#compare and contrast essays suck

[idkhowtomakethis]

Okay I've finally come to my conclusion, instead of writing about Victor or his creation or even Walton cause that's what everyone in that class will do

I'm gonna compare the roles of Elizabeth and Henry

I can make a paper out this

I can do this

I will not lose my mind

I can make a paper out of Elizabeth v. Henry

*the narrator over my life* they are in fact, not sure if they could make an entire paper comparing and contrasting Elizabeth and Henry, and yes, they are losing their mind

[aj-thegreatest]

Why Persephone and Minthe are (or could've been) Perfect Foils:

I’m starting this off with 3 things: 1) This’ll be less of an essay and more of a ramble, so apologies if this is messy! 2) I’m framing this as a “what if this was written in a non misogynistic way,” and less(?) based on canon. And 3) If an essay like this already exists…oops!

Ok. So we can all generally agree that Persephone and Minthe, as love rivals, function as foils for each other. Persephone is the sweet, young, and naive girl who doesn’t know what sex is. Minthe is the mature, sexy, and stone cold older woman who’s too sexually active. 

They both villainize and hurt each other, ignoring the man who’s actually perpetuating their suffering. The story makes it seem like they’re completely opposed characters, with Persephone being the “better” one. And to an extent, that’s true. 

But I think we could dive deeper! And away from Hades! Because he sucks!

If we compare Persephone and Minthe’s lives and how they view each other, you could make a strong case for them being foils. It’d honestly be brilliant if they reconciled in a meaningful way, BUT-

Let’s start with the basics: while Persephone grew up with an attentive mother, Minthe grew up largely ignored by hers. Persephone grew up around a supportive community, with most of her needs met. And while we only see a peek into Minthe’s childhood, it can be inferred those needs were not easily met. Minthe had to provide for herself, shown by her jobs before Underworld Corp. 

Meanwhile, a lot of Persephone’s opportunities were “handed” to her. Artemis offers to let Persephone stay with her. She gets inducted into TGOEM without any trouble. Demeter most likely is paying for her schooling. She gets placed in Underworld Corp, despite having no experience (and out of her control. Hera what the hell). And gets paid for her internship, something she gets because of her relationship with Hades.

Minthe has continually worked for everything. Persephone hasn’t worked for any of the stuff she gets. But she wants to! Persephone so badly wants to be independent. She dreams of living on her own, dressing the way she wants, being in a relationship. And who is the first being she sees that represents all of it for her?

Minthe is the physical manifestation of everything Persephone wants to be. It’s also why she dresses like her in later seasons. And Minthe is clearly jealous of Persephone. Is it because she’s flirting with Hades? To some extent, yes. But Minthe also feels Persephone is better than her. She’s the sweet goddess who everyone loves, especially Hades’ trusted allies (Hera, Hecate, etc). 

I think if they got to know each other, they’d be envious of what the other had. Minthe would love to have a mother like Demeter: someone who took care of her and gave her what she needed. She needs a support system and people to rely on. Not a toxic friend who prays on her downfall (Thetis what the hell). 

Persephone wants a mother who won’t hover over her. Control of her life, freedom, and the ability to be her true self. Wear whatever she wants. She doesn’t want to be the kind, sweet girl all the time. She wants to have sex! After marriage apparently because uh…yeah. 

A brief deviation: Even their aesthetics are contrasts. Persephone wears white and pink, while Minthe wears reds and blacks. Minthe’s clothes are revealing and conventionally sexy. Persephone’s are cute and conventionally girly. 

Both Minthe and Persephone are stuck in roles that feel inescapable. Which are enforced by Hades, the narrative, and the fandom (at the time). Something something Madonna Whore Complex.

In an ideal story, where they equally like all the women, Minthe and Persephone would’ve reconciled. Come to some understanding of the other and grow as a result. But…that doesn’t happen. 

Really, they just switch places. Minthe becomes accepted in the Mortal Realm. She gets all the support Persephone had. While Persephone gets all the glitz and glam Minthe supposedly had. It all works out! 

…I mean, not really but-

Like Minthe barely gets mentioned at the very end. Persephone spends most of it stressed, hated by her citizens. All the things Minthe feared at the start!

But then she gets her happy ending. Isn’t this great? The character who wanted independence from her mother and everyone, ends up stuck in a marriage without truly finding herself. And with kids we, the audience, don’t know if she wanted? 

All that matters is Hades wants kids. So Persephone needs to have them. Hades wants to break up with Minthe, so she gets planted and moves from his realm. Funny how everything works out for him, right? 

This doesn’t really have an ending. All I can say is, I wish Minthe and Persephone had a chance to stand on their own. And to talk to each other without a man getting in the way…

…which is why you should read my fanfic, PomengranMints-

[hererafjastori]

The movie Barbie in Princess and the Pauper is deeply misunderstood. In this essay I will…

No but like, seriously. I have come across too many people making fun of “I’m just like you” and fundamentally misunderstanding both the meaning of the song, and Annalise as a character, by acting like Annalise is a rich brat who doesn’t know to be grateful for what she has. So we are going to take an in-depth look at the song, Annalise, Erika, their situations and their character, and make a few things clear.

Let’s start with the above mentioned song, and the widespread opinion, that the girls and the movie act like there is no difference between Annelise living in constant luxury, and Erika suffering the life of an indentured servant. But what is happening has a lot more nuance.

First of: Annelise is not the instigator for this compare and contrast. Note how it’s Erika who starts comparing their lives, not Annelise, who reacts very perplexed. Annelise would have been fine with Erika never figuring out she was a princess, and only starts talking about the luxuries that being a princess grants her, after Erika prompts her. This is not Annalise bragging about her life, downplaying the privilege she enjoys or whining about how hard her situation is. This is her replying to Erikas enquire by both, acknowledging the vast difference there is between their lives, but also by underlining the ridiculousness that is such luxury. We can see later, in the movie, when Erika gets her breakfast, that there are no fucking minstrels. And Erika is totally on board with that, she even plays around with her, look at the way she interacts with the ‘omelet’ Analise presents her with. And later in the song, Erika acknowledges that the ‘married to a total stranger’ situation sucks.

But let’s take a look at the ways they recognize that they are the same. What are their similarities?

“I’m just like you, you’re just like me, there’s somewhere else we’d rather be. Somewhere that’s ours, somewhere that dreams come true, yes I am a girl like you. You’d never think, that it was so, but now I’ve met you and I know. […] ”

“I would never tell my mother. I wouldn’t wanna disappoint her.” “I completely understand.”

“[…]We take responsibility. We carry through, do what we need to do, yes I am a girl like you […] It’s something anyone can see. A heart that beats, a voice that speaks the truth”

So, what are their stated similarities:

They are in a situation they desperately want to escape. They see no option of realizing their dreams and fulfilling their desires or even have a perspective of leading a happy life.

Others lean, depend on and draw from their strength, so they have little to no opportunity of sharing that burden

They recognize that there is a reason they have these duties, and their conscience won’t allow them to even try and shirk said duties. They take up this responsibility that they never wanted, fully aware of the sacrifices that they will have to make.

Throughout it all, they make the active choice not to complain, to stay optimistic, to not loose hope and to carry their burden with dignity and integrity

Nobody disputes that they life very different lives. The first minute of their interaction makes that abundantly clear. Erika even sings “You’d never think that it was so”. Them coming from very different places was never up for debate. What they are comparing is the way they deal with it.

This willingness to endure under the pressure and expectations placed upon them without allowing to loose themselves, is the very core of both of these characters!

And we can see all of this throughout the movie, especially in ‘Free’.

[1] I don’t think I have to explain Erika. We see the direness of her situation in the way Mdm. Karp treats her the times she finds her singing, her threatening to use the excuse of interest to keep her prisoner for basically the rest of her life, the way she treats Annelise, thinking she is talking to Erika after she fled, the fact that she locks her seamstresses in often enough, that there is a routine in place to allow at least Wolfie an escape.

But Annalise is just as worked to the bone as Erika, if in a different way. Her day is planned through, down to the literal minute. Just listen to the start of Free. Her greatest wish is to have one day without work, because she hasn’t had that in living memory. And yes, most of it is studies and keeping up appearances, but in “to be a princess” we get an impression of how much thought and energy that takes. (“be charming, but detached and yet amused […] Never be confused”, “Never fall, don’t ever stray from protocol. All through the day, there’s just one way you must behave” “Never crack” “Never show a thing you feel inside. Glide.” “to be a princess is to never get to rest” “Never squirm […] Speak and be clever, never at a loss for words” “Never show dismay and be there when people call, be prepared whatever royal life may bring” “Never ever turn your back. There’s a time and place and way for everything”)

She has to be flawless, confident, and composed throughout the day without the  slightest hint of being imperfect. She has little to no privacy, she is constantly observed, perceived, judged by far more metrics than pretty much anyone else, and is she falls short of them and say, worsens relationships with another kingdom, makes a bad decision in ruling the kingdom, makes the kingdom appear weak in any way, her people will be the ones to pay the prize. And all that is without taking the marriage into consideration. She doesn’t know who Dominic is! We know that he is a great guy, but for all Annelise knows, he could be the kind of person Preminger reveals himself to be. Even if he is a decent guy, it would likely be a loveless marriage. That is a sacrifice (as we can see when her mother is forces into the very same position), especially if it means sacrificing her relationship with Julian, her childhood friend, who shares her interests, helps her through all that nonsense, and understands her better than anyone. On screen, he is the only person she truly opens up with, other than Serafina (who is a cat), and Erika (who she only met that day, and has little emotional investment in the whole thing). Erika and Dominic sing a whole duet about the importance of knowing each other in order to have a functioning relationship, and she has had that with Julian for years. They both (Julian is clearly just as devoted and self-sacrificing as she is) accept to let this unspoken thing between them slip through their fingers, with no hope of ever finding something comparable, and the prospect of drifting apart with time, all for the sake of the kingdom.

And in terms of hope for the future, Annelise is just as bad of, if not worse than Erika. Erika has been working continuously to escape her situation, and never given up hope (“My determination’s strong. People will gather around the world to hear my song! Soon I will forever be free). And in the meantime, she has found small ways to fight back against Mdm. Karp (She can never stop my schemes). How realistic it is to ever pay off Mdm. Karp is a different matter, but she still has a fighting spirit. Annelise meets Erika, while in the process of making peace with the fact, that this was it for her, and there will be no coming back from this (“Now I fear I’ll never be Free” “I’m savoring a first and last taste of freedom”).

[2] In terms of hope and determination, Erika is doing the emotional heavy lifting for both herself, and the other seamstress. And Annelise is putting up a strong façade for even her mother, because in the face of the lack of options, she doesn’t want to burden her mother with the knowledge that she is damning her daughter to an unhappy life.

[3] I already explained Annelise’s situation in detail. Because she was born in royalty, she is tasked with a lot of responsibility, and even though she had no choice in the matter, she still accepts her cross to bear, and does so silently knowing the great personal cost she’ll have to pay. For Erika, they kind of fumbled the ball with the duties she chooses to accept, seeing as pretty much the sole person to suffer from her just, running away and ignorin her 'duties' would be her active abuser. Even if she has yet to pay back all the money her parents borrowed from Mdm. Karp (something she had no say or choice in), she has more than done her time in emotional suffering, and saying that staying in this toxic environment is her duty is not a message I agree with. But in-universe she explicitly states such convictions, so any and all points on the matter of her dutiful behavior still stand. One might be able to twist her duty to be to not leave the other seamstress to suffer alone, but that has no textual evidence. But we see this willingness to sacrifice for the sake of duty and responsibility most strongly, when she agrees to help Julian out and take Annelise’s place. There are two ways this could play out: she get’s away with it, or she doesn’t. We see both, her options are being thrown into the royal dungeon for treason, or being locked away by Mdm. Karp for running away, and knowing those where her prospects, she still chose to do this for the sake of both Annelise and the kingdom.

[4] Just, listen to free, watch the movie. These two girls prove their inner strength and endurance time and time again. They always keep going, searching for solution after solution, no matter what obstacles lie in their way (Being sent away at the palace gates, escaping Mdm. Karp, escaping the mines, escaping the dungeon, etc.). Their drive, determination, endurance and unbendable spirit are admirable.

“I close my eyes, and feel myself fly a thousand miles away. I could take flight, but would it be right, my conscience tells me stay. I’ll remain forever royal. I’ll repay my parents debt. Duty means doing the things your heart may well regret. But I’ll never stop believing/ she can never stop my schemes. There’s more to living than gloves and gowns and thread and seams, in my dreams, I’ll be free”

This is the end of free, the core of them, and the thing they recognize in each other, and I will no longer allow any slander against either them!

[forestlovesyou]

Saw some opinions on Ryukishi's art style that I don't agree with so now i'm gonna share mine ahahahah

So there was this guy who went around calling others dumb and blind(? not exact words but that was the point) for preferring the og art style and how their views are tinted by the lenses of nostalgia

To be fair I wasn't in the WTC fandom long enough for that to apply to me but I think I still prefer Ryukishi's art style and let me tell you why: While Ryukishi's art style is a bit silly, we can even say goofy, I love it because it has a unique and sort of cutesy look to it, which in my opinion contrasts the stories well.

The characters' faces are very expressive even if they are cartoony or simpler than your usual "masterpiece" and here compared to the steam sprite, you can see that it has a distinguishable silouette with outstanding shapes which is eye candy to me.

I'm not saying every other style sucks because that's just not true, I actually like every artstyle other than the steam ones because they just look very.... doll like to me. It's not a bad style but it gives me an odd feeling and I can't really see the soul, personality and vigour in them which Ryukishi's artstyle has, so I was glad that even after modding my game I could still choose to use the old sprites (unlike in Umineko but I didn't mind that because I absoutely adore its console sprites)

Tbh I don't really know how to close this or how to write a conclusion about it, this is just my opinion and art is subjective so everyone is entitled to have their own opinions, I just found it a bit off putting to hear that I was some tasteless dumbass for having my own opinion, although now I'm glad because I get to write mini opinion essays out of spite lmao. Anyways for those who read this: Which are your favorite artstyles for the WTC games?

[stackslip]

Always embarrassing to like smth people are saying sucks (and scary in case you watch it and end up agreeing with them) so that's why I'm on anon but I strongly disagree with the people saying Code Geass is fun but not good (paraphrased badly). It IS a fantastic show actually. Here's my very long essay about why you should watch it.

I got my brother interested in rgu by comparing it to Code Geass bc it's his favorite show. You'll be disappointed if you're expecting them to be actually similar, bc they're not really, but they have a similar tone in that it switches rapidly between Serious Plot and Touga Punches a Kangaroo. There's an episode where they have to chase a cat and that's what they do that day. The plot isn't all that similar and the comedy isn't all that similar but it's similarly inconsistent in swapping between the two. And I would argue that it doing this is thematically relevant, bc it's a double life show. Lelouch has his alter ego as Zero and when he's Zero everything feels different to when he's Lelouch. School life is just stupid in comparison, and he's constantly frustrated by it. His school life is pretty much just a humiliating liability, but he can't easily abandon it, so he just has to live with the fact that in between fighting in giant robots he has go to pizza parties (sponsored by Pizza Hut tee em) and whoops! It's Valentine's Day so everyone in the school has to wear heart hats and if a girl knocks off his hat they get to kiss him!!! And he's forced to take that seriously even though he knows how dumb it is and would much rather be commanding robots.

Now look. I do have to warn you. There is a part where he says if he wins the revolution he's gonna make the United States of Japan. That part isn't good. I want you to know I know that part is bad. The politics of this show are Not Always Great. HOWEVER. When I was watching, the main thing that compelled me politically about it was the contrast between Suzaku as the person who wants to Change Things From the Inside vs Lelouch who wants to actually just shoot the people who are oppressing you. Suzaku sucks and the show knows it and I like the show knowing it.

I'm not gonna argue this is a show with generally good politics, but it's not a show that actually cares a whole lot about, like, how a country should be run. The bad guys say fascist shit about like the strong ruling over the weak and the natural order, and they're racist against Japanese people, and the good guys want. I dunno, Freedom. Democracy. United States of Japan. They're bad guys and good guys. That's not what the show is about. The show is about the specific motivations of our important characters. Lelouch talks about wanting Japan to be free or whatever but he makes it very clear from the beginning that the Only thing he Actually cares about is creating a world where his little sister can be happy. And later on you find out what the evil emperor guy is trying to do too (although it's kinda more abstract and weird. Arguably another point of comparison between this and rgu, when it cares more about themes than about telling you What's Actually Happening). I guess I shouldn't act like the political positions of the two sides are irrelevant, but I really don't think it's the focus. Lelouch's politics are My Sister and secondarily I suppose Free Japan if I have time. Suzaku's politics are Free Japan but also you have to be niceys to the government and do what they say bc they're in charge :). The freedom fighters' politics are Free Japan. The Brittanian's politics are We Do What We Want. It's not gonna be a realistic depiction of a good revolution bc the writers didn't know anything about those.

And here I suppose I have to say that I last watched it probably years ago when my politics were worse, so maybe the politics are generally worse than I remember. But my point is you should treat the specific politics stuff like you treat the chess stuff. No one in the writers' room knew how to play chess. They probably didn't bother to watch someone play chess before writing it. When Lelouch says you should move your king first bc "how can a king expect his subjects to lead if he stays back and does nothing" laugh at it and take it as a thematic statement about Lelouch's beliefs. When he says United States of Japan laugh at it and. Well I suppose that one isn't even thematic. You see what I mean though.

Another warning is that there's a specific Very Important plot point that doesn't really make sense and feels really dumb and cheap. That specific thing genuinely does undermine a lot of the show, because it happens kinda suddenly and is very serious and the whole rest of the show is majorly impacted by it and it's very difficult to ignore that that Doesn't Make Sense At All. And you're supposed to be really upset and like. It just doesn't make sense. The second time I watched it it didn't feel as egregious as the first time but the first time I think I almost stopped watching. My advice is to do your best to pretend it makes sense bc I think the results of that thing are actually interesting.

Generally, I think that's the important thing to remember actually. Maybe that's my thesis. Of the essay. Yeah, that sounds smart. Code Geass is a show that doesn't always make total sense, and even when it mostly makes sense it's frequently Really Dumb, so like I can see why people might come away with the impression that it's just a silly nothing show where robots fight and he says United States of Japan. But genuinely I think there's a lot to get from it thematically if you can take it just seriously enough to see what it's trying to do.

There's more I kinda wanna say but I think I need to text my mom back and I can't save asks as drafts. Um um last two points, first, how much you like the show probably depends at least a little on your tolerance for Anime Geniuses knowing everything and pulling bullshit, I don't think Lelouch is as bad in that department as Light Yagami but smth to consider. And second don't watch the movies. The movies suck.

honestly anon i'm genuinely charmed by your sheer passion for this. it feels like it's mirroring me when i defend my fave flawed media including me with fma 03 tbh. like YES it sucks the politics suck but IT IS compelling. that's the kind of shit i enjoy most, ngl. you've made your case convincingly. i think what i really hate is when people claim something is The Most Perfect Thing Ever and then you watch it and it's dogshit in a number of ways that people absolutely refuse to acknowledge and definitely some code geass fans are Like That but also your talking about it kinda echoes how some friends i trust have been talking about it too. i think i'm still gonna go in with low expectations if/when i do watch it, mostly bc that allows me to be pleasantly surprised by something the series DOES do well.

also i grew up on 2000s shounen and seinen. my tolerance for anime bullshit is extremely high as long as i'm into what it's doing thematically or character wise tbh

[saturdaynightspecialpresentation]

I've finished the main story of Fallout 3 (But not Broken Steel) and it's bad, but in a way that I find extremely confusing and just need to talk about.

Giant essay (And some spoilers) under the cut.

First of all, I feel like the received wisdom is that the east coast games are the bad ones and the west coast games are the good ones, which is true but it means that people really exaggerate the flaws of the east coast games while minimizing and excusing those of the west coast games.

Like, in the HBomberguy video on Fallout 3 he spends a lot of time on how much the intro of Fallout 3 sucks but like...

I'm sorry, compared to Fallout 1 and Fallout 2?

Fallout 2, which has one of the most obnoxious, hated, and ill-conceived tutorials on video game history?

There's a sort of refusal to meet Fallout 3 even halfway in that video, but if we approach Fallout 1 and 2 with the same attitude, *they also look really bad*.

Fallout 1 doesn't really have a tutorial, but it does have a cave full of rats.

I think it took me until my second or even third playthrough of Fallout 1 to realize that you could actually go into Vault 13 and talk to people inside. The game does not give you, the player, any reason to be attached to Vault 13, to the point that I literally did not even think of it as a location in the game.

You're getting the water chip because that's the plot of the game, not because you have a sense of Vault 13 as a concrete place.

The Temple of Trials in Fallout 2 is just a mess, yeah there's like one dude you can get past with a speech check, great, but I hope your weedy speech and guns character likes killing giant ants with a spear that you don't know how to use.

And of course, within the reality of the game it's utter fucking nonsense, that this village on the verge of collapse also built this enormous stone temple full of traps and puzzles and mechanisms just to train people how to leave the village.

It's one of the most egregiously terrible tutorial levels in RPG history.

Meanwhile, the intro to Fallout 3 shows you what it's like to grow up in the vault; you meet actual characters, you get a sense of both the ways that your character is safe and pampered, but also that she's trapped with these people, not all of whom are likeable or even necessarily entirely safe to be around.

Then, her comfortable life is suddenly exploded, she can't rely on the vault and has to make a daring escape, and it ends with an expansive vista acting as a contrast to the narrow corridors of the vault, as a world of possibility and danger opens up before you.

Look, maybe it needs to be edited down to be shorter, rewritten a bit, but conceptually this is a much better, more immersive way to do a tutorial than either of the first two games.

Unlike 1, I spent most of the beginning of Fallout 3 thinking about when I'd have enough footing to go back to my former home and confront the Overseer, and then when I did it turned out I was ridiculously overpowered, which was thematically actually really great! It felt like my character had grown bigger from her experience than even she realized and steamrolling these absurd, small vault people really brought that home in a satisfying way.

Compare to Fallout 1 and 2, where the home your character grew up in is just kind of a meaningless macguffin.

I don't want to paper over the major flaws of the tutorial or of Vault 101 in general; there's some major, even crippling flaws in execution.

But even with those it's still the best intro out of the three games.

My point is more, because Fallout 2 is a generally better game than 3, people sort of excuse major flaws in 2, while ignoring the things that actually work and make good sense in 3.

Which brings me to my main point:

What the hell happened to the writing process in Fallout 3?

Yes, it's bad, but it's bad in the way of like... a cake that got taken out of the oven ten minutes earlier than it should have.

The fact that it's just the story of Fallout 1 and the story of Fallout 2 at the same time is an issue, but more of the same, particularly after a long hiatus between games, is not the worst sin in the world.

The real question I have is why does it feel so unfinished? It's like the sketch of a plot that they were going to finish later.

Like, here's a small example:

President Eden never explains why he wants to use the FEV to kill everyone off.

Here:

"I know this solution may seem extreme to you, but the truth is, we are losing to the super mutants. There are more of them every day, while we are losing soldiers to attrition, to desertion, even, I am afraid to say, despair.

"Morale is low, you've already seen that Colonel Autumn is actively countermanding my orders; unless something drastic is done I truly feel America will be no more.

"This is not a decision I make lightly; Yes, there will be some collateral damage, but such is the nature of war, and I will not fail to act while there is still a way to save America.

"This is the burden I must bear as your President."

Done. Easy.

So incredibly easy that I genuinely don't understand why a line like that isn't in there.

And it's really easy to imagine Colonel Autumn's objections, too, but those also aren't spelled out.

Like, what if Colonel Autumn truly wants to use the Purifier as a water purifier but because of his jingoism he just feels that anybody else taking command is a risk to US security, and that violence is the only language that wastelanders understand.

Maybe President Eden even tries to negotiate with your dad on peaceful terms, but Autumn just tries to use force and the situation escalates and your dad still dies.

And then later you find out that Eden is planning to kill off 90% of the wasteland and as Autumn has realized that he's trying to stop it, and you have to deal with the fact that Colonel Autumn is both a cold-blooded killer and actually trying to help people.

Like, I am barely moving any of the pieces around. The bones of this story are already here.

And that's a really bizarre thing about playing this game: at all times it's really clear how you would use the exact same characters and plot elements to tell essentially exactly the same story in a much better way than it is actually told in the game.

There are a ton of cases where characters don't really explain their motivations even though, like, 15 seconds of thought let's you come up with a perfectly plausible motivation which could be expressed in a couple of lines of dialogue.

It's just kind of baffling. This is not an ill-conceived game, although all of the ambition is in building the 3d world, and the story is just... weirdly neglected.

Just retelling the first two games again is an unambitious choice but... there's already an extremely clear roadmap of how to tell those stories in a satisfying way, so it's really perplexing to me that they don't really manage it.

I'm curious what happened with the writing process here, it's bizarre.

[mikmiho]

Uhh hihi tumblr, this is a an essay on David chiem’s personality, I hope you enjoy. (Please keep in mind that I haven’t watched drdt in a while so there may be some mistakes idk though) anyway^^^^

Ever since episode 11, I’ve been thinking about David and his personality. He begins as an optimistic and friendly person, in episode 11 it then turns out that David was really manipulative and lying throughout the series, being a cold-hearted, pessimistic liar. But this ‘true’ david, I believe that is a lie.

David has always seemed suspicious ever since the beginning of drdt because of his sudden changes in behaviour only see for a few seconds before reverting back to normal.This can also make us conclude that the majority of his actions were made because of his ulterior motives, occasionally getting tired of pretending to be such a nice person. But most people would probably just tell me that I’m reality he was always a bad person as he bad mouthed arei even before he received suspicious during the second trial but beforehand the single time ( at least of what I remember) he broke character was in the prologue saying ‘Ugh, am I done with these dumb introductions already?This really sucks. Damn, why’d I even come to this ridiculous school? I hate talking to people anyway…I wish I were in bed…’ These lines were said whilst forgetting Teruko was present, being the most accurate example of his personality prior to chapter 2. You may think this sounds quite similar to how David is currently but I disagree. He speaks here without swearing, despite how visually annoyed he appears contrasting to when he had been in episode 11. In my opinion, I interpreted these lines as David still being a (manipulative) liar but only doing that on the outside as it’s what’s expected of him, getting irritated that due to his popularity he can’t act with sincerity. I base this theory (?) mostly off of this artwork.

David in the art is seen as happy being praised by an adult or an inportant figure in his life. I regularly believe that praise was something David enjoyed receiving as a child repairing in his wanting to act a certain way to be someone that could be admired.This would have eventually spiralled out of control to the point whereas all David ever said were lies to make people happier.

This is why I believe that David’s personality is not what he had shown in episode 11.

Now I must cover the topic of why he had acted differently during the trial.

Well, despite how I’m covering his personality shown in the second trial, i need to talk i about another scene first, David and arei’s (+ teruko, she doesn’t say anything) scene in the playground (ep 5 of chapter2).

This scene is what I believe is the second (still not sure if he broke character between chapter 1 and 2 so I’m still not sure whether I’m right but) scene where he breaks character, this time being much more subtle.The scene I’m referring to begins after arei breaks down in-front of David (+teruko), being calmed down by David afterwards, ( what David said ,I don’t currently have an opinion on whether he meant it or not as it probably was he default reaction to this sort of scene) David is then surprised by arei hugging David back and possibly also her line,‘You’re nice too’. I believe that his reaction is his real self in the scene, this is something I believe because David is bashful, sweating (slightly) and even stutter which had never (probably) happened to David before in drdt.His reaction tells us that it was something not part of his ‘calculation’, making his very bashful, not getting to react as he would in any other circumstances.

Now, when comparing the behaviour i had talked about previously to David (post reveal), David swears very frequently in speech, he is cocky, he is easily irritated and casually lies; this being the complete opposite of how we all know David. David even acts in a way which makes him seem much more different from the prologue David which was irritated and tired and would be much more likely to swear in those circumstances.

This may be me jumping to conclusions but I believe that the prologue David is the real David whilst the other two versions are personas made to create an image of himself. The prologue David is someone that is tired of putting up with being such a optimistic person and just wants to act casually, letting his guard down once it’s slightly quieter, implying that even within those circumstances that may have been calmer that his average day. And Optimistic David was someone that seemed both perfect and normal all at once, being someone that was truely perfect, being relatable and a figure of inspiration. Finally there is our ‘true’ David which is cocky, rude, manipulative and an liar.

This ‘true’ version of David revealed in episode 11 can be explained simply by being an extreme type of prologue David, one that patronises, looks down on and makes fun of everyone regardless of who they once were to him, David continually pushes this cocky personality with a foul mouth so much to the point whereas it just seems he’s doing this just to push this agenda of how awful of a person he is.So much so that I can say with certainty that this ‘real’ David is a lie.

Some wouldn’t believe me after than, well I haven’t provided any evidence to back up my theory, well I’ll be analysing the moment whereas David ‘admits to killing arei’. During the chain of events leading to this ‘reveal’, there’s an evident change in his mind, that changing from being defensive to admitting his ‘crimes’, having to refer back to his speech about min ensuring that everyone is keeping in mind that this David is the ‘real’ one.Although this act does break briefly once he ‘admits’ that he killed arei. It’s easily notable that David appears to be in lots of pain saying ‘I killed arei’ even stuttering beforehand. His sprite is covered in sweat,squinting his eyes even having to grab onto his opposite arm for support.Evidently he’s suffering greatly from saying this, only ‘confessing’ this to keep up with the character he’s attempting to portray.

His story also changes consistently throughout the trial to match the current conversation topic, I we can assume that david’s beginning to lose hope in his lie and began spouting out downgrading statements and claims just to act as someone who’s confident with the current situation despite his real mental state.

Of course even after everything there’s a reason why David began to portray this fake version of himself during the trial rather than revealing the truth. The only possibility currently is guilt. The guilt of having someone’s blood on his hands, not just one person but two. Naturally you would say that David was not the cause of either of Xander and Arei’s deaths but in David’s eyes, he would believe otherwise. In chapter 1 episode 5 David was present whilst Teruko and Xander discussed meeting in the computer room and yet did nothing and then in chapter 2, David was one of the last people to see Arei alive aside from her killer. All of this guilt could have pushed him to a point whereas he feels that he must atone for his crimes by becoming this awful person we know David as now. Maybe even continuing this act so much to the point whereas he wants to be executed for his ‘crimes’. An illogical route leaving everyone aside from the killer dying just because he can’t stand still living with ‘his actions’ never backing down because david just can’t carry this burden any longer. The burden of Xander, Arei and all of the people he’s ever lied to and manipulated, all just too much for David.

[2hoothoots]

First of all, congrats on destroying the BIG TOP! So to speak. (I'd ask if you could give it to me but they haven't invented that technology yet). Secondly, since you asked for Asks, what got you so into Norma as a character? I wanna compare and contrast. :V

hahaha THANK YOU! some day modern medicine will unlock the secret to equivalent exchange… some day

anyway, great ask because i Always have stuff to say about Norma. putting it under the cut for length (although to be fair, if you don’t want to see lengthy impassioned essays about Norma i’m not really sure why you’re following me in the first place)

first of all: i unapologetically like women who kinda suck. listen, okay, listen, i absolutely understand that the line between “fun to dislike” and “just obnoxious” is different for everyone but Norma falls entirely on the fun side for me. from her very first appearance, she’s so unnecessarily petty and snarky and competitive with this ten-year-old she literally just met, and i can’t lie i just find it incredibly entertaining. and also, y’know, i think she sucks but in a way that’s ultimately harmless and also so believable. she’s not a terrible person, she’s just a shitty teenager. i’m a Norma apologist, not in the “she did nothing wrong <3” way but the “yeah she’s mean but that’s what’s interesting about her” way. give me more female characters who are complicated and unlikable and make bad decisions!

secondly: she’s a shitty obnoxious know-it-all teenager, and boy, do i relate! maybe part of this is filling in the gaps and part of it is projection, but i look at her and i see someone with the compulsive need to “win” every conversation and prove they’re the smartest person in the room; someone who clings to their model student status because deep down they’re afraid it’s the only worthwhile trait they have, the single thing that makes them anything more than a useless waste of space with no friends and no redeeming qualities. characters who are jerks or bullies are really interesting to dive into for me, because there’s always something underneath that. Norma’s combination of annoying pretentiousness and deep insecurity is really compelling to me, and a lot of it is because i see my younger self in her. i feel like i really grok her as a character, and because of that i find her interesting to explore and write for!

thirdly, the big thing that drew me to her the same as it did the other interns was, ironically, their lack of screentime. PN2 has one too many ensemble casts, and individual development for some of the characters feels rushed, and i am first in line saying i wish we’d gotten more intern content. but what we did get was just enough to pull me in and hook me on the characters. the game left me wanting more, and honestly that’s what drove me to write so much fic of the intern cast in the first few months after release. they were so charming and felt so underutilised and i was desperate for more from them – and at the same time, because they had fairly little screentime they made a great starting point to develop further with headcanons and filling in the blanks and just turning them over in my head and imagining what could have been. what really gets my creative juices flowing is taking something from canon and building on it with my own stuff (which is also why i’ve gotten so invested in the future AU!), and the interns all have such strong concepts and starting points while also giving a lot of freedom to develop them and flex my own creative muscles.

like, i was thinking about why i never really got into the psychic 7 in the same way, and i think it does just come down to them being more fleshed-out characters in comparison. which feels so funny to say, haha – i love the old people’s club, they’re great, but i never latched onto them like i did the interns, and i think it’s because they don’t have the same fill-in-the-blanks potential. we get to learn about their backstories in pretty great detail, we get to explore 6/7 of their minds, and they all feel very succinctly developed but in a way that ties a bow pretty neatly on most of their characters. we learn so much less about any of the interns in comparison, but those unanswered questions just end up tickling my creative brain that much more. there’s a theory that people engage in transformative fanwork to give them the kind of engagement they didn’t get from the canon, and i think that’s definitely true here! maybe there’s an alternative universe out there where we got way more intern content and i never ended up writing any fics with them in, hahaha

[coprolite-posting]

Thinking about that one "how the US would do a kaiju" post and. I feel like NOPE might count? Like, I've seen at least @/bogleech compare it to the genre, and i can see the similarities- Jean Jacket is a critter, decently big, and brings ruin- while generally existing as an allegory in such (but still being, textually, A Creature)*. But I'd feel gravely remiss not to specify it's specifically a "Black (US)American kaiju" rather than a "general (US)American" one, out of respect for the creator(s) and also just. The film itself. You could maybe do an essay- or at least a short diatribe- about comparing/contrasting the scale of the film's events with more common genre standards and come up with some statement about how if atrocities befall a sufficiently minority (or directly marginalized) subset of the population, structures of power don't tend to like. Care. But I'm probably not going to write it because I'm white, kind of stupid, and- most crucially- don't have any sources on hand beyond "just watch the movie haha." Also? I'm sure something along those lines has already been written somewhere, come on.

One thing maybe-original I can say about NOPE is that a lot of people seem to assume Jean Jacket is an Actual Alien, or at least describe it as such, when I don't remember that ever being confirmed one way or another in the film? I guess it could've come from a director interview or something somewhere. Personally, if that isn't the case, it seems weird to insist on such a thing, when a) a lot of the latter half of the movie is dedicated to subverting and deconstructing the tropey "UFO alien spaceship" buildup, and b) there are plenty of terrestrial animals that have some similarity to the creature design, if not we're direct inspirations; guys like jellyfish and sea angles and maybe even rays if you Absolutely Need a vertebrate example for some reason. Despite living in a pretty dry biome in the film, Jean Jacket is pretty "marine animal"-coded to me. Besides waiting for something to drift into your mouth, sucking shit up is just kind of the default eating strategy down there! I know for a fact there was intent to portray the species as having existed "alongside" humans for a very long time**; I don't think a terrestrial origin is particularly outlandish, especially considering a creature that a) seems to lack or almost lack hard parts, and b) disintegrates upon death (more or less, from what I recall), wouldn't fossilize well.

*I should specify that the discussion is more around the "Godzilla represents nuclear warfare"-type filmography than the "giant monsters are really cool" concept. Anyone can do the latter, and probably already has. Hollywood has Pacific Rim, which I guess with the aliens at the end, you could say something about fears of colonization befalling the imperial core in a sort of role-reversal scenario, but you can say that about a lot of Hollywood sci-fi and adjacent cinema. Maybe even most of it, to be honest. (...I haven't watched the second one, and I've heard it isn't as good.)

**I think the design/behavior and worldbuilding/character reactions imply this well enough on their own, but I believe there was also a snippet of an interview somewhere that mentioned something along those lines. Not necessarily part of the work itself, I suppose, but outside context can enrich interpretation.

[hunrising]

https://www.twincities.com/2024/07/07/concert-review-niall-horan-seems-like-a-nice-enough-guy-but-hes-no-harry-styles/ I was just looking for something and I came across this and this is so mean wtf i understand that as ex band members and Harry’s fame the comparison will come up but this just feels so mean spirited like what (click on reader view if you can’t access the article)

LMAO we discussed that in gc yesterday and 💀 this guy just wanted to hate for the sake of hating. “He’s no harry styles” well yeah cause he’s niall horan 😭😭 He could have just said that the show fucking sucked if he didn’t like it, at least it would have been a proper review, not a compare and contrast essay help

[idkhowtomakethis]

Welcome to

✨ Reasons my English teacher shouldn't be an English teacher ✨

1. We don't actually read, she either puts the movie of the book we're reading on or we listen to the audiobook in class

Nothing against audiobooks, but some forms of literature just have to be annotated.

2. We spent almost an entire quarter covering the War of the Roses and the Tutor dynasty before we started Macbeth and Hamlet and then she didn't even give a test on Macbeth, it was mostly over the War of the Roses and the Tutor dynasty with a small section dedicated to Macbeth. The final was a Hamlet test (which we did not read we watched a movie)

Bonus: I've already read, analyzed, and written several essays on Hamlet. I've read and had discussions over Macbeth.

3. She's an incredibly biased grader even if she tries to deny it

Case and point: I took a college level English class last year, but due to scheduling conflicts I had to take the standard class this year.

My previous teacher heavily praised my writing and GAVE ME AN AWARD FOR SAID WRITING

The first essay of the year -an opinionative, loosely formatted essay by her request- she slapped a singular question mark in the middle of my introduction and gave me an 80 for "getting lost in the rhetoric"

The basketball player who can barely write his name got an A.

Y'all I was livid.

4. She "encourages discussion" ...she pushes our discussion to what she wants and tries to shape the class's opinion based on her interpretation.

As with Frankenstein: in all our discussions we never speak about how the creature was responsible for his actions and any time I try to talk about how while Victor sucked it's not necessarily his fault the creature decided to become a murderer

I've been shut down several times

"I'm pLaYiNg DEviL's adVoCaTe 😜"

I call ✨bullshit✨

5. On multiple occasions she has assigned a writing assignment only to back track and size down the assignment to like a paragraph

6. For our final on Frankenstein she asked to write a compare and contrast essay despite providing us with discussion questions that are not only unrelated to this new prompt but are objectively better and more interesting questions that will force everyone to gain a deeper understanding of the text

But no, instead we're comparing God and Victor because why not (Christian school).

7. We've actually only gone over four books. Two of which were plays one of which was a poem.

We've gone over one book. We have a month of school left. The course calls for three more titles.

8. We've only had....three (?) major writing assignments. Only one of which was an actual essay.

9. Her tests cover the most unnecessary and irrelevant details and usually she doesn't ask questions about over arching narratives

10. She never addresses literary devices the closest she's gotten is asking about the structure of Alexander Pope's Essay on Man or by addressing the weather in Frankenstein

These are just off the top of my head but I'm sure there are and will be more

[haratdzul]

Travel Essay: Juxtaposition Turns Vivid

TL;DR: Maybrat is good, authority sucks.

My plane landed in Sorong at seven. The air outside was warm. I was sitting in front of the arrival gate, gazing at a row of old silver Avanza cars with yellow plates, when a kind-of-chunky, long-haired man with glasses called out to me. Hanging across his chest was a Papuan noken, and in one hand he carried nasi kuning for my breakfast. He was one of the Pengajar Muda who had come to pick me up at the airport.

We chatted for a few minutes. Then a few more, probably about the length that equals of an episode of Bocor Alus Politik Tempo, until the pickup vehicle finally arrived. We drove eastward, toward Maybrat.

It took about four hours to drive from Sorong to Maybrat. This wasn’t my first time in Papua. The trip reminded me of the road to Pegunungan Arfak, although the road conditions were, of course, vastly different. Maybrat, which is traversed by the trans Papua road, a.k.a "Jokowi road", has much better infrastructure. Perhaps it's because it's still relatively close to Sorong. But aside from the physical facilities, which were fairly decent, during the three weeks I spent there, I witnessed a human development disparity that made Maybrat stand out even more starkly.

While I was there, I became curious about the regency’s expenditure. I discovered that its annual budget (APBD) was around 1 trillion rupiah, for a region with a population of about 46,000 people. Just simple math, that would mean a per capita allocation of roughly 22 million rupiah per year. Of course, the reality is far more complex, with many competing budget priorities. Still, that average figure is relatively high compared to other regencies in Indonesia. My question after processing that information was: just how effective has it been?

The answer, I began to realize, lies in the contrast between what is physically visible and what remains systematically lacking. The roads were fine, the electricity stable for almost 24 hours, and for now, most schools had adequate internet access (thanks to Starlink). But the human side of development told a different story. In some public schools I visited or learned about, students hadn't had a full week of teachers in weeks, or even months. I also met many children who could operate smartphones well, navigating menus and accessing social media. Yet, they couldn’t actually read the words; they were simply memorizing icons and patterns. All of these phenomena actually not unique for me, since I also had similar findings during my time in other regencies in West Papua.

This reminded me of Amartya Sen’s Capability Approach. Sen argues that true development should be measured not just by economic growth or infrastructure, but by the real freedoms people have to live the kinds of lives they value. In Maybrat, the physical infrastructure might suggest progress, but when children lack quality teachers and consistent learning, their capabilities remain stunted. A paved road cannot replace a competent science teacher. Electricity means little if it doesn’t power knowledge, does it?

On paper, things looked promising. The large budget was there. The facilities were there. But the translation from numbers to impact was, somehow, broken. The capability to be educated and to break the cycle of poverty remained uncertain.

This is not to say nothing works in Maybrat. I listened closely to the Pengajar Muda’s reflections. I saw passionate teachers still trying their best. There are people who put in their best efforts to pave the future of Maybrat’s children to be as smooth as its asphalt road to Kumurkek. But what’s troubling is the inconsistency, made even more ironic by every scene of stark juxtaposition in reality.

My time in Maybrat made one thing clear: juxtaposition is not merely visual. It is visceral. It is felt most deeply in a child's stalled education, in a teacher shortages, or in a budget’s unfulfilled promise. As Sen might say, it is the absence of individual capability, not just the presence of material goods, that defines underdevelopment.

May 25th, 2025.

[rock-and-compass]

Precursor - I wrote about the fifth season of Angel many years ago - probably around the time that the season 8 comics were first being published. I originally published these meta essays over on LiveJournal and I've decided to re-post them (as written), mostly for archival reasons. I love season 5 of Angel. It's such a shame it got axed before it could get the envisioned 6th and 7th series

Episode 5.6 – The Cautionary Tale of Numero Cinco 

Written by Jeffrey Bell

A cautionary tale is usually a moral story designed to warn the listener of danger. They are intended to advise everyone who hears that unwise choices or behaviours will ultimately result in unhappy endings. In this episode we hear the cautionary tale of a former hero, a champion from a different era, whose time has passed, whose contemporaries have long since departed for Valhalla or whatever heroic afterlife awaits a quartet of Mexican crusaders against evil. The cautionary tale told in this episode is told for Angel. It is designed to make him question who he is and ask; what is a hero? What is a champion?  And can he still be one while he works for Wolfram and Hart?

The episode opens with a death. An anonymous security guard at an anonymous warehouse is attacked by an unseen foe. It sounds fairly brutal.

At the offices of Wolfram and Hart we follow the mailroom clerk on his daily rounds. He’s a portly chap who shuffles along slowly behind his mail cart, made distinguishable only by the mask he wears; a red, white and blue wrestling mask that sports the number ‘5’. No one seems to even notice him. 

In his office, Angel’s busy signing documents for Gunn; signing them in blood with a fancy pen, his own blood. With each signature a smidgen of his life force is lost forever, lost to Wolfram and Hart as they literally suck the life out of him. Gunn is enthusiastic about what they are doing and what they’re achieving with the company:

Gunn: As C.E.O. and president of Wolfram & Hart, you just bankrupted a company that dumps raw demon waste into Santa Monica bay, banished a clan of pyro warlocks into a hell dimension, and started a foster care program for kids whose parents have been killed by vampires.  Not bad for a day's pay. 

Angel: Yeah. Great

Angel’s not so much with the enthusiasm. This is not the way he does business, this is not the way he helps the helpless, even though it’s effective, even though this way is more efficient than helping one person at a time. The difference is that Angel doesn’t find it as personally satisfying. It just doesn’t feel right, not really ‘heroic’. It is, at the end of the day, just a job. Angel admits he feel ‘disconnected’ from everything and everyone around him.  He lacks passion and will to do the job – it's not who he is despite all the benefits.

Spike finds it hard to believe that Angel, who seems to have everything compared to his nothing, is actually despondent about his lot in life. Angel should try being a ghost, he thinks and then he’ll know what it’s like to be really disconnected. Spike doesn’t understand why Angel feels this way; he assumes the perks are part of the attraction for being a big cog in the Wolfram and Hart machine. He doesn’t know about Cordelia and Connor and how their absence from Angel’s life is the real cause of his disconnectedness. It must be stated that it is a little strange to see Spike so patently jealous of all the things Angel has acquired in the Wolfram and Hart deal when we know from “Fool for Love” that the upper-class William deliberately spurned such materialism once he became a vampire, a complete contrast to the luxury loving Angelus. Spike was always content with rudimentary accommodation; a dingy factory, (though Drusilla was provided with a nice bedroom) a dusty, cobwebbed crypt (that, admittedly got nicer the more Buffy visited), the school basement, Buffy’s basement. And now suddenly he’s envious of Angel’s accumulations? But perhaps it’s not so much the things but the fact that they are Angel’s things.  Even though he doesn’t aspire to have these possessions himself, envy is created merely out of who has them. To read Spike as actually wanting all the effects that Angel has is to misunderstand the character.

Wesley arrives with news of three brutal murders. All the victims had their hearts cut out of their bodies, all the deaths have occurred within hours of each other.  Wes suspects it’s demonic in nature and therefore falls into their line of inquiry. The masked mailman also seems interested in the news. As he leaves the office pushing his cart Angel tries to give him a letter. Inexplicably, the mail clerk attacks and flings Angel through a plate glass window before continuing on his way. As he lies amongst the debris and shattered glass Angel announces to all and sundry that really hates this place, just in case you hadn’t realised. 

News travels fast on the office grapevine. Angel attacked Number Five? That’s terrible! How could he, Number Five is just an old man! Spike finds it particularly amusing. Always nice to see the old man bought down a peg or two. But getting back to business, the body count has gone up to four. Another victim, sans one heart, has been found in a church after an All Souls mass connected to the Mexican day of the dead. The boys go to investigate the scene, Spike riding shotgun at Angel’s side despite his distinct lack of usefulness. Suddenly, Angel swerves the car dramatically and pulls over and takes off on  foot in pursuit of something. The others follow and they locate yet another body, heart missing. 

Gunn: So you what, heard his scream? 

Spike: He smelled the blood. Nothing grabs a vamp's attention like the ruby red. 

Sometime they forget that he’s a vampire. What with him being a good guy and their friend and their boss, it’s understandable. While examining the body they meet the demon responsible. It’s armoured and strong and knows what it wants, and it doesn’t want any of them. Despite their best efforts, it immobilises Team Angel and leaves them to it.

After they return to the office Spike appears in the lab and Fred warns that it will be some time before she has any information on their attacker. Spike assures her that’s not the reason for the visit:

Spike: Couldn't care less. I'm just trying to put as much distance between myself and general grumpy pants as my ghost leash allows. 

Fred: He just gets like that sometimes; not easy being a champion. You know that. 

Spike: Really don't. 

Fred: Come on. You saved the world, sacrificed yourself, closed a hellmouth. 

Spike: Didn't do much, really. I just stood there... let the fire come. Nothin' real heroic about that. 

Fred: Well, you did save my life. 

"He likes you just swell, he just gets cranky, the way vampires do..." Fred’s explanation of Angel’s moodiness always creates a sub-conscious connection to the reason Willow gives the Buffy Bot as to why Spike doesn’t seem to like her anymore in “Bargaining, part 1”.  Vampires and irritability appear to go hand in hand. Though there’s no sign of bad moodiness from Spike at the moment. As always, Spike is like a different person when alone with Fred rather than the annoying version he gives Angel. It also becomes apparent that Angel is not the only one fighting disconnectedness and is unconvinced of his heroic status. Fred tells Spike he’s a champion, but he disputes it. To Fred alone he admits that there was nothing really heroic about standing there in the Hellmouth and waiting to die, but Fred points out that he saved her life, so he’s a champion in her book.

Spike: Well, when you say it like that...

Meanwhile, Wes is making progress with identification of the demon. Angel is getting antsy. He needs something to do, something to fight. “You'll find it. Then we’ll figure out a way to stop it. Then—then I'll...stop it, 'cause that's what we do.  I'll be in my office.”

Give him something to fight and then he’ll show you how to be a hero, show you how it’s done and it’s got nothing to do with signing papers! 

Spike pays a discreet visit to Wesley. He’s started to put two and two together. A prophecy about a vampire with a soul, one who’s a champion with the promise of humanity as the end reward. He asks a few questions and Wes is responsive, he answers them, he keeps no secrets, he even directs Spike to the book where he can access the prophecy. Spike asks, does it name Angel specifically?

Wesley:  No, I imagine it could be any vampire with a soul.....who isn't a ghost. 

Wes is quite open about the information; he gives the explanation of the prophecy freely and why not? None of them are even entertaining the possibility that the prophecy is not about Angel. Of course it’s about Angel! they've been singing this song for a while now. Besides, Spike’s a ghost so he doesn’t count anyway. Spike scoffs, says it’s the equivalent of a vampire fairy tale. Besides, Angel doesn’t believe either, so why would he. The bravado of his words is somewhat contradicted when Spike looks at and runs his ghostly hand over the book that he’s unable to open, an expression of genuine longing appears on his face. He really wants to be a champion, if he doesn’t think that Sunnydale qualified him, so then being the signified ‘one’ would be some kind of proof?

They’ve identified the demon:

Wesley: It's an Aztec demon named Tezcatcatl. We don't know a lot about it yet. Our codex is missing several key pictographs. What we do know is that it's been here before—50 years ago to the day. 

The last time it was in town, 50 years ago, it was defeated by five brothers, heroes and champions of their time. All the brothers except one were killed in their battle with Tezcatcatl. The remaining brother is none other than Number Five the mailroom guy from Wolfram and Hart.  Angel visits him and tells the reluctant Cinco that he needs his help in stopping the demon. 

Angel: I need your help. You and your brothers beat this Aztec warrior thing first time around. And I need to know how. 

Number 5: I'm sorry. In case you haven't noticed, I have retired from that life. 

Angel: Wearing that mask doesn't exactly hide your past. 

Number 5: It reminds me that only a fool would want to be a champion. 

So, does that make Angel and Spike fools? Through flashback Numero Cinco tells the story of him and his brothers, Mexican wrestlers and fighter of evil:

“We were great warriors in the ring, great heroes. Children worshipped us. Women loved us. Men wanted to be us. In all the years we fought, we never lost. Never quit. Never compromised. We were the best.” 

Hmm, he’s already making Angel look bad. He who’s quit, who’s walked away, who’s been compromised and made compromises doesn’t look quite so heroic in comparison to the band of brothers.

“No one else cared about Mexicans or Chicanos, so we protected our own. The five of us were always joined, always connected. And when necessary, we came together as a fist. We fought monsters and gangsters. Vampiros. We were heroes. We protected the weak... and we helped the helpless” 

There’s that phrase again! These guys were doing the hero thing, and doing it well, fifty years ago, when Angel was sitting disconnected in a hotel room not knowing what to do with himself or the damned soul, When Spike was still a blood sucking fiend with only one Slayer scalp to his credit and no notion that life would ever change or that he could possibly want anything different. The brothers were helping the helpless, they were a fist. Individuals made more powerful when they worked cooperatively with the other digits. 

Angel has a fist too. He has Wesley and Gunn and Fred and Lorne and when they work together, they can achieve anything. Trouble is Angel’s increasingly reluctant to get the fist out, prefers working as a single finger, but one finger alone can’t accomplish much. And Spike?  He used to be part of a fist, Buffy’s fist. And sure, the other fingers didn’t like him so much, but Buffy needed him, he was part of her team and now…he’s not. Where does he fit now? 

Angel: But tell me about the Aztec warrior. 

Number 5: What can I say about a demon who killed the people that mattered most to me? 

Angel: You can start by saying how you killed it back. 

Number 5: I don't know. Can't remember. 

Angel: Can't remember or don't care? 

Number 5: Do not misunderstand me. After my brothers were killed, I tried to carry on...

And so we start to realise that Number Five and Angel are not so different. Both heroes of their time fighting evil on behalf of people who can’t do it themselves, champions of the helpless. Both have suffered loss, the people who matter most to them, Number Five’s brothers, and in Angel’s case, Connor and Cordelia; Their absence is as much a part of the story as any character actually present. The shadow they cast over Angel is long and dark and affects every move he makes, every emotion he feels. On first viewing of season five it is easy to either simply forget about Connor and Cordelia or be extremely critical of the way they are completely ignored in the story. But that is reading this text on face value. As stated before, the beauty and power of season five comes in the sub-textual layers. When you begin to read and interpret each episode, Connor and Cordy and their metaphoric presence and ongoing influence on Angel are quite obvious. They are the reason behind everything.  

Once his brothers were dead Number Five was approached to work for Wolfram and Hart, just as Angel went to work for them once he gave up Connor. Two heroes with all hope and purpose gone with the departed members of their family. So, here’s the cautionary part, Number Five’s life is Angel’s prospective future.  A life of living in the shadow of past glory, separated from the people he loves most and working for an organisation that fundamentally compromises everything he stands for.

“Why did we bother? What difference did we make?” a dejected Number Five wonders causing Angel to try to give him a measure of reassurance: 

Angel: You made a difference in the lives you saved. And you did it because... it was the right thing to do. Nobody asks us to go out and fight, put our lives on the line. We do it because we can, 'cause we know how. We do it whether people remember us or not, in spite of the fact that there's no shiny reward at the end of the day... other than the work itself. I think some part of you still knows that, still believes in being a hero . . . Then again, maybe not 

Angel is left talking to himself. Did he hear his own words? Did he give himself the reassurance that he needs? This champion, this hero who is so unsure of his place in the world, of what it’s all about, who wants desperately to want to do the hero thing for all the right, noble reasons he’s just set out for Numero Cinco but who is actually finding it really difficult, nigh on impossible, to find any inspiration for anything because of the two gaping holes in his bruised and battered soul. sadly, Angel’s explanation sounds hollow, rings of rote learning, words disconnected from the way he really feels. 

Gunn and Wes are working the case, worrying about Angel and working the case. After comparing and contrasting victims of our heart thief they discover that all of them are heroes of one form or another; A Bronze Star veteran, a lady who worked with street gangs, a firefighter who saved his whole unit, heroes one and all with heart, courage, bravery and selflessness. The demon is targeting heroes specifically. Meanwhile, Angel gets attacked by the demon. It drives a sword through Angel’s chest, pinning him down then pulls out a dagger and is poised, ready to drive it deep to retrieve Angel’s heart… only it doesn’t, it changes its mind, withdraws the sword and walks away leaving Angel to clutch the non-fatal but nonetheless painful wound to both body and pride.

Angel dismisses the targeting-heroes theory; after all, it fell apart in the field.  The beast didn’t want his heart and if Angel isn’t a hero… then what is he? Wes points out that it’s for sustenance rather than symbolism that the hearts are taken but it is an inescapable truth that this particular beast shows preference for the hearts of champions specifically, champion’s hearts with that little something extra on the side and that Angel’s gnarly-ass, dried up beef jerky of a heart was rejected. That’s gotta hurt. 

The heart plays an important symbolic role in this episode. The heart is considered as the source and center of emotional life, where the deepest and sincerest feelings are located and where an individual is most vulnerable to pain. It is said to house somebody’s essential character and is the key to the ability to feel humane and altruistic feelings. The heart is the spring of admiration, affection and love and gives the bearer the capacity for courage and determination. So, Angel’s lack of a ‘worthy’ heart is significant in that it demonstrates exactly how lost and disconnected he is and how very close he’s dancing to apathy and emptiness. Without ‘heart’ Angel is nothing.

They still don’t know how to kill the demon and Number Five wasn’t real forthcoming with the information either. They’ve still got work to do. Gunn heads to the contracts department to see if he can dig up some paper work on this guy while Wes does a bit of counselling:

Wesley: Angel, what Gunn said about your heart—the dried-up bit—I don't think that's the problem. 

Angel But you do see a problem? 

Wesley: It's the work. 

Angel: Oh, yeah the 18-hour days, the constant slaying of evil, and the being shish-kebabed to a Chevy. 

Wesley: I didn't say you weren't working. I'm just saying your heart's not in the work. 

Angel: Well, yeah, you know, I've been feeling a little bit, uh...

Wesley: Disconnected. Yes, I've heard. But I think it's more serious than that. You blame your melancholy on your new position, but I don't think it's about the type of work. I think it's because you've lost hope that the work has meaning. 

Angel: Of course it has meaning. We save people's lives. 

Wesley: I'm not talking about them. I'm talking about you. It's lost meaning for you. Spike says you no longer believe in the Shanshu prophecy. 

So here is the crux of the matter, the heart if you like. Angel has lost his meaning because he no longer believes in the Shanshu, because the prophecy is bull, because they are all toys in a big cosmic game, because he’s lost Connor and Cordelia, because it's impossible to care for ‘everyone’ when the people you really care about are either gone, or don’t remember the past that made them what they are today. They don’t remember a past that included a miraculous child and love, and camaraderie and murder and torture and betrayal and resentment and estrangement and forgiveness and friendship. They remember none of it so they can look for simple explanations and easy solutions, but they’ll never know the whole story, the real reason he feels disconnected is because he allowed their memories to be altered which is not very heroic at all. 

Angel: Look, we're getting the work done. As long as I keep doing what I do, doesn't matter if I believe in the Shanshu or any other prophecy. 

Wesley: I'm sorry, Angel, but nothing matters more. Hope; It's the only thing that will sustain you, that will keep you from ending up like Number Five. 

Angel’s solution is to hang on what he was, do what he’s been doing for the last five years, and it’ll be fine, it doesn’t matter why he does it, as long as he does it, right? But Wes gives him a condensed version of the cautionary tale; find some hope or end up like Number Five. Because in hope, purpose is invested and without purpose you are aimless no matter what the hell you’re doing. 

Up in the lab the team are discussing the demon. Here we are provided with an interesting contrast. First, we have Angel, acknowledged hero, but world weary and at his wits end about how he’s going to kill the beast despite the availability of physical strength and fighting prowess. Then we have Spike, would-be champion, confident, instinctually knowing how to kill the monster but unable to actually do anything because of his spectral disposition.   

Spike: Oh, I could kill it. I mean, ghostiness to the contrary. Well, come on, lads. Everything has an Achilles heel. 

Angel: And you just so happen to know this creature's Achilles heel? 

Spike: Well, I wager it's the heart. 

Fred: You see that in the science? 

Spike: No, love, in the poetry. We're dealing with a mythic creature here, a kill-or-be-killed kind of creature. If I was gonna kill something that was trying to take my heart, I'd try to bloody well take its heart first. 

And that’s kinda, exactly what Wolfram and Hart have managed to do to Angel, metaphorically speaking. Angel has spent years trying to rip out their heart, bring them to their knees, so they found a way to do it to Angel first– they offered him the company in an effort to control him. And what a bonus, he plunges the dagger in all on his own, he twists the knife himself, by arranging for the removal of Connor from his life! It couldn’t have worked out better. They’ve got him exactly where they want him, a nullified hero. Numero Seis in the making. 

Gunn’s foray to Contracts has been a success. He has discovered that Tezcatcatl once had aspirations to become a sun-god. Once discovered he was sentenced to death but managed to make a mystical deal first, allowing him to return from the dead every fifty years in order to search for the talisman that would enable him to ascend. The talisman has, for centuries been in the protection of the champion of the day and thus, Tezcatcatl seeks out champions, possible keepers of the talisman and feeds on their hearts in his quest for the immortal life of a god.  Angel knows who has the talisman; he’s seen it in Number Five’s apartment and so goes on his own quest.  He ends up in the cemetery with Number Five and his attempt to lure Tezcatcatl:

Number 5: He will be here. I summoned him. 

Angel: Maybe. But he won't kill you... or me; missing the secret ingredient. 

Now give me the talisman, and I'll leave you to your misery. 

Number 5: I don't have it.

Angel: Where is it? 

Number 5: You are one strange man, Señor Angel. 

Angel: I'm not the one in a mask standing in a cemetery in the middle of the night. 

Number 5: No. But you will be 

What a great line! Number Five and Angel are reflected in one another. Two champions whose time has passed. Two champions who long for the way things were, two champions who are not considered heroic enough for the beast, at least on a symbolic level. And then the blunt but friendly caution, If Angel continues to hang on to the past then he will become Number Five.

Tezcatcatl arrives. Number Five wants the demon to kill him, he wants the death of a hero so that he can go and join his brothers even if he has to trick the beast into doing it. Angel intervenes; he won’t let the old man go that easily. From the foot of a gravestone the departed number brothers emerge and immediately jump into action to fight the demon. They are poetry in motion. Four individuals acting as one, but they are missing a finger in their fist so beckon Angel to join them. They use acrobatic wrestling moves and pin Tezcatcatl so that Angel can drive a metal stake into his heart, killing him, at least for a little while. 

Number 5: Mis hermanos, they came back. 

Angel: Because you're worthy. You proved it. 

Number 5: Maybe. But still the demon did not want my heart. 

Angel: He didn't want mine, either. 

Number 5: Of course not, amigo. Who would want that dried-up walnut of a dead thing? 

And Number Five dies a hero’s death, not because he was particularly heroic but because he tried and Angel’s heroic actions of not allowing Number Five to die at the hands of Tezcatcatl is rewarded with temporary membership to the band of brothers, to the fist and with their aid is able to defeat the demon.

On his return to the office Angel is reminded that he too has a fist of his own. Waiting for him is Wes, Gunn, Fred and (not Lorne, but) Spike. He has allies, brothers if you will, to fight beside him, to make him stronger, if he’d only just give them a chance. Once alone Angel makes his way to Wesley’s office and picks up one of the magic texts and requests the Shanshu prophecy (English translation). There is still hope, maybe just a glimmer, but it is still there, deep within that withered, sorry excuse for a heart. Hope springs eternal and where there is hope, there's life. 

Next up: Angel 6.7 - Lineage

[ramonag-if]

I'm so sorry

I like to ramble and overthink things. And eng isn't my first language.

Anyway

Reasons why Salyra suck:

1. Different attitude towards her children.

Her words "you will always be my son/daughter" sounds sweet and shit, UNTIL YOU DON'T REMEMBER HOW SHE DESCRIBE RANA "She is a blessing"

If you just compare, her words towards MC start to sound like "She is a blessing and you just my kid though"

2. Don't care about MC's safety

At the end at chapter 7, Salyra act as if she's worried about MC. Such a bullshit. Her actions says otherwise

a) she literally made out of MC a weapon with her shitty ritual

b) the Blood Guard are on your tail, should you sent your kid to the Vinia where your family lives and where ishari treated right (meh), or should you leave your kid with their's father in country where ishari treated as Jews in Third Reich (SUCH A GOOD IDEA LETS DO THAT)

3. Don't care about her family

I'm talking about Salyra's mother, brother etc. She have never wrote them a letter. They thought that she was dead.

I probably should stop now or I'll write a damn essay

Conclusion: Salyra suck in every way possible. Compared to her apathetic Alhf is fucking saint

My MC is gonna become Royality (I'm dating Irus) and she will continue her pathetic existence

I really liked your game btw. I really hate Salyra if it's not obvious. But your game is masterpiece. Bye!

Please don't apologise for rambling 😊🌼 I enjoy a good ramble myself and it's always fun to read in-depth thoughts from players about something I've written.

There is quite a contrast in her actions and words towards Rana and those towards the MC. You're right that she never calls the MC a blessing and perhaps the implications of that should be answered by the player 👀

She does care, though her actions don't always mean that what she cares about is the physical danger of the Blood Guard. Salyra reacted the way she did because of the divine blessings and the possible consequences of that. What that means is again, up to you as a player. You might see it as Salyra overreacting because she had to come clean about the ritual she did or because she genuinely worried about the MC.

She's forgetful and/or selfish 😅 She does miss them but she's convinced herself it's better to keep them away from her life since she's a danger to them (the reasons will become clearer when the full truth comes out).

You could have gotten away with more points 😋 I really don't mind long essay type of asks. Thank you for playing and I'm so glad you're enjoying the game 🥰

[dmitrigirl]

WAIT i want to hear more about this! how is smerdyakov gay-coded? (i think so as well but idk why)

omg yesssss!!! yeah it's crazy.

so, a little background, i'm doing undergrad research independent study thing this summer combining my major (ancient greek) and my other love, russian lit.

while i was re-reading the brothers karamazov over winter break- a regular occurrence- i started noticing some details in there that relates to classical masculinity and homosexuality, homosociality, etc etc etc.

so my question for my study is: how is greek masculinity presented in the brothers karamazov? basically comparing greek sexuality and gender and the brothers k and talking about the brothers + some other characters and whatnot.

now, to smerdyakov.

1. while reading an academic paper, the author cited michael r. katz, who says smerdyakov is “the worst fully developed portrait of a male homosexual in Dostoyevsky fiction”.

why did he say "worst"? well, thinking about it, smerdyakov, though my favorite part of the book, sucks. he is basically everything that isn't a man. going off of 19th century stereotypes, smerdyakov does not fit into the mold. in the chapter "Smerdyakov with a Guitar", his opinions towards his own country are revealed: he wants Russia invaded, he wants to abolish the army, he would run away in a duel, etc etc. this is opposite the status quo. he does not serve anyone in his mind, but himself. this is classic narcissism representation. i need to do more research on this, but i'm also talking about the connections between narcissism and homosexuality in literature (ALL STEREOTYPES, I DON'T BELIEVE THIS), but that's something to think about too. smerdyakov is also emasculated, will be discussed later. but what you have to know is that emasculation/effeminacy, etc etc can be and usually are synonyms for homosexuality.

okay, this next bit talks about sex and masturbation, so if you wanna hop off here, you can. or just skip the next paragraph.

2. smerdyakov's appearance is that of a sexually promiscuous individual. a dissertation created by tissot in 1758, he says that masturbators and sexual men will develop a yellow-tint to his skin, pale, effeminate, lazy, and in some cases, will develop EPILEPSY. how is smerdyakov described? "He spent some years there and came back remarkably changed in appearance. He looked extraordinarily old for his age. His face had grown wrinkled, yellow, and strangely emasculate" (Dost. 106). okay, obviously, smerdyakov's epilepsy was developed in early teen years. but remember, it got worse once he returned from moscow. homosexuals were also described as such, basically any man who had odd preferences (and by odd, i mean normal).

3. moving on: "But he seemed to have as much contempt for the female sex as for men; he was discreet, almost unapproachable, with them. Fyodor Pavlovitch began to regard him rather differently. His fits were becoming more frequent, and on the days he was ill Marfa cooked, which did not suit Fyodor Pavlovitch at all. "Why are your fits getting worse?" asked Fyodor Pavlovitch, looking askance at his new cook. "Would you like to get married? Shall I find you a wife?" But Smerdyakov turned pale with anger, and made no reply." (Dost. 107). yeah, this. smerdyakov does not wanna get married, etc etc. not much to say here.

4. dostoyevsky also stated something incredible and damning all the same: in his essay "Russian or French?" he talks about how french corrupts youth. smerdyakov is learning french, and hoping to reside there eventually. "corrupting youth" could mean a slew of things, homosexuality is one of those things.

5. his suicide: i actually did an essay about the femininity of suicide! smerdyakov commits suicide by the end of the novel. suicide is described (also in ancient greece and so on) as feminine and the ultimate emasculated thing one can do.

6. another quote from katz: "Dostoyevsky offers Smerdyakov's sexual inversion as a stark contrast to the more "normal, healthy", heterosexuality of the three full-blooded brothers... Smerdyakov is also provided with a partner, but his relationship with her must be a broad parody of a heterosexual courtship..."

7. another quote from katz: "That dress..." (marya's dress) "...with a train receives special attention in Dostoevskii's notebooks for the Brothers Karamazov... 'he took a liking to two of her [Marya's] dresses, one with a train, and to her manner of shifting that train. At first he got angry with the train, but later... he took a great liking to it'... The train is obviously a symbol of feminine sexuality; Smerdyakov is attracted to it, though not aroused by it, except a feeling of envy: as he wants one, too, and wants to be able to 'shift' it seductively"

yeah that's all i can think of now!!! basically smerdyakov is very gay and is horrible representation but i love to talk about it! also i heard some things about smerdyakov's vague feelings towards ivan and whatnot. but most of that isn't fully developed and that would be a whole other conversation.

[kendrixtermina]

Edelgard and “meritocracy” - an essay

In this essay I wish to adress the common argument that “meritocracy bad, therefore edelgard bad” & the logical leaps therein.

Before we begin, I’d like to stress that she doesn’t even use the word “meritocracy” & they’re not even looking at it’s modern definition but reacting to the way it has been used as a fighting word to denigrate the poor specificically in the post reagan modern USA & then assuming Edelgard means the exact same thing by that without bothering to examine what she actually says & in what context.

Modern capitalism & the way it uses rhetoric of merit as an excuse is bad & with its reduction of human value to their moneymaking ability, definitely inherently ableist, I agree totally.

But 3H does NOT take place in the modern world. Progress is always relative to what came before. It*s progress away from entrenched problems.

It’s a total failure to even imagine a world different from the sucky one we live in - that’s exactly what tolkien meant  by that saying that if we’re prisoners we have a duty to escape.

Edelgard doesn’t live in a capitalist society nor is she bringing about capitalism (if anything Claude’s the one talking of free trade & giving the merchants what they want, though he is almost certainly playing them much like the church)

And the main component of capitalism - factory owners, rich elites who owns large swathes of companies or real estate - is nowhere to be found.

In our world that cropped up because industrialization made owning factories, offices, trade etc. more lucrative that just owning the land, so factory owners replaced landed lords, essentially promising the peasants freedom if they helped them overthrow the kings but granting them only in a limited manner - the flawed inequal democracies that resulted were a compromise between peasants and factory owners.

But by and large the nobles are very much in the same niche as the factory owners today - they own the land and get special trade privileges (the means of production), they often abuse the populace with impunity, the peasants are very poor.

Edelgard cracks down on corruption & special trade privileges even during the timeskip.

And like the rich of our world, they have a self-mythology propaganda justification based on merit. Yes, there is the “by the grace of god” argument, too, but crests give you extra fighting power, and if you look at the Ferdinand support for example you do see that Fodlan’s nobles - especially the adrestian ones - see themselves as a honed elite that is trained from birth & therefore better at ruling.

Not quite the same argument a modern billionaire uses - who is very invested in convincing you that they didn’t get their power and wealth by their birth - but a myth nonetheless.

Edelgard’s not bringing “meritocracy” as in brutal competition opposed to caring social safety nets, but as opposed to unearned privilege.

If you wanted to compare that to any kind of sociohistorical context, you might look at Napoleon’s peasant liberation or the implementation of civil service examinations in ancient China.

That wasn’t an all good thing - In the same way that Europe is very impacted by the legacy of rome both good & bad (there are persisting bad attitudes toward war, authority and agriculture for example), east asia still has a lot of education obsession causing pressure & unhealthy work habits to this day.

But if you compared ancient china before the reforms to ancient China after it definitely got better, by ancient china standards.

We couldn’t expect the people back then to come up with all advances up to our exact modern values at once (not can we be sure how much of our values will stand the test of time)

Considering that Fodlan’s ideal of merit is basically what Lorenz, Ingrid and Ferdinand are embodying for their respective countries, and that she stocks her inner circle with very different leaders, it is no stretch to say that she wants to shake up the social ideas of what even counts as merit, to make ppl value other things that crest power or elite upbringing, the same way we might say today that hey, cleaners are valuable actually.

Edelgard is basically doing her world’s equivalent of taxing the billionaires - reducing the power of what the overprivilieged class happens to be, & it’s obvious from her talk of how she despises inequality that she would hardly be for rule of factory owners.

When Edelgard says that she wants to make Fodlan more merit-based, that has to be taken in the context that she lives in a world where your birth determines everything, incompetent nobles can be as lazy as they want, and no one cares how competent you are if you lack a crest, title or both.

If she looked at our world, she would quickly see through the propaganda that it is supposedly “merit based” and object to how wealth and national origin obviously dictate wealth & opportunity while talented people go to waste in sweatshops.

Now of course there have been arguments even against “perfect” meritocracy - one is the devaluation of working class jobs.

To this one could answer that this is more a flaw in how merit is conceived. Historically there have been societies that exahlted blue collar work, artisans or farming.

The second argument, however, is not so easy to get rid of: That is devalues people who can’t just go & produce like machines, especially the unemployed, the sick, the mentally ill, the disabled…

But at this point we’ve got to lean back & get our definitions straight, & make it clear what we even mean by “meritocracy” -

Because if we’re just talking about the basic idea that competency should be rewarded, I don’t think too many people disagree with that. We might see a problem with valueing the competency of a doctor or lawyers dispropottionally over the competency of a cleaner or a bricklayer, but we all, by and large, want the people who prepare our goods and services to be competent. Maybe we wouldn’t exalt it over all over qualities, but most of us admire skill.

Of course the problem with the political rhetoric of “meritocracy” is that it goes beyond just rewarding skill, first with the afore mentioned rewarding of only some skills, but mostly with the reversion or overemphasis of the above: Saying that skill is the only thing that matters (to the exclusion of any inheent human value) & that those who don’t have it are worthless.

First I want to throw out the thought that this is a product of the production/profit orientation of capitalism, but one could of course imagine, as many sci fi authors have done, a non-capitalistic society that is still obsessed with merit at the exclusion of those who are not oriented towards productivity & care more about fun & relationships than producing, or those who can’t produce because they are sick or disabled.

So now we must ask ourselves the question: Which of those views does Edelgard actually hold?

Cause I want you to notice that they’re not the same. “Skill should be rewarded & jobs should be done by competent people”  is not the same position as “Skill is the ONLY thing that matters and if you don’t have it you are worthless”

In one position, skill is a good quality, in the other, it's a prerequisite to worth.

Most of us here probably agree that skill is admirable (we like and reblog pretty fanarts), but not that the unskilled are worthless.

Looking at her superficially I could perhaps see how someone might suspect her of the latter -  She gravitates to & surrounds herself with skilled intelligent people and she’s obscenely superpowered.

It’s an misunderstanding that Dimitri makes in-universe, he accuses her of “only benefitting the strong”

But note that her answer to that is that she wants to empower the weak to no longer be weak & decide their own lives, instead of accepting charity. (Contrast with how Dimitri romanticizes abyss, for example, even as Claude points out that locking the poor underground is hardly help.)

Of course she can say many things, as rulers often give florid speeches.

But let’s have a look at what she actually thinks. How does edelgard actually act towards people who struggle or aren’t productivity oriented?

This is one of her lecture questions from part I:

“When one professor lectures many students, some will inevitably have trouble keeping up, while others will get too far ahead in their studies. I wonder how this problem might be solved…”

Her favorite answer is “lectures should be optional”.

Which part of that sounds like a bell curve type eugenicist “only skill & intelligence counts” kind of person? She wants the struggling students to be taken proper care of, not just the good ones.

Look at the speeches she gives to Petra & Lysithea about not giving up on themselves & wanting them to move forward from an empowered mindset. Look at how she tells Lysithea to take it easy & not overtax her body. (Not "don't whine & keep working")

Look at Bernadetta - very much an ‘unproductive’ individual with great struggles & limitation. Does Edelgard dismiss her as a weakling? Not at all. Not even in the C support. She makes sure to stress her good qualities when introducing  her, makes an effort to be more patient so as not to scare her, & they become good friends.

Look at the Linhardt support - at first she mistakes his behavior for youthful lazyness (He’s 16 after all) & wants to get him to apply himself, but when she realizes that he just has different priorities, she respects that, & works to get him the exact sort of position that he wants. No “suck it up!” or dismissing such a different lifestyle. Nor does she chide him for hating fighting at any point.

Edelgard does everything in her power to accomodate people so they can do their best. She sees the value even in strange unsocial people that society would dismiss. She found a job for someone like Jeritza & helped him, she doesn’t hesitate to make Dorothea a general or Manuela the prime minister no matter what people say or if they don’t act like typical politicians.

Also, when she talks about choosing her sucessor, she wants them to be brilliant/competent yes, but also kind and 'an outsider' (ie, impartial) - hardly a PoV of "if you are skilled you can do whatever you want and if you aren't no other quality matters". She's prizing kindness & objectivity just as highly, something which is absolutely reflected throughout all her actions & behaviors towards others.

She doesn't devalue living quietly & low key without making waves - in fact, that is her dream life, which she deems superior to achievement and ambition, which are to her just tools to archieve good aims.

She couldn’t be further from having a narrow definition of what a “valuable” person is, she is all ABOUT empowering people to take control of their own lives, no pity-driven charity, no paternalism, none of that. This is one of my favorite traits about her, so I can’t help but get mad when people accuse her of being the exact opposite.

But maybe the biggest argument is abyss. This is where the genuine underclass lives, poor, struggling, traumatized, refugees etc.

Edelgard isn’t as vocal during Cindered Shadows as Claude - she can’t blow her cover & just isn’t as expressive personality wise. But she’s the one who makes everybody swear to take care of Abyss no matter who wins.

And her route is the one where, instead of telling you that they lost people, Hapi tells you that they’ve all been pretty much fine over the timeskip.

If you want to help the struggling & the poor and those who don't have "conventional" skills, you should back edelgard.