#he’s so deeply characterized and nuanced and complex

[wildsaltair]

Maximus COULD have been boring. sometimes writing a character who is so good and upright and unshakably noble and honorable results in them being bland, uninteresting. but not Maximus

[edwardteachswombtattoo]

So when we talk about Ed being infantilized, in a lot of ways it's functionally the same discussion we've been having about Ed being referred to as an "aggressive violent angry monster". The key takeaway from both discussions is that Ed is a complex nuanced character whose personality can be broken down and examined piece by piece. The show, as I've said before, doesn't hide its premise and characterization under ten layers of metaphor. If the show wanted us to see Ed as an irredeemable violent monster (for some reason???) the show would have simply given us at least one scene where Ed does something irredeemably violent against a character we're supposed to care about.

"But what about Izzy--" you start to protest. Yeah, what about Izzy? I think people who are deep into the Izzy fandom forget that the average viewer has either a negative or neutral reaction to Izzy. People watching the show for the first time without interacting in fandom spaces usually dislike Izzy immediately, find him mildly interesting but are more invested in what Stede/Ed have going on, or think of him as a somewhat entertaining antagonist and a little sorry for him in Season 2. I think people in fandom forget that 99% of people who know nothing about the show or the fandom itself are not developing an extreme fanatical obsession with this one character. And even people who are critically analyzing certain aspects of this show while viewing for the first time are usually not on Izzy's side. Sometimes when you're deeply entrenched in fandom shit you forget that the average new viewer is not treating Izzy like he's the best character in the show who can do no wrong.

Okay, I'm putting the rest of this under a Read More. Because this got super fucking long. I won't apologize because anybody whose been following me for a while must have realized this by now. Give me a platform and I will yammer.

Ed does not physically harm anyone other than Izzy....after Izzy yells at and threatens him. If the writers wanted to at least imply Ed was physically harming other members of the crew off-screen, they could have done that in a billion different ways. But we only see him threatening them with a gun, then later forcing them to kill him...which are pretty bad, but he never actually hurts them physically. Yeah, he waves a gun at them but he also sticks the gun under his own chin, so...???

We also have several scenes where the crew could mention off-hand that Ed has been hurting them. Surely if that was happening, they would want to talk about it when Ed isn't around! Instead some of them express concern for Ed (Fang's comment about how he's never seen Ed like this before, implying that Ed's behavior, especially having zero reaction to Ivan's death, is out of the ordinary) and also concern for Ed and Izzy's "unhealthy relationship" (again, none of the crew are expressing concern for what Ed is doing to them, they're just complaining about having to go on so many raids and throw away treasure). We can draw the obvious conclusion: the show does not want us to think Ed is being violent towards other members of the crew, only that he's cut off more of Izzy's toes. And as I said before, the average viewer isn't centering Izzy as the most important best guy in the show and Ed as some kind of evil monster for harming him. In other words, Ed's behavior towards Izzy is clearly not meant to be taken as an indicator for what he's doing to the rest of the crew. It's only Izzy, the guy who directly antagonized him.

And, just as a reminder, Ed finds out they've been hiding Izzy, that Frenchie didn't kill Izzy like Ed ordered him to and Ed does absolutely jack shit?? They ignored a direct order from their captain and nothing happens?? Ed doesn't even kill Izzy himself! He doesn't punish anyone for directly ignoring his orders! Again, this would have been a perfect chance for the writers to imply Ed was physically harming the crew in some way...but they didn't, so we have to assume he's not. It's not even implied Ed did this before his breakup era! It's apparently unusual (unusual enough for Fang to remark on it) for Ed to not care about Ivan's death!

Ed very rarely hurts people unless they deserve it. He doesn't even defend himself when the fisherman guy pushes him to the ground and yells at him! And even when they deserve it, sometimes he doesn't! He decided not to kill Ned Low and, as stated before, he didn't even defend himself against the fisherman! If the show wanted us to think Ed was an angry irrational monster, they had so many fucking chances to show that. So I think it's pretty fair to assume we are not supposed to think Ed is an irrational angry monster. Most of his anger is very rational, actually. Even when he has a big outburst (smashing the chair) it's calculated and he immediately removes himself from the situation to calm down. And when Stede talks to him a moment after? Ed is just pouty and rightfully angry, he's not violent or threatening.

The infantilization of Edward Teach, rather than running counter to this, often incorporates some aspects of it. Fanon of this kind often depicts Ed as a violent adult-sized toddler with emotional regulation issues who needs to be "managed" (often by Izzy or Stede, sometimes both) and attacks/kills the people he cares about at the slightest provocation. And even when Ed isn't depicted as a violent toddler in this kind of fanon, he is instead depicted as someone who can't take care of himself/basic tasks without a white man's help.

And I just wanna say, it's not inherently racist to depict a POC as an abuser or as an evil horrible person. That's literally fucking fine.

Spoilers for The Locked Tomb book series

I absolutely love The Locked Tomb, a book series filled with lots of deeply nuanced and complex characters, most of which are POC. And one of the central and most important characters in the series is an indigenous Maori man called John Gaius who literally killed billions of innocent people and has a problematic relationship with almost every other character he interacts with, mostly because of the whole "killing everybody on Earth and becoming God" thing. He's a very nuanced complex fucked up person with trauma and mommy issues and there's no way around that in the narrative.

Okay no more spoilers for The Locked Tomb

I'm mostly pulling this out as an example of like, yeah you can write characters (including indigenous Maori men) as being fucked up people who do fucked up things. It's literally fine.

But...that's not what's happening with Edward Teach in OFMD. You know all that stuff I just said about (REDACTED) from The Locked Tomb? Yeah, those are all things he canonically did. If you're writing fanon about a POC (especially if you're treating it as canon) and it runs completely counter to how they are depicted in canon and it's heavily centralized on racist stereotypes usually aimed at indigenous men....yeah, that's not just "having fun with fanon". I don't need to tell you guys why Twilight and its depiction of werewolves was problematic about Native Americans, do I? I don't need to explain to you guys how depicting indigenous men as angry violent murderers needing to be "controlled" by civilized white men is deeply fucking racist, do I? I don't need to explain that it's racist even if you're doing it in a work of fiction, right? I don't need to explain that constructing an entire fanon based partially or entirely around the concept of an indigenous man being a violent adult-sized toddler who abuses his white boyfriend especially when he's not depicted like that in canon is extremely fucking racist, right? Right? RIGHT?

For the record, I'm not saying you can't write fic or make art about Stede taking care of Ed. Write about Stede braiding Ed's hair and painting his nails and soft domming him into oblivion, I don't fucking care. But you can write fic about Stede braiding Ed's hair without implying/stating that Ed can't take care of himself. You can write fic where Stede comforts Ed after a long day without implying/stating Ed can't take care of himself. You can write fic/make art about Ed being a beautiful pampered princess without implying/stating he needs to be "managed". Why does it need to be "Ed can't do this for himself, he needs Stede and/or Izzy to do it for him?" as opposed to "Ed can do these things himself, he's just choosing to let Stede do them because he trusts and loves Stede so so so much?"

And yeah, let's be real here. There are people (including POC) who need/want to be taken care of or helped with basic tasks. There are high support needs and low functioning autistic people, for example, who happen to be POC and need that kind of help. But we all know that's not what fic writers and fan artists who depict Ed as some kind of helpless toddler have in mind.

[glitter-stained]

When I say knowledge of the context is useful to analyse comics, what I mean is that the lazarus pit being a potential factor for Jason's worst behaviour was introduced in Lost Days: we see the classic temporary outburst at the beginning, and then I think the comic is pretty clear on condemning Talia's initial diagnosis of "the pit made him a psychopathic monster", both to us seeing him save all these people and doing his own vigilantism, and to Talia when she's like "you're learning". I've mentioned before how lost days introduces its own explanation for UTH!Jason (as much as I dislike it), so we know that Pit Madness isn't the preferred explanation for his behaviour in UTH and Winick's Jason in general. But then, we also see Ra's condemning Talia's actions by going "perhaps not today perhaps not now but eventually he's going to go crazy." Seems like we're getting a lot of leeway here isn't it? (Even more than we had in bop with Dixon's cautiously vague explanation of the pit). Seems like an awfully convenient way to explain any moment of Jason behaving horribly in away that doesn't fit the parameters of Winick's characterization. Note also that Lost Days is imo the best (so far) pre-n52 story at creating empathy towards Jason since we see him look his actual age, we see how deeply hurt he was and for how long we see him have a traumatic flashback we see him cry we see him sit on a chair and not touch the ground we see him try his best and save people and show empathy and discernment and see that he has a moral conduct other than "anarchic killing"...

Anyway, check that out:

Now this is what I call damage control. You absolutely insist in maintaining some of the worst runs in the history of the characters into your version of canon (which you claim is the real valid canon that everyone should accept) despite its apparent erasure from mainline? Okay sure understandable we all have different tastes in comics and what we think is important for a character's identity. Fine. Why then did Jason make any of the choices he made in those terrible stories? (Including that terrible clothing choice)?

He was pit mad. That's the canon explanation. He literally wasn't himself. He wasn't fundamentally inherently and absolutely evil, he wasn't crazy evil, he was high on magic gatorade.

I'd expect Winick to have done that more to preserve and mitigate the character assassination of the complex/nuanced villain he created than out of a sudden shift in stance on psychophobia, but I'm still grateful for it. Anyway, pit madness is real, and cptsd doesn't make you shoot children.

[cosmerelists]

Renarin Gets Advice About Being A Main Character

"Renarin gets help" list requested by anon. :)

[Stormlight Spoilers, including a WOB about Stormlight 6-10 in the Intro Paragraph!]

According to a WoB, Renarin won't be a main character until the back half of Stormlight (source). So, in preparation for his presumed ascension to Main Character Status (which I'm sure he knows about through his future sight), Renarin is going to get advice from the characters around him about how to be the best main character he can be.

...It made sense in my head, okay? Let's do this!

1. Shallan

Shallan: I think complexity is key. Renarin: In what sense? Shallan: You've got "weird guy" nailed down--really solidified that back when you were crouching in the corner saying ominous things during the onset of the Everstorm--but of course, you can't JUST be the weird guy. Shallan: You need, like, a tortured past and various schemes and a deeply faceted and nuanced characterization--just keep the readers guessing! Renarin: I don't know how you define "tortured," but my dad did kill my mom. And I am canonically the one piece that even the Diagram cannot account for. Shallan: Yes, yes. That's good stuff. Now you just need to put those tortured flashbacks and maverick energy on the page! Shallan: Honestly, I cannot wait to hear what's going on in that head of yours. Renarin: ...thank you?

2. Kaladin

Kaladin: Cool entrances. Cool one-liners. Kaladin: Remember when you followed me, Shallan, and Dalinar up like the entirety of Urithiru just so that you could step from the shadows at a dramatic moment and announce yourself as a Knight Radiant? Renarin: I, uh, do remember that, yes. Renarin: It was a really long walk. Renarin: I can't believe none of you spotted me that whole way. Kaladin: Readers don't need to know the details.

3. Dalinar

Dalinar: Your journey is your own. Dalinar: You don't have to be the strongest fighter or the most charismatic leader to be a main character. Dalinar: You can do it in your own way. Renarin: All right but I might want to do some of the fighting though. Renarin: You've seen me rush heedlessly into the fray multiple times now. Dalinar: I'm just saying you don't have to. Renarin: ... Renarin: Now I kind of want to do it more.

4. Eshonai

Eshonai: You might expect me to say "don't die." Eshonai: But I actually got a lot of character building post-death. Eshonai: ... Eshonai: I think it's still better not to die, though. Renarin: Yeah.

5. Lirin

Lirin: Do you care if fans like you? Renarin: [considering] Renarin: I would not say it's my highest priority, but I think I'd rather be liked if possible. Lirin: Sure, sure. Lirin: Then just don't be mean to Kaladin. Lirin: Trust me when I say that is the one thing you cannot do if you want to still have fans. Renarin: I'll...keep that in mind, I guess.

6. Jasnah

Jasnah: Being a main character simply involves having a lot of plot, yes? Jasnah: You are a Knight Radiant. Insert yourself into the most important matters of the day. Jasnah: Your accomplishments will drive the narrative, and then you will be the narrative. Renarin: You make it sound very...simple. Jasnah: But not easy. Jasnah: But that is all right--I know you can handle it.

7. Moash

Moash: Good main characters are a dime a dozen, frankly. Moash: Have you thought about going evil? Really makes a guy stand out from the crowd. Moash: You can even thin out the competition by killing other main characters. Moash: Ups your evil quotient and makes you even more of a main character. Moash: It's just math. Renarin: ... Renarn: Why did I ask you again?

8. Navani

Navani: Just don't let anyone stop you. Navani: Oh, people want to leave me off-screen in Kholinar? Too bad. I'm coming to the Shattered plains. Navani: Oh, one of the view point characters is trying to avoid me? Too bad. I'm dating him. Navani: Oh, I'm too human to be the second Bondsmith? Too bad--I'm all you got. Renarin: I'm not sure--that sounds awfully forceful. Navani: Let me put it in your terms. Navani: "Oh, people think my condition means I can't fight? I'm going to jump into a 4v1 duel while holding a sword that psychically damages me, just to help my brother." Renarin: ... Renarin: Thanks, Aunt Navani. Navani: Any time.

9. Adolin

Adolin: Advice about being a main character, huh? Adolin: Well! I know that readers like three things: romance, cool swords, and epic fights. Renarin: ...Aren't those things that YOU like? Adolin: Yes, exactly! Readers are just like me! Adolin: And that's why I know you'll be a good main chacter. Adolin: You got potential romance with another fan-favorite character and you have a living Shardblade (which is inherently cool). Just get a couple of on-page fights and you're good to go!

10. Wit

Wit: Readers just want originality. Renarin: All right. Renarin: Do you have any advice about how to achieve that? Wit: [puts a hand on Renarin's shoulder] Wit: Trust me, my friend: you can just do what comes naturally.

[neros-w]

a softly made pact - a Sumeru meta post

ao3 version here

I promised way back that I’d do an entire breakdown on my thoughts and research notes on my Sethos fic, come disrupt this silence, which was an exploration of Sethos’ characterization, motivations, and deep insecurities. I then ended up having to do some college stuff. But, college isn’t starting for at least 3 more weeks so here’s me getting into the grove of things.

This ended up being an analysis of Sumeru’s Archon quest and the nation’s ideals as a whole (desert and forest), but it still ties in to my thoughts on my fic and Sethos characterization so if you wanna read it, feel free.

I have several key points to discuss in this breakdown namely the concept of the Rtawahist darshan’s Illuminationism, the worship of truth in Sumeru, and the faith of the Temple of Silence. I suppose the easy way would be to break it down in chunks of how I started each of my chapters for the Sethos fic. But I’ll shuffle them around for overall cohesion.

Again, like my breakdown on my notes on hope or nostalgia, hover over or click underlined or hyperlinked text for further information or my sources. I’ll likely be linking to my references directly through those tooltips.

Also, spoiler warnings for my Sethos fic. If you wanna read it beforehand, go ahead. And general spoiler warnings for Sumeru’s Archon quest, character story quests, A Parade of Providence, etc.

destination

Sumeru’s culture

As is apparent for any discerning players, Sumeru is steeped in influences from the Islamic Golden Age and philosophies from Western Asia.

The Akademiya as an institution is inspired by the scholars of old, all of whom had constructed colleges and spaces for all walks of life to share their observations and synthesize their learnings into writing.

Sumeru’s culture is centered on the the pursuit and refinement of knowledge. Learning and wanting to learn is such a big part of the culture that the first friends we meet in Sumeru are those who are eager to learn— Collei who wants to be a capable forest ranger, Haypasia who wants to connect with Irminsul.

Humans in Teyvat (and in real life) understand, by order of pedagogy, that knowledge must be unsullied by the voices and opinions of others— critical and unbiased, that the truth must be universal and all-encompassing— universizability is a concept deeply ingrained in philosophy.

But these ideas, as they are human ideas, are supposed to be complex, flawed, and nuanced. Knowledge that is biased is still true, as are truths that are complicated and tangential. This is what Nahida meant when she said that Kaveh’s understanding of truth and wisdom is almost perfect because he believes that the truth isn’t meant to be pigeonholed into digestible concepts. From Kaveh’s story (Old Sketchbook (unlocked at Friendship Lv. 4)):

Know that truth has never existed for the sake of individuals. The logic of the world coexists with nature, and this will not easily change whether it is interpreted as such or not.

In essence: the world does not exist for humanity and deluding ourselves into thinking otherwise is folly.

Sumeru’s faith

At the metaphorical level, Sumeru’s god and Archon is truth, the amalgamation of knowledge in Teyvat, personified. Nahida, Rukkhadevata, and all incarnations before them are beings of old dating back millennia that are susceptible to the whims of erosion and external tampering. Yes, the truth has been tampered with but it is true nonetheless and to deny it is foolish.

It’s what you do with the truth, what your values and prior experiences tell you, is what really matters. That’s wisdom.

There’s a reason why the constructed god made to replace Nahida, the God to be Saved (「正機之神」, in EN they localized this into “Shouki no Kami, the Prodigal,” but philosophically speaking, this removes it of its context), is one with the title “the Everlasting, Omniscient, Lord of Wisdom and Mercy.” This is what the Sumerans see as sacred— a god that knows all in its wisdom. But this is misguided. What this is is a separation of the text from its context, a wisdom that must be rational, critical, clinical and unfeeling.

But because it is artificial, human-made, it can never be perfect. The god itself views itself as fallen and broken and one that is the perfect object of salvation, yet hasn’t been and stays within that broken state unwilling to make moves of its own towards salvation.

Nahida and her predecessors, as the chosen Archon of Sumeru, signify not just the amalgamation of knowledge, but also the willingness to accept loss, change, to learn from others of their volition. This is why the Archon has to grow, learning and wanting to learn is part of the wisdom.

This is also reflected in Nahida’s overarching story in the Archon quests, fearing that she’s not good enough as Archon because she lacks the knowledge of what all the other Archons have done up to that point. She can’t access Irminsul from her cage, so she continues to let herself be caged, afraid that her actions thus far are not Archon-like. She doesn’t know any better so she doesn’t do anything about it.

deflection

The Rtawahist darshan

Nahida’s caged existence and playing at godhood for the past 500 years can be easily compared to Plato’s Forms, his shadows in the cave. She rescued countless through miracles, convened with them in their dreams, spoke in riddles and metaphors. But never once has she manifested physically or visually to these children. No one knew what Lesser Lord Kusanali looked like beyond the sages. These miracles and dreams are what she thinks is godhood because these ideas are what godhood is in stories and scriptures told to children in Sumeru.

This concept is the root of Rtawahist’s teachings— there is a reason why Haypasia, Setaria, and Azar are important NPCs in the Archon quest, all part of the Rtawahist darshan.

The Rtawahist darshan, according to the Parade of Providence (Act I - Comings and Goings, Opening Festivities) quest, centers itself on Illuminationism, astrology, astronomy, etc.

From the Western standpoint, it’s hard not to be a little confused by Rtawahist’s teachings because the other darshan are rather straightforward— Spantamad is about geology and the elements, Amurta is about biology and ecology, Vahumana is about history, archeology, and etiology, etc.

So, what the hell does fortune-telling and getting high for a couple days have to do with astronomy? Well, you gotta remember that this is a fantasy setting and that the sky is fake.

Spantamad, Vahumana, and Rtawahist all have the most in-game conceptual overlap. As mentioned by Layla in the Parade of Providence (Act II - Beginnings and Endings, Competition on the Sands):

Do you ever get the feeling that the Ley Lines have a regular flow, similar to the way that celestial bodies follow fixed orbits? If we were looking down from on high, I wonder whether we'd find that the Ley Lines are just the reflections of the stars upon the earth? Not all astrological phenomena can be directly observed. Some are deductions based on other details that we know. It's the same situation with the Ley Lines. The parts of them that are hidden underground can be identified via elemental energy, sound, and other phenomena.

Rtawahist, then, is focused on the flow of fate and how to interpret it. This is why Mona Megistus’ Steambird columns are such a big hit (Layla Voice-Overs, About Mona) in the darshan, why fortune-telling is common, and why its scholars train via Satyavada Life to try and connect to Irminsul. The truth is the flow of events past, present, and future— in the lay of the land, the politics of man, and the stars that tell us everything.

Illuminationism

Illuminationism, you see, is an Iranian metaphysical philosophy that takes great inspiration from Plato’s Forms, Aristotelian teachings, and period-appropriate Islamic mysticism. Persian Philosopher Shihāb ad-Dīn Yahya ibn Habash Suhrawardī, often just called by Sohrevardi (though that’s really just where he’s from. In this, I’ll be calling him Shihab al-Din) was the one who penned and expanded on the idea in his less than forty years on Earth.

The philosophy itself, though I am perhaps butchering it in an attempt to narrow this down, is centered on the idea that an individual’s essence, their light, is a reflection and refraction of a one true light and essence (God). The light every being has can be refracted and reflected onto others, and it trickles down on and on. Our lights affect each other, but all our lights come from the same source.

The one true light, in Shihab al-Din’s philosophy is essence incarnate, the truth, God. And the rest of us, though we cannot create light, can most certainly emit an essence that is similar or close to God, just in our own forms or versions. Thus, in reviewing, you can hypothetically trace back to the truth of all things if you follow the trail (given that you don’t get lost in doing so. See: Azar).

Which isn’t necessarily the point. This is why one of the Akademiya’s six sins (originating from the Temple of Silence (Temple of Silence Member, Djer)) is investigating the origin of words.

The point of Illuminationism, in real life and in-game, is to understand the trajectory of light, seeing it from all angles to understand what it’s saying, where it came from, and where it’s headed. As I’d explained in my Sethos fic, studying the stars and connecting to Irminsul isn’t about controlling your fate or bemoaning it, it’s about how you see your fate going forward and how you react to it, having the knowledge and the wisdom to use that information.

direction

Now, I’ve discussed the Akademiya extensively throughout this breakdown and haven’t once touched upon the desert.

Amun, dead as he is, is long-forgotten for two specific reasons.

First: forbidden knowledge.

After learning about what happens moving forward from Nabu Malikata (thus causing her death (Weapon Ascension Material, Oasis Garden’s Truth), the pain of her loss and the futility of his dreams (Staff of the Scarlet Sands) led him to trying to attain forbidden knowledge in order to fulfill them.

It’s unclear whether this knowledge is abyssal, from beyond Teyvat, or erased Irminsul knowledge, but the memory and glory of Amun and his rule was erased en masse when Rukkhadevata erased the forbidden knowledge of it to save the his people from its effects.

Second: the Temple of Silence.

Say what you want about plot contrivance, but the fact that the desert mercenary groups like Ayn al-Ahmar and, well, most of the modern-day desert dwellers, were ignorant of the cause of Amun’s death and the Dendro Archon’s involvement with it is also due in large part because of the Temple of Silence.

Kasala’s final act, as Amun’s priest, was to plead to his people, Amun’s followers, to respect the Dendro Archon, to live in harmony with the forest dwellers and to cease the in-fighting. This plea was buried under the sands for centuries. But the Temple knew about these events, and even had records about Apep (Temple of Silence Member, Asenath).

Now, it’s unclear whether Kasala was part of the Temple of Silence (he has the Tighnarian headdress), but I operate under the idea that he wasn’t, and thus his philosophies and motivations differ greatly from Hermanubis’ which was largely upheld by the Tighnarians that followed him (because he was allegedly a Tighnarian himself) into the Temple of Silence.

All that to say, Hermanubis’ philosophy on the truth is that some of it must be kept tightly under wraps to maintain order and prosperity.

This is why the Towers of Betrayal remain “Towers of Betrayal” even though they were once infused with Rukkhadevata’s power and, once activated, can create small oases to battle against the Withering. No desert dweller knows about these, not even Temple members (Temple of Silence Member, Djer). Desert dwellers refuse to tamper with them. The temple doesn’t even try. These tombs, temples, plinths, and towers aren’t reactivated until the Traveler comes along, and the histories behind them remain undiscovered to most of Sumeru.

Studying these towers would lead to questions, “Why build them?” “What was it that King Deshret found?” “What caused the Withering?” Discovering the answers would lead to the spread of forbidden knowledge again.

Sethos and come disrupt this silence

As the actual leader of the Temple of Silence, Sethos is stuck between the importance of tradition and the need for progress.

Bamoun’s deal with Cyrus had proven to be a setback for the Temple, as (for reasons unknown) Hermanubis’ severed fragments led to the deterioration of the Temple itself. But that’s mostly an allegation. The real setback was the previous leaders’ choice to isolate themselves, the Temple pulling away from the Akademiya and the forest, and the desert.

The desert dwellers, after this period of isolation started, rapidly grew ignorant of their histories and learnings, knowledge and wisdom only passed down through traditions from a leftover faith of a mad god. Since no one but scholars were doing tomb spelunking, none of the desert dwellers were to interpret the structures and murals about their own history for themselves (Golden Slumber, An Introduction to Indoor Archaeology).

This is not to say that the Akademiya was not at fault for what became of Aaru Village— they certainly have their fair share of in-game ethnocentrist propaganda— but like Nahida, the desert dwellers weren’t willing to dig and delve deeper of their own volition, eventually stagnating after centuries of believing and operating under the Akademiya’s lies.

Sethos’ introduction to the canon should, hypothetically, usher in a new era for the desert’s narrative.

He’s aware of what the Temple needs and has a finger on the pulse of the Akademiya’s culture and customs. Yet, he is a young man with the burden of leadership at a young age, one starved for interaction after spending most of his life (Sethos Voice-Overs, More About Sethos: V) in isolation at the Temple. Add in the recent loss of his grandfather, his innocence, and his remaining nostalgia for the authority of tradition over progress, and you have a character who has the potential to overturn the lived experience of all desert dwellers ready to go off at any moment.

A majority of his character stories are centered on hearing other people’s stories, only sharing things about himself only to insert a bit of doubt into his storytelling. He loves looking at the stars and seeing reality reflecting itself over and over upon humans’ fates. As in his Vision story:

Along the way, Sethos spotted two more beasts — one large, one small — lying dead at the bottom of a cliff. Looking at them from a distance, Bamoun remarked, "Most likely a parent and a child. The larger one was probably chasing the smaller one, trying to drag it back, before it too lost its footing and they were blown down together." "They were with that pack of beasts just now... But weren't there quite a few smaller ones? This large one died trying to save just a single one, and now the other small ones will be left unprotected. The losses far outweigh the gains... It shouldn't have taken the risk," said one of the other members, shaking their head. Trying to rescue your children first from quicksand, then a storm... It sounded like an almost impossible task. Sethos had noticed, though, that Bamoun had been staring at that spot the whole time, as if it had reminded him of something. But in the end he said nothing more. Having survived the disaster, the group slowly departed, with Sethos bringing up the rear. Before leaving, Sethos glanced back down at the scene below to regard the unsuccessful beast one last time.

Nothing is said in this Vision story that means anything in particular to Sethos in that moment, but you can see the mysticism in Sethos’ perspective, of seeing meaning in moments and actions that aren’t his but could reflect upon his own life. Of Bamoun looking at a dead pair of Sumpterbeasts with no particular expression, pondering those left behind, and Sethos making the connection to Bamoun’s inevitable death and departure and how that would affect him and the Temple.

No one is saved in this sacrifice. This is just avoiding one death to walk into another. Sethos receives his Vision quickly after this interaction and you, the reader, are supposed to infer what this means for Sethos’ character that he found this remarkable when receiving a Vision.

As I was writing my Sethos fic, I was mostly critiquing this lack of exploration into his character in fan works and canon. His introduction in Cyno’s second story quest and his unique perspective injects a much needed nuance into all that was left after the end of the Archon quests. The mysticism on top of the empirical is important, the symbolism that he and Cyno embody, the priests of Sumeru’s desert and forest.

Because Nahida’s liberation doesn’t mean desert dwellers’ lives have become easier.

Azar, the corrupt sages, and the Farrokhazadan were overthrown and put into community service; Ayn al-Ahmar is in charge of guarding Setaria for the revitalization projects for the desert; and, the desert dwellers are now in charge of their own futures moving forward.

But.

Dori Sangemah Bay still owns most of Aaru Village’s lands, a disruption so massive the people of Aaru Village can’t even build a public library. (Kaveh Hangout Event, The Price of a Wish)

There’s still the undeniable fact that it’s very very hard to get resources (and people!) past the Wall of Samiel, an idea they introduced in Dehya’s trailer before the end of Act V but never brought up again.

The ethnocentrism in Akademiya texts and scholars is still narratively uncontested.

These ideas are not changed just by freeing Nahida and letting her be Archon, but it’s a step in the right direction that Hoyoverse has yet to write a narrative for even with Sethos’ introduction.

So I ended up picking up the slack with my fic.

Take it or leave it.

conclusion

This was a huge breakdown of a lot of my thoughts on Sumeru’s ethnonationalist politics, the Sumeru Archon quests, Sethos, and Sumeru’s cultures.

Hopefully I wasn’t too overindulgent in writing these that I ended up glossing over some things. I’m pretty sure I’ve written down most of my thoughts as eloquently as I could but it’s also 3AM and English isn’t really my first language so. Grain– no, chunk of salt.

Comments are appreciated! Tell me what you thought and if you have thoughts of your own.

[franzkafkagf]

I noticed that Aegon's fans are divided into two teams - the first one sees him as a completely heartless, almost psychopath, the other one like in this analysis.

https://www.tumblr.com/very-straight-blog/750648583572881408/it-really-tires-me-how-some-fans-try-to-make-aegon?source=share

What do you think about it and how do you see him?

Basically I've written a few things on him already; here, here and here as well as the many web weavings i have on him hihi <3

I see him as a super nuanced character; he is deeply (and I mean deeply) broken. That's why I love him, there's so much there in terms of characterization, even with the little screentime he had.

He is so desperate to be loved but destined to be hated by everyone around him (thank you tgc for this quote, lives rent-free in my mind forever)

Rhaenyra sees him as a threat (she has this fear that her father will replace her with him, someday)

Alicent deeply loves him but is too hard on him (she genuinely thinks all her sons will die if she doesn't make him king; he needs to be strong. strong for them, strong for her.

Aemond is resentful towards him. Resentful of his weakness. He has everything Aemond ever wanted. Why isn't he happy? He would be happy and grateful (he wouldn't).

Viserys wanted Baelon. He is not Baelon.

Forced to marry his sister, he never wanted this for them (in canon,,,, I'll live in my little helaegon delulu land)

He is the kicked dog of the family. He is the only one we see being physically reprimanded. It happens time and time again, this was a deliberate choice by the writers. All of Alicent's fears and grudges and love (ugly, desperate love, but still love) towards Rhaenyra are loaded onto him -> I wished we saw them interact, they are so alike :(

What does a kicked dog do? He runs back, tail between his legs. He tries so hard but somehow it doesn't work. He feels like a failure, he runs off, avoids the pain. He doesn't want to face his reality. He drinks, he indulges in anything that will make him forget

I did not ask for this. I've done everything you've asked me to, and I try so... I try so hard, but it will never be enough for you or father.

He acts out, engages in super self-destructive behaviour -> remember when the brothel madam said that Aegon doesn't go to nice places? It's like he is punishing himself.

I'll also have to speak about his assault; kind of a baffling writing choice to introduce him as a r*pist but it is in line with his characterization. He is a prince, of course he can take anything he wants, right? It was just harmless fun, right?

This behaviour doesn't stem from cruelty (like it did with Ramsay or Joffrey) it comes from the entitlement he feels. He might be the scapegoat of the family, but he is still a spoiled prince -> I actually love this about his character too. Purely good/purely victimized characters are BORING! He is interesting, there's both evil and good in him, he is so extremely complex I want to SCREAM.

I can see him going on an arc, not repent, but change. Grow into the man who can sway the people of Dragonstone to his side, grow into the role of king. Become the type of man who would rather live in pain than dull his senses with milk of the poppy. HIS ARC WILL BE INSANE!!!!!

I know a lot of fans want him to be less whiny, less pathetic, less grey… but honestly? He is perfect the way he is in the show. I genuinely love how he is written (I would've wished to see some interaction with his kiddos and Rhaenyra, that is all lmao) and I know he will be amazing in season 2.

[starrylayle]

Marauders Fandom > "There is no canon !!" and other rhetorics

Guess who's back in their marauders phase after 2-3 years of being dormant lmao?? ((spoiler its me lol)). Anyways, a lot has changed since 2021 in this fandom so I just wanted to talk about the direction i think it's going.

I remember in 2020-21 the fandom started to boom in popularity on tiktok --> esp with the rise wolfstar + atyd. I remember people were so suprised with remus' characterization as 'rougher around the edges' instead of the 'soft boi' thing, and how that influenced the new wolfstar dynamic. [Just want to add that the atyd characterisation is much more complex than this and its one of my fave fics --> I'm more talking about the fandom at large's reaction to this)

And since fandom is incapable of having two nuanced and characters who are not stark opposites,, their roles were basically reversed and now Remus is the toxic dom alpha male and sirius is the cute girlyboy twink --- which um,,, the oc-ification is so real its embarrassing but whatever (omg don't even get me started on jegulus 💀)). I just assumed these would stay as headcanons. But now we have people saying, that 'we barely know anything abt the marauders in canon' or 'isn't the whole point of fandom to make shit up?' which i have sO many issues with so let me just try and compile my thoughts into dot points for the sake of coherency.

'we barely know anything abt the marauders in canon' ---> First of all, Remus, Sirius and Severus are fully fleshed out characters in the og series -- why do you think people would care enough to create an entire fandom based on their backstories if they were 2d flat characters in canon?? Like bffr. I saw a post on here (forgot who it was by, let me know if u know!) that said, 'I didn't cry over sirius' death in OotP just for ppl to say that we know nothing abt him in canon'. Like, its just mind-boggling to me lol.

'isn't the whole point of fandom to make shit up?' --> Ok y'all. For a fandom to work, there have to be some guidelines, some kind of source material, some point of reference so people can build upon it and make content. I think we can all agree on that. One reason why HP is such a popular place for fandom is the world-building and potential plots/storylines. I see some people argue that jk rowling was a shit writer anyways so might as well contradict everything she says. Now, I don't disagree with that point in particular, Jo is a pretty mediocre writer and a terrible person. HOWEVERrr, I'd argue that it is a lot more fascinating when people expand or work on the concepts in HP. JK Rowling has a lot of great ideas but executes them terribly -- I love when fic writes do this, which prolly explain why I love atyd as it is still very much canon compliant but executes themes on class, disability and queerness that jkr could barely do in subtext. This doesn''t mean I only think canon compliant fics are valid. That's not the case! I think as long as the charcterization is consistent to the character and the particular circumstances/world they're in, its fine! In fact, I love seeing how the same character would function if in a different place! I also love seeing explorations of the magic and magic systems in aus or fix it fics (or even canon compliant ones) that still fit in with the canonnical system that we know.

I guess what I'm trying to say I wish the marauders fandom explored the world and charcterizations more deeply instead of creating shallow oc-fied version of the characters that fit into whatever's trending -- like just write your own book or smth lol -- booktok will eat it up i promise.

Also, kinda related kinda not but um,,, why are we romanticising fascists -- like babe no evan rosier is not your babygirl he canonnoically tortured multiple ppl and became a death eater soo... not saying that I wouldn't want an exploration of his character or even a relationship with barty -- (who's not some cool dairk-haired edgelord but a actually a cowardly fascist murderer with blond hair -- yes the blond hair is important) -- I'd just want them to be portrayed as the not morally good people they are. Like,, if u want to oc-ify a character like pick someone whos not a death eater or has little info on them like dirk cresswell or frank longbottom,,, or ya know,, one of the MANY female characters in the fandom ((This fandom also has a problem with women and sapphic ships in general but that's a whole other issue lol).

I know this 'babygirlification' of death eaters doesn't mean to do this, but it also ends up watering down the themes of oppression, bigotry, etc and leaves us with not nearly as complex characters. Also one of the issues I had with the og HP world is that JK will introduce concepts like wizard racism and slavery and then just like,, not really do anything about it or just have half-arsed redemption arcs whilst not ever actually exploring the root of the issue. And now i feel like the fandom is following in those footsteps unfortunately.

Anyways, i've been rambling for too long so I'll just leave it here. Sorry if this came off as mean spirited in anyway,, I just have a lot of thoughts™ and my family is sick of hearing them lol. These opinions are not set in stone however so I'd love to hear your thoughts on this subject! At the end of the day this is fandom and we're supposed to have fun -- so yeah !! thanks for reading if you made it this far!

[hamletthedane]

I’m a big Hamlet fan and I am curious as to what your favorite movie/for screen rendition is? I’ve been working my way through a lot of them, gone through about 7, so far Hamlet at Elsinore with Christopher Plummer is my favorite. I was just curious what yours is !

What a great question!!

Hamlet at Elsinore is definitely my favorite filmed version of the play. I feel that Christopher Plummer does a fantastic - and frankly critically underappreciated - job of portraying the more nuanced and complicated aspects of Hamlet's character while still giving a straightforward performance that's highly accessible to any audience. Notably, he doesn't treat the performance as his ~*~epic, defining role of a lifetime~*~ or ~high artistic theater~ (*cough* Branagh and Jacobi), but instead focuses on telling a deeply compelling, very moving story about the complex nature of grief and revenge. I also like that this version embraces the more "postmodern" elements that exist in the written text of Hamlet: the complicity of the audience, the inevitability of the outcome, Hamlet's genre-awareness and genre-defiance, etc.

[Not to keep hating on Branagh, but in contrast: Branagh's Hamlet in particular seems to go out of its way to avoid including the more interesting proto-postmodern thematic elements of the play - at times not seeming to recognize that they're even there. He instead focuses his time and energy on inserting new cinematography-based visual themes that go nowhere and at times stand in OPPOSITION to the actual tone and themes of the original text. Because apparently Hamlet the play is too boring and instead of lame elements like "themes" and "compelling characterization," we need a swinging chandelier sword fight scenes and Freudian weirdness. Truly the Joel Schumacher Phantom of the Opera adaptation of Shakespeare films. But I DIGRESS-)

Plus it doesn't hurt that everybody aside from Plummer in Hamlet at Elsinore is also fabulous. Obviously, Michael Caine's Horatio is the single best and most definitive version of the character in film, but I also love Robert Shaw's Claudius and Muller's Ophelia.

If we're talking favorite filmed versions of the STORY of Hamlet though, that's Asta Nielsen's silent film from 1921. It's so beautifully filmed and wonderfully told. She's what I picture when I picture Hamlet.

Other than that....I like Tennant and Stewarts' RSC filmed version well enough. It has a number of very strange choices and I don't love the re-ordering of the scenes, but Tennant does a great job with the character and I think it's a very approachable performance. A few other filmed stage versions are also excellent, though with a few similarly weird elements - I'd put Maxine Peake's version on the same tier as the RSC version. I do NOT like Branagh's version at all (if you couldn't already tell...). Jacobi's and Gibson's are slightly better, but they're still too focused on the prestige of the performance rather than the actual story being told imo. I think they fall under the same criticism as Holden Caulfield's scathing review of Laurence Olivier: "more like a general than a sad, screwed-up type guy." (Yes I know this line is an in-text authorial critique of Holden himself but also: he's right and he should say it.)

If you haven't already, I do highly recommend listening to the BBC Radio 4 audiodrama version of Hamlet, starring Jamie Parker. Despite being a audio version of a stage play, it somehow blows every filmed version of Hamlet (except maybe HAE) out of the water. I listen to it at least once a year.

Finally, my actual favorite versions of Hamlet have ALWAYS been those I've seen live (or seen bootleg filmed stage performances of lmao). If it's ever playing live near you, definitely go and see it. The play was meant to be seen on a live stage in front of you, and many of the jokes and themes only make sense in that context. In my opinion, the medium of live theater elevates the play so far beyond what a movie could ever achieve.

...sorry this answer is so long 😅 Really, it doesn't matter what my opinions on Hamlet films are. If any version of the play really speaks to you - even if it's the accursed Branagh version - that is so awesome and makes me really happy people are engaging with the play in that way! (But since you're saying that HAE is your favorite so far, I will add that you have excellent, discerning taste ;))

[slanky-here]

While sifting through my dms with oomf, I found I shared my Gautier-Brainrot™ essay. Figured why not repost it on my new blog since my old one got nuked. This is going to be divided in two parts, this is Part 1 cus tumblr just??? wont let me post the entire essay for Some reason. Here's the sparknotes version of my 1k word ramble above the cut:

Miklan-Stans and Sylvain-Stans ironically share the same issue of blaming Matthias on everything just to woobify their fav Gautier-Man because it's cleans up the messy family of House Gautier into clean boxes.

I can't exactly fault Gautier-fanon for making Matthias into a really abusive terrible dad because in base Houses; he doesn't even have a name, Margrave Gautier is only a vague concept. Post-Hopes, Matthias was characterized and recontextualized—a lot of fans tend to ignore the nuances Hopes gave just to default him into abusive dad ever

Matthias is a deeply interesting character; he's a character so deeply defined by loss, yet who held such high ambitions as he believed in Lambert's future and legitimately tried brokering peace with Sreng. He cares deeply about his sons and grieves for them, but because of how jaded he's become, he's always failing to ever express that to them

Same criticism I have with Matthias fanon I have with Miklan. Disclaimer: Miklan had agency with his actions, I'm not pretending like he's a hapless victim—the two extremes around his character are extremes I dont like (Miklan was a total victim guys!!!! vs Miklan was a totally evil person guys!!!)

The more content Hopes gave us about the Gautier's is way more compelling than the scraps we got from Houses actually.

Addendum: with the Miklan-Stans and Sylvain- Stans, of fucking course most woobiefication always share the same take of 'Let's blame Matthias for everything because he is the sole root of my Gautier Blorbo's mental anguish hundred-fold!!!!'. Which that's just really boring honestly because it cleans up the very messy family situation of House Gautier into nice clean boxes; people say that they love messy and complex families in media but then immediately jump to make the one character the villain while everyone else was hapless victim of circumstance. I'm more lenient with fanon during the 3Houses era since at the time, the game didn't even give Margrave Gautier a name, he was at most a vague concept left up to fill the blanks. When Hopes came out and we got more Matthias characterization and context for the situation of Gautier-Sreng, sucks that people chucked it all out of the window to just make the flattest interpretations ever. Which sucks because I absolutely adore Matthias as well (how Gautier enjoyers look when I roll up loving ALL Gautiers that is not just Sylvain) and he gets cartoonishly flattened to be this horrible awful abusive father in a Post-Hopes fandom. Matthias is a man destroyed by loss; who believed in the same starry-eyed future that Lambert did, who tried to bring that future to fruition. Even after he lost not just the love of his life but his second unborn child in a violent raid by Sreng forces, Matthias still tried to broker peace with Sreng (methods of brokering peace were dubious since he brought home a child political hostage). He become cold and closed off after his first wife died, doing a complete 180 in his personality from being a talkative and friendly guy to the Margrave who's fixated on ensuring the border is secured. After Lambert's death—it's clear that he gave up on ever reaching that lofty future Lambert got him to believe in. This man is deeply good to his friends, he's loyal to his country and shares a close bond with Rodrigue—but for the life of him, he cannot ever express how he truly feels to the point where Sylvain says that his true emotions/thoughts could fill a whole library. Matthias has completely closed himself off from other people, being dubbed as the Wall of Ice because of how little he lets people see of him; all to the detriment of his sons. Yet Matthias grieves, my god does he grieve deeply for Miklan—despite putting up an exterior of indifference, he wishes to avenge his death in Azure Gleam, Rodrigue comments how he holds so much regret for how Miklan turned out. He is also very aware that he has not been the greatest father, yet he cares deeply for Sylvain as well and sees so much of his younger self in him; it literally talks Rodrigue chasing after the man to get him to apologize to Sylvain. Yes, this criticism against Matthias fanon applies to Miklan content as well, same thing I said about Matthias fanon pre-Hopes era also applies here too. I'd much rather explore how House Gautier was shaped by military necessity to defend a hostile border and Matthias's grief about losing his beloved wife had helped shaped Miklan for the worse rather than taking one of those two extremes.

[redhoodinternaldialectical]

5 and 8 for Jason, and 19 and 21 for Tim?

Hello laufire :D I've seen you around in my notes a fair few times, thank you for the ask!

Jason first bc I am predictable 😌

5. First song that comes to mind for this character?

Dana Dan by Bloodywood! I had it as his theme song long before I started headcanoning him as religiously Hindu and the music video feels all the more appropriate now that I do!

There are a LOT of runners up, sixteen in specific I could name off the top of my head bc I made a whole character playlist for him and I listen to it every time I drive (burned CD in my car :3)

8. What's something the fandom does when it comes to this character that you despise?

Hoo boy, that competition is FIERCE lol I try my best not to talk about it in terms of complaints though. That's just not the energy I wanna have most of the time. That being said, since you asked for some salt ye shall receive hehehe!

I think the through line of the most annoying stuff is that people will point at something Jason did in his villain era and twist it wildly out of proportion into something unequivocally EVIL and then everyone else will (incorrectly imo!!!) claim that it's out of character and due to writers that hated him and we should throw it out.

The worst example of this by far is his fight with Mia Dearden

First of all, it was written by JUDD FUCKING WINICK so yeah this was not a matter of an unfavorable writer!! Second of all, I think it's a goddamned masterpiece of a comic, and THE successor to UtRH

So like you have the second Robin, born into grinding poverty, having to commit crime to survive, joining up with a vigilante mentor, and killing someone for the greater good, and then being utterly destroyed... and then you have the second Speedy, born into grinding poverty, having to commit crime to survive, joining up with a vigilante mentor, and killing someone for the greater good, and then growing from that to become a fully fledged hero in her own right! So similar and yet their paths have been so different with Mia healing and becoming even stronger and Jason having been isolated and pushed to villainous extremes.

Then during that confrontation each of them know about the other through hearsay and research, but have never met before. Each make their own assumptions and then prove that they are more than what was assumed of them! Jason makes a deeply flawed but earnest attempt to try and connect with Mia and she rejects it because she has the support he never did and therefore has already long ago grown passed what has destroyed and consumed him!!

And some people REDUCE their fight to just "evil scawy Jason trying to hurt poor widdwe Mia"???????????????????????????? Might I challenge those responsible to a duel of paintball rifles at dawn?!?!?!?

Kinda the entire fucking point of an antagonist is to let the complexities and nuances of the characters shine, and that's doubly true of antagonists that used to be protagonists! Mia and Jason are such amazing narrative foils for each other, and tbh, Jason himself is an extremely good foil in general! On top of that the Arrows have long been foils of the Bats, so Bruce and Ollie also foil each other in the background brilliantly as Jason runs rings around them both!!!!

I would need to start pulling up pictures of comic pages and write a full length essay to get into proper depth with it (And I do intend to eventually!!) but the way they each interact with that fight and with their own histories going into it is great for both characters and it's just... gah... basically my favorite comic ever and it's stuck in this meaningless tug of war over "characterization" from two sides who both mostly haven't read the damned thing, let alone properly dug into the analysis of why Jason did any of that or what it might mean to Mia beyond just being unpleasant...

I would KILL to get DC to let me write a Mia and Jason comic. There's so much fun shit that they could do together, no matter if they were allied or enemies, I'm gonna have to write it as fanfiction tbh, but the fact that Green Arrow (2001) #69 - #72 is completely ignored until someone wants to use it as flat proof of 'Jason bad and ur bad for liking him' is just...

Le sigh...

Anyway what the fuck was I doing? Answering an ask lol??

Okay here we go: Timmy Time!

19. A relationship in canon that you don't like?

Its gotta be Steph simply due to how badly it was mishandled. As usual with female characters, I feel like Steph's nuance and strength as a character was in direct conflict with how the authors implemented her narrative role as a love interest. The fact that Tim was flat out casually misogynistic to her for her whole introduction and it wasn't treated properly as a flaw is a deal-breaker for me. The amount of Steph's Wikipedia biography that's Tim's love life makes me want to commit arson. The ship itself in isolation from much of the canon may have potential, and the canon material itself isn't all bad by any means, but to me the relationship still feels like a net loss.

21. I do indeed write, uh, a considerable amount of fanfiction about this dude, so: What's your favorite thing to do in fics when it comes to this character? Something that you don't like?

I like making him more unhinged. Or rather, I interpret his early actions as having been spectacularly unhinged, and like to imagine he kept that energy up into later years. I'm so not interested in Tim being a well adjusted person tbh I want him in my wonderful little Freak 4 Freak ship being spectacularly messed up and incredibly weird with nonsensical ideas about how boundaries work

For what I don't like... Hmmmm, this one's a little hard to answer because most of that falls into the neutral category of stuff I have no interest in writing at all, and so I just don't lol

I suppose I don't like to do apologies, though I have written one. I like to get down into the messy depths of sympathy and resentment by having him talk about those conflicts with the allies that have hurt him. However, I think the direct contrition and simplicity of apologies has less and less appeal to me the more I develop as a writer. Apologies retroactively cement an idea of fault and blame. I think there's more room for exploration in having the characters talk through all of the components of the issue without ever having that particular kind of confrontation.

Thank you very much again for the ask!!! I hope this was a fun read :3

[bestworstcase]

actually ppl don’t want an Ozlem reunion since some ppl think one or the other is abusive towards the other and they would see it as abuse apologism. Yes I seen ppl say that, I even did at some point lol. I think ppl need to stop seeing everyone as abuser and victim bc that is not how the world or stories works. You can be both or be a victim that hurts others.

i mean i would actually characterize the ozlem kingdom era marriage as abusive; like, i’m not sure how else to accurately describe a situation where one spouse is engaging in such extreme deception over such a long period of time for the purpose of religious conversion. but abuse is just an action—or more specifically a pattern of actions over time—and where change and reconciliation are concerned (esp in the context of a fictional relationship in a fairytale story) intention matters a lot.

ozma didn’t lie to her or manipulate her because he saw her as a means to an end (<- which is 100% what salem believes now) he did it because a Literal God told him the world was condemned and she was beyond saving, and oz was terrified and desperate for that to not be true. salem meanwhile has been the tortured scapegoat of this same god for millions of years and she knows exactly how cruel, petty, and manipulative he is; once she understands why ozma did what he did she has every reason to let go of her anger and accept that he’s as much a victim of the brothers as she is, in different but intertwining ways. and ozma once released from his curse has every reason to never lie to anyone like that again, especially not to her.

so this is a narrative that is set up to be resolved through reconciliation and healing together; both of them Want That—or at the very least salem clearly wants some closure only he can give her—and ultimately what tore them apart and turned them against each other was the manipulation and cruelty of the gods. part of overcoming that is closing the rift torn between them.

i think people are as a general rule deeply hostile to narratives about cycles of abuse resolving through peaceful reconciliation because in real life, (serial) abusers often don’t change. but that’s also not a very constructive stance to be absolutist about because there are also, in real life, an abundance of people who are abusive at some point in their life and then do change, because they learned better or matured or healed from whatever trauma or health problem provoked the abusive behavior (<- e.g. sudden out-of-nowhere cruelty is a red flag for brain tumors) or got out of their own abusive situation and stopped shoveling their own pain downstream. like. treating ‘abusive’ as a lifelong brand that someone can never ever possibly stop being is not. helpful, actually. people can and do change and abuse happens for myriad complex reasons, it is not in any sense a simple problem.

but yknow. nothing fandom loves more than a thought-terminating buzzword to be reductively black-and-white about because gods forbid a story have nuance.

[checkoutmybookshelf]

Oh You NEVER Introduce Yourself to Fae...

Miss Euphemia Reeves begins her fairy tale by making a cardinal mistake: she offers her full name to Juniper Jubilee, the Lord Blackthorn. And then Lord Blackthorn promptly appoints himself Effie's fairy godfather and is so damn enthusiastic and desperate to help that he becomes the single biggest obstacle to Effie fulfilling her fairy bargain. Let's talk Ten Thousand Stitches.

There are two major things I love about this book. First, I love that it does not frame anger as an inherently negative thing that needs to be gotten rid of or overcome; in point of fact, anger is what saves the day in this fairy tale. That actually gives Effie a real Sam Vimes vibe, truth be told, but we'll come back to that. Second, I actually loved how much of the book I spent yelling "HE LOVES YOU, OPEN YOUR EYES AND SEE IT" at Effie. Our girl is here for class solidarity and equitable treatment of servants, but wow can she not see true love when it's standing in front of her with puppy dog eyes.

Effie's two main plotlines are full on coming for the family she works for because they are abusing and exploiting their servants, and trying to get Benedict to fall in love with her. One of these goes significantly better than the other, because Effie turns out to be a magician whose magic works through embroidery. And this is where I want to really dig into how anger is handled in this novel.

As someone who was femme socialized in the 90s and early 00s, I definitely got the "anger and noise are not feminine, don't do that" and "anger is an inherently bad emotion." (To clarify: I did not get this from my parents, they were great. I got this from the REST of society.) Now as a grown-ass adult woman with some serious social justice and disability justice axes to grind, I have exactly zero time for moralizing about emotions. They exist, its on us to deal. And Effie's anger is characterized in terms like "bright" and "sharp" and "shining," which is a really lovely change from the deep black cesspool characterization that we usually see.

Atwater understands that anger can be motivating, can be the part of you that KNOWS you have more value than you are being treated with, and that cares deeply for you and the people around you. And Effie can imbue her embroidery with anger that motivates people to keep going, to change things for the better. This is anger that inspires. It's a complex, nuanced, adult living in a capitalist hellscape exploration of anger and its place. And y'all...I am here for it. I love how this is handled in the book.

If I'm being honest, the romance was my least favorite part of this book, because Effie inspiring the servants to basically informally unionize and fight for better lives for all of them is just so, so good, and feels so topical and relevant. And also, Effie just GETS this process, especially once its pointed out to her that she can work her anger magic intentionally. She is nowhere near this good at matters of the heart.

Overall, this was a very fun read, and honestly as a regency fairy tale, I think it hits strong.

[70s-show-diary]

I had a thought about your tags in the post about Hyde's gift giving but didn't have the writer brain-space to turn it into a longer character analysis post. However, without having any of the BTS details like script notes or writers testimonies, I have to disagree that Hyde being a thoughtful gift-giver would be an accidental character note. He highly values being noticed and provided for, coming from a background where he was overlooked, left, and made to fend for himself. Trying to avoid my very personal bias for the character himself, I also just feel that from the effort made to paint him as the Pigpen-type character from the start of the show, it's something they would have planned to add in- having him be unusually perceptive and/or emotionally mature as an unexpected juxtaposition to his neglected rough-and-tumble persona Not to assert that anything beyond the first season of T7S was planned out in such a mastermind way, but I just have to disagree that Hyde's gift giving is an accidental thing that fell into his character instead of deeply reflecting many things that are core to why he's the character we have

Hi! I’m so glad you shared your thoughts with me! I love talking about this kind of stuff.

I can understand why my tags from this post that you are referring to may make it seem like I don’t think any of Hyde’s complex characterization was intentional by the show runners/writers of T7S. I tend to use the tags not only for organizational purposes, but for ‘throw away’ comments as well - the kind of things I wouldn’t want to ‘permanently’ include in the body of the post for the very reason that the comment is usually a bit tangential to the main purpose of the post. But tags are not the greatest place to fully-flesh out a character analysis, which can maybe cause some confusion.

And so that is why I appreciate you sending this ask because it gives me a chance to clarify the actual meaning behind that tag here in this post:

First - putting my own personal bias for the character aside as well, I completely agree with you that Hyde’s perceptiveness and emotional maturity absolutely juxtaposes nicely with his neglected rough-and-tumble persona (I love these words for describing Hyde btw; it’s so spot on). It makes for a well-rounded, complex, and engaging character, as opposed to the two-dimensional stereotyped ‘burnout’ he is on the surface.

I’m not saying that I think that some of these aspects of Hyde’s character/persona was not intentional by the minds behind the character (show-runners, writers, etc.), but I just tend to believe that it’s the fans of the show, particularly those of us involved in fandom and fanfic, that are primarily responsible for fleshing out these more nuanced aspects of Hyde’s character and persona. Not to be overtly cynical, but I think that there are minds here in the T7S fandom that have given significantly more objective thought and consideration to Hyde’s character than the show runners did.

But like you said, without having been in the writer’s room, there’s really no way to know exactly how much of Hyde’s complex characterization was intentional. I could very easily be wrong. If Hyde’s personal and thoughtful gift-giving was planned out and intentional, then kudos to the the show runners/writers because Steven Hyde is hands down one of the most interesting and complex characters I’ve encountered in media, especially considering that T7S is a sitcom.

And I have to give the writers/show runners some credit - after all, That ‘70s Show is my favorite TV show. But my passion for the show has been made considerably more enjoyable and enriching by the minds in the fandom.

TLDR; I’m of the mind that the show runners/writers planted the seeds, but it was the fandom that nurtured and grew those seeds into a garden that continues to flourish 25 years later.

Anyone else have any thoughts?

[thelordofgifs]

16 for the ask game

(choose violence ask game)

16. you can't understand why so many people like this thing (characterization, trope, headcanon, etc)

I suppose in general... making all your faves Perfectly Morally Pure and Good? Their flaws are what make them interesting! The Feanorians are fascinating and complex and also awful awful people ok! Luthien is a heroine and a symbol of hope and also imo deeply selfish! Maeglin might be your poor little meow meow but he was also a creep! Like. stop casting the characters you love as perfect pure heroes (because almost none of them are) and stop blackening the names of the people who oppose your blorbos. Nuance please.

[bigspine]

The story is a love triangle following Lily ‘Blossom’ Bloom, who falls for the too-good-to-be-true Ryle Kincaid, only to discover that—surprise—he’s not so perfect after all. As Lily navigates her toxic relationship with Ryle, she finds comfort in her first love, Atlas.

As a first time CH reader, who got bought by the hype, this was a serious letdown.

There are far better stories and characterizations in AITA posts on Reddit than in this novel.

What Doesn’t Work

- Shallow Characters: Lily is the stereotypical “strong female lead” who seems to have zero self-preservation skills. Ryle is a cardboard cutout of the “troubled bad boy,” and Atlas is essentially a walking, talking plot device.

- Predictable Plot: From the moment Ryle’s too-perfect facade cracks, you know exactly where the story is going. The twists aren’t twists at all—they’re tired tropes recycled from a hundred other romances.

- Heavy-Handed Message: The book attempts to tackle domestic abuse with gravity but ends up oversimplifying a deeply complex issue. Instead of a nuanced portrayal, it feels more like trauma-porn designed to wring out cheap tears.

What does works

- New adult readers getting into reading can start with the book. The writing is simple, clear and the book would have been perfect quick read for many readers if it didn’t try to dwell into DV on a barely there surface level.

It Ends with Us tries to be meaningful but ends up being a melodramatic mess filled with one-dimensional characters and predictable plot points. It’s a surface-level read masquerading as something deeper, designed more to manipulate emotions than to deliver a genuinely thought-provoking story. If you’re looking for substance, this isn’t it.

[licncourt]

Girl, ignore those weirdo haters. I'm an "old" fan of and your vision of Lestat is one of the most fair and nuanced I've seen in this fandom, which is rare to find these days. The problem is that the AMC fandom are obsessed with their version of Lestat as sigma-alpha male "epitome of masculinity" and they hate anyone who doesn't marry that version (whether to love him or hate him, it's the same with AMC Louis) (not even Anne Rice at her worst made it so basic)

Trust yourself and don't change your mind for losers! Love u ❤

Thank you!! That makes me so, so happy!! I find Lestat a lot harder to write than Louis for me, but I do my absolute best to draw from the trilogy characterization since it's the most nuanced and consistent. I really like him and think he's a great character and with as much complexity as Louis if he's allowed to have it.

To be completely honest with you, I don't even know what the show-exclusive fans have going on over there because I give it a wide berth (truly none of my business for so many reasons). That sounds deeply terrible though, Anne was bad enough on her own. Jesus.

Regardless, I will always stand firmly against any strictly masc or fem reading of Louis or Lestat because they're way too interesting for that.