#first of all that’s a fundamental misunderstanding of his character

[rowanisawriter]

fic is a safe space, probably one of the last safe spaces. by safe i mean safe from the pressure of caving to advertisers. you can write fic about anything and not worry (shouldn’t worry) about what’s popular or what an advertiser oriented algorithm will pick up. what i mean by this is that you don’t have to bring this advertiser friendly behavior into fic. heroes can make bad decisions, people can fall out of love, villains can win, villainous organizations can win, redemption doesn’t have to happen, etc. make things a little messy if you want to, because life can be messy and art is a reflection of life. not what the advertisers have decided for us life is like, real life. this is one of the last places where this is still possible

[mythalism]

having thoughts about the veil and people's bad faith interpretations about the desire to see it brought down as some sort of misled leftist bloodthirst for violent revolution instead of fulfillment of the fundamental role of trickster gods in mythology and storytelling and how there seems to be, in both fans and the developers, a misunderstanding or perhaps just a disagreement of how solas was supposed to function within the narrative as a force of nature vs. as a person. my adderall just kicked in

[aliusfrater]

you've got to be kidding me

[himejoshiangels]

btw important clarification: Duke chose the morning shift himself. the sentiment that bruce needed someone to patrol in the morning is straight up untrue, duke's early training was right beside batman solving crimes and chasing criminals at night but as he was figuring out his place in the Gotham vigilante scene working at night just did not work for him. Eventually he chose to work during the daytime specifically because of his mother's ideology, that it's easier to recognize truth in the light, and because it allows him better direct access to the people of Gotham.

Duke is a very community centered character. He is big on his beliefs about it and redemption. Saying Bruce chose the day for him removes Duke's agency as a character and is a fundamental misunderstanding of him. He was Gothams robin (not batman's) for a reason. he was going to do his "protect and uplift the community by any means" thing no matter what, he was doing it before he even met bruce and it was the reason they met in the first place. he works in the morning because it's where the people are and it's the best way to see them in all their truths and complexities and for them to see him and know that everything is going to be okay

[buckley-diaztruther]

thinking again about how everyone, even the rest of the characters and buck himself, fundamentally misunderstanding who Buck 1.0 was and his motivations. because yes, he was a flirt who slept around a LOT but never in any of his interactions with these women does he display fuckboy or playboy behavior. everyone has this idea that he was this man whore running around breaking women's hearts left and right because he didn't respect them and only wanted sex. and they believed this so hard that Buck believed it.

except that first scene we get with Buck stealing the firetruck to sleep w the first girl, he's the one who gets rejected when he tries to make it anything deeper. and it right out the gate tells the audience that this is someone so stupidly desperate for affection that he's looking for it in all the wrong places and actively sabotaging his career to make it happen because he doesn't know how else to find it. because no one else has ever wanted that with him.

and idk so much of the fandom has (imo) accurately clocked the sex as a form of self harm as well - a new way of using his body to get attention because his parents aren't around to care when he throws himself into oncoming traffic anymore

and I just get really in my feelings about it because no one in his life GETS it. eddie comes closest but he's missing so much key context and I just want so badly for the show to circle back to this in some way but I know they'll never do it right

[aangarchy]

Ok now we're just taking the piss right? Right?

Once again this sort of thinking is removing a fundamental character arc that makes this story what it is. A big part of Aang's journey, especially in season 1, but tbh it does return in later seasons too, is accepting that he is the Avatar, and that he's the only one who can end this war. During the whole first season he is in complete denial about who he is and what he's supposed to do, which is why in most of this season there's no sense of urgency, and then once Aang gets faced with a very real, very close deadline he panics. This makes it even more brutal when in season 3, after accepting this responsibility, he gets faced with the reality of failure. He runs away again, this time not because he doesn't want responsibility, but because he knows how heavy his responsibility is and he doesn't want to burden anyone else with it. Removing the first aspect, aka running away and denying responsibility, it in turn also removes the heavy emotion from his later arc.

It keeps surprising me that people who claim to be such fans of the original seem to completely miss the point of most of this story? Like how could you look at Sokka learning about women's rights, Aang learning to accept responsibility, and Katara's motherly warmth which happened because how young she was when she had to step into a motherly role, and think "well we should remove that." You're taking out all of character development and going purely off of plot (which isn't gonna be nearly as good without the character development!)

Atla is probably one of the most analyzed and picked apart story, has one of the most long running loyal fanbases, people are STILL making thinkpieces about this show, and you manage to still misunderstand so much???

[ghost-kings-court-jester]

People who think Hua Cheng hates everyone and everything that isn’t Xie Lian truly just misunderstand that the thing he fell in love with first is Xie Lians kindness and how he devotes himself to the common people who are below his station.

Xie Lian cares for the common people that his thing. Hua Cheng doesn’t even try to make that his responsibility because frankly that’s a lot and no matter how good he would be at it he could never be Xie Lian. That’s why he doesn’t try to be nice or patient because he knows it would only be a facade when with Xie Lian it would be genuine and he won’t do Xie Lian the disservice of pretending. And yes as far and he’s conceded his God shouldn’t humble himself like this but does over and over again because he is most importantly a kind person.

Hua Cheng could not love Xie Lian the way he does or worship him as he does if he didn’t give a fuck about people. He may think no one in the world deserves Xie Lians care but that’s because he has seen the truly terrifying self destructive lengths Xie Lian is willing to go to and he doesn’t think anyone is worth Xie Lian suffering like that including himself.

He understands fundamentally that Xie Lians cares so much about everyone and Hua Cheng which is why he literally says "If your dream is to save the common people, then my dream is only you"?

That is not him saying hey I only care about you and fuck everyone else they don’t matter.

This is him saying if you want to make the world better and care for people then you should because you’re the best person at it. No one could do it like you can. But as someone who has received that kindness I will be here to be sure you are adored and appreciated for your good acts like letting that tiny orphan eat from a shrine dedicated to you because ego means nothing to you if children are starving.

He is saying I will be there to pull you together and give you the affection and love and consideration I saw you lose time and time again because people see you as a God and a Prince and a Miracle Worker and I understand that you are just a man trying his hardest to make the world a better place and that is what I adore.

If you are willing to devote yourself to humanity I am willing to devote myself to you meaning that I will be a part of that dream. I will by help ease your burden by helping people at your side.

I created a city that tries to keep dangerous ghostly objects like my lantern fall into children’s hands. This city will become a home for you and a place full of ghosts, regular spirits of the common people just living their afterlives because I understand you would never want to be alone without people to help forever. So I will look after them because you would want them looked after. I will help the farmers in Puqi village and the Gods who I hate because you are doing that so that is what I will do.

The common people will always be cared for in Hua Cheng ideal world because that is a world that Xie Lian wants and he wouldn’t be Xie Lian if he didn’t want that which Hua Cheng understands that his kindness and compassion is why he became so devoted to Xie Lian in the first place.

So no he doesn’t hate everyone and everything, he doesn’t want Xie Lian to be locked in alone with him where no one can bother them forever and ever because he knows Xie Lian would be fucking miserable and feel so guilty for not being there and feeling like it’s his responsibility to be there for people all the time.

He may resent that and grumble because he like Xie Lian is still a regular person with flaws which include wanting to disappear to a quiet place in the world and love his husband forever because he’s been through so much but he is under no illusions of that happening because there are people to care for and he will help his God do that and give him everything including himself to make that happen.

Also we never find out what he’s like without Xie Lian because he is the POV character. Like he clearly doesn’t hate people he just doesn’t think anyone is as wonderful as Xie Lian so why spend time with them when Xie Lian is in the room. He is genuinely mad and bitchy at anyone but Xie Lian talking to him because they are distracting him from Xie Lian or annoying Xie Lian so he has to snap at them because Xie Lian is the only person worth his attention. If Xie Lian wants to talk to people that’s his business Hua Cheng will be right beside him listening and waiting till he’s needed because that’s his purpose but that doesn’t mean he wants everyone to shut up and die that’s just not who he is.

[tillythemenace]

WHY ASTRID'S CHANGES IN THE LIVE ACTION HURT HICCSTRID

Very long post ahead.

I will be VERY real rn. I am a very hardcore Hiccstrid shipper but I HATE stupid pointless fanservice. And in the LA, there’s so much and at that point in the story is really dumb… It fundamentally changes what made them great in HTTYD1, Especially Astrid.

I talked about it here in my Astrid review, but the way those two scenes in particular misunderstood their core dynamic which SHOULD BE ALLIES FIRST AND THEN ROMANCE.

Their scenes felt just so weird to me. Hiccup is an utter simp and not in the good way… He lets Astrid be even meaner to him. Astrid herself feels so much meaner while getting her OG ending is jarring. She legit threatened him to take his house like hello?! Why would she ever say that? Besides the obviously stupid decision to make her want to be Chief out of nowhere and super OOC, making her hate him for being “privileged” adds such an inconsistent and horrible layer to their “romance”. Cause now Hiccup just takes it… Hiccup may have been weak and meek at first but he was NEVER a pushover. And Astrid having a new "motivation" to hate him is a misunderstanding of her character.

Astrid saying "He's never where he should be"

is very important, cause this shows how Astrid really sees Hiccup at first. Someone that is not VIKING LIKE and is a nuisance. He SHOULD be viking like but he isn't, he's not doing what he's supposed to be and he's not really trying in dragon training at that point. Astrid's disliking of Hiccup stemmed STRICTLY from the fact that Hiccup didn't take his position as Berk's future seriously, she just wanted to protect her village and Hiccup was clearly a liability WITH HIS INVENTIONS that caused more harm than good and THAT'S why he was looked down upon, NOT BECAUSE HE WAS PRIVILEGED. It's SUCH a pointless and dumb change that EVEN IF Astrid came from nothing as she said in LA, it would still make no sense. Now listen, THIS LINE right here could potentially mean that Hiccup being cut some slack could be related to being the chief's son, YES. I'm not saying that Hiccup didn't get special treatment by Stoick cause if it was anyone else? Stoick probably would shipped them off a long time ago. But understanding why Hiccup was there has more to do with the fact that Gobber insisted to Stoick, and the more he got older, the more he needed to protect himself somehow. Putting Hiccup in training is something that would've happened sooner or latter whether he liked it or not. Hiccup's arc was never about "humbling" himself or "recognize his privileges" he was bullied because he was weak and non viking ffs like PLEASE stay focused... Him being the Chief's son was never an actual point of contention for Astrid OR the gang.

Pointing out the real reasons Astrid hated him is very important cause she left him well enough alone for the most part even tho she was mildly annoyed he was a liability to their safety (which is what Astrid cared more about, "Our parent's war") stuff started changing AFTER his success, cause Astrid is prideful yes, she wants to be the best warrior, in her core she's still human and she did get jealous Hiccup of ALL PEOPLE started winning cause of UNUSUAL UNVIKING LIKE methods.

Their added scenes in the Book of Dragons and in the Kill Ring absolutely make my blood boil. Not all new Hiccstrid scenes are good just because they’re Hiccstrid.

In Book of Dragons LA scene, he’s actively insisting on Astrid that dragons may be good when at that point in the story he was NOT SURE HIMSELF YET. In the OG Hiccup was ALWAYS VERY cautious. This added scene is so weird to me because yes, why would Astrid listen to him? AND threaten him?

The fact is that Astrid in HTTYD1 left Hiccup well enough alone because she really didn’t care about him until after he started “cheating” in her eyes. They skipped the forge scene where that point is driven further:

“I normally don’t care what people do but you’re acting weird”

Astrid being sus of Hiccup is important because she NEVER CARED for him at first and THEN she started to notice that he was acting weird. And with GOOD REASON, unlike everyone else, Astrid didn't look for the easy way out, EVER. Astrid was methodical, logical and yes viking-like aggression when fighting but most of all FAIR. She EARNED her place and she wanted Hiccup to do the same. She may have not seen a new way yet, but at that point in the story, the methods Hiccup was using might as well have been cheating.

Cause yeah, “No one just GETS as good as you (Hiccup) do, especially you (Hiccup)” "Are you training with someone?" She could sense that Hiccup was getting better out of NOWHERE and his methods were clearly... dishonest for lack of a better word in her POV. like we KNOW that isn't true in Hiccup and the Audience POV since WE know what's happening, but SHE doesn't. She followed Hiccup around for weeks and he was acting super sus and evading questions, clearly hiding something. That alone made her fume. Like Hiccup being an Astrid simp the whole movie is just so... superficial. At first we KNOW he was shooting his shot but LATER, AFTER TOOTHLESS, he's mostly nervous around her because SHE WAS ABOUT TO FIND OUT HIS SECRET, his priorities change. He's focused on a far more important thing.

HICCSTRID AS ALLIES FIRST

As I talked here, The Cove scene is so much more deep and important to Astrid becoming an ALLY to Hiccup first. She realized that she needs to protect Toothless.

That's why in the Kill Ring LA scene, I got so angry when they BOTH completely forget about HIM and they make it about ASTRID and her reputation and I absolutely HATED their new dialogue. Astrid didn't need to VERBALIZE she was going to support Hiccup. I don't know if they are allergic to subtlety but her saying "I will be with you whatever may come" was already a given in the last scene. SHE was the one that asked Hiccup "What do WE do?"

And something that DID make my blood boil is how Hiccup cared MORE about Astrid's reputation and her relationship with Stoick (something that was not even shown before even in the LA movie) OVER TOOTHLESS SAFETY?! No. Just no. THIS is cheap ass simping fanservice and I hate it. WHY would Hiccup care about Astrid's reputation in THIS VERY MOMENT? When he's about to expose himself to the whole village about dragons? Why did he suddenly forget he's doing this because of TOOTHLESS and his discoveries about dragons and making the world peaceful?? It also doesn't help that we didn't even SEE a scene with Stoick and Astrid together, it was just TOLD to us that suddenly Stoick always wanted a girl? and that he adores Astrid?? like? show not tell... great. And then because we don't even see a single scene with Astrid and Stoick in the LA, when Stoick suddenly gets super mad at Astrid for helping Hiccup, he's like "AND YOU!" pointing at her, like? why you mad bro? why do u feel betrayed? as if you had ANY interactions with her... but I digress...

What actually happened:

THIS right here, has MORE MEANING than Hiccup wanting to "protect her reputation" and not wanting her to get involved in the LA?? like? again, why would he say that here and not the previous Cove scene when she said she was going to support you? Why make this dumb change in the worst time possible?

Skipping these lines to me is criminal to the FOUNDATION that is their relationship. Both Hiccup and Astrid in the first movie are very interesting in the sense that them becoming allies to me is far more important for the plot than them being a couple. The very base of their relationship SHOULD BE protection of their people and dragons and how THAT is the what aligns them both. I don't want to have changes on their characters if it means romance (and this goes for RTTE as well cause I do NOT like a lot of what they did with Hiccstrid there), that's not why I ship them, it's because they work so GOOD as allies FIRST.

Removing this dialogue that is SO POWERFUL undermines so much not only Hiccup's relationship with Toothless but also Astrid's actual ROLE as an ally. Astrid is not a good ally because she's a die hard for Hiccup at that moment, she's a good ally because she's ALSO protecting Toothless AND WILLING TO DO WHAT IT TAKES AS WELL to protect him in case anything goes wrong. And because her being the very FIRST one to changed her mind, her support is super important to Hiccup- THAT'S why he stayed, NOT because he has a crush on Astrid or viceversa.

Hiccup needed an ally FIRST, not a girlfriend. He was completely alone, he was about to leave, and Astrid being the first one, regardless of if he had or not a crush on her, is valuable to him because he not only admired her but he respected her. She was the model viking, and if he can change her, he can try to change everyone else now that he has backup. Sure he liked Astrid but romance is not in his priority list, especially after Toothless, and quite frankly, it wasn't on Astrid's priority list either. What unites them first and foremost is their drive to protect, and once Astrid saw that in Hiccup, she saw a new side of him; not the weak nerd that messed up and didn't seem to care about being a proper viking, but a protector, which is what made her respect him.

Hiccstrid as a ship is very very fun to explore and analyse but when u actually take into account WHY they started that way and why they work... The Live Action not only changes Astrid but in consequence it changes Hiccup and Astrid's relationship and what makes them good, and to me THAT is what suffers the most in their dynamic. All their scenes to me felt so weird and with 0 build up and chemistry. I don't like fanservice if it has to change the characters for them to work... I HATE Hiccstrid fanservice because in the LA it gives them MUCH more focus than Hiccup and Toothless's actual bond, and the Kill Ring scene is the proof. And god how I hated that dialogue... I don't want them to be putting Hiccstrid above what makes HTTYD great and that is HICCUP AND TOOTHLESS'S BOND. PERIOD. (Something rtte and httyd3 also suffer for btw but that discussion is for another day)

Hiccstrid is great yes, not only because of how they started but because of what they became. I truly appreciate their friendship and ally-ship so much. I love a LOT of their romance and I think it's actually really mature, so it pains me to see ppl reduce it to its bare minimum...

[edwardteachswombtattoo]

The interior of Ed and Stede's relationship is well-tread both in analysis and the show itself. We know why they fall for each other, how they fall for each other, when they fall for each other. We've been inside their heads. We could, if we wanted to, probably compile a rough timeline of events from Point A (Ed hearing of Stede's existence) to Point Z (Ed and Stede retiring from piracy to open an inn). Has anyone done that? Someone should do that. I might do that.

But a thread the show keeps pulling on from their first meeting all the way to the end of Season 2 is the persistent showing that no one else seems to fully understand what Ed and Stede have going on.

There are exceptions to this. Lucius with his emotional intelligence and arguably the whole crew of The Revenge understand that Ed and Stede feel something for each other that is somewhat outside the framework. The Revenge is a safe space where they are allowed to explore and hold feelings like that and their influence (Stede's, but really the whole crew's) outgrows the ship and spills out into the wider culture of piracy. They don't fundamentally change the whole culture of piracy, but their influence forces characters who would otherwise be immovable and rigid in their personal philosophies (Anne and Mary Read, Zheng Yi Sao, Auntie, Ned Low's crew, etc.) to rethink their relationships with each other.

I already made a post about Jack and how he seems to think Stede is just a passing fascination, so I won't repeat myself. But this is not the first nor will it be the last time a character fundamentally misunderstands how much Ed cares about Stede. Izzy in Season 1 legitimately believes that Stede's death will force Ed back to normal, to the extent that he does not even try to comfort or console Ed during Stede's almost-execution. And he is caught totally caught off guard when Ed gives up his life to save Stede's.

Ned Low demonstrates an awareness of something being there, but he dismisses it the same way Jack did: Ed only cares about Stede because he's new and interesting. Ed will move on once that shiny new pirate smell wears off. "Ed only cares because you're interesting" and "Ed only cares because you're inexperienced".

These are easy assumptions to make when you only have one half of the picture. And when you don't understand that Ed exists as a multi-faceted whole thinking person outside of his Blackbeard persona and piracy. The distinction between "Blackbeard" and "Ed" was made very early on (Ed introducing himself as "Ed") and reinforced later with "His name is Ed". When other characters refer to Ed, it's useful to ask: are they talking about Ed or Blackbeard? Ed and Blackbeard are not fundamentally distinct personalities, but Blackbeard is a performance and a mask Ed puts on. His arc at the end of Season 2 deals with reconciling his past, Blackbeard, The Kraken, and all these other facets of himself into one cohesive person who is just called Ed.

Yeah, Ed is fascinated by Stede's things. His fabrics, his wardrobe, the model ship, the secret passages, the books. But even from their first meeting, Ed and Stede are not just connecting over Stede's clothes and his books. Ed is sharing his love of soft things with someone for probably the first time in his life, he's being vulnerable and truthful. He remains guarded through their first interactions, but he's being more open and candid than Blackbeard would be. "Do you fancy a fine fabric?" is not a question Blackbeard would answer honestly. And when Ed casually makes the reveal ("I'm Blackbeard") in the auxiliary wardrobe, Stede does not treat him any differently after the fact. Everyone else is like "big scary pirate Blackbeard!!" but Stede is like "That's Ed :) He's my friend :) He's very cool and he likes fabrics and did I mention he is my friend?? :)"

Ned Low, Izzy Hands, and Jack all ask the question Why does Blackbeard care so much about this fucking muppet? and collectively decide it must be because Stede clearly does not know what he's doing and/or he has a lot of cool stuff and Ed is into that shit. And there is a part of Ed who probably did at one point think it was just Stede's stuff he was into, that he just wanted what Stede had and then realized it was not about the fancy stuff it was about Stede as a person. That is why Ed starts to really fall for Stede at the end of "The Best Revenge is Dressing Well". They have their intimate moment and Ed is like oh fuck I might be in love with this guy for real oh fuccccck I want to kiss him so baddddd oh shit oh fuck. I've always been of the (maybe controversial? idk) opinion that Ed was flirting during their first meeting and making it obvious as possible he was DTF if Stede was into that, which is the maximum amount of physical intimacy and wanting Ed could allow himself to express without getting scared. He wasn't full bright lights in love with Stede at first sight, but he was infatuated at first conversation.

Interestingly, we never see this on the other side. It is always assumed that Stede just doesn't understand Ed, that he doesn't understand how Ed really feels about him and if he only knew The Real Ed (Blackbeard) he wouldn't have so many soft feelings. In Season 2, Stede is continuously confused when people suggest Ed might try to kill him. Because Stede alone knows that the last time Ed tried that, he ended up having a panic attack and hiding in Stede's bathtub. Izzy tries to pull the whole "you don't know him like I do" and Stede rebukes that fucking instantly by describing Ed's entire mindset in a single sentence while Izzy was just last season struggling to understand Ed's sudden shift in behavior. Izzy sees a change in Ed's behavior and is at a loss to understand, while Stede sees a change in Ed's behavior and instantly clocks what is going on.

"You don't actually know him" is how outsiders rationalize Stede's feelings about Ed and "he's just a momentary bit of fun" is how outsiders rationalize Ed's feelings for Stede.

The key to these intimate moments between Ed and Stede is that they really are between Ed and Stede. Ed never shares these memories with anyone. Even when he's talking with Mary Read in "Fun and Games", he brings up the stabbing because it's relevant and then tries to brush it off a little by saying he had to force Stede to do it and calling Stede "fragile". He does not even allude to the intimacy of that moment and his own being vulnerable. Stede and Lucius are the only people Ed reveals those parts of himself to.

[very-straight-blog]

It really tires me how some fans try to make Aegon look like an asshole who doesn't give a shit about anything. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of his character as such. Of course he cares, that's literally the essence of his personality. He cares. He and Aemond both feel too much emotion, but if Aemond sublimates into self–improvement, trying to be strong, cold and detached, then Aegon is literally an open wound. I want to talk about this, also using Tom's interviews (yes, I think the actor's opinion is valid in this matter) and the few scenes that we have in the first season.

We know that Aegon didn't want the throne and wasn't ready to rule. The scene with Alicent, who explains to him the prospects for the future of their family, seems very traumatic to me. Imagine what it's like to know from your childhood that the lives of people close to you depend on you, on how strong you'll be. Such a burden can destroy anyone. You can't just ignore it.

Next, we're shown how Aegon drinks on Driftmark. And that's a pretty sad sight - several cups in a row, wincing, as if taking a medicine that will help him to feel better.

Actually, I like the theory that he gets drunk after Aemond says that Helaena is his future queen. Another reminder that he'll have to marry his own sister, for whom he has no feelings. And he drinks because he tries to numb his pain.

The same goes for his obviously unhealthy attitude towards sex - he uses it to numb his loneliness. I believe that Aegon literally didn't have the opportunity to feel what love is in any form. His father disliked him and showed it openly. His mother loved him, but she never knew how to express it the way he needed to. He was married to his sister (the tragedy for both of them) and it was a matter of duty, not feelings. At the time of the first season, Aegon is deeply unhappy and this is obvious. I have every reason to believe that his need for physical intimacy is based on the fact that this is the only form of love he can receive. Considering that Aegon is quite smart, I even think that he himself understands how ugly this form is, but there's nothing he can do. During the act, I guess in some unhealthy way it really saves him from loneliness, longing and the need to be loved, but in the end it makes him even more unhappy.

Then it's impossible not to remember the eighth episode and the famous:

It's still clear that family is important to him. Yes, he feels like a stranger among his relatives, but it hurts him just because he cares. He cries and says "it will never be enough for you or father" because he wants it to be enough. He still loves them and wants them to love him back.

"What Aegon wants more than anything is to be told by his dad ‘I have faith in your capabilities as a young man. I see you bringing prosperity to King’s Landing.’ But he hasn’t said any of those things. His dad has completely ignored him, in fact, throughout his entire youth." (с) Tom Glynn-Carney for Esquire

Next, we can move on to episode nine and the fact that Aegon ran away. I've seen a lot of opinions that this is an indicator of selfishness and like...what? He was scared. This follows from the script:

He was scared, he'd never leave his family, much less Sunfyre. It was a decision made in a panic when he realized that his father had died and the moment he had feared all his life had come - he needed to accept the crown to protect his family.

During the conversation in the carriage, we see that Aegon was really hurt that his father didn't love him:

He even said "because he didn't like me" when talking about his father's attitude towards him. He didn't use the word "love" because it was obvious to him that his father didn't love him. He used the word "like", unknowingly emphasizing that he couldn't count on even simple sympathy.

He's also well aware that Viserys could have named him the heir, but didn't do so simply because he didn't want to and because of this, he - the eldest son, feels unworthy of the throne, and also completely lost.

When Alicent tells him that Viserys wanted to make him the heir before his death, an emotional dam breaks inside him, it's literally written in the script:

And at this moment, looking at the dagger, he's not even listening to Alicent, he's completely in his thoughts - maybe, at least for a second, his father cared about him. And when he asks his mother if she loves him, we see how much he craves love, how broken he really is, how important his family is to him.

I know this post is insanely long and I haven't even analyzed the various microexpressions in Tom's acting, but I'm really tired of people wanting to make Aegon something pure evil.

"I also see Aegon as being incredibly complex. He's not an out-and-out psychopath. I see a multilayered character that just has endless potential of pits of vulnerability and empathy and things that we don't see. I think it's his vulnerability that breeds the darkness. It's the way he copes, it's his security, it's his safety blanket, it's an addictive coping mechanism for him to shut things out and to be cold." (с) Tom Glynn-Carney for Entertainment Weekly

[sorrelchestnut]

I've seen a fair number of posts both here and on reddit that question why Tav (or the Dark Urge) would end up as a group leader for any other reason that "game mechanics say so." There's the requisite "okay, well if you play a high charisma character I guess it makes sense," or on the other end of the spectrum, "if you're playing Durge and murder someone right off the bat everyone would be too scared to tell you no." And I get where people are going with this! I really do. But it also fundamentally misunderstands a facet of human nature, which is that the vast majority of people do not actually want to be in charge, because that means being held responsible for the outcome. Accordingly, most people will dither when a group consensus is needed: have none of you ever tried to get a group of friends to agree where to go for dinner? Yeah, it's like that, but waaaay worse.

A lot of times "leadership" is just the willingness to say, "fuck it, y'all do what you want, but I'm doing this." I see it all the time in a corporate environment, where people will go back and forth on group meetings without anyone making a decision until finally one brave soul goes "in my opinion the clear answer is x" and then everyone gratefully goes along with it. Because now it's not their responsibility when something goes wrong! They're just following along with someone else's suggestion, and maybe it works or maybe it doesn't, but at the end of the day they don't have to worry about the consequences unless they're personally affected. In which case they might step up and argue back, and then they're stuck being a leader, too. Welcome to adulthood!

Lae'zel is the only one who ever even tries to exert some kind of control, when she tells you to follow her lead on the ship, or calls you her subordinate in the Grove. But, crucially, she doesn't ever make any serious attempt to take control: you can just tell her, "lol, no," and she sort of confusedly gives way, because she doesn't know how to handle this scenario. In her world there are commanders and subordinates, and everyone knows where they stand and falls in line. She's never actually had to take control of a situation and so at the first sign of resistance she falls back on the dynamic that's familiar to her, which is executing the commands of someone older and more experienced. She goes through a lot of growth over the game, to the point that she can take over as a resistance leader in her own right by the end, but at the beginning she's a wet-behind-her-ears private with some decent combat chops and it shows.

Otherwise, your party consists of:

Shadowheart, who's trained in infiltration and assassination and does NOT want a lot of attention brought to her or her mission for a variety of reasons;

Astarion, who has literally been a slave for two centuries and canonically takes a while to realize that he can exert an opinion beyond complaining about it;

Gale, whose only friend is his cat and couldn't project-manage his way out of a wet paper bag;

Wyll, who was probably trained for command at one point but has been doing the lone-hero thing for a decade and has a very large secret that he's trying to conceal; and,

Karlach, who's only ever been a bodyguard and a soldier and is genuinely just happy to be here.

Honestly, it would be more a surprise if Tav/Durge didn't end up as their unofficial leader, given the general power dynamics at play. The first time Tav/Durge says something like, "fuck it, we need to do something instead of stand around arguing about it, let's go check out those ruins over there," it's a done deal. They're The Captain Now! As long as they don't make decisions that fundamentally oppose something dear and important to the other group members, they're not even going to get any argument. Because at the end of the day, not one of these walking disasters has enough trust in themselves and their decision-making skills to feel any kind of certainty that they can choose the right path forward. If someone else is going to take that decision out of their hands? They're going to follow, no questions asked, right up until the moment they can't.

[megaderping]

I feel like when people compare Akechi to Light Yagami, they fundamentally misunderstand his character. Their similarities really end at their designs, and Light is the kind of person Akechi would despise. Light Yagami lives a pretty privileged life at the start of Death Note. He has a stable home, with two parents and a sister who care about him. He's a successful student. There isn't really inherent tragedy to his life. The whole reason he starts using the Death Note is a mix of curiosity and a jaded worldview, and when it works it empowers him, very quickly goes to his head, as he believes he is one who can be a god of a "new world" once the shock of his initial kills wears off. While his first kill was to help someone, that altruism didn't last. He is in charge of his choices, while Ryuk mostly vibes and maybe eggs him on a little. Fundamentally, Light has something Akechi lacks: agency, and a comfortable life he took for granted. Meanwhile, Akechi is someone who lived on the bottom rung of Japanese society. His very existence is shameful there, between his mother being a sex worker, his status as an illegitimate/"throw away" child, and his mother's suicide. Years languishing in a foster system that is notoriously inhumane, in a country where 90% of the adoptions are grown men for inheritance and patriarchal reasons, while very few children in the system find permanent homes. When Akechi awakens his power, he approaches Shido not because he wants to kill people but for a stupid revenge plan cooked up by a traumatized child who's been nudged along by a malevolent god. He wants to build Shido up so that at the height of his power, he can expose him for the monster he really is, while another part of him genuinely wants to be useful to Shido, as Cogkechi later calls out. His feelings are a mess of contradictions, and so it's no surprise that Shido was able to mold him into his assassin at only 15 years old. It's also worth noting that Akechi only approaches Shido with his ability to cause psychotic breakdowns. Shido is the one who teaches and instructs him to do shutdowns. He's still complicit, very sunk cost with his revenge plan, but as I spoke of here, even if he wanted to quit, he couldn't alone. Shido's cleaner and control of the law and ability to effortlessly turn him in would render the Metaverse his only safe haven. I think people look at 11/20 Akechi and Akechi in the early parts of the engine room and assume that's just his "true self," when in reality it's another mask. Royal makes it very clear because in Rank 7, he outright warns Joker of what's to come via a pool metaphor and offers an out (though he's MUCH happier if you don't take it/stick to your principles), and in Rank 8, he goes on that big "I hate you" speech... while Sunset Bridge is playing. Y'know, the song that plays at the end of most confidants to reaffirm bonds. So when he smiles as he shoots what he assumes to be Joker, that doesn't mean he's genuinely happy. More likely, he's an emotional clusterfuck, given he also is disoriented enough to namedrop "Shido-san" over the phone, and in the subsequent meeting with Shido, tells him not to kill the Phantom Thieves and that Morgana is "just a cat." Yes, he says they'll make them fear for the rest of their lives, but remember, he's talking to Shido. The things he says are likely all incredibly calculated to sound appealing to Shido. And when you consider that he planned to utterly destroy Shido's reputation after the election, the "delay" makes even more sense.

Later, Akechi goes on about how the people he induced shutdowns on were deserving of their fates, but I don't think he believes it so much as it's the only way he could convince himself that it was worth it, and given how much society failed him, and given how many of the people he targeted were likely rivals/competitors or rich fucks, I think he'd be less inclined to assume good faith. Kunikazu Okumura was not an innocent little victim, after all. He was one of the people who requested breakdowns and shutdowns the most. I think Akechi enjoyed killing him not because of how it'd hurt Haru, but because of catharsis. Because Okumura is just as monstrous as Shido, so why should he feel remorse? However, I don't believe he feels the same about Wakaba, as when he discusses her with Shido, he mentions how her fate was because she refused to willingly work for him. It's another justification, but I personally think Wakaba's death was the most painful for him because he was effectively making Futaba just like him. That's why I think his reaction to Sae threatening Sojiro's custody was genuine. Anyway, evil grinning Akechi is just another mask, as I said. Keep in mind, this is someone who laments not meeting Joker years ago, someone who Morgana outright points out is lying about his hatred. And that's the thing. Light Yagami, while a really fascinating character, is not someone who had all this childhood suffering or lack of agency. He does not regret his actions in the slightest and goes down due to his own hubris in both the anime and the manga. While you can argue that Ryuk set him up by dropping the Death Note, Light was the one who picked it up and chose to use it. Any nudging from Ryuk didn't coerce Light into doing it because Light seized the opportunity. No, if Light Yagami is like anyone in Persona 5, it's Masayoshi Shido, not Goro Akechi. Both believe they are god/god's chosen, that they are the ones who will reshape the world to their ideals, and to be frank, both use and abuse women to serve their own purposes. Goro Akechi goes down sacrificing himself for the Thieves and pleading with them to stop his father and again in Maruki's reality when he refuses to let Joker accept a gilded prison of a world for his sake when he knows better than anyone what it's like to have no true freedom. If you max his confidant, you see him in the postcredits, leaving his survival entirely possible, and I think it works because at the end of the day, Akechi was meant to be a victim and a foil. Light is a villain protagonist and a cautionary tale. Though its his POV we follow, he isn't someone we're meant to root for, but I definitely don't think enjoying the character is a bad thing at all. He's really interesting! I just think that a lot of the Akechi and Light comparisons are surface level at best.

[thetableshavetabled]

I saw a comment u made on another post about andrew drugging neil and I thought one thing u said was rlly interesting -

it was about Roland's and andrews relationship, I'm paraphrasing but I think u said something like Roland wouldn't get the 'yes or no' that Neil does because andrew 1) doesn't rlly care about Roland personally & 2) Andrew has no promise to protect Roland

I agree completely, but I've never seen anybody else say it! Andrew often gets portrayed by fans like he would always ask for consent this way, and I never rlly agreed. I don't think he would ignore Roland telling him to stop or anything, but I don't think he'd be considerate or careful like he is with neil.

If u have anymore thoughts on their relationship or andrew or roland in general, I'd love to hear it :)

Thanks for giving me an excuse to dig into this! To talk about Roland I first want to talk about the fandom's misconceptions of Andrew.

The way some fans try to retroactively frame Andrew's handling of Neil as a universal consent practice completely misses why it exists specifically with Neil. This comes up especially now that AFTG has reached platforms like TikTok, where I often see claims like "Andrew wouldn't have drugged people, he cares about consent" or the Allison incident or even, most insane to me, how Andrew shouldn't have kissed Neil that first time on the rooftop without asking first. These interpretations fundamentally misunderstand Andrew's character.

Frankly, I don't understand why you would bother to advcate that a character is acting out of character in the canon material. That just means you don't like the character, which is fine. "The monsters were never redeemed" (which was the original post where I left my comment) is much more textually accurate and a much better take than trying to sanitize Andrew's actions.

Understanding why Andrew and the other Monsters act as they do isn't the same as justifying their actions and people should be a lot more comfortabe enjoying morally gray characters, or, even better, just admit you don't like them. Fans do that with Kevin, Aaron and Nicky all the time, but with Andrew they struggle because they love this cute little gay ship with their soft kisses and touch him and die trope. The desire to ship Andreil seems to create this pressure to soften and force Andrew into a romance booktok mold when the real beauty of their relationship lies in how they accept each other's sharp edges and scars.

Take Andrew drugging Neil, for instance. We can understand the strategic reasoning (keeping Neil from running, maintaining control, protecting Kevin) while still recognizing it as a violation. The same goes for his violence toward Allison or his blowout at Katelyn or how he treats Aaron. Understanding that these actions stem from Andrew's trauma, his protection mechanisms, and his "nothing" philosophy doesn't require us to retroactively frame them as morally acceptable.

We are repeatedly shown that Andrew is not a character who cares about others' boundaries. From the moment we meet him and right until the end he shows this. Andrew is not a good person, and he is not mentally well. He's complex, traumatized, and his actions make sense within his characterization, even when, or maybe especially when they're morally questionable.

This brings us to Roland. With Roland, Andrew has a pragmatic arrangement that lets him focus on his own needs without managing someone else's trauma or emotions. Their dynamic works because:

Roland is experienced and emotionally self-sufficient.

Andrew doesn't have to manage his emotional state or trauma responses.

There's an established history that makes Roland a "safe" option.

Neil was always going to be different. The combination of Andrew's promise to protect him, Neil's extensive trauma history, and his complete inexperience with intimacy shattered every one of Andrew's patterns. Where others fit into clear categories - threat, asset, occasional outlet - Neil defied classification from the beginning. With Roland, it's pragmatic: they both know what they want and can handle themselves accordingly. With Neil's inexperience and extensive trauma and the deepness of the relationship it shakes up everything. If Roland had shown the kind of ambiguous consent that Neil does on the rooftop Andrew would never have pushed through or done anything but stop immediately, but he wouldn't have worked through it either. He would just simply not have approached Roland again.

It is less about "yes or no" even though i initally used that phrase and most about "I won't be like them. I won't let you let me be." It exists specifically because of Neil's circumstances and Andrew's promise to protect him. It's not a universal approach to consent, it's about their unique dynamic and mutual understanding of trauma.

This ties into a larger discussion of how Andrew sometimes gets "fanon-ized" in ways that smooth over his complexities and contradictions. He is not someone who is conventionally "good" or mentally well, but whose actions make sense within his own internal logic and experiences. The Andrew who shows careful consideration for Neil's boundaries, who gets in the shower fully clothed, who asks 'yes or no', is the same Andrew who drugged Neil, nearly stabbed Nicky, and almost killed Allison. Not to mention driving under the influence and, of course, literal manslaughter.

This is not to say Andrew doesn't evolve as a character, of course, but not in a conventional redemptive way. Without turning this into a full character analysis I will sum it up like this: Andrew's character arc is about him going from nothing to something.

[theredhairedmonkey]

I feel like most people kinda get the point of the season, but it does seem that there are a handful of people that are either ideologically committed to either seeing dark magic as always evil or seeing Callum as morally corrupt or compromised in a way that Rayla and Ezran are not (not sure how the latter is even remotely possible at this point), so maybe it might be good to spell out season 7's theme for everyone's benefit:

This season's theme is first and foremost about the loss of childhood innocence, a necessary step to becoming a fully-rounded adult. When Aaravos talks about losing childhood innocence, he's referring to the moment when someone realizes the world isn't as simple as they once believed - that good and evil aren't always clear-cut, that sometimes difficult choices must be made. His perspective seems to be that losing this innocence inevitably leads to moral compromise, that understanding complexity means abandoning simple principles.

And he's...actually not wrong. Ezran wasn't pure because he was such a moral paragon, but because he was innocent. He was able to position himself around ethical lines (such as refraining from violence) because he was always protected from the consequences that moral complexity brings. But once that was taken away - Katolis destroyed, facing his father's killer, witnessing Callum's supposed betrayal - it forced Ez into a situation where he couldn't take the same morally rigid stances he once did. 

Complexity invites challenges. Challenges invites compromise. 

Much like Aaravos, Callum is a character who understands all too well what this means. He lost his innocence at a much younger age when both his biological parents had died and he was forced to grow up too fast. When Aaravos says that there is "great affinity" between them, he's right in a certain way - he's recognizing their shared ability to perceive moral complexity - to understand that situations aren't always simple black and white choices. Both characters demonstrate this understanding. Aaravos sees beyond simple good and evil, recognizing that sometimes difficult choices must be made. Similarly, Callum understands that situations can be "complicated," as he says about the Runaan situation, acknowledging that justice and mercy can conflict.

However, Aaravos is also very wrong about Callum because he fundamentally misunderstands what he does with this knowledge. 

When Aaravos talks about "compromise," he means compromising moral principles to achieve desired ends. His view is that since the world is morally complex, we're justified in doing whatever serves our purposes. This is where he's wrong about Callum.

Callum's recognition of moral complexity actually leads him to become more principled, not less. When he understands a situation is complicated, he doesn't use that as justification for moral compromise. Instead, he looks for solutions that acknowledge the complexity while maintaining clear principles about who should bear the costs of difficult choices. His final plan with Aaravos demonstrates this perfectly - he recognizes the need to use dark magic (showing he understands complexity) but ensures he bears the cost himself through sacrifice (maintaining his principles).

The situation with Runaan foreshadows how he handles Aaravos - Callum's recognition of complexity leads him to find more creative ways to do what's right, while maintaining principles about who should bear the costs. Whereas Viren/Claudia would sacrifice others (i.e. creatures, people, etc.) to achieve their ends, Callum's main sacrifice is himself - he will block Aanya's arrow with his body, or resign as High Mage the second he think it would be necessary to do the right thing.

This explains why Aaravos becomes so furious when Callum reveals his sacrifice plan. Aaravos believed their shared understanding of complexity meant Callum would eventually follow his path of moral compromise. Instead, Callum shows that understanding complexity just motivated him to find other ways to stay true to his principles, even at the cost of his own life. He proves that recognizing the world isn't black and white doesn't have to lead to corruption.

By the end, he demonstrates a simple truth that forms the core of this season - the loss of one's innocence is inevitable, but the loss of one's character is not.

[cindersnows]

the problem with mitsi (or as i like to call it. mitsogyny)

(context: this was written under a youtube video, which i'm sure most of us have at least seen pop up in our recommendeds, in response to many people taking criticism against the new episode. it has been edited a little to be more cohesive as a somewhat-essay)

ok, i wanted to write out a rant/essay/ramble/whatever sort of summarising the criticism against mitsi's plotline because a lot of the people here seem to be misunderstanding the fundamental issue that people have with it, including some of those people themselves.

first off, an analysis that i think tell both sides of the argument very well which i feel should be read before reading the essay: Mitsi: What Makes A Fridged Character (and why y'all are wrong about it) | an AvA essay by InksandPensblog. i will note: i don't care to discuss whether mitsi was fridged or not and that won't be of much importance in this post. the above link gives some insight into some of the fandom's criticism of mitsi and how she was "fridged", defining common tropes for examples. that's what's relevant to this post.

the main issue with mitsi, in my opinion, is less with the fact that mitsi's a girl and moreso the fact that she's one of the only female-coded character in the series, and that her character's main purpose was to further victim's own development. the other arguably female-coded character in the series is pink, who (like navy) only really exists to explain purple's motivations. i don't have much of an issue with that since they're not meant to be important or sympathised with at all. that's not their job in the story.

with mitsi, i've seen people point out that she has more character to her than just victim's love interest and supporter: she invents rocketcorp, she's smart, she's kind, innocent and helpful. narratively speaking, she shows other creations' relationships with their animators, parallels her innocence with victim's trauma, and introduces victim to the outernet (as most fans call the stick realm).

but most of this things imo are either stretches or invalid arguments. she's not really a 2/3-dimensional character in any way; her main character traits boil down to the fact that she likes to be in service of others with no nuance behind why she likes helping people. she hypes up victim for the villagers, she starts a company with him to share his talents with the world, and she helps him overcome his trauma from alan's torture. all of her main plot beats center around victim: and while technically the sticks are genderless and free to be interpreted however the viewer wants, alan and most of his team see all the main characters as male, and that subconciously affects how they're written. mitsi, the first major female-coded character, spends most of her storyline in service of victim, a character not written as female.

there's also the issue of her being victim's canonical love interest. i feel like this statement from alan is important to keep in mind (don't mind the sound effects and edits, this is the only isolated clip i can find at the moment). in particular:

"i just assume that [the ava/m characters] are just a bunch of bros]. i haven't thought of adding any female stick figures but i think it'd be good. i don't want to introduce any romance though, i don't want that to be a theme."

he seems to have changed his mind on that last part, which is fine, but the notable part for me is that he seems to associate female characters with romance from the getgo. before anyone misinterprets this, i'm not trying to call alan sexist or anything. but there's a common issue with women in stories being reduced to just a romantic partner for the male lead, and mitsi falls under this, with her entire character existing to serve victim. (not to mention people will make things about romance whether you like it or not. that's just basic fandom. search up grapeduo or chodark.) even her death is to put victim on the path of vengeance--- it doesn't need to happen to show the extent of tco and tdl's destruction, because that's already made pretty clear in ava s2 the flashback and the earlier scenes showing various characters escaping burning buildings. when you write a female-coded character whose only purpose is to serve a male character, you're contributing to sexist narratives.

a counter i see many people point out with the idea that she has no character is that she does have character traits, it's just that they're generic ones like "kind" and "innocent". the issue is that she has no flaws to counterpoint this; it's not that she didn't have enough screentime. in ava4 for example, we see tsc's flaws pretty clearly; they can be very mean when they want to, they're petty (albeit for a fair reason), they're a little impulsive. this is shown in 11 minutes (from the moment they come alive to the end of the video).

with mitsi meanwhile… she doesn't seem to have any flaws? she helps victim whenever she can. she's nice to all the villagers. her customers all like her and she's a great leader at rocket corp (to note, specifically as part of a pair with victim. they're a power couple, she's barely given credit for her work alone). she has 13 minutes of screentime, or 10 if you count from her waking up in the outernet. there's plenty of opportunities to show her having flaws; maybe she acts a little selfish during tdl and tco's attack, only wanting to help herself and agent smith, or maybe she overworks herself, or feels awkward at having too much attention (and that could also be why she redirects so much attention to victim, she's shy). you could argue that the episode needs to develop victim and agent smith too, but ava4 shows that's easy to do too: just a few seconds dedicated to showing rgyb fighting over who leaves first shows that they can be selfish and childish. it's very easy to insert a moment like that for mitsi.

it's a little disappointing when the first major female-coded character in ava is completely flawless, with no personality outside of being nice and helpful for others.

also, slightly unrelated, check out this quote from mitsi's plushie website: "her white featureless face seems to ooze mystery and feminine power all at the same time." her main character trait, as a woman, is being feminine. it's irritating as someone who's been raised a woman to see her reduced to just her gender. she feels more plastic than a person, like the concept of what a woman should be (perfect, kind, useful) and not an actual character/person.

i would expect more from the writing in the series seeing as it's not just an independent passion project anymore, and has multiple writers that all could've worked to flesh out mitsi, or at least get a sensitivity reader of sorts to point these issues out. it's extremely disappointing and i can understand why people were upset.

tldr: the problem isn't just that mitsi's a girl, or that she's nice or dating victim, it's that she's written in a misogynistic way.

[the-music-maniac]

I get a little annoyed when people's complaints about zosan stray into the "Sanji would never fall for Zoro because of personal hygiene issues" territory. Mostly because I feel like it involves a fundamental misunderstanding about their dynamic and also Sanji as a character.

First of all, Sanji smokes cigarettes and cooks seafood and shit. Even if he does shower daily, there is no way he smells like a rose garden. So there's that.

Second of all, Sanji is a COOK. You literally cannot be a cook if you're afraid of getting your hands dirty, if you're afraid of working up a sweat. He knows the value of hard work in that regard. For his craft, Sanji gets all up in some fish guts, he hunts, he cleans, de-feathers, skins, butchers whatever creature they've managed to hunt - come on y'all. That is not a man that would be a germaphobe. He keeps his workspace and himself clean cause that's the mark of a good cook, but the man would have no qualms about getting dirty. He ain't squeamish.

Third, Sanji's entire thing is that he ACTS like a refined gentleman, but he's a little bit batshit crazy in the same way all the strawhats are. He's one of the monster trio for a reason! They're all freaking unhinged, Sanji's first reaction to seeing sea monsters is to yell that he wants to cook it. He's fought so many battles, I've no doubt that there's blood soaked into the soles of his fancy loafers, caked into some of the hems of his suit pants. My point being that while him acting like he's a gentleman with "refined tastes" is no means deception (he probably has excellent taste when it comes to dining) he also doesn't fit that description entirely. He strives for it, in order to maintain an image, and it also plays into his whole "ladies man" thing as well. But he's not actually a refined gentleman in our traditional interpretation of the word. He's down to slum it if needed, and will kick a person's ass for not finishing a soup that has a bug in it because it would mean wasting food. Also the man has worn orange crocs. Refined my ass.

Fourth, you can deny it all you want, but Zoro and Sanji have always been and will likely always be, two people that match each other's freak. And by that I mean that all it takes is Zoro muttering one little disparaging comment, and Sanji is immediately there, ready to throw down, dirt and sweat be damned. If he were to complain about Zoro's supposed bathing habits and shit, while I don't doubt some of it would be genuine complaint, it probably would mostly be because it would annoy Zoro. But when it comes down to stuff Sanji actually gives a shit about, hygiene would probably not be high up on that list. He is 100% that motherfucker that would get heart eyes over Zoro eating sugar onigiri out of the mud to spare a little girl's feelings.

I get annoyed by people using that argument as if it's a legitimate reasoning for why Zoro and Sanji wouldn't get together. Like what impression of Sanji do you have in your head? You think the dude that constantly knocks foreheads with Zoro during their antagonistic (gay) posturing would get squeamish about Zoro being a little sweaty? Sanji can be your babygirl if you want, but we gotta stop acting like he's the type to get squeamish over stuff like that - there's no way that out of ALL the issues Sanji has yet to work through locked up in that pretty noggin of his, that personal hygiene would be the hold up on a relationship between these two. The zosan dynamic is Sanji complains loudly about Zoro being a disgusting brute and then will turn around and roundhouse kick a man's head off. Like yes, Sanji. That's not the pot calling the kettle black at all.

None of this is a complaint btw. That's literally my favourite part about Sanji, and Zosan as a whole. Sanji wouldn't be nearly as interesting if he was just a gentleman. Zosan wouldn't be as compelling if they weren't two lil peas in a pod, equally as unhinged. The only difference is Zoro puts literally no effort into trying to hide his level of derangement. Which is also very in character for him, btw.