#she's a deeply flawed and nuanced character

[luckym1ki]

Bowa, Bowa, Bowa....😭

Honestly it feels so weird to experience the

"I understand this character on a deeply nuanced level. While her reasoning may have been flawed (and petty), her emotional response was entirely realistic. Her actions, driven by insecurity and fear, were portrayed in a way that felt both authentic and human. It’s that raw, unfiltered reaction that makes her so compelling. To add, she doesn’t just experience emotion, she reveals the messy process of coping with it and how dealing with it wrong can lead to tragedy."

And also the

"Aw fuck naw she's annoying as hellllll why'd she believe the false Cyan allegations so quick, blame Queen even after they BOTH lost to X, AND also think she'd be able to participate in the tournament when she fell off the top 10 before the fight????..Delusional.."

Like okay Bowa pop off in those 2 episodes during Queens arc 😭

Really got to see her "Road to the Crown" and her fall from grace..

[community-gardenss]

Thought on medus? His relationship with his mom? His age? His time imprisoned? The whole thing give me all of your thoughts and do not spill

took me a second to respond to this ask but I DO HAVE SO MANY THOUGHTS ABOUT MEDUS. how did you know.

He is so momma's boy coded I'm sorry. That man is JUST like his mother. They basically came up with the exact same lie to Perses just in reverse. The exact same ruse. As well as the idea that he followed her willingly after her exile from Athens + I'm partial to the interpretation that he named Media after his mother. So to me I read them as having been fairly close !

Age wise. Uhm. There's no untangling anything related to the argonautica to me I'm sorry. The Greek myths have no true timeline and the heroes' ages are elusive and ill-defined by nature. But if I had to guess I would place him as likely being 16-17 at the time of Medea's exile. Still fairly young.

Medus is really interesting to me as a character despite information about him being very. Sparse. In a lot of ways it almost feels like he sort of inverts a lot of the traits of a typical Greek hero. His father is almost entirely irrelevant to his story. He isn't later compelled to take revenge on Aegaeus or kill Theseus for the throne of Athens (think Jason/Pelias or Pelias/Aeson). After he leaves Athens, he's completely uninvolved with his father or his father's line. Instead, his story focuses entirely on his mother's line. He's named after his mother. In a lot of ways he's a hero who's story is entirely defined by his relationship with his mother. Aside from maybe Achilles it's not something I can recall many examples of.

Like. Okay I know I've mentioned in the past that part of what makes Medea's decision to kill her kids compelling to me is the interpretation of her deciding to do it, in part, to spare them from the cycle of tragedy stemming from the glory-seeking, patriarchal society of Greece (They must die/and since they must/I who gave them birth will kill them). Her children are the sons of a hero, and as all sons of a hero are bound to do, they will suffer for their father's glory. Contrasting that with Medus. How his life is so obviously centered on her. It feels like a reversal.

They're both very interesting to me if you could not tell

[caruliaa]

why r the beloved "morally gray" male characters of fandoms always like this is baby killer john he loves killing babies for fun and the fandom is like omg baby killer johnnn 😍😍😍 but a morally gray female character is like heres a traumatized teen girl thats meant to be deeply flawed and wrong at times but also went thru a lot and is meant to be sympathetic and nuanced and the fandom is like SHE NEEDS TO DIE RIGHT NOWWWW !!!!!!!!

[vaguely-concerned]

to be distressingly earnest for a moment, I cannot applaud sylvia feketekuty enough for how incredibly well she balances comedy and actual emotional impact in emmrich's storyline. it's such a fine line to walk as a writer, and she does it perfectly to my mind. johanna hezenkoss is a wonderfully cartoonish heightened comedy character whose literal stated goal is world domination by means of necromancy and also this giant skeleton mecha monster I built. her main redeeming quality is that she's SO entertaining and perfectly unrepentantly herself at every turn and never ever does she grow anything we might readily recognize as a conscience; she may be a monster but in such a marvellous way you simply cannot begrudge her for it. we are going full tilt into the yzma zone here and never looking back. and yet! emmrich's reactions to her, and the lingering emotional fallout of their friendship ending clinging to everything, are very real and grounded and genuine, and her functionality in the narrative rock solid. it's still funny the whole way through, but also weirdly poignant.

she is a blunt archetype, but her presence causes nuance in other places. it tests emmrich's inherent kindness to show some of the flaws running through it. it shows quirks in his character you couldn't get at otherwise, exposes what the lines of temptation can get their hooks in him even in all his genuine basic well-meaningness way before the lich storyline gets fully unveiled -- that there is something in him that was drawn to her ambition and unceasing intellectual exploration of the world, even when it edged up on ruthless; that it was only when the line was openly crossed he put his foot down for good. it exposes the darker side of nevarra's political life, especially the mortalitasi -- that it would only take a handful of them forsaking their oaths and morals and deciding that ruling from behind the throne isn't enough. in the words of emmrich, how easily it would make them a new tevinter, except with a skeleton army so arguably much more metal. the slope is slippery. watch where you put your feet, watcher.

and johanna's cheerful and unrepentant spider verse doc ock supervillain antics are emblematic of the way that aside from anything else, this storyline is also -- and I must return to it once more, one cannot emphasize this enough -- so so SO entertaining about it along the way. it sets the tone in that it's campy and over the top and hilarious... a levity you really do need to bring to emmrich's arc, revolving as it does around *checks notes scribbled on hand* ah. the desperate crippling all-consuming terror of death. like um. yes. you need some liberal spoonfuls of comedic relief to make that particular theme palatable enough to get through and process, and providing that feels like both a very kind, a very intelligent, and very wise thing to do as a writer. and also ties in so perfectly with the whole thematic structure and conclusion -- the message that perhaps you will always be afraid of this thing. maybe that fear of cessation, of irretrievable loss, will be with you forever. but there is kindness and connection and fascinating things to discover in this world to make it bearable. it's all very elegantly done and I admire it deeply on a craft level as much as I appreciate getting to engage with it as a player. a masterful balancing act of tone. thank you for coming to my ted talk and goodbye

[lesboygamzee]

i dont even mind angsty art of tavroses abuse but the amount of people who make vriska so comically evil and malicious and everyone just accepts it as 100% canon is really weird . the tragedy of their situation is that vriska is acting out of her own hurt + jealousy ; i wouldnt even argue she hates tavros , i think she hates what tavros being happy means for her - that she is a product of abuse and a deeply flawed society , and that it isnt just ' natural ' for people to grow up cruel and defensive like her , she is seeing someone who grew up in similar circumstances ( on alternia , their individual situations are obviously pretty different ) and who is happy and who is peaceful and she refuses to come to terms with what that means . so she just says tavros is weak and this kind of grotesquely twists back around to vriska trying to make tavros Like Her - cruel and defensive ! so thats where the abuse comes in . its a very twisted result of vriska ' caring ' about tavros and her whole worldview of strength coming from abuse i mean hardship and refusal to accept the fact that she herself is a victim .

vriska isnt cruel to tavros out of any traditional idea of hatred , at least not to me , but because tavros existing the way she does contradicts her worldview and if she thinks about it for too long shell realise that she is a victim and that she didnt need to turn out like this in a circumstance that was in any way healthy . that the fact that she needed to do this to survive is a fundamental flaw of the world she grew up in , and that tavros being the way she is isnt a fault of tavroses , or a sign of weakness . but she is a thirteen year old girl who has been told to think like this her whole life .

when vriska kisses tavros and gets rejected , she feels pathetic for not responding by forcing reciprocation . when she eventually kills tavros , she feels pathetic for feeling guilty . she is the first one to acknowledge how fucked up she acted in the dream bubbles

stop watering down their relationship to ' vriska is evil and a bitch and tavros is good and a wimp ' . their whole relationship is built on vriskas own abuse and would not exist the way it does if she was more well adjusted . youre allowed to feel sorry for tavros , youre allowed to dislike vriska , but you are doing a major disservice to both of their characters by struggling to understand the nuance !!!

[skywalkr-nberrie]

Friendly reminder that Padmé isn’t supposed to be considered ‘unreasonable’ for falling in love with Anakin nor choosing him because she’s “messy and traumatized” (I mean she is traumatized, but that’s a whole other in dept nuance in her character, worthy of analysis.) and that she only wanted to live out her “fairytale fantasy” and that’s why she chose to marry Anakin. No, she chose him because she saw the goodness and beauty of him. She loved him for his soul, his sincerity, for his passion, etc. It’s actually reasonable why she chose him and married him. It’s just a misconception that she had to be as insane as Anakin for her to ever choose him, because a good hearted and morally righteous woman could never want someone like him.

Padmé is traumatized, her story parallels Anakin in many ways, she has the sort of nuance that pars even Anakin’s character, she had to put up with running a whole planet at the age of 14, and she had her whole life stolen from her at a very young age. She feels like she’s made to live in servitude and her duty rather than dream of her own life. She had multiple handmaidens that upheld the system of pretending to be her for the sake of taking her spot in case someone puts her in grave danger, robbing Padmé of her self identity, and burdening her with the guilt of someone else dying for her. Her only real friends are all people from her work, aka her colleagues.

So yes, indeed Anakin is her safe spot, her breath of fresh air, her happiness, her everything. He’s her perfect ‘fairytale ending’ that she always deserved, but that’s not why she fell in love with him. Padmé’s love for Anakin and decision to be with him isn’t in anyway associated to her trauma (in the way most people think, I mean.) or that it means she’s insane. It’s a reflection of how passionate, sincere, romantic, hopeful, domestic, emotional, and spiritual she is as a person. She is like Anakin in that way too, and that’s why they connected so deeply. Padmé was aware of all of Anakin’s flaws, and darkness and she still loved him because she was capable of seeing that the greatness in him was more.

“But though she loves her husband without reservation, love does not blind her to his faults. She is older than he, and wise enough to understand him better than he does himself. He is not a perfect man: he is prideful, and moody, and quick to anger—but these faults only make her love him the more, for his every flaw is more than balanced by the greatness within him”

- Revenge of the Sith novelization written by Matthew Stover.

[lullabyes22-blog]

Arcane Fandom drinking game.

tw: racism, misogyny, classism, ableism.

tw: fandoms in general, ig?

Take a shot if:

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

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

Take a shot if:

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

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

Take a shot if:

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

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

Take a shot if:

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

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

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

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

Drink the whole bottle if:

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

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

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

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

Drink the rest of the alcohol stash if:

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

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

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

Drink the entire bar if:

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

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

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

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

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

Switch to cocaine if:

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

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

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

Pour a glass of absinthe if:

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

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

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

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

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

Drink the whole liquor cabinet if:

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

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

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

Throw the molotov and light the house on fire if:

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

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

You win.

[ladyantiheroine]

Barbie and Sasha

I have to say I really appreciate the Sasha character in Barbie. I see a lot of my middle school self in her.

I too was a girl who adored Barbie as a kid, but then I got older and got a first taste of What The Real World Is Like (inequality, sexism, etc.)

And then I rejected Barbie because I internalized all the misogynistic crap that had been projected on her and she became a symbol of All Shitty Things Women Are Expected To Be (brainless, useless, only exist to be pretty assistants to men).

Hence, I fell deep into a “not like other girls” phase because I desperately didn’t want anyone to think I was one of those girls (“”brainless bimbos who have no thought in their heads but boys””). I wanted to be taken seriously, and as someone who was already a bit tomboyish, I felt like I had to reject everything Barbie represented in my eyes.

But then I got older, and a tiny bit more nuanced, and realized Barbie being bubbly and pink wasn’t the problem: The problem was the assertion that anything considered “girly” can’t be smart, or useful, or anything but an empty shell.

Barbie is far from flawless and perfectly unproblematic, but the older I get the more I realize that she wasn’t the problem: It was the flawed people and world around her that were.

Anyway, Sasha does a great job illustrating that push and pull between what Barbie used to mean when you’re an innocent kid versus what she can become when you start to grow out of childhood and get your first taste of the real world and how deeply unfair it can be, especially to girls.

Anyway, Barbie is great go see it.

[girlfantasy777]

The Maddie stuff makes me soo mad.... they had right there a truly interesting cop character. Her introduction scene is her saying to vi that she's "one of the good enforcers" (even tho people keep misinterpreting it when it's clearly not about zaunites). She could have been a really interesting exploration of all those cops and soldiers who say they want to "change the system from the inside" and how they're deeply flawed in that logic. But instead she's just made into a villain so the main characters can get together and everybody can clap. Like this is just sad I really thought this show would deliver more nuance after season 1 set things up.

Also the fandom reaction is really gross. Everybody is calling her a whore and bitch and it's 1000% just misogyny at this point and it grosses me out.

Riot had a chance to make her a compelling character but instead they took the cliche route of making her the temporary love interest who is (conveniently) revealed to be evil at the last minute and betrayed Cait so the main ship can continue as endgame without any issue.

-also I never understood why she's the only one getting all the hate for sleeping with Cait? they're acting like Cait isn't a grown woman with free will who CHOOSE to have sex with Maddie. It takes two to tango but what the hell, sure. let's put all the hate to Maddie❤️

[unknown-cold]

Omg that's true!!

I'm so tired of these people saying Vi and Caitlyn's relationship is toxic, I mean literally the same thing she said Jinx and her relationship with Ekko wasn't good either and Jayce and Viktor too.

It is natural for problems and disagreements to occur in relationships, but it is not natural to think that a relationship will be peaceful and good all the time. These things only exist in Disney movies.

But apart from all that. Seriously guys hating on Vi or Caitlyn or both is way over the top. Like let's just imagine JUST IMAGINE, if Vi were male, the narrative surrounding her actions and character would change dramatically. She would likely be hailed as a "brother hero," a model of loyalty and kindness despite impossible circumstances. Her trauma, in prison, losing Vander, failing to save Jinx, and so on, would be sympathized with as a testament to her strength and determination.

Her status as the “bad sister” is undoubtedly tied to gender expectations. Women, especially older sisters, are often burdened with the role of caregiver, and are expected to be endlessly compassionate and self-sacrificing. Vi’s moments of anger, guilt, and mistakes, however, conflict with societal stereotypes of women as the natural “fixers” of emotional and familial conflicts. The fact that Vi is pigeonholed as the “bad sister” while Jinx is often seen as the tragic victim reflects deeper gender biases. Vi’s traumas and emotional wounds are ignored or minimized because she is expected to be the “strong one,” while Jinx is given sympathy and a more nuanced lens because her messiness and vulnerability fit into certain stereotypes of women who are broken or in need of saving.

It’s a frustrating double standard, and it underscores just how progressive Arcane is by refusing to fully give into those tropes. Vi’s character still shines as someone strong, flawed, and deeply human, but the criticisms she faces highlight how society treats female characters with such biases.

The misogyny is REAL and don’t think for a second that other women aren’t fully participating in that also. The amount of shit Vi gets for temporarily joining the Enforcers with Caitlyn to stop Jinx is insane. A male Vi would have been seen as a TORTURED HERO for joining up with the EVIL FORCES that took his parents away all so he could do HERO THINGS. But Vi does it? “Wah wah she joined the COPS she’s A TRAITOR THE REAL VI WOULD NEVER”. Like. Watch the show, my friends, and you will see she did what she thought was best and it was a very complex and very emotional decision for her; she hated every second of that uniform. But no, people shit on Vi and then complain like any of them could write a better show. Ugh.

And nobody would have hated a male Vi for having his love scene. Nobody. In fact, it would have been EXPECTED, but because Vi’s a woman, and a lesbian expressing her big gay love for her gorgeous gay lover, some people refuse to see her humanity and her growth as a person in that moment. I'm so tired

And the argument that we hate them because they did bad things is not true, I have seen people hate Caitlyn just because she is lesbian and one of them said if she was a straight woman I would have accepted her character on the show. Seriously this is someone who takes his criticism seriously, he forgot the story and everything in the show and focused on whether the characters are gay or straight or worse when I saw a comment from someone saying why are the main characters on the show female characters? Like is this an idiot or is he drug or what exactly? I think we should also ask, why do men always take the lead roles and when they are evil they are better, and if they are good they are also better, but if a woman comes along who is evil or wants to be evil or does just one mistake everyone hates her and she is the worst person in the world, but men are the only ones who deserve to play the role of evil and do bad things and we will sympathize with them and love them. THIS IS CRAZY!!

To understand what I'm saying more, compare Viktor's character and Caitlyn's character and you will see that Caitlyn was the character who was criticized the most even though she didn't kill anyone innocent and in the end she tried to fix things, while Viktor tried to kill all the people of Piltover and Zaun and didn't care about anyone, even his friend's pleas, he didn't care about them and Viktor thought that this was the solution but to end the conflicts between the two cities. But is there anyone who criticizes this, is there anyone who says that this is a bad act, of course not, yes you will see some people justifying it, as they did with Silco, the person who killed an entire family for control and drowned all of Zaun with shimmer and made the children work in dangerous factories, and there is not a single criticism, and people defend him even after Jinx's condition worsened, no they say that he is better than Caitlyn, my god like what the fuck!?

Then they tell you we don't hate women we don't hate gays or lesbians, just shut the fuck up, everything is clear, Arcane revealed to us that there are still people who are fanatic and traditional to the extreme who still want to see a man as the hero of the story and that all people and women should respect him even if he is evil and cruel he is always better than this bullshit, Arcane proved to us that it is possible for both sexes to appear in an excellent, strong and realistic way without insulting or belittling the other because these things are not useful and will not help in telling the story in any way.

Quick note I don't hate Jinx or Viktor and many of you who follow me know that I love Viktor very much but I will not deny the bad things he did and I am also really tired of the hypocrisy of some people and their constant criticism of other characters and characters. Just bc they say like these characters

Like I don't like Silco but have you ever seen me post every day criticizing Silco and Silco fans all the time or go to Silco fans and tell them if you like Silco then you support child labor and the drug trade and blah blah. Like they do with Caitlyn fans when one of them says he likes Caitlyn they accuse him of supporting collective punishment and corrupt governments and police brutality just because he likes a fictional character. I've never seen such stupidity and backwardness and bullshit in my life, just because I like a fictional character you think I will act like her in real life?? These people need to grow up seriously or find a job

[crownlixliquid]

I'm not sure if it's just me, but something that I love about Steph—especially during her short time as Robin—was how deeply flawed and lowkey an asshole she was. Maybe I'm not looking hard enough, but I personally find it hard to find female characters that are allowed to be that: very, VERY flawed and self centred in some ways without being a villain. It's especially hard to find teenage girls written that way and when they are, people typically tend to villainise them or ignore the flaws and nuance behind the characters in order to paint them as this picture perfect angel.

While I'm not the biggest fan of how the writers handled her, I actually enjoyed her ego and numerous flaws (though sometimes it can be a bit much) and I just wish that there was more attention to how imperfect she was by the writers (and the fandom) instead of it getting brushed off. I love it when she's an asshole and makes bad decisions but dear lord, let her grow from it the same way other characters do! Absolutely hate how her bad decisions just got shoved under the rug by both the writers and the fandom. Let my girl be an asshole again and let her learn from it!! Her being a dick was personally my favourite part about her but there's no point in a character having flaws if it doesn't actually affect them and isn't addressed.

[criticalcrusherbot]

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

By Crushbot 🤖 and Human Assistant 💁🏽‍♀️

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

Moral Purity & Rigid Dichotomies

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

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

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

The Death of Nuance in Online Discussions

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

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

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

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

The “Customer Service” Fandom Mentality

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

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

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

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

Hyper-Criticism Within Shared-Values Communities

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

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

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

Subverted Genre Expectations & Slow Releases

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

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

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

Final Thoughts: What Now?

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

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

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

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

[sylvan-librarian]

RE: Nissa’s Retcon

* * *

About once a month, I get a comment on one of my posts saying something along these lines

“Uhhh, you left out the part where Nissa was a fascist!”

“Nissa was more interesting as an elf-supremacist, imo.”

To be perfectly frank, I think both of these points are stupid and not worth my time, but just to give these posters the benefit of the doubt, I’ll assume they mean well and respond to them, once and for all, this way:

To address the first point, you’re right: in my posts celebrating Nissa and the journeys she has taken, I do tend to leave out material that was retconned. This isn’t entirely true, however, as I wrote an entire essay about this on my Tumblr page, which I doubt people slipping into my comments to post “gotcha!” have bothered to read. But anyway, to assume the best of these posters, let’s take a brief look at this retcon. Outside of a few brief blurbs in the “Duels of the Planeswalkers” video game and her 2009-era character description on Magic’s website, the “racist Nissa” characterization comes entirely from the In the Teeth of Akoum novel from 2010. And yes! In this book, Nissa is a hilariously stupid racist (frighteningly like real racists, imo). However, many aspects of this book were retconned in Nissa’s Magic Origins reboot. To note, in the 2010 novel, Nissa has no idea what the fuck Akoum even is and lets herself get led there by Sorin and Anowon. In the reboot, we learn that, among many other changes, she went to Akoum previously in her life, as that journey is what led to her sparking. Either way, post-Origins, many aspects of Teeth are questionably accurate at best. It’s quite safe to assume that with how horrified Nissa is when she sees Lorwyn elves hunting goblin children for sport that that particular aspect of Nissa’s personality (white supremacy) is no longer a part of her characterization.

For the second point, this one is just crazy, man. I don’t know y’all come up with this stuff. I don’t even know how to address this politely. Keep in mind that I am not by any stretch saying that Nissa is now a perfect cinnamon roll that never did anything wrong ever. Nissa is at fault for not trusting Sorin and setting the Eldrazi free. This is a decision that forever will, and should, haunt her. In the newer lore, she still distrusts vampires and outsiders in her youth because of how she was raised, and this is wrong of her. But Nissa does not distrust them because she thinks she is somehow morally superior to them by nature of birth. Nissa was raised as a member of the Joraga nation. The Joraga, as even the most basic of searches into the Magic wiki tells us, “eschewed outsiders and held even the other elves of Zendikar in disdain.” Nissa carries this distrust of outsiders with her into her adult life and doesn’t really learn to let go of this until she meets the Gatewatch and learns to expand her horizons. And again, Nissa was wrong for this xenophobia. But don’t get it twisted: there is still a big difference between fear and distrust of outsiders and fascist, ‘hierarchy of races’ bullshit. Both are rooted in fear, but for all her many shortcomings, the retconned Nissa of the new lore would never advocate for elves ruling the multiverse at the top of a racial hierarchy like the older Nissa would (and did). This is hammered home in her Origin story where she is horrified by watching Dwynen lead other Lorwyn elves as they slaughter entire tribes because they think it's funny. Furthermore, on the subject of Lorwyn elves, I would argue that old Nissa is fairly boring as a villain, as “racist elves” as a concept was already explored in depth in the Lorwyn stories. An entire planeswalker with that as her bit would get boring very quickly.

Lastly, and I suppose this is subjective, but isn’t a nuanced character, deeply flawed but trying her best to shed the xenophobia ingrained in her more interesting that an unrepentant, racist dumbass learning that “goblins are people actually!” only after she condemned an entire world to death? The latter might be (darkly) funnier, I’ll give you that, but the former makes for a much more interesting and emotionally satisfying narrative arc.

[ceaselesswatchersspecialboy]

i need to hear those thoughts, pretty please,

Okay this is a very late reply, but I finally feel as though I can word the thoughts I have regarding them. I want to preface this by saying that all my talks of Jayvik being queer coded stem from my own personal aroacespec perspective. I don’t perceive all forms of close affection and devotion as romantic, but the visual coding regarding Jayvik, and Meljayvik leads me down the path of ‘this is something I personally interpret as romantic’.

MelJayVik is such a deeply fascinating relationship to me because I think a lot is gained from their relationships in the series by looking at them through a polyamorous lens. It may be my own bias, I’m willing to admit that, but the dynamic feels as though it was written to be Poly.

It begins with the obvious queercoding between Jayce and Viktor, and the visual and thematic parallels between them:

Both are written as representative of Jayce’s choices, which can be simplified down to politics and science, and as characters, they inform the choices Jayce makes, and the consequences of those choices, while simultaneously being their own well-developed characters and having their own agendas. I would argue the way it’s written and depicted in the animation, taking into account a lot of the animator’s personal romantic agenda regarding Jayvik, feels akin to the setup of a typical romantic love triangle.

Two people harbour feelings for Jayce, and Jayce is given the decision between the two of them, but that to me is where the similarities between them a love triangle ends… because Jayce never actually chooses. I know some may argue he does because of the final scene with Viktor, but I don’t perceive that as the case at all.

Jayce clearly has a deep love for the both of them, seen so clearly in his actions.

With Mel and Viktor, he truly feels like he can take on the world.

Jayce struggles to balance his life between politics and science because he wants both. He wants Mel and Viktor to be important in his life, but he isn’t capable of managing that, and his own biases and privilege do begin to damage his view of the system and his relationship with Viktor, and Mel does unintentionally worsen that divide. It’s why I love the polycule so much honestly — to me it isn’t just slapping three people together to stop any ship wars, no, it’s a genuinely complex and nuanced dynamic that has initial struggles and hardships.

And to claim that Mel doesn’t care for Viktor is said in complete ignorance of the source material. Mel does come to perceive Viktor as important. Initially, she does ignore him, and treat his presence as secondary to Jayce, but that changes once she recognises the flaw in her actions and how close she was to becoming like her mother. In the final scene of season one, she smiles at Jayce and Viktor. In the beginning of season two, she says that Viktor will come back to ‘us’. Not just to Jayce.

It feels tragic almost. They could have had such an interesting relationship with Mel now wanting to connect to Viktor, but she shattered the chance of that happening. The same way Viktor’s magic repels and rejects her, he does the same.

And god don’t get me started on their magic parallels. For as much as I criticise season two, this is a compilation of my thoughts on MelJayVik in canon, and so I am willing to analyse the way they’re portrayed in season two, and the fight scene in the council room In particular makes me violently ill.

It feels intimate on both ends.

I know people focus especially on Jayce and Viktor’s scenes, and I get it, the scenes between them are particularly intimate

However, both Mel and Viktor and Mel and Jayce also show intimacy in that scene. The way Jayce holds Mel after the fight, despite their previous ‘break up’ scene, and how even though there’s conflict between them, they still can’t help but handle each other with such care and affection. It’s just how they are.

And to me there’s something equally horrifying yet beautiful in the way Viktor bypasses Mel’s own magic, no longer rejecting her, but being intrigued and fascinated by her.

“The arcane stirs within you.”

They are connected by something more than just flesh, more than just physical, and that’s kind of insane to consider.

The tragedy of Mel regarding this is she loses both of these people: the man she knew, and understood, and allowed herself to be vulnerable with, and the man she wanted to know, and to understand.

So here’s how the Noxus spin-off can fix that and canonise MelJayVik! <- lying to myself.

[theaawalker]

Steps to NOT Write Through the Male Gaze

follow for more tips 💋 || request writing tips 💌

1. Establish the Foundation

Understand the Male Gaze: The male gaze frames women as objects of visual pleasure, ergo valued for their beauty, sexual availability, or how they serve a male character’s development. Avoid this lens from the start. Define Her Perspective, Not Her Appearance: Ask: How does she see the world? before how the world sees her. Build her worldview, voice, and motivations before describing how she looks. Be Conscious of Descriptive Priorities: Don’t default to describing her body, clothing, or attractiveness as her most important trait. Focus on how she moves, acts, and feels instead.

2. Shape Her Role in the Story

Let Her Exist Outside of Men: She should have goals, fears, and relationships that don’t revolve around male characters. Avoid “Sexy Equals Strong” Tropes: She doesn’t need tight leather, flirtatious sarcasm, or constant sensuality to be powerful. Let her be strong in her own way. Don’t Make Her a Reward or Symbol: She shouldn’t exist to motivate, validate, or redeem a man. Her arc must stand on its own.

3. Build Her Character Authentically

Write From the Inside Out: What does she care about? What keeps her up at night? What drives her, enrages her, makes her laugh? Let Her Be Messy: She can sweat, cry, bleed, scream, get sick, or look disheveled. Don’t erase humanity for aesthetics. Avoid “Flawed, But Hot” Writing: If she’s “awkward,” “clumsy,” or “gritty,” don’t cancel that out by constantly reaffirming how stunning or sexy she is. Let the flaws stand.

4. Portray Her Strength Without Objectification

Let Her Dress for Herself, Not the Audience: If she’s in battle, don’t put her in stilettos and midriff armor. If she’s undercover, let her choose strategy over seduction. Don’t Over-Sexualize Emotional Moments: Crying isn’t sexy. Anger isn’t foreplay. Don’t linger on her body in moments meant to be about her feelings. Keep the Camera in Check (Even in Prose): Don’t describe her like a slow pan from the waist up. Prioritize what she notices, she fears, she decides.

5. Develop Relationships With Nuance

Show Female Solidarity: Give her female mentors, friends, rivals, or family. Let her world include other women who matter. Avoid One-Sided Obsession: Male characters shouldn’t constantly sexualize, save, or possess her. Attraction is fine. Ownership is not. Challenge Gender Dynamics: Let her interrupt, outsmart, or lead without being “punished” by the narrative. Don’t reduce her competence to a joke or anomaly.

6. Develop a Satisfying, Self-Defined Arc

Let Her Endings Serve Her, Not the Guy: Whether she wins, dies, leaves, or thrives, her choices should reflect her own journey and not someone else’s fantasy. Avoid Tragedy Porn: Don’t use rape, abuse, or trauma as shallow backstory. If you explore it, treat it with gravity, research, and respect. Highlight Her Full Humanity: Show her strength, weakness, rage, love, ugliness, complexity. That’s what real, well-written characters deserve.

Examples of Female Characters Written Outside the Male Gaze

1. Film/TV Examples:

Arya Stark (Game of Thrones): Grows as a killer, survivor, and girl finding her own code, she was never reduced to sex appeal.

Marceline the Vampire Queen (Adventure Time): Complex, emotional, ancient, her strength isn’t sexualized, but deeply personal.

Nadine (The Edge of Seventeen): Her awkwardness, jealousy, grief, and rage are all raw and fully human.

2. Literature Examples:

Celie (The Color Purple by Alice Walker): An abused woman who finds her voice and liberation, not by being beautiful, but by reclaiming herself.

Offred (The Handmaid’s Tale by Margaret Atwood): Her narrative critiques the commodification of female bodies and internal rebellion in a male-controlled society.

Claire Warden (The Guardians of Camoria series): Gritty, spiritual, violent, and wounded, she's not sexualized but carved by her own scars, instincts, and strength.

Follow || Like || Comment || Repost || My Novel ⇚⇚⇚

thank you, i am farkle :)

[ksfd892]

Last night I was discussing with @ernestonlysayslovelythings that one of the things Gilmore Girls does really well is nuance. In terms of conflict, most characters will be a little bit right and a little bit wrong (as it tends to be in life), and yet many viewers will automatically side with one particular character. Lorelai and Rory (Rory in particular) tend to often be seen as in the wrong, and this intrigues and frustrates me. While a lot of the time they are 'in the wrong', so is the other character, and yet this is rarely acknowledged. Information which the other character has (and the audience has) is not given to Lorelai and Rory and yet they are still criticised for it (which other posts have gone into).

Emily and Paris are fan favourites and it's easy to understand why; they are funny, sarcastic and outspoken and yet also have vulnerability. Viewers will often take Emily's side in an argument with Lorelai and Paris's with Rory, which I find frustrating, because the reasoning seems to be either that Emily and Paris are 'more funny' or that Lorelai and Rory are 'annoying'. Emily and Paris are funny (Paris in particular is exaggerated as a side character) but they can also be very mean. Lorelai and Rory are not intentionally mean, generally speaking, yet a key element of Emily and Paris's characterisation is unkindness. Of course, this is largely for comedic effect (such as Emily firing maids and Paris making Brad cry), and yet Lorelai and Rory seem to be held to a higher standard. Emily and Paris can be very cruel to Lorelai and Rory (ie Emily's ongoing disgust over her daughter's romantic life or lack of and Paris bullying Rory at school) but it doesn't seem to 'count'. Viewers identify the reasons for this; such as Emily's hurt over Lorelai running away or Paris feeling intimidated by Rory, but do not extend the same understanding to Lorelai and Rory. Lorelai can be immature and shut out her parents, which is due to an unhappy childhood, and Rory sometimes wants space (which I don't personally find unreasonable), but that apparently means they're 'arrogant'.

This lack of nuance is also notable with Jess. With non-Literati shippers, many viewers write Jess off as the asshole exboyfriend who has 'exaggerated' his unhappy life with Liz and is 'ungrateful' to Luke. On the flip side, many Literati shippers take the view that Jess never does anything wrong and Luke is a total jerk. Again, there is nuance here; Jess is not infallible and, like all the characters, he is right and wrong about certain things. While there is zero evidence that Jess exaggerated anything (although some fans seem to exaggerate for him), he can be rude and perhaps seem ungrateful, but it is understandable. He acts this way because he had an unreliable mother who sent him to live in a strange town with his uncle without any say, and he lashes out because he is angry and not listened to. In S6 when Jess has grown up, he appreciates what Luke did for him, because he has the maturity to see it. Luke, for his part, did his best and also messed up because he stubbornly thought he knew what he was doing, and didn't think he needed advice. It does not negate the fact that he cared and tried his hardest. As with Lorelai and Emily, Luke and Jess are both right and both wrong with their reaction to things.

It's also interesting that within Literati shippers, the majority of people will take Jess's side in a conflict with him and Rory. Jess and Rory are flawed people (who are also very young) who manage to hurt each other deeply. Rory runs away after kissing Jess because she does not know how to handle her feelings, which Jess perceives as her thinking he isn't worth staying for and, a year later, Jess leaves town without saying goodbye, which Rory also wrongly perceives as a rejection. Neither of them intend to be cruel and yet, according to numerous Lit shippers, Jess was hurting and Rory 'couldn't see it'. Of course she couldn't see it - Jess never communicated to her that he was in trouble at high school and had to drop out, or that his father showed up, or anything else going on with him. She could see something was wrong but couldn't help him. Likewise, Rory never communicated to Jess that she was feeling mixed up about being with Dean and later with Logan, but somehow this understanding isn't extended to Rory. Jess and Rory are both fallible and are both written with excellent nuance.

One of the best things about Gilmore Girls is how well it reflects growing up and our relationships in real life. Situations are rarely binary and, as we mature, we can often look at conflict more objectively and see 'the other side'. Lorelai and Rory, along with most of the characters they interact with, are written with depth. When they mess up or miscommunicate, it doesn't mean they 'wrong' or not worth caring about - it means they have something to learn from. They are funny, frustrating, vulnerable and have moments of clarity, just as with real people.