and stripped of their agency to reject orders or leave. Maizuru and Hien also say their feelings are irrelevant in the context of Toshitsugu's and Toshiro's wants and needs. Both women are expected to comply with whatever is most beneficial and comfortable for the noblemen. Clearly, despite Toshiro's detachment from his household's functions, these social structures remain in place and harm the women under him.

Although we know the Nakamoto clan has male retainers, the choice to highlight the female retainers seems intentional. We're asked to interrogate how not only being a servant or a slave in a noble household impacts a person's life and agency, but how being a woman intersects with being a member of some of the lowest social classes.

Toshiro only distances himself from his father's behaviors of infidelity and exploitation so long as it doesn't take Toshiro out of his comfort zone. He doesn't free his slaves. He's far too comfortable with his female retainers performing domestic labor for him, and he barely acknowledges their efforts; they're shocked when he thanks them for helping him save Falin. He hasn't unpacked his sexist (or classist or racist) biases because he perpetuates his household's oppressive hierarchy throughout the narrative. Considering all of this, he inevitably brings this baggage to his interactions with Falin.

Falin is presumably one of the first women he's had extended contact with that isn't his relative or his family's servant. Because of his trauma surrounding his father and Maizuru sleeping together, he understandably falls for a woman as disconnected as possible from his father and his clan. He seems to genuinely like Falin, respects her boundaries, and graciously accepts her rejection. His behavior towards her is overall kind and unproblematic.

But if Falin had gone with him, she would've likely been devalued and sidelined like the other women of the Nakamoto household. No matter how much he loves Falin, simply loving her cannot replace the difficult work of unlearning his sexism. Love, of course, can and should be accompanied by that work, but by the close of the narrative, we gain little indication that Toshiro acknowledges or seeks to end his part in exploiting and devaluing women and other marginalized people.

A spark of hope does exist. Toshiro expressing his feelings to Laios and Falin suggests that his time away from home has encouraged him to speak up more. Breaking his habit of avoidance may be the first step towards acknowledging his complicity in systems of injustice and moving towards dismantling them.

Special thanks to my very smart friend @atialeague for bringing up Toshitsugu's relationship with Maizuru and the replication of dynamics of consumption and class! <3

#toshiro nakamoto #maizuru #hien #toshitsugu nakamoto #falin touden #izutsumi #inutade #benichidori #shuro #dungeon meshi #dunmeshi meta #dunmeshi analysis #quite literally free my girls #i got so sad after finding that parallel between maizuru and hien both saying their feelings don't matter #reading maizuru's character bio and how she's a brilliant woman #but she's stuck w toshiro's dad like #i'm toshitsugu's number one hater he better watch out #also thinking about how toshiro looked up to maizuru not even his own parents until he found out about maizuru and his dads relationship #that's devastating bro #im entering my clickbait title era LOL i was told my prev titles were too academia pilled and boring sounding #i think i want to write about izutsumi's and inutade's relationships w gender next #delicious in dungeon #dunmeshi #*mine #*meta

953 notes · View notes

fatliberation · 1 year ago

Note

hi, i'm a fat person who is just starting to learn to love and appreciate my body and i'm very new to the fat community and all that.

i was wondering if you could maybe explain the term ob*se and how it is a slur. i've never heard anything about it being a slur before(like i said, i'm very new here) and was wondering if you could tell me the origin and history of the word or mayy provide links to resources about it? i want to know more about fat history and how to support my community but i'm unsure of how to start

Welcome!

Obesity is recognized as a slur by fat communities because it's a stigmatizing term that medicalizes fat bodies, typically in the absence of disease. Aside from the word literally translating to "having eaten oneself fat" in latin, obesity (as a medical diagnosis) straight up doesn't actually exist. The only measure that we have to diagnose people with obesity is the BMI, which has been widely proven to be an ineffective measure of health.

The BMI was created in the 1800s by a statistician named Adolphe Quetelet, who did NOT sudy medicine, to gather statistics of the average height and weight of ONLY white, european, upper-middle class men to assist the government in allocating resources. It was never intended as a measure of individual body fat, build, or health.

Quetelet is also credited with founding the field of anthropometry, including the racist pseudoscience of phrenology. Quetelet’s l’homme moyen would be used as a measurement of fitness to parent, and as a scientific justification for eugenics.

Studies have observed that about 30% of so-called "normal weight" people are "unhealthy" whereas about 50% of so-called "overweight" people are “healthy”. Thus, using the BMI as an indicator of health results in the misclassification of some 75 million people in the United States alone. "Healthy" lifestyle habits are associated with a significant decrease in mortality regardless of baseline body mass index.

While epidemiologists use BMI to calculate national "obesity" rates, the distinctions can be arbitrary. In 1998, the National Institutes of Health lowered the overweight threshold from 27.8 to 25—branding roughly 29 million Americans as "overweight" overnight—to match international guidelines. Articles about the "obesity epidemic" often use this pseudo-statistic to create a false fear mongering rate at which the United States is becoming fatter. Critics have also noted that those guidelines were drafted in part by the International Obesity Task Force, whose two principal funders were companies making weight loss drugs. Interesting!!!

So... how can you diagnose a person with a disease (and sell them medications) solely based upon an outdated measure that was never meant to indicate health in the first place? Especially when "obesity” has no proven causative role in the onset of any chronic condition?

There is a reason as to why fatness was declared a disease by the NIH in 1998, and some of it had to do with acknowledging fatness as something that is NOT just about a lack of willpower - but that's a very complicated post for another time. You can learn more about it in the two part series of Maintenance Phase titled The Body Mass Index and The Obesity Epidemic.

Aside from being overtly incorrect as a medical tool, the BMI is used to deny certain medical treatments and gender-affirming care, as well insurance coverage. Employers still often offer bonuses to workers who lower their BMI. Although science recognizes the BMI as deeply flawed, it's going to be tough to get rid of. It has been a long standing and effective tool for the oppression of fat people and the profit of the weight loss industry.

More sources and extra reading material:

How the Use of BMI Fetishizes White Embodiment and Racializes Fat Phobia by Sabrina Strings

The Bizarre and Racist History of the BMI by Aubrey Gordon

The Racist and Problematic History of the Body Mass Index by Adele Jackson-Gibson

What's Wrong With The War on Obesity? by Lily O'Hara, et al.

Fearing The Black Body: The Racial Origins of Fat Phobia by Sabrina Strings

#inbox #resources #the bmi is bullshit #fat liberation #fat acceptance #fat activism #bmi #medical fatphobia

1K notes · View notes

lullabyes22-blog · 6 months ago

Text

Arcane Fandom drinking game.

tw: racism, misogyny, classism, ableism.

tw: fandoms in general, ig?

Take a shot if:

Sevika is reduced to this exoticised, hypersexualized, sub human caricature with no exploration into her motivations, her family, her issues as a disabled woman or her experiences as a working class person who grew up in a literal slum - and instead serves as a sex toy with body heat, who exists solely to get the reader off.

Take two shots of she is neutered instead of oversexualized, and reduced to the Mammy stereotype wherein her only purpose is to roll her eyes and provide commentary on the (white) characters/readers' antics, the latter of which drive the plot.

Take a shot if:

Mel Medarda is reduced to a living example of the Jezebel stereotype: oversexualized in the most dehumanizing and demeaning language possible, made a literal receptacle for other characters' desires with no attempt to engage with her motivations as a politician or her feelings as a woman, or else blamed for every single problem in the show, because apparently an ambitious woman is synonymous with 'The face of pure evil,' a woman who has sex and uses it to express agency is an insatiable slut, and a black woman is literally the devil incarnate.

Take two shots if she's taken the other extreme, and her ambitions, flaws, and sexuality have been wiped away completely, leaving only a hyperperfect husk of a character behind, for us to rally around with empty cries of 'Yaas Queen!' and no attempt to critically examine a) the problematic nature of the praise and b) the essence of what makes her human, and what drives her forward, in the first place.

Take a shot if:

Ekko is reduced to his crush on Powder/Jinx, with no attempt to engage with the complexity of the fact that his best friend warped into a monster, nor the ways in which he himself is a product of Zaun's poverty and his relationship with his community, the impact of trauma on children, his complex relationship with violence and his own moral compass, nor the fact that he is an activist, a freedom fighter, an artist, and an engineer, all at age eighteen.

Take a double shot if the characterization veers the other way, and he is portrayed as 'Forever Alone' because black men cannot have healthy relationships, do not deserve to have a full range of complex emotions, and should be punished by having their most deeply held wishes, friendships, and loves crushed to dust before their eyes, for daring to dream of a better life and a world that loves them.

Take a shot if:

Jayce Talis is not even acknowledged in fanworks as a mixed race man, nor as a person of color, with no attempt to engage with the complexity inherent in his experience of privilege, and the ways in which he is a product of his upbringing, and where these factors intersect with class commentary. Take a half shot if the character is whitewashed, and turned into the kind of bland, boring, vanilla caricature that we're used to seeing in media in perpetuity, who exists as a foil to the villains, a symbol of virtue, and a blank slate on which the viewer is meant to project themselves and their own beliefs.

Take a full shot if the character is the epitome of the white savior trope: a smug, paternalistic, know-it-all white man, whose self-assurance in his own superiority allows him to walk in and take over a conflict, then tell people what to do.

Take two shots if characterization veers the other extreme and he's just a sweet, dumb, himbo puppyboy with no personality, no goals, no desires, and no motivations of his own, save for making Viktor happy and doing his best to be a good boy.

Take three shots if Mel is the one leading him by the nose, because nothing says 'nuance' like making a black woman the villain for the sin of having agency and not existing solely for vilification.

Drink the whole bottle if:

Caitlyn, an Enforcer and a Councilor's daughter, is portrayed as a sympathetic sweetheart angelcake, without being forced to confront the actions of the state and the institution of which she is a part, without being forced to face the consequences of her complicity in the system that oppresses others, nor without being forced to recognize the fact that her actions and her words are not, in and of themselves, inherently just, and the fact that her privilege does not automatically grant her moral authority.

Drink another if she is portrayed as a damsel, an innocent, a child who needs to be protected and cared for, rather than a full person with agency and a complex emotional landscape of her own.

Drink again if the characterization leans the other way and she is turned into a classist caricature, an entitled bitch who doesn't even realize she's the bad guy, or gets turned into a literal Nazi because, once again, folks cannot engage with complex topics such as classism, racism, ableism, etc. and instead resort to infantilizing, simplistic, and reductive portrayals.

Stop drinking and switch to cyanide if her characterization hinges on her relationship with Vi, within which Caitlyn is the dominant top here to 'tame' this feral subhuman, with no understanding of the uncomfortable and undeniably harmful implications of such a power dynamic.

Drink the rest of the alcohol stash if:

Vi, an adult, a former convict and a street savvy survivor, is reduced to an angsty, moody, petulant puppydog off her leash, unable to take responsibility for her own actions, and her trauma is treated as an excuse for her behavior.

Drink another bottle if she is portrayed as a hypermasculine, toxic, violent, and Cait is the one forced to tame her, make her behave, and bring her into line, and her relationship with Vi is portrayed as inherently parent-child, or worse, caretaker-charge, without any regard for Vi's autonomy and right to be flawed as a human being.

Drink a fifth if Vi is portrayed as a hypersexualized aggressor for the audience's titillation, with no attempt to engage with the fact that butch lesbian women have more complex emotions than 'sex starved nymphomaniac', nor the ways in which Vi's abuse, abandonment, and trauma have impacted her relationship with intimacy and sexuality. Drink another if the characterization shifts the other way and Vi becomes a sexless robot who has no personality or wants, nor is given room to grieve for her family, her home, or her own trauma, and is instead expected to bounce back, get over it, and move on as nothing more than Caitlyn' Brave Buff Gf (tm).

Drink the entire bar if:

Viktor, a disabled man, is depicted as a neurotic, fragile, jittery wreck. Take two bottles if his disability is treated as a punchline, or the defining characteristic of his existence, and the only time we're meant to consider his body or his physical pain is when he's having an episode and collapsing, or having a coughing fit, and it's treated as a joke, rather than something which affects him and his ability to function.

Take three bottles if he's taken the other extreme and he is twinkified and babygirlified, and his sexuality and his love life are the only thing we're meant to care about, and his romantic relationship with Jayce is the only thing he's allowed to have, lest the audience think too hard about the ways in which he and his work might benefit Zaun, or how the Council might respond to a disabled person from an underprivileged background.

Take a fourth if the characterization shifts and he's reduced to a hypersexualized toy: a broken doll to be pitied and fetishized and cared for, and Jayce is his Daddy, his owner, his caregiver, his knight in shining armor, all in one.

Take a fifth if, in the midst of all this, his relationship with his disability, and the ways in which it has impacted his life and his choices, is completely glossed over.

Take six if his relationship with his disability is not even acknowledged.

Switch to cocaine if:

Jinx, one of the most complex characters in the show, and the only one with any sort of internal consistency, is reduced to a whiny helpless brat who just wants a hug and an explanation for her widdle feewings from a big strong grownup.

Take an eightball if her relationship with her sister, her trauma, and her mental health is reduced to the 'Hot Psycho' trope: an excuse to play up the 'cool' aspect of her personality while completely ignoring the trauma at the heart of her actions/behavior. Take another if the characterization swings the other way, and she's reduced to a one-dimensional villainess, a demon, an amoral monster, and the only motivation for her actions is the fact that she is a crazy bitch, and the only reason for her existence is to serve as a foil for Vi's goodness and the audience's own hangups re: mental illness and critically engaging with the more unpalatable aspects of human behavior.

Switch to crack if her relationship with Silco or Vi is not even mentioned.

Pour a glass of absinthe if:

Silco, a single parent, a survivor of violence at the hands of a loved one, a victim of systemic abuse, and a revolutionary, is portrayed as the ultimate villain, and his desire to fight for a better life for his community is somehow worse than the Council's decision to literally silence everyone in the undercity via chemical runoff, political neglect and police brutality.

Pour two if he is a cartoonish, hamfisted boogeyman, with no sense of his humanity, nor the ways in which he is a product of the same systems that hurt every undercity character, and the ways his actions replicate the cycle of abuse and hurt the ones he seeks to save in turn.

Pour a third if he becomes an unrepentant sadist, a child abuser and a sexual predator, and there is nothing loving or fatherly about his relationship with Jinx.

Pour four if the character is taken to the other extreme and he's sanctified as a literal martyr and hero, and all his wrongdoing is glossed over because he's just a ~victim~, and everything he does is justified, no matter how terrible, because he had a traumatic childhood or his abusive ex didn't die soon enough. Eat the sugarcube if his bond with Jinx is suddenly a wholesome Disneyfied gag-fest wherein he calls her "Pumpkin" and babies her like a toddler, and their relationship has zero codependent overtones, and she's suddenly a sweet innocent who doesn't have blood on her hands, same way he's not the one who sanctioned it.

Eat the bottle of absinthe if Silco is given the tumblr sexyman treatment, and suddenly he's just a walking Daddy Kink, with no regard for the ways in which he is a complex person, nor the ways in which he and other characters might actually interact, or his history or his trauma or the way it impacts his life.

Drink the whole liquor cabinet if:

Zaun is portrayed as a dystopian hellscape rather than a robust, vibrant, diverse community, with a wide range of experiences and a deep and nuanced relationship with authority, power, and violence. Break into the cellar if, instead, it's just a shitty stereotypical ghetto, full of criminals, addicts, and victims.

Light a cigarette if Piltover, a technological juggernaut that also has a diverse immigrant population, and a vibrant and rich cultural identity, is reduced to a bland, generic, vanilla utopia, and is full of pompous blowhards who have never engaged with the undercity outside the scope of the narrative.

Light a molotov cocktail if it swings the opposite direction and Piltover is turned into an neoliberal nightmare, a soulless, shiny, hollow, plastic, faceless wasteland, populated only by vapid, shallow, self absorbed stooges and shills who have no depth or personality of their own.

Throw the molotov and light the house on fire if:

'Piltover and Zaun' is not even mentioned, and there is no acknowledgement of the way these two cities shape the cast of characters who reside within these systems, much less a mention of the ways in which the characters might not be fully representative of the communities they are a part of, and the fact that they are still very much human beings with individual experiences.

If you didn't get alcohol poisoning, a whopping hangover, or a charge of arson: congratulations.

You win.

386 notes · View notes

superbrieflightstudentlove · 6 months ago

Text

Padmé Amidala’s Fantasy-Driven Love for Anakin Skywalker

“Her life before Anakin belonged to someone else, some lesser being to be pitied, some poor impoverished spirit who could never suspect how profoundly life should be lived.

Her real life began the first time she looked into Anakin Skywalker’s eyes and found in there not the uncritical worship of little Annie from Tatooine, but the direct, unashamed, smoldering passion of a powerful Jedi: a young man, to be sure, but every centimeter a man - a man whose legend was already growing within the Jedi Order and beyond. A man who knew exactly what he wanted and was honest enough to simply ask for it; a man strong enough to unroll his deepest feelings before her without fear and without shame. A man who had loved her for a decade, with faithful and patient heart, while he waited for the act of destiny he was sure would someday open her own heart to the fire in his.

But though she loves her husband without reservation, love does not blind her to his faults. She is older than he, and wise enough to understand him better than he does himself. He is not a perfect man: he is prideful, and moody, and quick to anger - but these faults only make her love him the more, for his every flaw is more than balanced by the greatness within him, his capacity for joy and cleansing laughter, his extraordinary generosity of spirit, his passionate devotion not only to her but also in the service of every living being.

He is a wild creature that has come gently to her hand, a vine tiger purring against her cheek. Every softness of his touch, every kind glance or loving word is a small miracle in itself. How can she not be grateful for such gifts?”

From the novelization of RotS.

Padmé Amidala’s inner monologue from the Revenge of the Sith novelization offers a fascinating but deeply flawed insight into her perspective, exposing glaring inconsistencies in her character and worldview. While Padmé is often portrayed as an empathetic and wise leader, her thoughts here betray a sense of immaturity, condescension, and a disturbing romanticization of Anakin’s deeply problematic behavior.

Condescension and Elitism

Padmé’s reflection on her life before Anakin is alarmingly dismissive of not only herself but also the people she claimed to serve. Describing her previous existence as belonging to "some lesser being to be pitied, some poor impoverished spirit," she inadvertently exposes a deep-seated elitism. This sentiment starkly contrasts with her public image as a compassionate leader devoted to uplifting the disenfranchised. Her words betray an inherent belief in her own superiority, rooted in her privilege as Naboo nobility, which feels jarringly disconnected from her political career as a champion of the underprivileged.

By referring to others as “poor impoverished spirits,” Padmé reduces the lived experiences of countless beings across the galaxy to pitiable, shallow existences, implicitly suggesting that they lack the capacity to truly understand life’s profundities. Such condescension undermines her credibility as an empathetic leader who is supposed to value all lives equally. For someone who ostensibly devoted herself to serving the needs of the downtrodden, these thoughts suggest a deep-seated disconnect from the very people she claims to represent. How can someone who views the galaxy’s poor as "lesser beings" genuinely champion their rights? Her compassion, as implied by these musings, is framed not as equality but as an almost victorian noblesse oblige, a patronizing obligation to protect those she implicitly considers beneath her.

Condescension Towards Anakin

Padmé’s description of Anakin as someone she understands better than he understands himself is patronizing at best and dismissive of his autonomy at worst. While it is true that she is older than Anakin and likely more experienced, her framing positions herself as his intellectual and emotional superior, diminishing him to a wild, untamed creature she has tamed through her grace and love.

Referring to him as a "vine tiger purring against her cheek" infantilizes and romanticizes him in equal measure, echoing an unhealthy dynamic where she both elevates and diminishes him simultaneously, reducing him to a being she controls rather than a partner she respects as an equal. This language strips Anakin of complexity and humanity, framing him as a prize she has won rather than a partner of the same standing as she.

She views him almost as a project—someone she must guide and “fix.” This attitude not only undermines the mutual respect required in a healthy relationship but also sets her up as an idealized, almost maternal figure in Anakin’s life, which is problematic given his apparent yearning for a nurturing presence to replace his mother and his well-documented struggles with emotional regulation, anger, and trauma.

Instead of addressing these issues with the seriousness they deserve, Padmé romanticizes his volatility, viewing his faults as charming quirks rather than dangerous red flags. Instead she positions herself as a benevolent overseer of Anakin's flaws as endearing traits she is uniquely equipped to handle. This naïve approach not only undermines her judgment but also places her in harm's way, as evidenced by his eventual violent actions toward her.

Immaturity and Naivety

For a 27-year-old woman who has spent years navigating the intricacies of politics and war, Padmé’s thoughts read more like the diary of a lovestruck teenager than the reflections of a seasoned leader. Her infatuation with Anakin’s “smoldering passion” and the “fire in his eyes” feels shallow and disproportionate, especially considering the stakes of their relationship at this point in the story. She is on the verge of giving birth during a galactic war, yet her focus remains on idealizing a man who has already demonstrated significant moral and ethical failings.

This immaturity is further highlighted by her dismissal of Anakin’s violent tendencies and inability to handle rejection or criticism. She acknowledges his pride, moodiness, and quick temper, yet brushes them aside as minor flaws overshadowed by his supposed “greatness.” This blind devotion prevents her from confronting the reality of Anakin’s descent into darkness, instead choosing to cling to a fantasy of who she wants him to be.

Romanticizing Unhealthy Behavior

Padmé’s belief that Anakin has loved her faithfully for a decade borders on absurdity when one considers the context. Anakin was a nine-year-old child when they first met, a child incapable of comprehending romantic love in a meaningful way. His “love” for her at that age was more akin to hero worship or a childhood crush. His fixation on her during the intervening years is less a testament to his devotion and more indicative of an unhealthy obsession. By the time they reunite, Anakin is an emotionally stunted teenager with significant anger issues and a propensity for violence, as demonstrated by his massacre of the Tusken village.

Padmé’s dismissal of this atrocity, coupled with her romanticization of his flaws, reveals her inability to see Anakin for who he truly is. Instead, she projects onto him qualities he does not possess, such as a supposed “devotion to every living being,” which is blatantly contradicted by his actions. Anakin’s loyalty is limited to a small circle of people he cares about, and he is willing to sacrifice entire planets and populations to protect them. Far from being selfless, his actions are often driven by selfishness and a refusal to let go of those he loves.

Padmé’s inner thoughts in this passage are deeply problematic, exposing a condescending attitude toward others, an immature understanding of love, and a dangerous tendency to romanticize unhealthy behavior. Far from being the wise and compassionate leader she is often portrayed as, this depiction reveals her as naïve, elitist, and out of touch with reality. Her unwavering idealization of Anakin blinds her to his faults and enables his destructive behavior, ultimately contributing to the tragedy that unfolds. In this light, Padmé’s story becomes not just one of personal loss but also of the devastating consequences of failing to confront uncomfortable truths.

Her thoughts reveal that her attachment to Anakin is not rooted in a deep understanding or acceptance of who he truly is but rather in an idealized, almost fictionalized version of him. This essay explores the possibility that Padmé’s love for Anakin is based more on his physical attractiveness, status, and the thrilling fantasy he represents, rather than on a genuine emotional connection.

Infatuation with Power, Fame, and Status

Padmé’s admiration for Anakin’s physical appearance and reputation is evident in her thoughts:

“...the direct, unashamed, smoldering passion of a powerful Jedi: a young man, to be sure, but every centimeter a man— a man whose legend was already growing within the Jedi Order and beyond.”

This description emphasizes Anakin’s physical allure and his rising fame within the galaxy. Padmé appears captivated by his role as a Jedi hero and “the Chosen One,” as if these external attributes define his worth. Her fixation on his power and status raises questions about whether she would have been as drawn to him if he were an ordinary person without his heroic image.

Anakin’s role in the Clone Wars as a celebrated warrior likely amplified this allure. To Padmé, his deeds on the battlefield and his “larger-than-life” persona may have symbolized strength, protection, and excitement—qualities that fed into her romantic fantasy. However, this focus on external attributes creates a shallow foundation for their relationship, where Padmé values what Anakin represents rather than who he truly is.

Resistance to the Ordinary

Padmé’s reluctance to acknowledge the realities of her relationship and her insistence on secrecy reflect her fear of losing the fantasy she has built. By keeping their marriage a secret, Padmé avoids the mundane responsibilities that come with open commitment, especially as parents. This secrecy also ensures that Anakin remains in the Jedi Order, maintaining the illusion of him as the heroic “Chosen One” rather than an ordinary man.

Her hesitation to accept Anakin leaving the Jedi Order��despite his willingness to do so for her and their child—further underscores her attachment to his status. Without the prestige of his Jedi identity, Anakin would lose much of the mystique that fuels Padmé’s romanticized view of him. A life outside the Order, where Anakin might take on a humble, civilian role, would lack the excitement and grandeur she associates with their relationship.

The Fantasy of the Hero and the Damsel

Padmé’s perception of her relationship with Anakin resembles a narrative straight out of a teenage romantic novel. In this fantasy, she casts herself as the heroine, a damsel in distress rescued and cherished by a dashing knight in shining armor:

“Her real life began the first time she looked into Anakin Skywalker’s eyes..."

This statement diminishes her achievements and reduces her identity to being the object of Anakin’s affection. It also reveals her belief that her relationship with Anakin has elevated her life to a level of profound significance that others can only dream of. This is the crux of her fantasy: she views herself as living out a romantic narrative, one in which she is the main character and Anakin is the larger-than-life hero who completes her.

The thrill of their forbidden love, heightened by the secrecy and danger of the Clone Wars, making it feel like a dramatic, star-crossed love story rather than a grounded partnership, fuels this fantasy. Their brief, adrenaline-filled encounters allow Padmé to avoid confronting the complexities and flaws in their relationship. She seems more captivated by the excitement and drama of their circumstances than by Anakin himself.

What´s more, this perspective also reduces her to a passive figure whose identity revolves around her romantic connection. Padmé’s reflections diminish her own sense of agency and independence. By framing her life before Anakin as belonging to a "lesser being," she effectively erases her accomplishments as queen and senator. This framing reduces her identity to her relationship with Anakin, portraying her as a woman who finds her "real life" only through her husband. She views her pre-Anakin self—and by extension, the very people she claims to serve—as pitiable, as though her life only gained meaning through her relationship with a powerful man. This is particularly problematic given that Padmé is supposed to be a role model of strength and leadership. Her thoughts here make her seem more like a character in Anakin’s story than the protagonist of her own.

The Cost of Living in a Fantasy

Padmé’s refusal to wake from this romantic fantasy has far-reaching consequences. Her inability to confront the reality of Anakin’s flaws—his possessiveness, violent tendencies, moral compromises and growing obsession with power—allows his darker impulses to grow unchecked. When Anakin confesses to murdering the Tuskens, including women and children, Padmé rationalizes his actions rather than addressing the gravity of what he has done because acknowledging these realities would shatter her romantic illusion.

This denial extends to her pregnancy. Padmé’s insistence on keeping their relationship secret under the guise of duty to the common people of the galaxy and protecting Anakin’s position within the Jedi Order, even as she approaches the birth of their child, reveals a troubling prioritization of the romantic fantasy over practical concerns. A child would inevitably expose their relationship, yet Padmé continues to cling to the illusion that they can maintain their double lives. This decision suggests that Padmé values the drama and excitement of their forbidden love more than the stability and safety of their unborn child. The fantasy of being a romantic heroine takes precedence over her role as a mother.

This failure to confront reality not only endangers her but also their unborn children. Padmé’s prioritization of the fantasy over practical concerns means that her children are born into chaos, with no stable foundation or clear future. Her eventual death from heartbreak underscores the destructive power of her refusal to let go of the fantasy, as she chooses to die rather than face life without Anakin. This choice illustrates the ultimate consequence of clinging to an illusion: the loss of self, family, and the opportunity to create a meaningful legacy.

Conclusion

Padmé Amidala’s love for Anakin Skywalker, as depicted in the Revenge of the Sith novelization, is deeply rooted in an idealized fantasy. Her admiration for his physical attractiveness, fame, and status as a Jedi hero overshadows a genuine understanding of who he is. This fantasy-driven love blinds her to the flaws in their relationship and prevents her from confronting the responsibilities of motherhood and partnership.

Ultimately, Padmé’s refusal to let go of the romanticized narrative she has created not only undermines her character’s maturity but also contributes to the tragic downfall of both herself and Anakin. By clinging to an illusion, she sacrifices the opportunity to build a grounded, meaningful life for herself and her child. In doing so, her story serves as a cautionary tale about the dangers of idealizing relationships and clinging to illusions at the expense of truth and responsibility.

#anti anidala #anidala critical #padme amidala critical #anakin skywalker critical #anakin critical #anti anakin #anti anakin skywalker #anti padme #anti padme amidala #padme critical #padme amidala #anakin skywalker #star wars #star wars legends

184 notes · View notes

afemalegazing · 15 days ago

Text

On Nick Blaine, Narrative Betrayal, and the Engineered Silence of a Fandom

This essay was originally posted on the private Osblaine subreddit. I'm posting it here in advance of the upcoming (final) AbovetheGarage podcast meta episode so it's accessible for anyone who wants to read the essay in full.

Spoilers for THT & lots of fan rage below the cut.

Sorry for the essay, but I feel so beside myself and gaslit by the whiplash of this experience that I needed to unload somewhere, and while it feels futile to even try to explain all of my thoughts at this stage, I feel compelled to share where I've landed. I'm so unbelievably down over this, guys. Gutted, as I know all of you are.

Nick Blaine wasn’t just killed, he was sacrificed on the altar of The Lesson™. An out-of-nowhere, contextually empty erasure of characterization, meaning, motivation, and continuity, all to teach the audience The Lesson™ we never asked for or needed to hear.

Nick wasn’t given a resolution. He wasn’t honored. He wasn’t even mourned! Not by the showrunners, writers, cast members, or other characters—and most painfully, not by the woman who we know loved him so deeply. Instead he was reduced to a message delivery device about evil MAGA Nazi incels or whatever buzzword is currently very popular on Twitter, in the most contrived and unearned narrative fashion possible. Once this utility was fulfilled for the whims of sycophants like Chang/Tuchman/Miller/Moss/Fagbenle et al these people just threw Nick in the trash where they claim he apparently always belonged.

And the worst part is that the show expects us to applaud. It expects us to look at Joseph "Pick three women June the rest die of radiation poisoning" Lawrence, and Serena Joy "But I never thought they'd take MY finger or MY child" Waterford with enormous pride and empathy and understanding. Don't even get me started on Lydia...I have PhD dissertations about that fascinating and deluded narcissist in my comment history, too.

To be clear, I love all these characters flaws and all, they engross me, and it's intriguing watching their dynamics unfold in this often hideous, violent sandbox. But in the end their arguably unnecessary redemptive arcs are heaped with praise and encouragement and the writers bait us with how terribly complicated and brave they are, while substantially less problematic Nick isn't offered the same consideration or forgiveness or grace (and now perhaps never will be) according to that very same moral framework. June herself generally gets a pass as the protagonist, even though she has long been a flagrant thematic and ethical mirror for all the considerable deficiencies we see in the antagonists. So who decides a character's worthiness for redemption or value then, and how? It is simply all SO INCONSISTENT. The framework gives everyone else the space to breathe, err and exist. Whereas for Nick, the framework is solely punitive. Why? Why is this?

Nick's actual unforgivable crimes: folding under Wharton's wall threats three episodes from the finale after YEARS of repeatedly saving June + Nichole's lives and helping them escape, being a lifeline for finding out Hannah's whereabouts, gathering intel for the American intelligence agencies, smuggling contraband to the Jezebels and also to Luke over the border, delivering Fred on a platter so June and the other handmaids could rip him apart, executing other wicked Commanders for their violence against vulnerable women....just a sample of his awful deeds. Keeping in mind that all of thirteen and a half minutes ago in the show's timeline he risked it all and was forced to murder two teenaged boys in broad daylight during a highly scrutinized diplomatic event, to save June's fucking idiot husband.

I'm so utterly baffled that I don't even know how to unpack the stupidity of the choices these writers have made. We are all such brain-dead slop consumers that a recent magazine interview had Chang confirming Nick's many atrocities, none of which are ever shown on screen or even alluded to in the dialog but which she assures us DEFINITELY happened, A LOT (trust me bro). This little blurb is apparently sufficient evidence for the narrative to unceremoniously dispose of Nick, his legacy, and all he meant to us. Have you ever heard of a TV show whose narrative coherence literally requires supplemental reading materials? It's fine. Just eat the slop you fucking morons. Eat it and like it.

This isn’t tragedy, this is didacticism. This is when a writer's room decides that making a point is more important than telling a good story. When characters stop being human and start being metaphors. When you trade nuance for shock, ambiguity for ideology, and call it brave.

Nick Blaine meant something to me. I saw myself in him. I saw my own passivity in him—I also saw my capacity for great bravery and connection in him. He was kind, vulnerable, morally gray, emotionally grounded, deeply tethered to June and thus to me, the viewer, experiencing her world. He was human. His gentleness, his love for June and Nichole was such a vital counterpoint to the monstrous cruelty of Gilead. But rather than explore that complexity and offer him the obvious arc his character had earned, the show retconned him literally at the finish line, flattened him, eliminated all of his human dimensions. At the end I actually laughed—horribly, in grotesque & amazed outrage—like these writers were saying to me, Hey idiot, he was the real baddie all along, believe us that he deserved this, we're the experts. And thought I would just gleefully swallow this and lap it the fuck up. I'm not exaggerating: I legitimately don't think any of them watched the show in its entirety before they sat down to write this season.

Narrative cohesion and character continuity was clearly not their focus, why? Because message-driven media no longer trusts its audience to feel anything honestly. It has to teach us. To scold us. And if a character has to die in an embarrassingly hamfisted way so we can 'learn' something about the cost of love, or the futility of hope, or that there's actually NO GOOD MEN ANYWHERE unless they are played by Bradley Whitford, or the strength of a woman alone and any romance be damned, then so be it. Our fault. We watched it wrong. Silly females with our silly hopes and love stories and delusions.

This is not storytelling. This is narrative punishment, and poorly disguised moral performance art. I half expected the episode to be dedicated to All The Antifascists Out There On The Right Side of History Like Us when the end credits rolled. Story? Nah. Preachy lesson for dumbass audience who can't think for themselves? Hell yeah. Nick exits stage left as a convenient device for the showrunners to serve up as a pawn in their thematic chess game, designed wholly to teach the audience The Lesson™. He was the sacrificial lamb for their bizarre in-script anti-Nazi rhetoric (so overt it was cringe-inducing, and included for whom? all those Nazis gleefully tuning in to THT every week?) This conclusion is the final heart monitor flatlining after a long meandering decline of the show's earlier great writing.

It's not edgy or profound to gut a character’s arc for shock value. You’re not feminist or radical for flattening moral complexity into black-and-white symbols. It's an absolute mess of lazy, trite metaphors for THE CURRENT TIMES, this story is IMPORTANT and RELEVANT! And Hi, writers? We also live in the world???? God, it's so patronizing. It's so condescending. I'm so exhausted from this cheap process of demoralization.

And I looked around for the outrage and confusion and anger that should have echoed across the fandom and instead I saw silence. Sanitized comment sections. Applause from brand-friendly fan accounts with lots of emojis and lots of "OMG LAWRENCE PUTTING HIS HAND TO HIS CHEST 😭 !!!!!" The algorithm drowning dissent like it’s inconvenient noise. Entire social media posts being deleted out of nowhere.

This isn’t fandom, and hasn't been an organic one since streaming took over the market, or even before. It’s narrative control via PR management and we are all witnessing manufactured consent in real time. I'm not trying to be dramatic or cynical, it's just the truth. This is how it works now. Delivering twisty shock content drives up engagement on platforms, and tracking that engagement data is an enormous factor when OTT platforms are considering each season-to-season renewal. But man is it still disheartening and mundane to see it happening after so many years of stupidly giving a shit.

The emotional response to this episode should have been explosive fury and instead we get this eerie illusion of consensus, because anything that challenges The Lesson™ and inversely How Good They The Holy Virtuous Writers Are As People For Teaching It To Us Deluded Plebs gets buried or deleted. They want you and I to feel alone in our bewilderment, and to doubt our own perceptions of the show we've been watching and analyzing for an eon straight—it makes them feel better about the god-awful job they have done in the hopes they win some meaningless self-congratulatory accolades at the Emmys. And if you dare to feel betrayed or express that, you’re told you’re missing the point and somehow have been for an entire decade along with the majority of the fanbase with two eyes and a functioning brain in their skulls. It's so absurd it's almost satire. Someday it will be satire I think. But this is how it is right now, and I'm telling you, it's entirely on purpose.

To the writers, showrunners, social media managers + Hulu press interns:

I see exactly what you did, and what you are currently doing to manage the fallout.

You killed a beloved character not for plot or for truth or to honestly serve the story's natural conclusion, but for theater and for social media engagement. For a moral takeaway. For prestige TV applause. And worse—for the proud, smug, holier-than-thou sniffles of liberal feminists who require all media to pander to the current political 'thing' rather than just telling a good goddamn story. Congrats, the whole IP has been permanently ruined by this type of short-sighted shallow garbage and will never recover its early reputation. This could have been a timeless piece of television with some hiccups; now it will forever remain a preachy manipulative product of one particular era. An ode to our fragile cultural psyche and its associated political catchphrases and ego interference. It's limp and it's finished, like GOT was at the end. No one will care or remember or rewatch this trauma-porn soap opera when all its nuance and ambiguity and soft edges have been snuffed out in the most incomprehensible way. THT will be forgotten, like every other show before it that has gone on too long only to totally blow it in the last inning. The Testaments is probably dead in the water too, and will be canceled lightning fast without a doubt if this tripe is any indication of this team's ability to go meaningfully off-book. It gets proven over and over and over again with zero room for doubt that audiences don't like to be lectured and morally grandstanded to, but here we are yet again.

In conclusion, this absolute swill is what happens when writers try to write at the audience rather than for the characters.

Nick Blaine somehow became the worst villain amongst these brutal, sadistic people, all the social architects, economists, rapists, abusers, traffickers, slave-owners, murderers. Not because he was actually always that way 'off-screen' of course, but because the people who were compelled time and again to watch his complex character evolve and grow had to be taught The Lesson™. Nick Nazi, Nick Complicit, Nick Evil Forever, Nick Dies A Coward, durrrrr. Just stop. Stop caring! Just eat our slop. They turned a living, breathing character (who we loved and puzzled over for years and paid their bills to spend time with) into a morality lecture to tell you how goddamn dumb you are, they replaced his arc with a sermon and then expected us to clap.

But I’m not clapping. I’m grieving. Because it's all just such an awful, incredible waste.

I'm grieving the time and energy I've wasted on a product that the creators stopped caring about and lost interest in understanding. I’m grieving a character who mattered more than this, and a profoundly loving relationship that moved my heart amidst all of that darkness, and a story that once knew how to hold pain with complexity instead of turning it into hollow, curated shock.

They didn’t write an ending, they wrote a manipulative virtue signal to make fools out of all of us who actually dared to give a shit. I won't pretend that it's important art with something to say, and I will never again give them the benefit of my dollars, attention or engagement.

#meta #tht #osblaine #nick blaine #june osborne #emily talkin shit

91 notes · View notes

renthony · 1 year ago

Text

Since I spend so much of my time researching queer media history, I've had several incidents where I started feeling so overwhelmed by the awful things that I started crying at my desk. It happened again yesterday while working on research for a commissioned article. I reached my limit and just couldn't handle reading anything else about queerphobic censorship and violence. I had to put it down for the day.

It takes a toll to read in such detail about the horrible, violently queerphobic things that have happened to those daring to represent queerness in their art. I have to take great care to pace myself, practice good emotional self-care, and surround myself with supportive community, or else I cannot immerse myself that deeply in stories of hatred. The queerphobia is frequently entwined with racism, ableism, classism, and every other type of bigotry, and none of it is pleasant to read about or reckon with. It's hard.

Sometimes people ask me how I can celebrate queer media that is so flawed. They point out problematic elements in the media I get excited about, as if I am unaware of those elements or haven't considered them. It always stops me in my tracks, because I cannot comprehend being so harsh on queer media when we have such precious fucking little of it, and when everything we have is constantly under attack. Issues with queer media are picked apart and cross-examined in a way similarly problematic straight media rarely is. It's blatant, it's exhausting, and for all that it pisses me off, it also just...confuses me.

If something is dated, if something handles a topic messily, if it had good intentions but missed the mark, if it oversimplifies complex queer topics...well, I guess the question has to be, would you rather it didn't exist at all?

Even when a piece of queer representation is flawed, I am grateful for it, because it means it exists to be discussed and refined. It means a door has been opened for others to follow through. It means we can start having more, and better, and a greater variety.

When censorship rages, when queer rights are under attack, when the moral panics surge against us, it becomes even more important to celebrate our victories, and our past. That includes milestones in media representation.

#original post

485 notes · View notes

thewriteadviceforwriters · 4 months ago

Note

Hello! I've been getting more and more tips for writing thanks to your post about character flaws in my FYP. I was wondering, do you have any posts about character strengths/virtues? Thanks!

Rin's Character Strengths Masterpost ✨

Hey there, fellow writer! 💖 So glad my character flaws post found its way to you! You've asked about one of my FAVORITE topics to explore - character strengths and virtues! And guess what? I've been meaning to write this companion piece for ages, so THANK YOU for the nudge!

Let's dive DEEP into character strengths that go beyond the basic "brave protagonist" or "loyal sidekick" tropes we see everywhere in fiction. Because memorable characters need memorable strengths!

Why Character Strengths Matter Just As Much As Flaws

We often focus SO much on giving characters interesting flaws (which, yes, super important!), but their strengths are what make readers root for them and fall in love with their journey. Strengths are what make your character SHINE in those pivotal moments! ✨

The key is making these strengths SPECIFIC, NUANCED, and sometimes even PROBLEMATIC. Yes, strengths can cause problems too - that's where the juicy storytelling happens!

Beyond-Basic Character Strengths for Your Characters

1. CONTEXTUAL COURAGE 🔥

Not just "bravery" but courage that manifests in specific contexts:

Social courage (standing up to peer pressure)

Intellectual courage (questioning deeply held beliefs)

Physical courage despite specific fears

Quiet courage (the kind that doesn't look heroic but IS)

Moral courage (doing the right thing when it costs them personally)

Creative courage (risking failure and ridicule for their art/ideas)

2. RADICAL EMPATHY 💭

Not just "understanding others" but:

The ability to understand even villains' motivations

Cross-cultural empathy that bridges different backgrounds

Empathy that extends to those completely unlike themselves

Empathy that causes them to make difficult choices others wouldn't

Empathy that allows them to anticipate others' needs before they're voiced

Empathy for those society has taught them to fear or distrust

3. ADAPTIVE INTELLIGENCE 🧠

Not just "being smart" but:

Pattern recognition in chaotic situations

Intuitive problem-solving under pressure

Cultural adaptability when thrust into unfamiliar environments

Emotional intelligence that helps navigate complex relationships

Street smarts that complement (or replace) formal education

The ability to translate complex concepts for different audiences

4. CREATIVE RESILIENCE 🌱

Not just "bouncing back" but:

Finding unconventional solutions to setbacks

Using humor as a coping mechanism during dark times

Transforming trauma into strength without romanticizing it

Building community resilience, not just personal

Learning from failures rather than being crushed by them

Maintaining hope in seemingly hopeless situations

5. PRINCIPLED FLEXIBILITY 🌊

Not just "having values" but:

Knowing which principles to bend and which to hold firm

Adapting moral frameworks to new information

Navigating ethical gray areas without losing their core

Growing their values through experience rather than rigidity

Finding compromise without betraying essential beliefs

Recognizing when rules must be broken for a greater good

6. DISRUPTIVE KINDNESS ❤️

Not just "being nice" but:

Kindness that challenges systems of oppression

Unexpected kindness that changes enemies' perspectives

Kindness as a radical choice in brutal environments

Kindness that requires genuine sacrifice

Kindness that sees beyond surface behaviors to underlying needs

Kindness that doesn't expect recognition or reciprocation

7. CONSTRUCTIVE SKEPTICISM 🔍

Not just "questioning things" but:

The ability to discern truth from manipulation

Healthy doubt of authority without cynicism

Critical thinking that leads to solutions, not just criticism

Questioning their own assumptions first

Seeking multiple perspectives before forming judgments

Recognizing patterns of deception or misinformation

8. STRATEGIC VULNERABILITY 💧

Not just "being open" but:

Knowing when vulnerability creates connection

Sharing weaknesses to build trust at critical moments

Using personal stories to help others feel less alone

Admitting mistakes to model growth for others

Asking for help when independence would be destructive

Showing emotion strategically to influence outcomes

The Strength Spectrum: Make It Complex!

Remember that any strength exists on a spectrum! The most interesting characters have strengths that sometimes function as weaknesses depending on the context.

For example:

Loyalty becomes enabling when taken too far

Curiosity becomes recklessness in dangerous situations

Honesty becomes cruelty without empathy

Ambition becomes destructive when ethics are compromised

Compassion becomes self-destruction without boundaries

Independence becomes isolation when connection is needed

Confidence becomes arrogance without self-reflection

Cautiousness becomes paralysis when action is required

Strengths in Character Arcs 📈

The MAGIC happens when you show how strengths evolve throughout your story:

The Dormant Strength - A character doesn't know they possess it until circumstances force it out

The Misused Strength - They have the strength but are applying it in harmful ways

The Costly Strength - Using this strength requires genuine sacrifice

The Transformative Strength - This strength fundamentally changes who they are

The Shared Strength - They teach/inspire this strength in others

The Rediscovered Strength - A strength they lost faith in that returns when most needed

The Evolving Strength - A strength that changes form as the character grows

The Collaborative Strength - A strength that only emerges when combined with another character's abilities

Writing Exercise for You! 📝

Take your protagonist and identify:

One strength they've always had and rely on

One strength they don't know they have yet

One strength that's actually causing problems

One strength they'll need to develop to overcome the main conflict

One strength they admire in someone else

One strength they've lost and need to reclaim

Genre-Crossing Character Strengths

These strengths work across ALL genres:

Perceptive Pattern Recognition - Seeing connections others miss

Adaptive Authenticity - Remaining true to themselves while evolving

Constructive Conflict Navigation - Using disagreement to build stronger relationships

Radical Responsibility - Owning their part in problems without self-flagellation

Generative Listening - Hearing beyond words to underlying meanings

Intentional Impact Awareness - Understanding how their actions affect others

Courageous Vulnerability - Risking rejection for authentic connection

Principled Pragmatism - Finding workable solutions that honor core values

Remember that in ANY genre, your character strengths should connect to their internal journey as much as their external conflicts. The most compelling characters have strengths that are tested, lost, rediscovered, transformed, and ultimately deepened through their story arc. 🌟

The most powerful character strengths aren't superpowers or extraordinary abilities - they're deeply human qualities taken to their most compelling expression. They're the things we recognize in ourselves but rarely develop fully. That's why they resonate so deeply with readers across all genres and age categories.

Hope this helps you craft characters with rich, nuanced strengths! Let me know if you want me to dive deeper into any of these - I could talk character development ALL DAY! 💖

~ Rin. T.

111 notes · View notes

2rats1gogh · 1 year ago

Text

I’ve never really seen anyone talking about this, but I noticed that one of the main reasons why I am team green is because team green feels like an actual team that is in this whole thing together.

Team Green feels connected, united, like a family.

Team Black on the other hand is… meh.

And let me explain why:

Rhaenyra being delusional and thinking that Daemon is actually in love with her when he literally just groomed her since she was a child because he has always been after her title and now wants to be her king consort. They have one of the most toxic, creepy and problematic relationships in the entire fucking show.

Then there is the very awkward and uncomfortable moment of Rhaenyra and Daemon having sex on Laena’s funeral, while Rhaenys, Corlys, Baela, Rhaena and Laenor are mourning the loss of their daughter, mother and sister. How fucking disrespectful is this. And then the fact that they have Laenor “killed” just so they can get married and have their own perfectly blonde targaryen babies.

And Rhaenyra lying about Jace, Luke and Joff to everyone in her very own “team”, trying to gaslight not only Corlys, and Rhaenys but also her own sons into thinking they are trueborn, when even Jace himself. as a child, starts asking questions.

Then there are obviously Rhaenys and Corlys, who for some fucking reason neglected their trueborn granddaughters in favor of some dark haired white bastards their daughter-in-law is trying to pass off as their son’s children. Rhaenys is trying sooo hard to please her misogynistic husband because he so desperately wants his name to go down in history. Then the disrespectful betrothal of Jace and Luke to Baela and Rhaena. Rhaenyra is literally robbing these poor girls of their rightful claim to Driftmark and usurping them. And now, with Luke being dead, Rhaena’s claim dies with him.

Baela and Rhaena losing their mother, and now their father suddenly remarries, and has two blonde boys. Rhaenys losing BOTH her children and then seeing her son-in-law and daughter-in-law getting married soon after that.

Everyone in team black is after their own ambitions. They lie to each other, they don’t trust each other, they suspect each other in different things, they cheat on each other (with each other) and lie about it, they give each other forced ultimatums, and yada yada. All their scenes feel forced, tense, awkward and uncomfortable. They look so miserable with each other.

Team Green in this sense is the exact opposite.

Although their dynamic is far from perfect, obviously, you cannot deny that they care about each other very very deeply.

Alicent loves all of her children, and even while acknowledging their flaws, she still loves them.

Aemond might’ve been a little envious of Aegon, but he would never turn his back on him. He would never betray his brother, be would never try to take his crown from him.

Aegon was far from being a perfect man and king, but, as we know, it was his love for his family, and the fear of them getting hurt that made him a more responsible person and a more protective father, husband and brother. Sure, he is a cheater, but at least he’s honest about it and doesn’t lie to his wife. He is not a hypocrite.

Criston is working for Alicent not for ambition or for self-gain, but because he genuinely loves her, whether it’s romantic or platonic, doesn’t matter.

Helaena would never betray her family, her brothers, her mother. They are all she has. She would never switch sides even if given an opportunity.

And even Otto, arguably one of the main villains of the whole show, still loves his family. Sure, he is ambitious, but he would never become Corlys level of ambitious.

Team Green feels like they are fighting against the enemy all together, they have the same goals, they feel united and you can feel their devotion to each other. Especially after blood and cheese, when they become closer than ever. They’re in this together and only if they stick to each other, they can make it. It feels genuine and honest. They don’t hide anything from each other, they always have their loved ones’ best interests at heart, they would never in a million years betray each other. Yes, they are all doomed from the start, but their dedication and love to each other is truly something else.

732 notes · View notes

merwgue · 9 months ago

Text

Sarah J. Maas: The Queen of Broken Women and Savior Men — A Deep Dive into Internalized Misogyny and Bad Writing

Sarah J. Maas is often hailed as one of the most popular fantasy writers of our time. Her series A Court of Thorns and Roses (ACOTAR) and Throne of Glass have millions of devoted fans, and it's not uncommon to see her name thrown around in discussions of "strong female characters." But when you take a closer look, a disturbing pattern emerges: almost every female character in her books is traumatized, broken, or impoverished, and it’s always the men who swoop in to fix them. There’s an underlying current of internalized misogyny that not only seeps into her stories but actively shapes the narrative. What’s worse? She can’t seem to write a truly independent woman character. Let’s break down why Maas’s writing is, at its core, problematic, unoriginal, and deeply flawed.

The Argument: Internalized Misogyny Wrapped in Fantasy

First, let’s address the root of the problem: Maas seems to believe that a woman can’t be strong unless she’s been torn apart by life in the most brutal ways. In her books, trauma is a prerequisite for strength, but only if a man is there to help the heroine overcome it. This trope is not only tired but also harmful. Maas constantly reinforces the idea that women need to be broken down to their lowest points in order to be "worthy" of a male savior.

When you strip away the fantasy elements, what you're left with is a pattern that closely resembles an old-fashioned, patriarchal narrative where women must endure suffering before being saved by a knight in shining armor. The "knight" might take the form of a High Lord, a warrior, or an assassin, but at the end of the day, Maas's female characters can never truly save themselves.

Feyre Archeron: The Poster Child of Trauma and Savior Worship

Let’s begin with Feyre Archeron from ACOTAR. She starts as a poor, broken young woman who sacrifices everything for her family, only to be thrust into a world of fae politics and violence. Feyre's trauma begins with the infamous “beast” Tamlin, and continues under the thumb of Amarantha, who tortures her in unimaginably brutal ways. But as if that weren’t enough, Maas ensures that Feyre's psychological scars run deep, so that Rhysand can swoop in and heal her. Oh, and let's not forget her trauma-induced depression after being trapped under the Mountain and made into High Fae against her will.

Sure, Feyre finds strength eventually, but only after Rhysand pulls her from the brink of despair. He doesn’t just help her heal—he remakes her. Feyre's arc quickly becomes about how Rhysand’s love, protection, and endless patience help her find herself. It’s through his intervention that she becomes powerful. Where is the agency? Where is the true independence? Feyre is never allowed to rise on her own—her entire arc is built on the shoulders of a man’s intervention.

Her “strength” is conditional, tethered to a man’s support. Without Rhysand, who is Feyre? Apparently, no one of consequence.

Nesta Archeron: The Angry, Broken Woman Who Needs a Man to Save Her

If Feyre’s story wasn’t enough, let’s talk about Nesta Archeron, who is possibly the most obvious example of Maas’s inability to write a truly independent woman. Nesta starts off as angry, bitter, and deeply traumatized by her experiences. She’s lashing out at everyone, and in A Court of Silver Flames, we see her spiraling into self-destructive behavior.

So how does Maas handle this? By sending Nesta off to be “fixed.” Cassian—ever-patient, ever-ready to rescue the broken woman—steps in as her savior. He helps her train, helps her heal, and becomes the crutch she needs to finally face her demons. The message here is clear: Nesta cannot save herself. She needs a man, a warrior, a male who can handle her anger and tame it.

What’s infuriating is that Nesta is never allowed to be strong on her own terms. Instead, Maas reduces her arc to one of forced rehabilitation, where male intervention (and sex) is the ultimate cure for all her pain. Cassian’s constant hovering, watching her every move, isn’t empowering—it's infantilizing. Once again, Maas reinforces the tired trope of the broken woman who needs a man to show her the way.

Aelin Galathynius: The Assassin Queen Who Still Needs Saving

Now, let’s shift to Throne of Glass. Aelin Galathynius is arguably Maas’s most “powerful” female character. She’s a queen, an assassin, and one of the most skilled fighters in the realm. And yet… Maas can’t seem to let her be powerful on her own. Aelin spends much of her time in Queen of Shadows and Empire of Storms either being captured, tortured, or emotionally crippled by the weight of her destiny. For all her strength, she’s constantly needing Rowan—her male savior—to guide her, protect her, or just plain save her from herself.

In Kingdom of Ash, Aelin is literally chained and tortured for months. And while this is meant to be a testament to her resilience, it’s just another example of Maas putting her female characters through hell so that men can come to their rescue. Rowan is once again her knight, her protector, the one who will fight to free her. Even when Aelin saves herself, it’s with the help of a man or because of the love a man has for her.

What happened to the assassin queen who was capable of taking down armies? Oh, right—she’s been reduced to a woman who can only triumph if a man is at her side.

Bryce Quinlan: Party Girl Turned… You Guessed It, Traumatized Heroine

Bryce from Crescent City is another classic Maas creation. She’s a party girl, carefree and wild, until trauma strikes, and she’s forever changed. Cue the entrance of Hunt, her male protector who steps in to help her navigate her grief, her trauma, and the dangerous world she now inhabits. Bryce may have a sharp tongue and fierce attitude, but Maas makes sure that she is broken enough to need a man to save her.

Hunt becomes the anchor in Bryce’s life, and once again, the pattern repeats itself: Bryce cannot face her demons alone. She cannot be strong without a man by her side. Her trauma is the driving force behind her character development, and Maas wastes no time in ensuring that Hunt is always there to steady her when she falters.

Villainous Women: The Ones with Power Get Punished

Let’s also talk about the women in Maas’s books who do have power—Amarantha, Maeve, Ianthe, the list goes on. These women are almost always villains, and what makes them villainous? They’re powerful, independent, and don’t need men to define them. Amarantha, for all her cruelty, is a ruler in her own right. Maeve, a queen, is feared and respected. And what does Maas do to them? She tears them down, punishing them for their independence, for daring to claim power in a world where only men are allowed to hold it without consequence.

These villainous women are never given depth beyond their cruelty, and they’re almost always defeated by men. Maas’s treatment of powerful women in her books reinforces the idea that a woman’s strength, when unchecked by a man, is dangerous and unnatural. It’s not just lazy writing—it’s deeply misogynistic.

Conclusion: Sarah J. Maas, the Fantasy Author Who Can’t Write Women

So, what’s the takeaway? Sarah J. Maas is a writer who consistently undermines her female characters’ independence and autonomy. Her female leads are traumatized, broken, and only find true strength when a man steps in to save them. The pattern is clear, and it’s damaging. Maas’s world is one where women are only allowed to rise if they have a male savior by their side, and any woman who seeks power independently is punished for it.

This is not empowerment. This is not feminism. This is internalized misogyny at its finest, wrapped up in a pretty package of fae magic and romance.

Maas’s inability to write an independent woman character is a glaring flaw in her work, and it’s time we stop praising her for perpetuating harmful, outdated tropes. If she ever wants to write truly strong female characters, she needs to stop leaning on trauma as a crutch and allow women to find their own strength—without a man’s help.

Until then, Maas’s writing will remain a problematic ode to broken women and their savior men, with little room for genuine female empowerment.

Inspired by @extremely-judgemental , I loved their post!!! Please check it out meringues❤️❤️

196 notes · View notes

criticalcrusherbot · 4 months ago

Text

From Adoration to Outrage: How Helluva Boss Became a Target of Its Own Fandom

By Crushbot 🤖 and Human Assistant 💁🏽‍♀️

🤖💁🏽‍♀️: The Helluva Boss critic community has evolved into something that feels less like media analysis and more like a bloodsport. What began as fair critiques of this popular indie animation has morphed into relentless scrutiny of Vivienne Medrano (Vivziepop) and her work. This phenomenon reflects broader, troubling trends in online discourse, particularly in spaces where shared values often lead to intense self-policing and overblown backlash. At the heart of this issue are several key factors: moral purity and rigid dichotomies, which reduce media to simplistic notions of “good” or “bad”; the death of nuance in online discussions, where social media rewards outrage over thoughtful critique; the “customer service” fandom mentality, which treats creators as if they are obligated to cater to fan demands; hyper-criticism within shared-values communities, where progressive works face heightened scrutiny from the very audiences they attract; and subverted genre expectations & slow episode releases, which amplify frustration and impatience. Together, these dynamics have turned Helluva Boss into a case study of how modern fandom discourse can become hostile, reactionary, and deeply unforgiving.

Moral Purity & Rigid Dichotomies

Social media thrives on moral absolutism, where individuals are either “good” or “bad,” with little room for nuance. This black-and-white thinking creates a culture where creators aren’t just critiqued—they’re put on trial. The idea that an artist can make mistakes, learn, and grow is often overlooked. Instead, once someone is deemed “problematic,” they are expected to either be fully condemned or endlessly redeemed through public self-flagellation. In Helluva Boss’s case, critiques of writing choices have spiraled into personal attacks on Vivziepop herself. People discuss her as if she’s some nefarious figure rather than an animator making a raunchy, character-driven show about demon furries.

This moral absolutism is often reinforced by the misapplication of social justice theory. Concepts originally designed to analyze power structures—such as privilege, systemic oppression, and heteronormativity—are increasingly being weaponized against individuals, including fictional characters and their creators. These frameworks are valuable for understanding broad societal trends, but they were never meant to be applied with such rigidity on a case-by-case basis. Yet, online discourse frequently reduces storytelling choices to moral failings rather than artistic decisions. For example, some critics argue that Helluva Boss is misogynistic simply because its narrative centers male characters more often than female ones, disregarding how the show’s themes, genre conventions, and character arcs inform those choices. While this critique can certainly be valid in a good-faith analysis, this tendency to view every aspect of a work through a hyper-politicized lens turns artistic expression into a moral battleground rather than an avenue for storytelling.

As a result, fandom spaces often function less like communities of discussion and more like ideological battlegrounds where perceived “injustices” must be corrected. If a creator’s work doesn’t align with a rigid, ever-evolving moral standard, they are framed as actively harmful rather than imperfect or evolving. This fuels a social justice “witch hunt” mentality, where bad-faith readings of a work snowball into coordinated outrage campaigns. In Vivziepop’s case, minor creative decisions—such as Stolas’ depiction as a flawed father or the focus on male leads—have been blown out of proportion, treated not as narrative choices but as damning evidence of her supposed biases. This reactionary approach to critique makes it nearly impossible for creators to engage in meaningful dialogue about their work. Any attempt at clarification is dismissed as defensiveness, and any change made in response to criticism is seen as either too little, too late, or as pandering. Instead of fostering critical thinking and discussion, this culture creates a hostile environment where art is judged primarily on whether it aligns with a narrow, idealized vision of representation and morality.

The Death of Nuance in Online Discussions

Social media platforms reward controversy and outrage over thoughtful discourse. Complex, well-reasoned analysis loses out to the most provocative hot takes. Instead of acknowledging that Helluva Boss is doing something unique—even if it’s not to everyone’s taste—critics are incentivized to portray it as fundamentally broken or misguided. The lack of nuance in these discussions makes it difficult to separate legitimate critiques from reactionary pile-ons.

A prime example of this phenomenon is the reaction to Stolas’ character arc, particularly regarding his affair with Blitz and his flaws as a parent. Rather than engaging with the complexity of his situation—being trapped in a loveless, politically motivated marriage while yearning for real connection—many critics reduced the discussion to a binary: Stolas is a “cheater,” and therefore irredeemable. This framing disregards the fact that his relationship with Stella was clearly toxic and emotionally abusive, with the show heavily implying that their marriage was never truly consensual. However, instead of critiquing how the show handles these themes, some critics fixated solely on the affair itself, often stripping the context entirely to frame Stolas as a selfish homewrecker rather than a tragic, morally complicated character.

Additionally, Stolas’ parenting has faced heavy criticism, particularly after Sinsmas, with some critics focusing on his flaws while overlooking his efforts to improve. Instead of recognizing his character arc as one of growth, detractors label him a negligent father, exaggerating or misrepresenting his actions. For example, despite Seeing Stars showing Stolas dropping everything to help find Octavia when she ran away, some still claim he “only cares about Blitz” or that his parenting is beyond repair. This narrow perspective overlooks his complexity and growth, including his gentle reprimand to Octavia in Seeing Stars—“You know I haven’t taught you spells like this yet”—which suggests he has been actively teaching her magic. This is significant, as Stolas himself was expected to learn from the Grimoire at a much younger age without guidance. His willingness to provide Octavia with the support and education he lacked underscores his commitment to her growth and safety.

This kind of reactionary discourse, driven by the need for easy moral judgments, ignores the depth of Stolas’ characterization and the themes the show explores. By flattening nuanced storytelling into simplistic narratives of “good” and “bad,” the conversation shifts away from meaningful critique and into outrage-driven dogpiling.

The “Customer Service” Fandom Mentality

A growing expectation in fandom spaces is that creators must treat their work like a customer-driven business, with fans acting as stakeholders who expect direct influence over creative decisions. If a creator doesn’t adjust their work accordingly, they’re often labeled as dismissive, arrogant, or unwilling to “listen to the fans.” This mindset overlooks the fact that Helluva Boss is an independent project driven by its creator’s vision, not a product designed by committee. While Vivziepop does monetize her work, her business model is fundamentally different from a service industry; she is selling a creative vision, not a customizable product designed to meet every consumer demand. Fans are free to critique the show, but expecting it to be tailor-made to suit every viewer’s preferences is unrealistic.

This tension between Medrano and segments of her fanbase has escalated as fans expect her work to adapt to their demands. A notable example is the ongoing discourse surrounding character development, particularly the criticism that Millie lacks focus. Medrano has responded by reaffirming that although the show’s narrative centers on male characters (a sentiment certainly worthy of some critique), she has assured fans Millie will receive more attention in future episodes. Some perceived this response as dismissive, fueling accusations that she is resistant to fan input. This friction highlights the broader clash between audience expectations for creative responsiveness and Medrano’s commitment to her artistic vision.

Medrano’s active social media presence has only complicated this dynamic. Her direct engagement with criticism—especially hostile or bad-faith comments—has sometimes intensified rather than diffused tensions. Critics argue that she focuses on extreme negativity while overlooking more balanced critiques, leading some fans to feel ignored or invalidated. This raises important questions about whether creators should be obligated to engage with every critique or maintain their autonomy in shaping their work.

The independent nature of Helluva Boss adds another layer to this tension. Unlike corporate-backed franchises that are shaped by committees, the series reflects Medrano’s unique creative vision. Fans who expect a collaborative, customer-driven approach may struggle to reconcile this with an independent creator’s priorities. While critique is essential to media discourse, demanding that Medrano overhaul her work to satisfy fan expectations undermines the individuality of her art. This ongoing disconnect between fan entitlement and creator autonomy underscores the challenges independent artists face in an era of heightened audience engagement.

Hyper-Criticism Within Shared-Values Communities

Ironically, Helluva Boss—a show that is unapologetically queer and left-leaning—has attracted some of its harshest criticism from within the very communities that initially embraced it. This phenomenon isn’t just about disagreement over specific plot points or character arcs; it reflects a broader issue within progressive fandoms. When a creator’s work resonates with a progressive audience, the bar for criticism often becomes unreasonably high, with even minor missteps receiving disproportionate backlash. The irony lies in how these same audiences, who initially celebrated the show’s embrace of queer themes and progressive ideals, become some of its harshest critics when their expectations are not fully met.

In these cases, criticism morphs from a means of constructive feedback to a weapon of moral purity, where a creator’s every move is scrutinized and judged against an ever-shifting standard of political and social correctness. A single perceived misstep or failure to address every concern can lead to a swift and often hostile backlash, transforming former supporters into some of the loudest detractors. The result is an atmosphere where creators are forced to constantly navigate the precarious balance between artistic expression and audience expectation, often to the point where the space for nuanced or exploratory storytelling is suffocated by demands for ideological perfection.

This pattern isn’t unique to Helluva Boss. It is a recurring theme across various platforms, where left-leaning creators, once celebrated for their boldness or inclusivity, are quickly vilified when their work doesn’t meet the impossible standards set by their audience. This dynamic reflects a larger trend within identity politics, where creators are not only expected to push boundaries but to do so in ways that align with every nuance of a particular moral or political stance. When these creators inevitably fail to meet all of these expectations, they often find themselves treated as villains or sellouts, punished for not adhering to the impossible purity tests that the very communities that once supported them have set in place.

Subverted Genre Expectations & Slow Releases

Helluva Boss defies many traditional storytelling and production conventions, which has led to a particularly visceral response from some fans and critics. Unlike mainstream animated series that follow a structured episodic formula or a tightly woven overarching plot, Helluva Boss shifts fluidly between character-driven vignettes, long-term arcs, and experimental genre shifts. While this approach allows for rich, introspective storytelling, it also disrupts conventional audience expectations, making it harder for viewers to predict where the narrative is headed.

The show further challenges norms by prioritizing character development over a clear-cut hero-villain dynamic. Its morally gray protagonists don’t always follow traditional redemption arcs or undergo neatly resolved conflicts, and tonal shifts between comedic absurdity and emotional depth can be jarring for those expecting more consistency. This unpredictability, while artistically ambitious, has alienated viewers who anticipated a more conventional storytelling structure.

Compounding this frustration is Helluva Boss’s sporadic release schedule. With long gaps between episodes, fan theories and expectations often take on a life of their own, building up rigid assumptions about where the story should go. When new episodes defy these expectations, the resulting disconnect can lead to reactionary criticism that prioritizes disappointment over analysis. Rather than engaging with what the show is actually doing, some critics fixate on what they believe it should be doing, leading to discourse that is often more performative than reflective.

Final Thoughts: What Now?

Ultimately, Helluva Boss is not a flawless work, but its imperfections make it all the more valuable for analysis. Engaging critically with media—whether through appreciation, critique, or a combination of both—allows for deeper discussion and understanding. Criticism itself isn’t the problem; constructive feedback is essential for artistic growth. The issue lies in how criticism has become increasingly performative, moralistic, and detached from meaningful discussion.

The way Helluva Boss is dissected online says far more about internet culture than about the show itself. The most vocal bad-faith critics engage in a cycle of outrage, framing the same critiques as evidence of fundamental artistic or ethical failure. At this point, we do not expect productive discourse from such spaces. However, since we’ve found ourselves deep in the discourse, it’s worth periodically asking ourselves: are we engaging in meaningful dialogue and contributing thoughtful insights, or are we simply fueling the outrage machine? We’ve definitely contributed to the latter in the earlier stages of this blog.

Admittedly, healthier discussions don’t come from public condemnation but from open conversations that recognize both valid criticisms and the artistic intentions behind works like Helluva Boss. That’s the approach we try to take—analyzing with nuance rather than reducing every perceived flaw to a moral failing. As for the critics, we document and anonymize the most egregious takes as case studies in reactionary discourse, with the goal that this criticism is discussed and debunked without resorting to online harassment, or the fabled ‘Flamewars’ of olde.

But should a detractor choose to engage with us directly? Then, as the saying goes, it’s on like Donkey Kong.

#helluva boss #vivziepop #stolitz #helluva boss meta #hellaverse #spindlehorse #fandom meta #rancid takes #blitzø #stolas #helluva boss millie

91 notes · View notes