#viewed in context of his privileges

[emberfaye]

I can't take "Kim is rude to wait staff" "Kim treats the bodyguards like shit" "Kim is awful to strangers and has to learn basic manners"

Because it's fucking canon that in the middle of a fight for chays life, a fight he already knows is going to cause some damage, a fight he's outnumbered for and no one even knows he's there, he still keeps yok from losing an entire shelf and mirrors and alcohol. He knows she is a small business probably knows her entire Financials what with him being Mr. Mcsnoopy face.

[darnmand]

A Postcolonial analysis of Marius

(Disclaimer: This is not me trying to fight with anyone, this is just my own analysis of Marius. He’s an extremely complex and difficult character and so I have a lot of thoughts about him. I don’t 100% hate or like Marius. But more importantly, I don’t make moral judgements about how OTHER people feel about Marius because at the end of the day these are fictional characters.)

~

I think a big part of what I am going to call the Marius Problem (which I am not gonna take pains to describe here bc iykyk) is that Anne herself didn’t really seem to see a huge problem with him, and that affects his portrayal in the narrative.

There is of course the obvious way he treats Armand, and anyone who is familiar with Anne’s corpus of work knows that that relationship dynamic is something she revisits a lot and often in the context of erotica which is like a whole other bag of worms but…

The thing I feel like we don’t really talk about with Marius enough is his very Western Eurocentric view of the world. From a postcolonial perspective Marius’s philosophy is deeply unsettling. The way he polarizes the “east” and “west” and the modern and medieval, reason and superstition, are very insidious ways of defining things, as is his idolization of the Enlightenment, which was at its heart a positivist, Eurocentric, and deeply prejudiced school of thought which managed to convince the world that social constructions like race and gender were “scientific” in nature.

Marius is basically the embodiment of imperialism, not because he’s some malicious Big Brother twirling his moustache but because he is a very powerful, very privileged, and deeply misguided man who is takes his experience of the world as a universal truth, and who mistakes his own subjective feelings and desires for objective morality.

One of his greatest crimes against Armand that no one talks about is that he tries to force him to conform to a culture that goes against Armand’s own nature and history, and discounts Armand’s view of the world as fundamentally flawed and wrong just because it doesn’t align with his. In the book the conflict of ideologies is between classical humanism (Marius) and Eastern Orthodoxy and mysticism (Armand). In QotD, Marius even laments his failure to “perfect” Armand. Even as he showers them with gifts and affection, Marius treats Armand, Pandora, and even Akasha like dolls. Due to the changes made to Armand’s character in the show, I imagine the dissonance will be even more intense and the suppression of Armand’s selfhood will feel even more disturbing, because it will register on the level of race as well as other forms of identity.

But regardless, the most difficult part of this is that Marius is not doing this out of malice. Marius genuinely thinks he’s doing the right thing. He thinks he’s helping Armand. He thinks he is liberating the subaltern subject from the dark shadows of superstition and oppression. He thinks he is educating a being who must not know his own self and his own rights because he is fundamentally ignorant. He does not realize that what he is trying to do is efface the Other and absorb it into himself. And he eventually abandons Armand, in part, I think, because of his failure to succeed at this mission, and so facing Armand means facing the Other in himself which he wishes to repress to be the ideal enlightened western man. Marius is not even aware of his own need to dominate.

(But please please remember that Marius’s need to dominate is not likewise reflected by a need to be subjugated in Armand. Armand is equally able to move in spheres of dominance as well as submission because Armand does understand much of what Marius does not about the nature of power. Marius does not have this kind of mobility.)

This is at the heart of imperial discourse. This is what gives it momentum, what immortalizes it— the idea that we (the West) occupy some moral high ground from which we can liberate and speak for the subaltern subjects which we ourselves have locked into oppression and victimhood.

And sadly, I don’t think Anne wrote all this into the books consciously. She herself said in an interview that her own philosophy of the world aligns more with Marius’s than with Armand’s, and I think that is part of why Marius is a fundamentally sympathetic character. She made him that way. And I don’t necessarily blame her for it because these kinds of discourses are epistemological and extremely tricky to parse out. Power is that which we cannot name. So yeah, I don’t think Anne was intentional or malicious in it either.

And I don’t think all of us who look at Marius and probably feel somewhere deep down to be like him, to have his power, are doing it because of a fundamental flaw in their humanity or their politics. It’s a flaw in the epistemological system, and I don’t think it’s a flaw anyone can really see unless they’re the Armands in that equation, or they’ve been extensively trained to see it.

And before anyone gets defensive, this is not an attack on anyone or a criticism of any individual. It is a criticism of a system of knowledge and knowing which we likely cannot escape. And it is also a call for people to look at this story differently than they might have before. A call for lovers of Marius to try to begin to understand things from Armand’s perspective, and a call for lovers of Armand to remember that he is far more than just a victim, and that it would be very dangerous and reductive and harmful to his existence as an autonomous subject to understand him in that way. And if you feel the same as I do about these things, please talk about it, don’t get stuck in the surface level dynamics of the Armand/Marius relationship.

And if you’ve stayed with me for this long, I applaud your patience and thank you for your commitment.

[avelera]

Re-watched Captain America: Winter Soldier and First Avenger (in that order lol) and hey guys

Remember that time Steve woke up in New York City 70 years later and panicked, thinking he was in HYDRA hands and haha, actually it turns out, he kind of was??

Also remember that bit where he found out in the most deadpan way possible (thanks Nick) that everyone he had ever known and loved was dead or aged to to the point of death in the blink of an eye, and no one ever actually like, gave him a moment's sympathy for the fact his entire world ended in a split-second of self-sacrifice that ended up just being one battle in a war that never ended?

Remember when he found out that the only person left who loved him, Peggy, only occasionally remembered him in moments of lucidity haha and then it turned out that the only other person who still lived and who loved him, Bucky, also only remembered him in moment's of lucidity?? Good times, good fucking times, I'm an emotional wreck about it

And one last thing, because I will never ever fucking ever let this grudge go, remember that time Tony fucking Stark who I mostly love but in the context of Steve Rogers specifically I want to tear him to shreds, decided to have beef with a literal traumatized 20-something year old war veteran whose entire world just dissolved into nothing in the 70 years he was on ice, and Tony fucking Stark decided to pick a fight with this guy and rag on him 24/7, despite being in his 40s himself and completely comfortable, stable, and with insane levels of wealth and privilege, because his fucking dad who has been dead for decades apparently loved this guy more, something that would have bewildered Steve who like, barely knew Howard outside of work, and that Steve had fucking nothing to do with Howard's neglect of his son because it all happened while he was unconscious?

Don't even get me started on Civil War, we will be here all day in how these supposedly equal sides weren't even slightly equal in morality or logic at all, but I will die on the hill of Tony fucking Stark was being a Grade A fucking asshole for his stupid man-child fight he picked with Steve Rogers when you actually objectively view Steve's life story as a human being instead of a symbol that he was literally forced to be

Whew. Ok. I'm ok now.

...

AND ANOTHER THING...!

[wisteria-lodge]

What do you think about Draco’s and James’s similarities + differences but opposite treatment in the narrative?

Since Draco does have a full detailed explanation behind his behavior, he was raised to think it’s okay but they should keep up appearances, and he often witnessed others doing it first. James does not have any sort of explanation other than his parents pampered him.

Both said “Think I’d leave, wouldn’t you”. However Draco said it in context of trying to find something to bond with Harry over whereas James just wanted to bully Snape.

In Goblet of Fire, Draco points out how the death eaters could attack Hermione to scare the Trio into leaving him alone, however James actually did what the death eaters and threatened to do worse since he took his frustrations with Lily out on Snape. In Said confrontations, The Trio were the ones who accidentally came across Draco but James approached Snape out of boredom.

Both had prejudiced beliefs but Draco actually gave up his childhood prejudices but we have no proof James did.

While James did help Snape, he was also helping His friends and he went right back to sadisticly bullying and he was the main instigator.

Draco spared his enemies and tried helping them with no ulterior motives and fully expecting to be tortured/killed. While he did go to Harry in the room of requirement, he didn’t actively participate in the attacking, aside from trying to stop Crabbe from attacking the Trio. He also even expresses concern for Harry.

Yet James is somehow seen as more heroic.

James dies, Draco doesn't. It's the Draco vs Regulus framing thing all over again. As far as JKR is concerned, dying heroically just fixes everything, I guess.

A related part of her worldview is that suffering purifies you and makes you a better person. I do think that's the intended purpose of the super deliberate James + Draco parallels ("I think I'd leave, wouldn't you? [if I was sorted into X house]" - is really on the nose.) It's supposed to communicate how Harry would have looked, if he'd grown up like James or Draco. (Wealthy, only child, wizard parents who dote on him and spoil him.) Under difference circumstances, Harry could have had more of an ego, been more entitled, given into the brutal streak that he does have. When we first see school-age James, he's described as "It was as though [Harry] was looking at himself but with deliberate mistakes." That's a very interesting description, and I think ties in nicely to an "alternate universe Harry" reading.

This is also something that seems to have been on Dumbledore's mind. He describes 11-year-old Harry as "You were not a pampered little prince [ie, James], but as normal a boy as I could have hoped under the circumstances. Thus far, my plan was working well."

So: As far as he's concerned, leaving Harry with the Dursleys is not just justified but good, because it's made Harry a better person. Considering that Dumbledore, Snape, Dudley, Ron (arguably Draco) also have personal growth arcs kick-started through suffering... I'd say this is a point of view the text supports overall.

But another thing... is that I've always thought JKR writes friend group dynamics really, really well. They're messy, shifting, warm, tight-knit and complicated. Outside dynamics like class, politics, and discrimination come in, and bounce around in unpredictable ways. Even if there was some way to cleanly add up everyone's 'bullying points' and 'victim points' or whatever, and plug them into some formula, and be able to come out with some definitive statement like "Draco had it worse than Peter" - I wouldn't want to do it. What makes the Harry+Ron+Hermione+Draco dynamic interesting... and what makes the James+Remus+Sirius+Peter+Severus+Lily+Regulus dynamic even *more* interesting... is that basically everyone has an area in which they're powerful or privileged, another area where they're vulnerable or disenfranchised (with the possible exception of James)... and it makes for these fantastically complex character dynamics and vicious cycles.

Because every single one of these characters is written with some degree of ambiguity, (some more than others...) which ones you gravitate towards, and which ones you dislike end up being more of a personal Rorschach test than anything rooted in the books.

Like, I can see from your ask that you're inclined to give Draco a very positive edit. (and I mean, come on, I love Draco too.) You read Draco as vulnerable during the scene where the Golden Trio finds him the woods during the World Cup chaos, and decides to "scare the Trio into leaving him alone." That is absolutely a read that makes sense, but it's one that you're bringing to the book, there's nothing in that scene to suggest that Draco feels threatened. My personal read is that Draco - always squeamish about violence - is actually worried about Hermione on some unexamined level, because everything he says during that scene is advice on how to protect her, just expressed in a really asshole-ish way. But I think the read intended by JKR is - here's Draco, being an asshole, dishing out some exposition.

[inblurtub]

lovingly siesta | a smau | part 2

pairing(s): youngest sister leclerc!reader x f1 grid (platonic), youngest sister leclerc!reader x lando norris

warnings: no face claim, age gap (25-18), protective charles leclerc, super softie pie lando, ooc

need part 1? click here!

yourusername

liked by arthur_leclerc, charles_leclerc and 25.485 others

yourusername while i were pluto-ing 🌌 midterms hit harder than i thought

view all 2.395 comments

user24 i have said it once and i’ll say it again, i missed her being little so much🥹 she is now a college girl with a boyfriend

user26 sis i think we go to the same uni—

arthur_leclerc too bad you don’t go for racing

yourusername every family need a smart ass girl and that is me arthur_leclerc just because you are the only princesse in the family😨 yourusername fair enough

user22 so nobody gonna bring up the 2nd picture?? i’m hungry for context😭

user24 yeh not even charles?? must be my delusion🤯

user29 listen to me, if he wasn’t lando then he couldn’t be anyone else

yourusername posted on their stories

↳ charles_leclerc ma princesse, i wish you all the best with lando, but if he ever hurt you don’t hesitate to tell your brothers. we’re gonna beat his ass real quick

yourusername i know sharl🫶🏻 i love ur three so much that i can’t say enough💓

↳ landonorris WE DID IT

yourusername YES WE DID IT landonorris now i can take you out and treat you meals any time i want😈

↳ arthur_leclerc use protection🙂

yourusername DO NOT spill shit out like that with your verified account🙂 but i will if we really do it

yourusername

liked by oscarpiastri, landonorris and 194.326 others

yourusername my fighter🫶🏻 what a wonderful race that was, start to think that i’m your lucky charm! tagged landonorris

comments on this post have been limited

carlossainz55 join the dinner will you😉

yourusername only if @/charles_leclerc allow charles_leclerc as if i have the choice to refuse😒

oscarpiastri he is giggling and kicking feets right now

landnorris osc u are not suppose to expose me! yourusername @/landonorris we have a deal, you can’t interfere

landonorris i love that i look damp through your camera

yourusername what a cutie you are landonorris yes i am���

landonorris

liked by yourusername, mclaren and 467.289 others

landonorris just helped her in a song that she wrote about her sweetheart

comments on this post have been limited

landonorris minions and none-minions people, be ready for “not-so-single era”

charles_leclerc she wrote a whole song about you what a privilege

landonorris i’m the only one, she got 3 of you guys

yourusername and a bside track exclusively for u🫶🏻

landonorris WHAT BABY DON’T DROP THINGS SO CASUAL😭 I WONT BE READY yourusername :) gotta keep it hush just for the right moment

mclaren can she come to the garage next weekend😉

yourusername nuh uh im still a ferrari girl you know

[srbachchan]

DAY 6253

Jalsa, Mumbai Mar 30, 2025 Sun 11:43 pm

🪔 ,

March 31 .. birthday happiness to Ef Sai Poorna Patnaik .. Ef Keren Ben Ezra .. and Ef Shravan Kumar .. 🙏🏽❤️🚩

greetings and wishes from all the Ef ..

The consciousness of time , builds in the mind along with all the other concerns and schedules, damaging the thinking process of what we work on presently ..

And with the several options open to us, it does become even greater in the context ..

So what can be the cure ..

For me I have worked out that the moment the 'other' thought invades the mind while working on something .. just get up and fulfill the wants of the invasion .. and get back to doing what you have been doing .. at least it lessens the burden we carry of the schedule and the time factor that troubles the mind .. the saturated cerebrum reduces the factor of space .. and all seems to be in order ..

Been trying it for the last few days , with reasonable success ....

Reasonable , because never is the act of work fulfilling enough to move away and give space and time for the 'other' ..

The 'other' is a magnificent factor , often not given the importance it generates in human lives or any lives ..

A view ..

"The concept of the ‘Other’ operates both metaphorically and in reality as a defining factor in literary consciousness. It represents exclusion, difference, and opposition, shaping identities and narratives. In metaphorical terms, the ‘Other’ embodies the unknown, the marginalized, or the exotic, reinforcing binaries like self/other, familiar/foreign. In reality, literature reflects the power dynamics that create ‘Otherness’—colonialism, gender, race, and class—challenging or reinforcing societal structures. Writers like Edward Said and Simone de Beauvoir explore how the ‘Other’ is constructed, exposing ideological biases. Ultimately, the ‘Other’ remains central to literature’s interrogation of identity, belonging, and human understanding."

.. and there are several views such as the above on the subject of 'there' .. Simone de Beauvoir and other greats like existentialists Jean Paul Sartre .. did great work on these theories .. they must be read to be able to fully understand their inputs ..

Sartre .. a playwright as well .. and one of his plays 'Crime Passionnel ' I had the privilege to go to and educate myself ..

A crime whose base is passion is not a crime in certain laws in certain countries .. that was the essence .. but would meet with immense legal debate and challenges in today's time ...

What would not perhaps meet immense debate would be the GOJ

🤣

🥰

... and Ghibli .. invades the world ..

in the reality of the realm of communication ..

and the making of the 'reel' .. another now popular concept .. one which demands attention ..

.. may the days ahead be filled with prosperity and love and success ..

and my gratitude to all that wish me on this special day of festivities .. i cannot respond to each individually .. so this ..

🙏

Amitabh Bachchan

[arrowfortea]

da:i has an emphasis on historiography, and encourages players to excavate bias and context from paratextual elements alone (e.g. one codex entry is "From A Treaty on the Pagan and Heretical Customs of the Elven by Senallen Tavernier of the University ofOrlais, commissioned by Empress Celene").

therefore THE WRITERS MUST KNOW WHAT SKYHOLD'S ARCHIVIST IS DOING

archivist banon, my nemesis, wrote the codex about the rotunda frescoes, but he also wrote some others, within which he: — acknowledges a pair of urns are probably left untouched out of "superstition", or maybe just because they're heavy, because when he tried to move the ancient urns with his bare fucking hands, he couldn't — is asked by solas for, as far as we know, "resources on the fade", and decides to include "dalish myth and the collected truths against" by sister petrine (whose other books on mythologies do not include collected truths against, hmm) as well as an untranslated tevene text about elves and their false gods. banon i have seen codexes dictated by dalish elves, TO INQUISITION SCRIBES, i know you can find SOMETHING to balance it out — believes the andraste statues in skyhold MUST be altered chasind figures and "likely had animal heads or some such", bangs on about how brutal and barbaric the chasind are while citing a "rumoured custom" before continuing to speak about it as if it's true. you're meant to be cataloguing the statues!!!!!

archivists are not historians, their job is keeping records. because skyhold's resources are not unlimited, the archivist's job would also include sifting the chaff—deciding what's "important" enough to preserve, organise, catalogue etc. what he archives will significantly affect historical narratives. and he's like well why stop at archiving??? why not contribute?????

similarly his codex entry on the rotunda frescoes is not about the frescoes, at all! leliana requested "a thorough examination of the fresco adorning the rotunda", and most of it is banon fawning over solas—who explicitly directed the topic of the frescoes away from himself—and being ignorant about fresco/elves.

he calls it "elven fresco"—possibly, fresco exists elsewhere (antiva?) and he doesn't know the elven word for it; possibly, it's only elven and is just "fresco", yet he called it elven fresco. who knows. anyway

"on the mural, all messere would say is-" okay so he explicitly asks solas about the mural, followed by solas saying they're of the inquisitor's actions.

"on the medium and method, it is-" oh so.. did you ask solas this? unclear i guess. anyway, despite banon saying he's ~rarely been privileged~ to see fresco done, he calls the medium and method "pigment and plaster and it is grand" before immediately moving on. and doing the written equivalent of vaguely gesturing. "it is considered, with long periods of study before the image emerges, whole cloth"? what the fuck are you talking about???

i had to delete two sentences of nitpicking why this description makes no sense for fresco. this makes no more sense for fresco than it does for sculpture or pottery or a painting just—DESCRIBE ANY PART OF THE TECHNIQUE. you said you've seen it done! did you NOT ask solas????

"the more I learn of his experience, the more awkward I feel not using a formal honorific" / "i should expect such [fresco] competence of messere, given his probable years of study". WHAT DID YOU ACTUALLY TALK ABOUT?????

anyway the medium and method paragraph ends with "speaks of how i imagine elves view the world, and the measured nature of their step".

also, he notes that fresco is a rarely-practiced art, "even amongst the Dalish". EVEN amongst the dalish! those MOST in a position to perform it, i'm sure, as statistically speaking, any civilisation a clan is nearby would love for the dalish to permanently leave a mark upon their architecture! since FRESCO REQUIRES WALLS, BANON

maybe city elves could do fresco IF ONLY WE HAD A SOURCE FOR THE TECHNIQUE OH WELL GUESS IT'S TIME TO BROWN-NOSE MESSERE AGAIN

[multifandomloverthrowaway]

What Sky’s Character Should Have Been

(And why her and Viktor needed to be canon.)

This is LONG, and just my opinion. Please be nice!

In storytelling, each character, each scene, and each literary device is crucial for the advancement of the plot. If any is over or under utilized, the story remains cluttered or incomplete. That being said, it truly is a tragedy how horribly the characters, especially the Zaunite characters, came to be treated in season two. The characters and arcs set up in season one are butchered, and Viktor’s story is particularly disappointingly miswritten by the authors and misrepresented by the fandom, and we see this in the narrative and to a certain extent even fan treatment of Sky.

Sky is a ghost. Her presence, while tangible in the story, is not fully realized to the audience. We do not get to know much of her besides her interest in Viktor and a small flashback indicating that they knew of each other in their youth. Thus her existence and her death are ultimately unsatisfying; we do not know enough about her to be able to connect with her, and so she is ultimately only perceived to be an object to propel Viktor’s descent, even though we do not know much of his feelings towards her either. This is an unfortunate misuse of her as a supporting character, especially when it has a good potential reason to exist other than to solely be Viktor’s love interest.

Before understanding what Sky can represent, let us first define her in the context of the setting, particularly in relation to the characters that she supports. I have touched upon this in more detail in my Viktor character analysis posted, but for the TLDR:

It is clear that Jayce and Viktor are foils to one another. The difference in their opinions on Hextech sets them up to be a parallel to an important aspect of the class struggle set up in season one: Even when the oppressed are “good enough” to compete with their privileged peers, the resultant treatment by the oppressor between both is starkly different. Where the privileged will be lauded and commemorated, the oppressed will only be served minimal acceptance and approval. Thus, their characters and how they interact with one another, as well as the characters of their immediate mutual contacts and their own corresponding interactions, should serve explore this struggle further, especially when it comes to Sky, Mel, and Heimerdinger.

So Sky, like Viktor, should show how Piltover can misuse Zaunites against their hometown. However, to keep her character separate from him, unlike Viktor, who loses himself getting out of this trap and back to Zaun, Sky must be lost to trap itself. She must show just how inhumanely far Piltover will go in exploiting Zaun to maintain its subjugation over the latter. Like we see with other innocent Zaunite background characters that are killed by Piltover on the battleground, Sky must represent those that are killed in softer, more covert methods: through the extraction of Zaun’s finest intellect and the resulting false diplomacy. We must eventually see how Piltover indirectly kills her for being Zaunite, even though we know she is killed by Viktor and the Hexcore.

Sky then needs to have a fleshed out background that indicates of her optimism, grit, and innocence. It does not have to be as in depth as that of the main characters, but the audience must be shown the following:

Her academic prowess that indicates how she can capture sponsors and spin her botany research to help Zaun into something that Piltover thinks it can also benefit from. From which councilors or patrons does she benefit? How and why?

Her motivations for Zaun. What does she view an ideal Zaun to be? What would its relationship with Piltover be? We know she wants to make it better by creating natural greenery, but why does she choose to do so in Piltover? What pushed her to apply to the academy?

Her relation to Viktor, the only other known Zaunite at the academy. Did they interact more than that one time in the river? Were they friends or mutuals? How did Viktor help her get a position as his assistant and why? We know she is fond of him, but what about the other way around? What are their experiences at the academy like? How do they interact with casual prejudice? Do they stick up for each other? Do they find support in each other?

We must see her struggles to successfully obtain funding and traction for her own research due to Piltovan pushback and prejudice. (In this case, she must be in the same research group as Jayce and Viktor, but no longer their assistant as a decade is far too long to remain as such. She will be tied to Jayce’s name but not under him or Viktor.) This needs to be shown to contrast Jayce’s ease in becoming a councilor and gaining enough authority to push out Heimerdinger to further his and Viktor’s research. We need to see her project take the back seat because it is not the project that Jayce is directly tied to. We must see her have to to be careful and planned in who she talks to, how, and what she is able to get from them. This would provide a perfect parallel to Mel and about how being outsiders provides challenges when it comes to change; one being born into power with an imperialist upbringing and getting past Piltovans gracefully to a councilor position to invite it, and the other having no power and so relying on the street smarts and a resource seeking mindset from a more impoverished background to scavenge for it… yet both using the same methods (smooth talking, strategic connections, etc.) to do so.

We need to also know her relationship with Zaun and her perception of Piltover. She must be shown to nurture her feelings about the unfair treatment of her home into a more determined and optimistic view of potential equality and diplomacy, and their growth over time with her and Viktor’s research and their duty to represent Zaun. We should see her friendship with Jayce. We should see her interact with Mel and Heimerdinger. This not only lets the audience sympathize with her by empathizing with the struggles she faces above and her defiance in face of them, but also contrasts Viktor’s internal anger about Zaun and Piltover that he lets fester with his growing ailments and erasure of academic and technical contributions. This contrast sets her up nicely to symbolize the “good that could have been” in the relationship between Zaun and Piltover, and thus by extension, between Viktor and Jayce - hence her initial role as their assistant, and something that is cast aside as each character grows more towards their goals rather than the partnership.

This also sets her up to personify Viktor’s humanity. We’ve seen them meet. Let us see them study together, build things together, perhaps even fend for essentials together. Let us see how and why Sky fell in love with the Viktor from her youth. Let us know of Viktor’s endearment of her as we see him choose her to be his assistant. Let us see how they interact after facing prejudice from Piltovans and band together. Let us see her meet him when he’s on the hospital bed. Let us see her and Viktor be protective of and vulnerable with each other as they face the enemy. Let us see them bond just like we have seen him do so with Jayce. With Sky, we can see Viktor’s insecurities and his empathy like no other character can; in her we can see what makes him human.

This is integral to Viktor’s character and his arc. Whereas Jayce can actively work towards a future for his life with Mel and his career outside of Hextech, Viktor does not have the same luxury due to his illness. He cannot pursue anything but Hextech because his life and the lives of his people are on the line due to Piltover’s control. And that is precisely why when Sky loses her life due to the technology, it isn’t just Viktor that kills her. It’s Piltover’s waste, Piltover’s luxuries, Piltover’s unfulfilled promises that do. And Viktor realizes that after. Sky, in all her optimism, is fundamentally what Viktor could have strived for had he not let his anger and urgency spiral. As a mirror to Mel and Jayce, Sky is not just Viktor’s past but also his hopes for the future. And he realizes that he and Zaun has lost what could have been.

By giving Sky agency, we see just how much she could have done for the plot. But seeing how much the story fumbled Viktor, it’s not surprising to see her get “fridged” twice. I hope I did her justice!

If you’ve read this all, you deserve all the desserts. Thanks for reading!

[nejihyugamyreligion]

Neji, the Decline of a Great Character

It is no secret that Naruto Shippuden marked a decline in the saga. Many characters suffered due to Kishimoto's poor creative decisions. But without a doubt, one of the most affected was Neji. From his appearance in the Chūnin Exams, Neji was presented as a prodigy, a Byakugan genius marked by a cruel fate within the secondary branch of the Hyuuga clan. His fatalistic philosophy, his resentment toward the main branch, and his undeniable talent in combat made him a fascinating and complex character. Neji grew up consumed by resentment. Hizashi, his father, gave his life to protect his twin brother Hiashi, after he killed the leader of the Kumogakure clan who tried to kidnap Hinata, Hiashi's daughter and heir to the clan. The Cloud Village demanded the life of the Hyuuga leader as compensation but the Clan decided that it would be better to hand Hizashi over since being from the secondary branch it was their duty to protect the main branch, a decision with which Hizashi himself agreed.

Many criticize the harsh way Neji treated his cousin Hinata during the Chūnin Exams because at the time of this battle we knew nothing about his past. But now, knowing the context, I ask you: Do you think it was unjustified? It was logical that he had so much pent-up anger towards all the members of the main branch, who were technically his owners and could do with him whatever they wanted, since we know the consequences of carrying the cursed seal: if you disobey orders or pose a threat, they can fry your brain in a matter of seconds. He was a simple pawn destined to live in servitude. Living knowing this from such a young age must be quite disturbing, and that's why he developed that fatalistic attitude towards life due to the frustration that consumed him.

Obviously, this doesn't justify him taking it out on Hinata, who was in no way to blame for all of this and was rather another victim of the absurd rules of the Hyuuga Clan. Hiashi humiliated her from a very young age, denigrating her and considering her weak and unworthy of representing the clan as heir. Neji, despite knowing all this, only focused on the fact that she was privileged to belong to the main branch while he had to resign himself to living eternally in slavery.

There's a key moment in this fight, when the four jonin stop Neji from delivering the final attack on Hinata. When he asks Gai sensei, "Why are you and the other jonin interfering? Does the main family deserve special treatment?" And as always, Neji was right. The Hyuuga Clan has always been one of the most influential in Konoha, so it's not unreasonable to think that Hiashi had already given instructions to protect his daughter, especially if she had to face Neji.

What we must recognize is the courage and determination Neji displayed at this stage. He feared nothing and no one. He spoke his mind and fully trusted his abilities, which made him seem arrogant and overbearing. Even in the battle against Naruto. Surely when you first saw it you thought, "What a hateful, pessimistic guy! Naruto is right." But after seeing how things unfolded in Shippuden, it was easier to understand Neji's point of view and admit that, despite how depressing his words may sound, his theory was correct. "The destiny of one born a pawn is to remain a pawn."

It's not true that effort and hard work are enough to beat a genius. Because even though Naruto beat Neji, we must remember that he wasn't a "loser" as they initially wanted us to believe. He did have talent and all the odds in his favor to win that match, and so he did, as simple as that. It was his destiny. When Neji tells him that not everyone can become Hokage, since most of those who have made it have done so due to a series of factors that have intervened. In this case, Naruto being the son of the fourth, a jinchuriki of the Kyubi, a descendant of Ashura, and so on, only corroborates Neji's words one by one.

Unfortunately, Lee's case was even sadder. We were led to believe that his character's main goal was to prove that a talentless loser can achieve anything he wants if he truly desires it. However, when he is defeated by Gaara in the Chūnin Exams despite all his effort and strong performance in battle, we could already sense that he would be a character without much relevance to the story. The idealistic idea that effort and perseverance overcome natural talent was never demonstrated. In fact, as the series progresses, and especially in Shippuden, this entire ideal is completely contradicted. The moment they decide to sacrifice the development of characters like Neji, Rock Lee, Tenten, Shino, Hinata, and Chōji, to name a few, to focus attention on Naruto and Sasuke, both descendants of gods and with plenty of natural talent, we realize that the message of effort is discarded. Anyway, this is a topic that will go on for a long time and I will probably develope later. Let's get back to the point.

It was so disappointing to see how, as the story progressed, Neji's development felt stagnant. After his defeat against Naruto, we saw glimpses of his potential and growing maturity, especially during his search for Sasuke and in his interactions with Team Guy. But sadly, this growth felt limited. Neji was often relegated to a supporting role in the main story arcs. His intelligence and unique Byakugan abilities could have been strategically exploited in various situations. Instead, he became a supporting character, lacking the depth and focus many of us expected after his shocking introduction.

The fact is that Neji very quickly lost that spark of rebellion that characterized him in Pt. 1, that eagerness to rebel against what had been imposed on him since childhood. It was assumed that after the fight against Naruto, Neji would have seen things more clearly and this would have changed his perception of life, but while it's true that he took on a more relaxed, less arrogant, and kinder attitude, the truth is that it did nothing to change his reality. In fact, he became even more resigned, accepting the things he couldn't control. On the positive side, he put aside the resentment he felt toward Hinata and improved his personal relationships with his friends and classmates. He showed himself to be a more even-tempered and balanced person. And don't get me wrong, all of that is very good. He needed to heal, mature, and move on.

What really doesn't fit with his character development is that he stopped fighting against the cruel fate imposed on him when Naruto had supposedly inspired him otherwise. The fact that he forgave Hiashi so easily, becoming his lapdog, is something I'll never understand. It would have been more coherent if he had repaired his relationship with Hinata and the two had joined forces to change the rules of the Hyuuga clan from the inside, due to the fact that they had both suffered abuse at the hands of Hiashi. I would have liked to see them speak out together, defend their point of view, and demand that the secondary branch be permanently abolished so that no one else would have to suffer the consequences of such a cruel fate.

Not to mention the worst, most infamously vile and despicable thing they could have done to Neji: his death during the Fourth Great Ninja War. While the war resulted in significant casualties, Neji's death was particularly unnecessary and inconsequential to the main story. It felt like an abrupt way to get rid of a valuable character without giving him a meaningful conclusion, a dramatic device to escalate the conflict and protect other main characters, rather than a logical consequence of his own development. Kishimoto's poor narrative decisions at this point are evident. Because I could understand that it makes sense given his background and how much his father's words shaped him since he was a child. They both shared the same vision, those words he said to Naruto during their battle "There's no method but death to escape this horrible curse" so, although it's very sad, it's a death that could have been expected for Neji. What I really hate is the bland way in which it was executed. Everything happened in a matter of seconds, without giving us time to react, and even the reactions of the other characters were so empty, lifeless. It wasn't tragic, it wasn't epic, it was a scene without grace.

We could have seen Neji play a more crucial role during the war, fully showcasing his talents as a squad leader, showing off his skills in battle. A better resolution would have been for him and Hinata to defend Naruto together while he was recovering and perhaps reveal some hidden ability of Neji or both of them that could help them confront the Juubi and leave everyone speechless. What a waste of narrative potential.

In short, Neji began as a character with incredible depth and enormous potential. His initial arc was brilliant, showcasing his struggle against determinism and his eventual acceptance by his peers. However, as the story progressed, his poor development and the absurdity of his death felt like a stab in the back for all of this character's fans, who lamented that he wasn't given the opportunity to shine even more and to have the development of such an interesting character.

But what do you think? Did Neji truly experience personal growth, or did Kishimoto simply not know how to develop his story properly?

[thaern]

honestly so refreshing to see someone also interested in latin american history and politics in the conclave fandom!!!! i feel like people overlook how politically #awful mexico was during the 60s-90s, between the guerra sucia, the violence against student protesters, the government-led massacres, and the severe recession and poverty in the 90s. plus the presence of liberation theology and radical indigenous groups!!!!!! benítez was always going to be a radical and it's nice to know someone else sees that :]

Yes! I'm latina and I have been studying the history of LATAM in the context of philosophy and as you may well know, you can't talk about an specific thinking without the historical context behind.

I have invested specifically in migration mostly bc my country is a bridge between South and North America so I detailed mostly in the context of political, religion and social perspective AND YES everything connect to one point, as I tried to show how dirty are some positions (political I mean) obviously I have to go back to context of the civil war here in the 80s, the strike of students, workers and of course the killing of thinking (and of course lives) of our indigenous groups.

So yes, when I see Vincent, specific the movie Vincent being a Latino who grow in the context of a LATAM where there were more conflicts being social or politic is almost out of character not thinking he wouldn't make an opinion of it, special if he later gets to live in dangerous places whose actual state of living is directly caused by a political thing.

So when Tedesco makes his speech and Vincent talks I don't think he does simply for defending his faith but to tried to show that this meaningless fight the curia has in his hands is NOTHING, they have grow acoustom to their privilege that they don't see beyond Rome and blame something they didn't even tried to understand, is just too much.

I can tried to explain so much, how the theory of liberation can be explain in Vincent, how he won't feel completely in his new position thanks to his political and social views, how his history is easy ignore for those who don't entirely understand the reality of our history, etc, but yes

Is good to see that someone else see this and Vincent as a revolutionary between his position as member of the church allowed him

[rainbowsky]

Sorry I've taken so long to address this, I've had a very busy day and didn't have time to finish this post (which I started yesterday).

I'm talking, of course, about the incredibly controversial situation surrounding DD right now. I've gotten some messages about it so I figured I'd give my thoughts in a bigger post so that I don't have to keep repeating myself.

(CW: racism, spoilers FPU)

I know that by now most people are aware of the situation, but I'm going to start from square one for those who are just catching up on the topic.

There is a scene in Formed Police Unit where Chinese UN peacekeeping troops need to rescue a group of citizens who are surrounded by terrorists. In order to accomplish this they disguise themselves as people from the community. This being Africa, the troops were disguised using blackface.

Yes, I am saying that DD and his castmates appear in the film in blackface.

I am not going to post a picture of that here. It's just something I can't post on my blog. I understand that many of you will want to see for yourself so I'll link a clip of the scene, which was posted on Weibo. Please be aware before clicking - this is full-on blackface. Always take care of yourselves, and if you think it might be upsetting to you don't click. You don't need to see it to be a 'good fan'.

Background

For those who may not know, this movie was filmed years ago, in 2021. During those years I have seen many anti attacks against DD, claiming that he is racist and has worn blackface. Here's the photo that was circulating back then.

At the time I thought the makeup that he was wearing was likely anti-reflective black paint or camouflage paint such as is used by snipers (which he played in the film). I assumed that he was wearing his own hoodie over part of a military costume, because he was wearing a cammo shirt and what might have been combat trousers.

I was certainly not expecting full-on blackface from this movie.

There's no getting around it - this is extremely difficult to look at.

Blackface is widely viewed as offensive and racist. It shouldn't be hard to understand why. Putting on another person's ethnicity like a costume is deeply insensitive, particularly when you consider that BIPOC (black, indigenous, and other people of color) are so frequently targeted, exploited and marginalized. For those in positions of privilege and power to put on the appearance of the people who they oppress and exploit... it's just shocking and awful.

Blackface is most frequently talked about in an American context, but it's actually a problem globally - including in China. More on all that here.

The film

I have not actually seen the film, so I don't know much about the context beyond what is being discussed in the fandom. As I said earlier, in the film a group of UN police officers need to infiltrate an area in the community, and they take on disguises in order to do so.

In promotional media this film is being presented as based on true stories from real missions*. It seems the situation in question really happened on a Chinese peacekeeping mission, and the UN troops disguised themselves as black citizens in order to infiltrate and extract the endangered captives.

*I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt on this because it doesn't change how I feel it should have been handled.

This is important context that is being conveniently left out of much of the backlash about this situation. People are outright claiming that DD plays a black person in the movie - that he wore blackface to perform a role that a black actor could have played. This simply isn't true, and people making these claims are antis and liars. There's simply no excuse for not knowing the full context.

Having said that, I don't really think it matters how it ended up in the film. I do not think there is such a thing as a palatable or appropriate use of blackface. In this day and age it is nearly universally understood to be racist, and it's extremely controversial.

I can understand if they were trying to be accurate to the mission that they were portraying, but surely there are other ways they could have accomplished this scene (perhaps with the clothing but not the blackface). 'Historical accuracy' isn't as important as cultural sensitivity, not by any stretch of the imagination. In the interest of respecting audiences they could have adapted the scene to make the use of blackface unnecessary.

I really see no excuse for anything like this in 2024.

Audience reactions

Chinese sensibilities around these topics are very different from what we are used to in the West.

According to fan repos audiences initially didn't recognize any of the actors, and once it became apparent that they were in disguise, laughter erupted around the room. In fact, most fans are laughing a lot at the photos and video even on social media (although some Chinese netizens have been upset by it and have voiced complaints to various stakeholders).

It is also being widely discussed on Chinese social media as an exciting scene of heroism in the film.

I feel the need to point out that the laughter and mockery is a huge part of the harm, here. As if it's not bad enough that these actors are performing in blackface and presenting a perversion of black ethnicity, it also becomes an opportunity for audiences to mock and disrespect black people. It's become an opportunity for social media to be filled with racist jokes and mockery.

Roadshow statements

There have been some clips circulating of PR and roadshow moments with black cast members and some black audience members who have spoken up in support of the film and to thank the cast and crew for telling the story. Here's one example.

International fans have been dismissing those statements as ignorant or coerced, which I think is offensive and deeply fucked up. There's no planet on which I'm going to - with a totally straight face - say that a black person's response to the movie is not legitimate just because it doesn't comport with my own view.

This is a complex issue and there are inevitably going to be a lot of different perspectives. I hope people won't exacerbate the problem by supplanting black voices on this issue with their own, no matter what's being said. If there's any manipulation going on, let's assume it was in their choosing supportive black figures to speak for the film rather than claim that the black spokespeople are insincere.

China has a lot of issues with racism, there's no doubt about it. It's a huge part of why so many people try to whiten their skin, or why they mock each other when their skin gets tanned/darker. There is a lot of sinister, fucked up stuff going on in China around race - both in the country and in their dealings with other countries.

But we can't claim to speak for black people in China, particularly when they are speaking for themselves! I would hope this is extremely obvious!

Where's DD in all this?

It's understandable that bystanders will react to what they're seeing and might immediately deem it unacceptable - and DD along with it. Their reactions are valid, but as fans I hope that we can look at him with a bit more empathy. I hope that we can take a moment to try to see things from his perspective.

DD has been interested in and an avid fan of black culture since he was a small child. We've all seen how much he immerses himself in hip hop, street dance and the accompanying music and fashion. And yes, he's been accused of cultural appropriation in the past for wearing locs and durags.

However, I think fans need a bit of perspective here to get a sense of where DD might be coming from. Here's a guy who loves black culture, who has close friends who are black, who regularly works with black artists and who supports black artists, in a culture where racism against black people is prevalent and often extreme.

I think DD would probably be amazed to hear the accusations of racism against him. He likely has very few people in his orbit who are anywhere near as supportive of or as closely connected to black people as he is. He likely stands out in his circle as being particularly into black culture and connected with black artists, and probably regularly faces ignorant questions or digs from people around him about his close association with black artists and culture.

Not just because of racism alone, but also due to the racist parallels the government tends to draw between black culture, street dance, hip hop, etc. and criminality/moral degradation*. It's likely that ignorant people in his orbit have expressed concern or wariness toward him because of these associations.

*That is, until breakdancing became an Olympic sport, then they were suddenly onboard with some of it.

I'm not saying that he doesn't have a lot of learning to do (and if this situation becomes what I think it might become, he'll have a big opportunity to do so), I'm just saying that his ignorance isn't mean-spirited. He's coming at this from a totally different angle than any of us are, and he is immersed in a totally different cultural perspective than our own. In his world, his interest likely makes him a bit of an anomaly.

So those painting him as a horrible racist... it's just not how I see it.

The element of choice

I've heard many people say that DD 'didn't have any choice' about this role, that turning it down would not have been an option or that he would be under some kind of threat if he didn't take this role. I don't agree with that characterization of things. I don't think it's quite as 'gun to the head' as a lot of fans paint it.

I think it's more likely that he simply didn't realize that the role would involve blackface when he accepted it, or that he thought that blackface in this context - to infiltrate a terrorist cell and save civilians - would be fine. We don't need to depict China as forcibly compelling actors to take unwanted roles if we want to make sense of this. There are simpler, more logical explanations.

DD wouldn't have been the one deciding how to depict the scene - he didn't have that power in 2021 - but I also doubt he would have had a major problem with it given everything we know.

We must overcome our Western tendency to see things only from our own perspective. This has a totally different cultural context in China, and the voices we listen to about it should not be issuing exclusively from white faces that are not at ground zero of this situation.

Final thoughts

This film has had me worried from day one. I think most people have been expecting it to be full of offensive portrayals and propagandistic fuckery. There are so many ways in which a Chinese film about the UN is potentially a sticky, tricky mess. This blackface thing is likely just one problem on a towering pile of problems.

However, I'm not going to sugarcoat this - this has the potential to be a real shitshow for DD, and I am concerned. Especially if this film gets an international release.

We need to brace ourselves, because I don't think this is going to just disappear. DD has endorsements with international brands, and this could definitely cause backlash for those brands unless the issue is addressed and the scenes removed. There's no planet on which brands like Chanel and Lacoste can afford to have one of their spokespeople plastered everywhere in blackface.

If this film gets an international release and those scenes are left intact, it's possible he will lose some brands.

Let's hope it doesn't come to that, but let's face it - things like this have consequences, and that's why it's so important for producers and artists to be sensitive about what they're portraying.

While I think there's some endorsement risk here for DD, and the potential loss of some international fans, I want to be clear about one thing: I don't think this will threaten his career overall. In China this just isn't an issue in the way it is internationally.

I do hope the film team addresses this issue in some way, ideally by removing the scenes. They just finished doing a massive edit to remove ZZH from the film, surely they can handle something like this. But let's not hold our breath...

Everyone has the right to make up their minds about DD. As I've often said, being a turtle isn't for the faint of heart. That's not just because turtles are frequent targets for bullies, or because we have to constantly live with uncertainty and doubt.

Being an international turtle also isn't for the faint of heart because there are a lot of cultural and political minefields to navigate, and many ideological differences to adapt to. There's a huge learning curve and a lot of unknowns, and turtles who want to survive have to make peace with the fact that we and the boys are from different worlds in many ways. We may never know where they really stand on issues that are important to us.

However, in this case I feel confident that I know where DD's heart is on this issue. He simply doesn't hold hatred, disrespect or disdain for black people. Quite the contrary.

I think we'd all just feel a lot better if he had a good grasp on how to be a better ally.

And while we're waiting for that, I think we should put our money where our mouths are and learn more about these issues ourselves, both in China and locally at home. We want DD to be a better person; let's be better people too.

Edit: more on this here.

[transfemme-shelterdog]

One thing I dont understand about some people's takes on transandrophobia is that-

Why is it so wrong to just have a subcategory? I don't care about being 'included' when it comes to transmisogyny, im actually comfortable (or at least, indifferent) with the idea that its only for transfems

Why can't we have the same but for transmascs? Why does there even need to be a debate about it

What's wrong with having 'transphobia' be the umbrella term, but then have separate subcategories like how 'transgender' is an umbrella term but then has "trans men, transmasc, trans women, transfem, nonbinary, agender, (etc)" beneath it

I don't see what's so wrong with us having a space to talk to each other and offer eachother support, especially when real life support groups for trans men are all... really bare-bones and often *unsafe* for us. I feel like everybody deserves a space to feel heard.

Just dumping this all here bc I know you'll understand

So, I've seen a few arguments against it:

"Androphobia isn't real, so transandrophobia isn't real"

"Trans men/mascs are treated as men/mascs so they benefit from male privilege and thus don't face oppression, and a word isn't needed"

"This is no different than MRA arguments which are misogynistic"

To which, I offer the following

Words mean different things based on the context of the word, and the meaning behind it. You can't just break down a word into its parts, and then treat other words that use the same parts have the same meaning. For example, endocannibalism is hugely different from endometriosis, endocrinology, or endocast. But they all start with endo-. Hell, fluffing can mean prepping a porn actor for their shoot, or even a PR tactic that involves spinning a topic to present it in the most positive light. Saying "Well X has the same root words, so it has to mean same thing" is like refusing to get a subphrenic abscess drained in the hospital because phrenology is a debunked science.

Not all men experience male privilege, I literally met a homeless man just today who was on the street with his dog. I bought himself and his dog some food, as I didn't want either of them to starve. The man was white, and a man. Yet he was homeless and needed help. Where's his male privilege? Also, trans men/mascs that aren't seen as men and aren't able to stealth aren't seen as their gender. They're seen as brainwashed women who mutilated their perfect bodies.

Sure, MRAs and people who talk about TA have some overlap. But the difference is how they treat women, treat queers, and what they view as the source of their problems. MRAs blame either "the elite", women for being stuck up sluts, blame their genes for making them ugly, or blame hypergamy. Those that speak about TA see the problem as a lack of acceptance for trans people in a cisnormative society. Also, by that logic, just because both talk about "men's" issues, (albeit cis men vs trans men/mascs), that must mean that TERFs and transfems who talk about transmisogyny must also be the same, as they both talk about women's issues. So, if all transandrophobia bloggers are MRAs, then all transmisogyny bloggers are TERFs.

[runabout-river]

Yuji's accumulated Trauma

After Choso's death, I've been thinking about Yuji's reaction to it. At first glance, it looks mature and composed and obviously Yuji doesn't have the time and privilege to grieve. More importantly, Gege didn't give Yuji any panel time to be distraught; his aniki's death scene was over pretty fast. The 3000 Shibuya deaths in conjunction with Nanami's and Nobara's deaths on the other hand had been given more time and more impact afterwards.

The difference in reaction between those two times makes sense in context but, in my opinion, not with Yuji being mature and composed about it.

Because Yuji never got over Nanami's and Nobara's death, he didn't heal from that, instead, he had a negative character arc where the trauma of their deaths affected his world view and mentality in significantly bad ways.

He started to think of himself as a cog in a machine and he also identified with Mahito, the curse who killed both his friend and his mentor figure, a villain and his personal antagonist. Yuji did not overcome Mahito in Shibuya, the story makes us forget that often times. He was marked and changed by Mahito and even though that curse ended up with an extremely pathetic death that didn't mean that he hadn't broken something inside Yuji.

The only time where Yuji constructively dealt with that trauma was in his fight against Higuruma but that was only about his guilt over letting Sukuna kill 3000 people with his body. And it didn't get resolved completely, at least not in a way that would've helped with dealing with Nobara's and Nanaimi's death too.

Yuji is taking that trauma from Shibuya, his feelings of weakness and guilt, and he puts them into believing himself to be a machine that has to follow a predetermined path. Before Sukuna took over Megumi, that meant being suicidal when the situation called for it. Yuji wanted his life to make sense again and dying so Angel would've her wish of seeing Sukuna dead to save Gojo perfectly fit into that.

After Sukuna possessed Megumi, his path and role stayed the same except killing himself directly was off the table but that tendency still exists inside of him. If he were to be presented a way to defeat Sukuna while saving Megumi at the same time where he would die as a result he would take that path immedietaly without hesitation.

Back to Choso's death. In my view, this unresolved trauma and his lack of will to live lead to an unhealthy coping mechanism: thinking of his friends and allies as already dead. We can see that when he asked Megumi if Nobara had survived Shibuya.

He knew that there was a slim chance she survived but it was so low that she was basically dead. When Megumi confirmed her fate, Yuji was prepared for it. Prepared to receive the bad news so instead of crying again he could function like the cog he was supposed to be.

And this Mahito-infused cog mentality still follows him until now. He has to function so his role can be fullfilled and when that means he has to think of his friends as having already been killed so he would never break again then that's what he's going to do.

He did not despair over Choso's death, he despaired because it looked like he was alone and on the verge of defeat against Sukuna. His role was breaking just like his reason to live and I think that this mentality, his negative character arc, will find it's conclusion at the end of the Sukuna fight.

This fight is not the end of the manga, we still have the merger to deal with, there is still a big arc with smaller ones in between coming at us. But for Yuji something big has to happen, probably something pretty bad that has him crushed... at first.

At the end of it, he will finally deal with all his loss and his trauma in a good and healthy way and leave his life as a cog and being a human Mahito behind. Then he might finally shed the tears that were missing in chapter 259.

[cabeswaterdrowned]

what do you think are the main similarities vs differences between Ronan and Andrew?

Hey! I don’t know how long this has been in my inbox (which I have been neglecting in recent months) but sure I actually have quite a few thoughts on the comparisons in the fandom and where I see them as accurate/inaccurate.

Let’s start with the similarities; they’re both traumatized mentally ill gay men who react to their trauma in ways that aren’t palatable to those around them because the ways in which they act out are destructive to themselves and those around them, are perceived as troubled/angry/having issues with authority, they’re both iterations of the bad boy with a softer side trope (although imo very different iterations, but I’ll get to that later), they’re both members of two trios one of relatives and one that’s a polyamorous triad / friendship group and there are certain parallels in these dynamics (although also a lot of differences imo, which I’ll get to later), they’re both characterized as extremely loyal to the point of being dog-like, they’re both motivated by their care for other people and have little regard for their own life (with Ronan he’s clearly suicidal, with Andrew he canonically self harms and there is a case to be made for him being suicidal imo, no it’s not explicit and jury’s out on whether Nora meant to imply it but there is room to read him that way), oh and they both love cars.

However, there are loads of differences and I do feel like blanket comparisons of them within the fandoms tend to create false equivalencies that do a disservice to one char/source material or another which is why I’m excited to get into my thoughts on that matter. 

•Let’s start with their backgrounds and how they are perceived by those around them, because I do feel like important context for comparing their behaviors is that Ronan grew up wealthy and has always had *some* type of support system (not a healthy one, but he has always had someone caring about him on a basic level of doing what they can to keep him alive). The way people around Ronan view and react to his mental health is quite terrible, however his wealth does protect him from certain systemic forces as there are limits to what the police / mental health institution / Aglionby staff can get away with in their treatment of him / the level to which they’re allowed to dehumanize him. Meanwhile Andrew’s whole storyline is like. Imagine the worst ableism you can imagine being allowed to go completely unchecked due to classism and here are the effects. (It is relevant to acknowledge that both of them have a lot of white privilege though and that comes across in the way they interact with police in the texts, they’re rude and violent to them in ways chars like Nicky or Henry could never afford to be). On the other hand I do think Andrew is perceived as being self-sufficient and competent by those around him (his friends, his family, even the upperclassmen who hate his guts view him as being capable of protecting Kevin and see him as a formidable force), whereas Ronan although he’s seen as *scary* by outsiders gets kind of treated with kid gloves in a way by those closest to him (Gansey and Declan are both guilty of this). 

•In terms of their mental health they both experience depression or depressive episodes, however Andrew’s depression is characterized more as a numbness/apathy, the absence of feeling etc. whereas I don’t think language like that is used to describe Ronan’s emotional states nearly as much with him there’s more focus on anger and grief  (Andrew has a lot of anger too but it manifests differently). 

•imo this is partially informed by the class difference and how it influences their worldviews, but Andrew is a much more strategic character than Ronan is. Yes he can be reckless and impulsive, however he is constantly surveying his surroundings, the other people around him, and is very perceptive with sizing up threats and maintaining the structure he wants to impose. He’s control-oriented and cerebral in the way he interacts with the world in a manner that’s more similar to Adam or even Gansey than it is to Ronan imo. I do think Ronan is far more observant than a lot of characters give him credit for, and he’s more emotionally intelligent than Andrew is (would also say Andrew and Adam are similar in their low empathy issues) but he’s just not a strategist and he doesn’t care about control in the way Andrew/Adam are obsessed with it (can be traced back to them both being abused poor kids who were constantly robbed of control growing up, and therefore are hyper aware of the hierarchies around them and how they are being weaponized against them (although Andrew does not glorify or find those hierarchies to be aspirational in the way Adam does, he’s more Ronan-like in how he feels about them even though he has Adam-like perceptiveness of them) and so their strategy is to be hyper vigilant and to take advantage of weakness where they see it)). 

•While both of them are well developed characters who go beyond the typical bad boy with a soft side character sketch, I do think the jerk-with-a-heart-of-gold trope is played straighter (only straight thing about him etc. ) with Ronan than it is with Andrew. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, just an observation. Andrew is a much harsher, significantly more morally ambiguous character than Ronan is (I don’t think of Ronan as a particularly morally ambiguous character tbh. Adam and Hennessy, those are morally gray characters but Ronan is as I said. Much more of a jerk with a heart of gold character). 

I think Andrew’s narrative could be looked at as a really effective subversion of that trope (it’s been too long since my last aftg reread for me to Really go into my thoughts on how this is accomplished know I would have a lot to say on this topic if it were fresher in my mind), whereas Ronan’s narrative sort of. Utilizes that character conceit to explore topics around grief and trauma. Both are good storylines (well. Ronan’s og trc storyline is good anyway) but they accomplish different things to me. 

•When comparing and contrasting Andrew & Aaron & Nicky with The Lynch Brothers I would say a big stand out difference is Andrew being so much in the *protector* role, not that Ronan isn’t protective especially of Matthew but that family dynamic is like. Yes Declan and Ronan are Matthew’s coparents (lol) but ultimately Declan is the Guardian tm and responsibility for both of his brothers fall on him. I would say that Nicky and Andrew have a sort of coparenting dynamic when it comes to Aaron (one of my favorite genres of aftg fic is actually exploring this dynamic pre series while the twins were in high school I find the possibilities fascinating) but it’s more of a Nicky is good cop while Adam is bad cop type of parenting dynamic. They sort of bring different things to the table but share in the responsibility (which makes them sound oddly functional lmao they’re Absolutely Not). That also goes back to what I was saying about Andrew being treated as more mature and adult by those around him than Ronan is while on the flip side also being dehumanized more (and there is analysis to be mined from Andrew being a character who comes across as extremely mature or extremely immature at different points in the books and how that can be read as a reaction to his CSA trauma but that’s a different meta). But yeah, Andrew is treated as an adult and a protector in that dynamic in a way that Ronan is not is basically what I meant. I also think while Ronan-Declan and the Twinyards have a fair amount of parallels Ronan and Declan just had a stronger foundation before their issues really took hold, and that prevented them from cold shouldering each other to the extent Andrew and Aaron do for a lot of canon. I also think it’s worth noting that Andrew and Declan (not counting Greywaren) are the chars who find what their ain’t shit dead parent did to be unforgivable while it’s Ronan and Aaron who love and in Ronan’s case defend them. I feel like there are definitely other comparisons of note in their dynamics but that’s all my brain is supplying at this time. 

•When comparing and contrasting rodansey and kandreil, well the most obvious and key difference is who is “in charge” in the dynamic because Andrew is clearly the Leader of the pack in the same way Gansey is (yes their leadership styles are different but it’s equally true for both dynamics) whereas Ronan is the character who never vies for leadership while Gansey-Adam engage in their psychosexual power struggles, and despite (or more likely because of) being the most abrasive character of the bunch he tends to serve as a point of relief in their conflicts (ex: doing something awful enough that adansey had to start speaking to each other again after the Gansey-offers-to-buy-Adam a phone debacle). Andrew and Ronan are both seen as “non-competetive” and as lacking the drive Kevneil/Adansey have but I would argue they both are driven characters in certain ways it’s just that their goals and motivations aren’t about things like academics or a quest or sports or leadership, Andrew is scarily driven when it comes to protecting/preserving himself, the select people he cares about and whatever structurally is allowing things to run as he wishes (he’ll help Coach or the upperclassmen out when the result helps him protect Kevin or keeping the team in line so they don’t mess things up for him and his family, for instance) and Ronan is passionate about things like dreaming and the farm it just isn’t the type of traditional ambition Adam has. However neither of them are interested in being #1 for the sake of it, Andrew prefers to be in charge for protection / self-preservation / control but he gets no pleasure out of it, so that is something that kind of.. neutralizes them when it comes to certain inter-group conflicts. So that they have in common. 

•Kandrew & Ronsey comparisons — well in terms of similarities there is the dog motif of it all. in terms of differences, ronsey have a more static power dynamic where Gansey is always in the “master” role, their dynamic does change over the series but mostly in the sense that they both form other bonds and Gansey isn’t Ronan’s sole reliable connection by the end of the series. But there’s never like. A dramatic change or a time / circumstance when Ronan is more in power in the dynamic (yes he’s the more powerful character magically but that never impacts the nature of his and Gansey’s relationship). Kandrew meanwhile have a sort of. Double inverted master-pet dynamic going on where yes Andrew is Kevin’s *guard dog*, Riko calls him a pet etc. but there are also times where certain characters see Kevin as Andrew’s possession and Andrew has a lot of authority over Kevin in certain situations due to the nature of their deal. I also think there’s more of an evolution to the power dynamics of their relationship from TFC to TKM then there is for Ronsey which I’m sure I’ve talked about before but I’m too lazy to go into my thoughts so just check out my Kandrew tag if your curious. They have a more contentious relationship than Ronsey do (this is a pro for me as I like contentiousness <3) for sure, in a lot of ways I find Kandrew and Adansey to be similar as they’re the relationships between characters who love each other to very insane, codependent degrees but fundamentally misunderstand each other (class difference plays a role in both cases) and they tend to have the ugliest conflicts, also they’re the dynamics I’ve spent the most time hyper focusing on in these trios that says nothing about me and my preferences at all <3. 

•Andreil & Pynch comparisons — the most obvious difference is that even at their most contentious Pynch were never nearly as antagonistic as Andreil were in the beginning lol. Andreil have a true enemies to lovers arc whereas Pynch are slow burning, but their early TRB dynamic only looks adversarial when you compare it to the Gansey dynamics in early TRB, there’s always some level of friendship there it just deepens significantly as the books go on. I also think that Pynch are both more concerned with societal norms than Andreil are, between Ronan’s Catholicism and Adam’s obsession with conformity + the ideal WASP life, and that influenced the type of relationship they try to have in td3, whereas Andreil are very comfortable with not fitting into typical boxes for relationships. And I will say that while as a series I definitely prefer trc to aftg as a series, I do find andreil to be a more compellingly developed romance overall than pynch. I do think the difference between a sole narrator and multi pov affects this.

There are definitely other points to compare/contrast but these are the ones my brain supplied atm. Andrew is more My Type of character than Ronan is since I unfortunately can not resist an emotionally repressed neurotic freak with control issues it’s a peak male character design from my pov, but I don’t think that makes him a better character than Ronan just more appealing to me (while trc appeals to me more than aftg as a media for other subjective reasons). When it comes to objective writing I would say that Ronan is a more developed character but that Andrew’s narrative is more cohesive and so in some ways more successful. 

[viajandopelomar]

Morrigan and Eris

Guys, why are you looking for a reason to justify Eris leaving Morrigan at the border? It's so simple. A princess and a prince, the princess despised not only her own family but also the family of the crown prince and this could lead to a war within Prythian.So many meaningless theories when the obvious is so much easier and OBVIOUS. Like, WHY WOULD HE HELP HER IF SHE DUG HER OWN GRAVE AND STILL INSULTED HIM???? HE WOULD INSULT HIMSELF EVEN MORE, AND INSULT HIS TERRITORY WHICH WAS ALSO DESPISED!!!

The context. read with the context of the real thing. Not only Morrigan's pov matters 😑. They are nobles, nobles have duties and obligations and above all Morrigan was one of the most privileged women in the hole where she was born and yet she claims that everyone else deserves to be where they are. If even with the position she had she was forced to sleep with Cassian knowing what that would entail, and was even tortured, what do those people suffer? And she simply... Lets it happen. Does nothing even though she has the power and position to do something. Says that everyone deserves it. Maybe she really deserved what happened to her.

But of course SJM didn't think about it that deeply. She doesn't even know how to approach it. But looking at it from the point of view where Eris and Morrigan are royalty in a board game fulfilling their duties doesn't make much more sense than him simply knowing that she likes women? Not even her cousin knows, let alone Eris 🤡. You have a brain, use it.

🇧🇷 Gente, por que vocês ficam caçando motivo pra justificar Eris deixando Morrigan na fronteira? é tão simples. Uma princesa e um príncipe, a princesa menosprezou não só a própria família mas também a família do príncipe herdeiro e isso poderia levar a uma guerra dentro de Prythian. Tanta teoria sem sentido quando o óbvio é tão mas fácil e ÓBVIO. Tipo, PRA QUÊ ELE IRIA AJUDAR ELA SE ELA MESMA CAVOU A PRÓPRIA COVA E AINDA INSULTOU ELE???? ELE IRIA SE INSULTAR AINDA MAIS, E INSULTAR O TERRITÓRIO DELE QUE TAMBÉM FOI MENOSPREZADO!!!

O contexto. leiam com o contexto da coisa real. não só o pov da Morrigan importa 😑. Eles são nobres, nobres tem deveres e obrigações e acima de tudo Morrigan era uma das, se A mulher mais privilegiada no buraco onde nasceu e ainda assim ela afirma que todos os outros merecem estar onde estão. Se mesmo com a posição que ela tinha ela se viu obrigada a se deitar com Cassian sabendo o que isso acarretaria, e foi até mesmo torturada, o que será que aquelas pessoas sofrem? E ela simplesmente... Deixa. Não faz nada mesmo tendo poder e posição para fazer alguma coisa. Diz que todos merecem. Talvez ela realmente tenha merecido o que aconteceu com ela.

Mas é claro que SJM não pensou nisso tão fundo assim. Nem ela sabe como abordar isso. Mas encarar isso do ponto de vista onde Eris e Morrigan são realeza num jogo de tabuleiro cumprindo seus deveres não faz muito mais sentido do que ele simplesmente saber que ela gosta de mulher? Nem o primo dela sabe, imagine Eris 🤡. Vocês tem um cérebro, usem ele.

[gwenllian-in-the-abbey]

There's this weird thing going on Reddit right now where people are claiming that legally, Rhaenyra children are not bastards. And I was wondering if you agree or disagree. I think that people are just making up their own canon lore at this point.

Hi anon,

I think what gets kind of muddled in this discussion is what "legally" means in the context. Generally speaking, children born within wedlock are considered legitimate until proven otherwise. Now in the medieval world, it's not like you were issued a birth certificate that you could whip out and say see, it says right here who the father is! There were no DNA tests, it was all a matter of word, and by and large a woman's virtue was her word, and it was what kept her and her children protected within the framework of medieval marriage. But the reason why bastardy matters in this context is also important. It's not like Rhaenyra is trying to collect child support here, nor is she a common merchant's wife whose husband has decided just to roll with it. She's the heir to the throne and the parentage of her children is a matter of inheritance and dynastic succession, so it's not a situation where a legal loophole is particularly helpful as a gotcha. There is not at this point in history a comprehensive codified law that clearly defines what these terms mean and defines the rights and obligations of parents and children legitimate and illegitimate, mostly you have combinations of precedent, tradition, oath, and a healthy dose of might makes right.

(I saw another reply to this question in which the responded basically goes, "free yourself from the shackles of this construct! Marriage isn't real it's an oppressive institution and the idea of bastardy is made up, so let it go," and while it's true that marriage, legitimacy, etc. are all social constructs and not absolute states of being, they started off as having a functional purpose within a certain social framework. And this is a basic problem a lot of people have with George's world, it's not that we have to have the views of a 12th century French peasant, or that everything has to be historically accurate, but George chose the medieval world as a setting for a reason, and it's not just an aesthetic one. Characters in even a quasi-historical setting have to act within the constraints of that setting. We have to understand that people don't know what they don't know. The medieval world doesn't have any framework for the introduction of feminist ideals. Westeros hasn't even had a Christine de Pizan yet. You couldn't walk up to a medieval peasant woman and say "marriage is a tool of patriarchal oppression and bastardy is a social construct," they'd look at you like you had two heads. And so we have to acknowledge that you can't simply start dismantling existing social structures if the framework doesn't exist to replace them with something better that offers more protections for a broader group of people, and at this point it definitely doesn't. Making an exception for one very privileged woman does not mean progress for all women, instead it often means destabilization of the flawed system that does exist, and even more violence against those less powerful in order to enforce the exceptional status).

So from a medieval point of view, marriage was pretty much a non-negotiable for a woman. And women weren't simply getting married because they were pressured into it by their families or because their fathers were opportunistic assholes, they got married because unmarried women had no legal status or standing. In most places they could not sign contracts or own land. A woman could join the church or get married (or become a prostitute, but it's not like sex workers had freedoms or protections either). Divorce wasn't a thing, and annulment was hard to get and usually available only as a tool for men to set aside their wives. So, for all intents and purposes, once you were married, that was generally it, you were stuck for life (the upside is that widows did get a lot more freedom, so marrying an older guy and waiting it out was not a bad option sometimes, all things considered). But what marriage did provide was assurance that you and your children would be protected and provided for. Marriage was a practical agreement, involving dowries, inheritances, and alliances sealed in blood. And this is one of the reasons why bastards could not inherit. Inheritance for once's children was one of the few perks of a marriage for a woman (this is, incidentally, why Alicent is so pressed about her children being effectively disinherited. There is NO reason for her, as an eligible maiden of good standing, to marry a man who will not provide for her sons, king or not). And of course, a man's bastards are obvious and are disqualified from inheriting (setting aside legitimization because it is not nearly the easy out that people think it is). You can't really pass them off as legitimate because your wife clearly knows which children she gave birth to, whereas a man might be told he is the father of a child when that child's father is in fact someone else.

In a dynastic marriage, all of this becomes even more important. Marriages were made as alliances and to strengthen the ties between kingdoms or houses. A child seals the marriage agreement by binding two bloodlines and creating kinship bonds that will last beyond the current generation. Those kinship bonds can ensure peace between kingdoms at war, trade agreements, and military aid. Passing a bastard off as trueborn breaks that agreement; it violates the very principle by which the agreement was made. And in this context, it doesn't actually matter if the father claims the children as his, because in a dynastic marriage inheritance is not just a personal matter, it's a matter of the state. The truth matters to a great many people, more than just the immediate family. A lie doesn't become the truth simply because the liar isn't caught, and there's no statute of limitations or court ruling that will ever put the matter to rest for good. Passing off a bastard as trueborn destabilizes the succession and breaks the dynastic bonds that the marriage was meant to establish. When the bastard heir in question attempts to take the throne, it won't be a smooth transition.

So what does it mean that Laenor and Corlys agree to pass Rhaenyra's children off as trueborn? It means that their bastardy cannot be proven at the moment insofar as the legal father, Rhaenyra's husband, is playing along and covering for Rhaenyra, and Viserys is backing them up by giving this his "legal" stamp of approval. But again, our view that it's no one else's business but Laenor and Rhaenyra's and that Viserys "legalized" their status is very modern. Jaehaeyrs and Alysanne were not considered married in the eyes of the Westerosi until they'd had a bedding ceremony, that is, the consummation of their marriage was witnessed. Royal marriages and the children that come from them are a public matter because the succession affects everyone in the realm. Laenor, Corlys, and Viserys can protect those children in the short term, but Laenor and Corlys and Viserys won't live forever, and they could withdraw their support for those children and renounce them as bastards at any time. Harwin could admit to fathering them, Rhaenyra and Harwin could get caught in the act, or someone else close to them might confess. Sure right now the black faction are all one big happy family, but 20 years down the line when bastard Jace takes the throne over trueborn Aegon III? There are multiple people in the family who could confess to knowledge of the bastardy, including Aegon III himself. The bastardy is too obvious and there are too many legitimate heirs of both house Targaryen and house Velaryon getting pushed aside in favor of bastard born children for it to be an issue that simply disappears because Rhaenyra and Laenor say so.

So "legal bastardy" is a pretty meaningless concept when it comes to royal succession because it's not a matter that's going to be settled by some neutral third party in a court of law. What matters in the long run is not whether or not Laenor claimed the kids, what matters is whether or not the situation is questionable enough that people with the power to challenge it might challenge it. And we see even within the actual narrative of the Dance that this is indeed the case. There is already a situation brewing with the other branches of the Velaryon family who are rightfully pretty pissed to see their ancestral seat pass to someone with no blood ties to the family (and as an aside, people will say Vaemond was self-serving, and of course he was, but that doesn't make him wrong, and maybe Baela or Rhaena should have inherited instead, but neither they nor their father were pressing their claims because they were backing up the bastard claimants, so was Vaemond supposed to do that for them?). And yes the king and Rhaenyra can cry treason and they can kill Vaemond and cut out tongues, but using force to silence people for telling the objective truth is by definition tyranny, and that's exactly the sort of situation that would get the nobility nervous. Because if Rhaenyra has to silence people already and she's not even queen yet, what will Jace have to do when he takes the throne? That's the real problem, not the "legal" status of Jace and his brothers, but the practical ramifications of hiding the truth.