#which implies a fundamental misunderstanding of something

[blood-orange-juice]

More wuxia tropes in Genshin!

If we follow the same "physical battle as a metaphor for battle of personal truths" trope, Capitano and Mavuika's fight isn't underwhelming at all and they didn't need a rematch.

They fought, Capitano found out that Mavuika's resolve and ideals were of the same weight as his, they moved on. That's it. They skipped the classic arc to do something else, meanwhile certain parts of fandom kept waiting for the classic arc. Sorry folks.

[raven-at-the-writing-desk]

Since you mentioned this in an earlier ask, what is your take on feminist Leona? I see people saying things like "consent king" "he drinks his respect women juice" and "leona kingscholar says men ain't shit" but I think those are mainly jokes but I've also seen a lot of for example Leona x reader fanfics where he's a lot nicer to femme Yuus than masc ones. I don't play the game so I don't know how much of a feminist he really is, could you clarify and give your own insights? Ty Miss Raven!!!!!!!

[Referencing this post!]

Admittedly, I am guilty of having made “consent king” jokes but that’s mainly because I think consent + respecting others’ autonomy is very sexy important and it’s slightly funny to have a 185 cm muscular anime cat boy championing the concept. However, I try to avoid making jokes which would imply Leona puts down his own gender or thinks lesser of them because 1) canon doesn't indicate this and 2) it can be hurtful to non-femme Twst fans. Yes, most of the fandom is women--but that doesn't mean we shouldn't make this fandom space welcoming for masculine or nonbinary Twst fans.

Let's delve into a brief history of where feminist!Leona comes from! After that, I'll discuss my own thoughts and feelings about it.

The idea first came into prominence because of an exchange that occurs in Cater's School Uniform vignette. In it, Cater is trying to convince Leona to join him for a party that he's throwing for Rosaria, one of the talking paintings at NRC. At first, Leona refuses--but he quickly changes his tune once Cater mentions Rosaria is a "she/her". Leona states, "Portrait or not, I respect ladies and Rosaria is a lady." Cater then whispers to Kalim (who is shocked that Leona suddenly agreed to come along), "Leona's kingdom is all about being respectful to ladies."

It should be noted that Leona says something slightly different in JP: “Even if it’s a portrait, a woman is a woman.” JP does not have the “I respect ladies” portion; “I respect ladies” was added to EN, which may have further amplified the interpretation that he is a feminist.

Now, as we learn from that vignette, the Sunset Savanna has a culture of "respecting women". In Leona's Ceremonial Robes vignette, he elaborates that, “[Beastwomen are] already way stronger than [beastmen]." Furthermore, Ruggie states in one of his Chats that “Girls have both the grit and the camaraderie to triumph when the goin’ gets tough.” Then, in events like Tamashina Mina and late in book 7, we are told that many of the royal guards are women who volunteer for the positions and it's common for them to have learned martial arts from a young age. From this dialogue, we can glean that the women of Leona's home country are physically strong, strong-willed, and honorable.

With that being said, I think certain interpretations of Leona's "feminism" (a term not actually used by official materials; this is a fandom take) definitely take it a step too far by either assuming Leona treats woman as a special class and/or he dislikes men. Both of those interpretations (if serious and not said as a joke) are owed to a fundamental misunderstanding of what "feminism" is. Feminism is "the belief in full social, economic, and political equality for women." Feminism is NOT misandry (a hatred of men), and nor is it female chauvinism (the belief that women are superior to men)... unless, of course, you're talking about very radicalized forms of thinking. The basic concept of feminism doesn't involve man hate or putting women on a pedestal.

Twst itself appears to go with the basic definition of feminism. As Leona himself states, he doesn't treat anyone special. "I ain't extra nothin' to nobody. As if [women] even need men fawning all over'em."

Leona, whom we know to be arrogant and unwilling to obey others' orders, appears to be more willing to listen to and carry out tasks if there's a woman involved. I already mentioned the case with Rosaria the painting (which proves that his "respecting women" thing extends beyond just beastwomen from his home country). In his Ceremonial Robes, he also grumpily puts on the aforementioned robes and takes a picture of himself in it upon the request of his sister-in-law. But--and this should be stressed--he's not exactly jumping for joy or eager to do so. Instead, Leona cites that "Goin’ against [beastwomen] only brings more trouble.” This indicates annoyance at having to carry out this chore, and gives the impression that Leona's only complying because not doing so would only overcomplicate things for him. He's not an idiot--he knows when to make a strategic retreat if it's going to save him time and effort in the long run. (For example, he immediately surrenders to the Ferrymen in book 6 rather than continue to put up a fight.)

I should note that, like in the earlier definition of feminism I shared, Leona does not simply bend the knee to every single woman. In the first Halloween event, he was still capable of scaring off the Magicam Monsters (some of which have distinctly female voices) without any qualms. He was still fully able to express anger and upset when Eliza, the Ghost Bride, smacked him. "You've got a lot of nerve turnin' me down over some nonsense!" He's also not above tricking the Fairy Queen and her entourage to steal back the special magestone from NRC.

This shows us that Leona doesn't just... "respect women" indiscriminately. If someone is going to be rude and selfish to him, he's going to respond as is appropriate. He's not going to turn a blind eye because of the offending party's gender.

In terms of Yuu interactions (assuming Yuu can be any gender), Leona acts pretty aggressive towards them in their first meeting. Even though it's clearly an accident and Yuu didn't realize they stepped on his tail, Leona is annoyed by the act and them walking away without apologizing or stopping to acknowledge him. He also makes it known that Yuu is magicless, and thus has no way of defending themselves from him. And you know what this man does? He says, "Well, can't say it'd be much fun to hurt someone so helpless. Still gonna do it, though." AND HE THREATENS TO TAKE A TOOTH. His wording, "No one gets to stomp on my tail and just walk away without payin' the price" + him still deciding to attack Yuu desite knowing they are weak/cannot fight back, implies to me that he may have still reacted this way regardless of Yuu's gender. (Key word: MAY. We don't know if this is the truth or not, I am leaving this up to your interpretation.)

Notably, there is a slight change between EN and JP versions for Yuu's dialogue choices in response to Leona's threat. The EN dialogue options are far more humorous, but the JP options clearly convey fear (ie Leona is being serious about his threat of bodily harm). The top option is like noises of surprise, like "Eh, eh, eh!!"; the bottom option is along the lines of, "What, I'm going to be hit/beaten!"

There are, in fact, multiple instances where Leona acts callous towards Yuu. He refuses to let Yuu stay in Savanaclaw unless they earn their keep by beating up some mobs. He constantly degrades them by calling them and others he considers weak "herbivore". He has to be goaded into helping us or taking us along on trips instead of automatically caving. It could be argued that he would be more agreeable or polite if fem!Yuu was in these scenarios. And who knows, that might be the case--but again, I don't think he would be egregiously kind. I would like to point out a more direct example of a Leona-fem!Yuu interaction. Leona has interacted with a female Yuu before: Yuuka Hirasaka, our main character for the Episode of Savanaclaw manga. There's some debate over whether or not the NRC students know that Yuuka is a girl since the topic is never mentioned once, but I assume that they are aware because: 1) Yuuka makes no effort to hide her figure or chest; she even wears her blazer open, and 2) she has no motivation to hide her gender; she is capable of defending herself if needed and has a nonchalant personality. Proceeding with the assumption that Yuuka being a girl is a known fact, Leona does not treat her any differently than any other student.

Yuuka seems to experience the same tail-stepping scene as is depicted in game, although we don't see the aftermath of it/if Leona gives her the same threat.

The more telling scene for Yuuka, however, comes when she and her friends arrive in Savanaclaw to investigate. They are confronted by a bunch of mobs that start to pick a fight with them. Like in the game, Leona intervenes (ie he doesn't stop the fight just because Yuuka is a woman) and has them duke it out in a game of spelldrive/magift instead.

And you know what? Leona doesn't hold back just because he's playing against a woman. In fact, he kicks Yuuka's ass and then some. Then he stands over her and tells her to get back up, to keep playing. Leona isn't cutting Yuuka any slack whatsoever. He treats Yuuka the same as the boys she's playing with.

This brings me to my final prominent example of Leona interacting with a woman, which I think best exemplifies what my interpretation of Leona's "feminism" is. In the JP server's 2024 Halloween event Lost in the Book with Nightmare Before Christmas, Sally indicates that she plans on making a meal using the plants from around the cemetery. Leona is at first displeased by this, but then agrees to help her catch snakes, rats, lizards, etc. as meat for the meal. This leads into a conversation about how sad Sally's home life is, which earns her sympathy from the other NRC students. Jade, Riddle, and Epel are shocked at the cruelty that Sally faces. Jade volunteers to take the doctor out for Sally, and Epel even tries to convince Leona to help him rough up Dr. Finkelstein. But Leona just smirks and tells them Sally's not in any need of their "help"; isn't she the one who slipped the doctor a "drink"? Riddle scolds him for this "ungentlemanly" behavior and Epel refuses to believe that the "kind Sally" would do something like use poison. Leona was able to smell the deadly nightshade on her and deduce that Sally slipped some to her guardian and then slipped out on her own. She's not a damsel in distress--she's resourceful. Sally used her brains and not brute force to rescue herself from a bad situation. (We know that this would deeply resonate with Leona because he has been struggling his entire life to have his own merits recognized.) Leona praises Sally for her cunning and goes so far as to offer her his arm and tell her that he's looking forward to this evening's dinner.

In this situation, could it not be said that Jade, Riddle, and Epel were the ones assuming Sally is weak that Leona was the one who saw her true worth? I'm of course not accusing anyone here of being sexist. Society socializes us to see women as the "fairer sex" in need of protection and aid--but isn't Leona being more equitable by not underestimating Sally because of her gender?

That brings me to my conclusion. Leona respects women, no doubt about that. However, that's NOT a blanket statement. He clearly knows how to separate who is worthy of his respect and who isn't, and then he acts accordingly. Yes, he is polite, slightly softer, and more willing to listen to women he knows (his sister-in-law), women who haven't offended him/are just existing (Rosaria), and woman who have demonstrated their own strengths to him (Sally). He doesn’t become a completely different character just to bend to the whims of women. Those who have acted in ways to earn his ire, woman or not, will be treated as such (Magicam Monsters, Eliza, even Yuu when they/she enters his territory and/or steps on his tail). At the same time, I don't believe he thinks that women are delicate flowers that need special treatment (as we see with how he handles Sally + the Yuus and, more specifically, Yuuka). If anything, the women from his home country have demonstrated that they can be strong and self-sufficient. Why would he feel the need to go out of his way to be extremely lenient with the women he is around?

Lastly, nothing in official materials implies Leona treats men significantly worse than women. If he seems exceedingly rude to men, it’s most likely the result of the main cast (the characters Leona most often interacts with) being guys. If we were to compare how he treats his peers and how he treats women who have irritated him, I would say the behavior isn’t that different.

I know that was a long post but 😅 Hopefully I was able to articulate my thoughts well enough… May you find it helpful in forming your own opinion, Anon!

[brenatto-apothecary]

I am a very vocal hater of the whole "the game is just for the cast you can't criticize it ever!!" mentality, to the extent that even when it's in response to a take I think is awful, it will always bother me more than the original take. After some reflection, I've broken it down to five key reasons why it upsets me so much.

1) The obvious one is that the idea that the show is only being made for the cast is false. If they didn't intend to make a piece of entertainment, they wouldn't have posted it online. A lot of creative works are made with the creators enjoyment as the highest priority. That does not mean that's all it was made for.

2) The way these posts commonly focus on how the cast isn't obligated to do what other people want is a fundamental misunderstanding of what criticism is and why we make it. I assure you the vast majority of people do not think their complaints should be met with the cast personally kneeling before them.

3) It implies that something being made with love automatically makes disliking any element of it wrong. Which is a belief that is impossible to hold without becoming a hypocrite. There is no way in hell you have never disliked a piece that the creator(s) had fun making. I'm writing this post for my personal enjoyment. Have fun with that paradox.

4) There's this weird belief that all complaints are about specific desires that weren't met. There are actually a whole lot of posts about whether the story succeeded in doing what it intended to do, but I guess I can't expect people to read things.

5) This is my big one. Art deserves to be criticized. It's one of if not the most important way of interacting with a work. I don't believe saying actual play is uniquely exempt from critique is respectful of the medium. You are treating it as though it shouldn't be engaged with in the way we engage with all other art and is, therefore, lesser.

[starwars-and-discourse]

Anti-Jedi content is always so interesting. Most of the criticism seems to come from either a fundamental misunderstanding of how the Jedi operate, intentional misrepresentation of canon, or blaming the Jedi for things outside of their direct control.

Much of it also seems to imply, if not outright state, that the Jedi are to blame for their genocide. Which is just…wild to me. The Jedi Order certainly had faults, as no organization is perfect. But something I see quite often is taking the flaws of individual Jedi and ascribing them to all Jedi.

“Mace Windu was mean to Anakin!!” No, he really wasn’t. Windu was stern, certainly. But I don’t think he was ever “mean.” Anakin was rash, arrogant, and so ruled by his emotions that Windu had every reason NOT to trust him or make him a master.

“The Jedi take children by force!” No, they don’t. That’s just blatantly untrue. If a family does not wish to give up their children, the Jedi do not take them.

“The Jedi use a slave army!!” This is an oversimplification. This is an issue that the Jedi routinely grapple with throughout canon. The Jedi don’t want to be leading any army at all—Palpatine gives them no choice. If they don’t fight? The public grows resentful toward them even sooner and Palpatine can call them traitors even earlier. They do fight? The war drags on due to Palpatine’s manipulation and the Jedi are called warmongers and things go as we know. The Jedi, overall, fostered the clones’ individuality and encouraged them to think for themselves. The Clone Wars had numerous victims, but chief among them are the clones themselves and the Jedi.

These are just a few of the anti-Jedi talking points I regularly see. There are countless others. I am of course willing to debate (respectfully, and if it is in good faith) my positions. But I find these ideas very tiresome at this point.

[nightcolorz]

idk if I said this b4, but it does make me a little sad when people write meta posts and memes and stuff where they portray or refer to amc Armand as being Louis’s pet tiger or shark or some other form of mindless violent animal that is being poorly domesticated. The implication with that type of metaphor is that Armand was born a predator and pretending that he is anything but a killer is a big silly moment. But like, I don’t get that or think it’s rlly accurate. I’ve never seen people refer to Lestat or Louis or Claudia as being inherently akin to predator animals bcus they r vampires, I don’t see what makes Armand different? He’s much older than them, but he is still very much a person in the same way Louis is a person, he’s not Louis’s pet, they r two people in a relationship 😭. I’ve never seen anyone say “Louis loving lestat is like having a megalodon as a pet” the way they do with Armand even tho Lestat literally does attack Louis with his teeth and claws when he is provoked 💀. Also, the implication that Armand is an animal rlly rubs me the wrong way partly bcus saying that Armand is like a tiger implies that he was born violent and unfeeling, which is just not true. The reason Armand behaves in the violent, strange and apathetic way he does is bcus he was tortured his entire childhood and adult life, not bcus there is something inherently evil about him. I’m a little conflicted bcus I sometimes find these types of animal comparisons interesting, but I also sort of disagree with them fundamentally, and I think they often misunderstand Armand’s character

[orphiclovers]

Part 2 of examples of rape/SA in orv and my thoughts on them. cw: discussion of rape and mentions of pedophilia. lets get into it again

4. han myungoh mpreg. implied to be dragged off and raped by a demon in some capacity (I mean he literally becomes pregnant). so the act itself is entirely offscreen but why this is interesting it how getting raped and becoming pregnant fundamentally changes him as a person and from our MCs' perspectives, turns him "better" and more honorable.

so Rape-as-redemption is also a pretty Yikes trope. the implication that getting raped and going through all this awful shit made him a nicer person or fixed him somehow is quite... unfortunate... he's not a woman so it doesn't read as quite as problematic but the optics are still not looking good. 4.5/10 maybe rethink this

5. When Kim Dokja is physically wrestling lee seolhwa/queen antinus to the ground while Yoo Joonghyuk is paralysed by poison and watching from a distance and starts thinking that it would be a really bad idea to assault or rape Lee Seolhwa even though they're both immobilized and he has her in a compromising position, because of course yoo joonghyuk would kill him (or anyone) who attempted to do this. why the fuck were you thinking about all this kdj? there's something wrong with this guy. this is an incredible moment, completely out of pocket and deranged.

doesnt add or detract anything from the story, most ppl miss it, but it tickles and entertains me personally that kdj thinks about raping yjh's ex girlfriend and this isn't supposed to say or imply anything about what kind of person he is. singshong say that it doesn't matter which lines were written by who but I can TELL this paragraph was written by a man. only a man would come up with internal monologue like this and randomly put it into the story 100/10 AMAZING I love it no notes. please more of this

6. pink kids. SIGH. we're fucking doing this shit again, same as Nirvana. "crossdressers are creepy perverse old men pretending to be girls to lure in their victims" ? Singshong stop depicting male gender non-confirming people as sexual predators challenge. They actually ACKNOWLEDGE this is a shitty trope so they TRY, they ATTEMPT to subvert it, poorly.

make one of the crossdressers actually THEE purest character in all of TWSA, wow! isn't it so unexpected that not ALL crossdressers are evil rapists and this one is actually innocent? this isnt the subversive commentary they thought it was. the fact they knew enough about how this trope is problematic to decide they need to subvert it but then do nothing about nirvana is reallly off putting. they can't even claim ignorance because they clearly know. 2/10 you tried I guess

7. when people assume kdj wants to fuck little kids.? this happens multiple times and is a misunderstanding that comes from the fact he makes sys his incarnation and spends a lot of time around children. canonically the only reason Han Myungoh's baby was spared/taken by asmodeus is to be used as a child sex slave gift to kim dokja because he thought he would like one. think about that. Kim Dokja canonically has (baseless) pedophile allegations 1000/10 that's amazing

8. Asmodeus is said/implied to be a sexual predator of some kind but its never made clear What exactly his crimes are, just vague "perverse sexual acts". He takes little girls bodies as vessels (which. is the fucking crossdressing predator trope again isnt it. goddamit) but we get no other implication of if he hurts his hosts. "Devil of Lust and Wrath" is a character who doesn't actually do much or any raping. 6/10 its alright? i dont know anymore

[eliyahu613]

i meant wrapped not trapped, I do not blame you for misunderstanding me, thats entirely my fault

I think you seem to believe that my issue with transandrophobia as a label is the idea that trans men face oppression (which they do), when instead its the idea that the oppression transmasculine people face is something completely unique to them, instead of being the underlying current of tranphobia

I literally spent the first paragraph explaining my issues with the *concept* of it before segawaying into my issue with it as a conterpart to transmisogyny due to them not sharing an underlying ideological framework

And to touch on some of doberbutts points, trans women are also correctively raped and have suicide rates, and the issue of access to abortion is for every person with a vagina, not just trans men

A frustrating thing that he does there is that instead of giving a counterargument to one of my points (what i personally believe to be a misnomer about the purpose of the label of transmisogyny, were you (nonspecific) view it as a threat to the validity of the trauma we face, and not as a way to describe their own, and what others believe to be just attention seeking) is to bring up severe (often sexual) trauma as a way to put a landmine on that specific point, because any attempt to explain why they are wrong becomes a personal attack on the traumatized parties

this got quite long, so response under the cut. @doberbutts this is the same anon you responded to (by reblogging my post) earlier.

ok

no form of violence experienced under an oppressive system is truly "unique" in that i don't think there are any experiences of violence or oppression that apply to only one specific group, but the motivations behind the violence can differ depending on the demographic it's being done to. i do not think that any specific example of transandrophobia is something that no one who isn't transmasc has experienced, but transandrophobia is the oppression specifically targeting transmascs. i and doberbutts have already pointed out how this works, so i don't feel the need to reiterate that.

you do not understand the concept of transandrophobia, and you regularly demonstrate that your understanding is surface-level and comes from people who have an interest in making it seem less credible. instead of asking people who theorize about anti-transmasculinity (including me and doberbutts!!!) you immediately become hostile and make many incorrect assumptions about our beliefs. i find this highly disrespectful and encourage you to stop getting all of your information about transandrophobia from people who misrepresent it to argue against the concept of anti-transmasculinity.

yes, abortion access is something that everyone who can get pregnant has to deal with, but trans men face unique discrimination wrt abortion access and access to reproductive healthcare that trans women do not. this is because there is a fundamental misogyny component to anti-transmasculinity that you and others who deny it because "it's transmisogynistic!!!" seem to have a failure to grasp. transandrophobia is transphobia, misogyny, homophobia, and the specific modifier of maleness on this oppression all at once. i wish there was a better word for how maleness adds to and modifies oppression in an intersectional way that wasn't associated with mras, but alas there is none that i am aware of. also: anti-transmasculinity never says or implies that trans women don't face some of the issues that trans men do! you are treating this like a pissing contest for who has it worse and that is an attitude i'll need you to drop.

denying transandrophobia is a sentiment that is directly hostile to transmasc survivors of sexual assault, abuse, hate crimes and other things that arise from living under a patriarchy that systemically excludes you from both the male and female classes. the reason why we use this rhetoric is because these types of things arise from the specific intersection that trans men face, and how that can further intersect with sexuality. you are simply making up what we believe on the spot and not actually listening. if you want to come off anon and have a conversation in dms, i'd be willing.

talking to people like you is frustrating because you make these claims about what transandrophobia theory is as if we're a monolith or a homogenous group instead of hundreds of trans men on tumblr dot com all contributing to a larger conversation. no matter how much you claim to be in good faith, you continue to disregard actual transandrophobia theory in favor of some bastardized version you got from someone with "white tme/tma" in their bio. i hope you take this criticism and reflect on how you may be wrong.

[jinxed-thylacine]

I didn't realize how much people fundamentally misunderstand Eggman and Sonic both as characters and as a pair until now tbh.

No, Phantom Rider Sonic is not out of character for Sonic nor for Eggman. Let's look at right before Sonic accepted the Eggstreme Gear.

Going undercover is implied to be incredibly beneficial to Sonic, Tails, and Amy's plan, something Eggman agrees with:

Eggman took a sabbatical after Eggperial City was destroyed, then came across Orbot and Cubot watching the Clean Sweepstakes opening ceremony, and didn't like that he was being mocked:

He was at least happy to see Sonic and the Babylon Rogues squabble, but then Sonic got disqualified (which Eggman claims he hated because humiliating Sonic is his job), which gave Eggman an idea:

Since Sonic was indirectly responsible for Eggman's inspiration coming back, he felt like repaying him in some way:

And throughout the arc, Eggman is shown to have been honest about this (unless something happens in issue 74/issue 75). This scene from issue 69 sets up mutual benefit; Sonic can more easily create a diversion because he's disguised, Tails and Amy can more easily sneak onto the shuttle, and Eggman repays Sonic for getting him his creative drive back and also gets to watch the chaos that unfolds as Sonic disrupts the event as the Phantom Rider, which he wanted to do before Sonic, Tails, and Amy were disqualified (and Eggman gets to watch the event that mocked him get disrupted).

Sonic causing trouble on purpose for the benefit of the greater good isn't out of character, he just isn't usually so chaotic about it, nor that intentioned about causing chaos, because what he's doing doesn't require a chaotic course of action. He does it in Sonic Adventure 2 to some degree (this is made most clear, in my opinion, in the recaps before each level) and he literally tells Merlina in Sonic and the Black Knight "Guess I can't be the hero every time!" after being told "If you remove that sword and defeat King Arthur with it, you shall forever be the worst of knights, slayer of kings!" and proceeds to fight the Knights of the Round Table and King Arthur. That's just in the games, if we factored other media into this there's a lot more I could cover.

Now, to be fair, that tends to not backfire on him as bad as it could. In Sonic X, when he's destroying Eggman's mirror towers, everyone eventually realizes that Sonic is doing it for the benefit of everyone else; he doesn't care about that though. In Sonic and the Black Knight, once Merlina admits she was essentially scamming Avalon, Lancelot, Percival, and Gawain team up with him to stop her. In Sonic Adventure 2, Sonic's already a fugitive, so him causing some level of chaos to clear his name isn't something that really affects public perception of him.

In the comics, specifically the Phantom Rider arc, it does backfire on him once he's revealed to be the Phantom Rider, and there's some indication in issue 76's solicitation that there are going to be long-term effects in regards to Sonic being the Phantom Rider, meaning this would be the first time Sonic feels long-term effects for playing the villain (I'm actually surprised it took this long but whatever lol). The aftershocks might not be as bad once Clean Sweep is revealed to be untrustworthy, but there are still likely going to be some trust issues within Sonic's friend circle, which will be the worst ramifications we've seen from Sonic's chaotic good antics thus far.

Sonic is not against working with Eggman if there's a level of mutual benefit in it, and usually it happens because of some potentially world-ending catastrophe (Sonic Adventure 2, Sonic X, Sonic Heroes, Sonic 06, Sonic Frontiers). I actually think Jimbotnik sums this up best; "If I can't rule the world, I might as well save it!" However, Eggman is not above teaming up with Sonic if, from his perspective, the need arises, even if the world isn't about to end. If there's even a shred of mutual benefit, they are willing to work together. The Phantom Rider arc just has an example of them teaming up for, on Eggman's end, petty reasons.

Eggman's not above teaming up with Sonic if there's mutual benefit and Sonic's not above playing a villain for the benefit of the greater good. Phantom Rider arc is not out of character for either of them.

[crooked-wasteland]

hey- I’m the anon who sent in that ask about why I think the shows are influenced by viv’s want to control interpretation- and I just wanna clarify that I don’t see any of what I spoke about as directly malicious. I feel like all artists at some point have to go through that point where they realize some of what they intend isn’t gonna be read that way- I disagree largely with Viv, but I don’t like the tendency people have to psychoanalyze her, I was just going off of what I could perceive as a writer. I don’t even think viv is envious of her fandoms headcanons or anything, I feel like while the relationship between her and her fanbase is concerning it’s hard to get a real idea of how she feels about the whole community. The reason I brought it up and a few other examples of it is because it feels like a prevailing issue, I don’t think anyone who does it ever has mal-intent, but I feel it’s natural that when you tie yourself so closely to something you’ve created it becomes hard to let go. If I came off as trying to imply aggression to her actions, apologies, I also can’t identify malice in most of what I’ve seen from her regarding this at least.

My apologies Anon, I think I was right with my first response but then thought maybe I was losing the plot. Basically, your first ask came across as two disconnected topics of Medrano's relationship with her fanbase and Medrano's need to control the narrative of her stories, but I responded based on the assumption you did intend for those ideas to connect more cleanly than they felt.

I also want to say my use of the word malicious just means with a selfish intent, not that someone is doing anything with hatred or bitterness. It's more about the emotional source of the motivated action and less the outcome of the actions. By my usage of it, I simply meant that I don't think she has any intentional, selfish motivation over her involving the fans in her process. Even the sense of jealousy wasn't one I'd define clearly as such, but the English language lacks words for emotions in a rather depressing way.

I definitely want to give you the space to correct me on that misunderstanding and I do apologize for the position my response may have put you in.

But I think this is also proving the point you had wanted to make as well, correct? About making sure everyone is seeing the story the same way. When we communicate directly in a manner like this, the entire point is to be accurately understood.

The thing with art is that it's a fundamentally different form of communication that survived through ambiguity. The more direct writing is, the less serious it gets taken. You are speaking to people in a transcendental way that direct communication cannot achieve. Having people sharing in a creation you made is a way of having this sort of spiritual closeness to others. And being able to let others embrace you and your work in their own way is a sign of maturity.

Which is where I pointed out Medrano's immaturity.

One of my favorite books is The Outsiders by S. E. Hinton. I read it as a middle schooler and it spoke to me in the softest of ways. It was the piece of media that broke through my religious indoctrination to soften me towards the LGBTQ community. All because I experienced a story about male love that changed my perspective of queer relationships.

I've mentioned before I was raised in an evangelical cult, so this was a world-tilting shift in my preteen little brain. The relationship between Johnny and Pony Boy was very platonic to me. It felt like that normal love between brothers that I understood. But the relationship between Johnny and Dally was so very, obviously queer to me.

The book was written in 1967. There was a much larger, interconnected cast and yet the relationship between Dally and Johnny always stood out to me. Though I suppose it makes sense as no other relationship literally resulted in suicide by cop. Spoilers, for this nearly 60 yr old book, by the way.

I also wasn't the only one who noticed this, and when asked about it, Hinton said this in 2016:

The whole point being, Hinton is right. I have no doubt that Hinton wasn't intentionally writing a queer relationship in the 60s. But that didn't make those identifying queerness in the relationship as wrong.

And I think my favorite part is that Hinton clearly states that her goal was never to make anyone else feel safe through her art. The purpose of art is to actually not feel safe. Art itself is a safe place to engage with yourself through the work. Art is the space to feel however you feel about something without there being a right answer in the first place.

You are safe to feel however you feel about a piece of art. It isn't going to hurt you to think two characters may be queer regardless of the author's intent. If a painting makes you sad, it is a safe way to engage with sadness, as there are no consequences to the painting being sad. It is a form of emotional exercise.

But the appeal to authority people look for has become increasingly disturbing for me, especially on a social level. It started with a fear of being wrong. Then it was people asking to be told how to think and feel about the art they consumed rather than have their own experiences. They wanted instructions by the creators to tell them how they should interact with the material. They didn't want freedom, they wanted security. And in the pursuit of security, of being right, which was morally superior to being wrong, they lost the point of it all. They lost themselves.

It feels pretty similar to a lot of things going on lately, but it started in the art. The rise of conformity started in the artist circles online. And now we're watching a new fascist regime.

That has nothing to do with Medrano of course. I just see patterns in our societies. It isn't Medrano's fault fascism is on the rise, though that will be a hilarious out of context accusation. It's just that I think Medrano using social media to tell her story rather than actually making art is less the fault of Medrano giving people the "right answers" and more the fault of people demanding answers to things that just are. There's a sickness in our society that has lost the plot. Critical thinking is on a decline because it is morally inferior to be wrong nowadays. And if you aren't right, you're wrong, and wrong is bad. And no one wants to be bad.

[katoska]

Fuck it, I'll vent once more about this, in my own post, and then I'll just ignore all the Annoying Wrong Opinions in the tag.

People who call Conrad a (right-wing/anti-vaxx/Andrew Tate incel type) grifter should look up "motive attribution asymmetry".

Motive attribution asymmetry is a psychological phenomenon where individuals in a conflict or disagreement tend to view their own group’s motivations as stemming from positive intentions, such as love, care, or a desire for justice, while simultaneously attributing the opposing group’s actions to negative motivations, such as hate, malice, or a desire to harm. This skewed perception can significantly contribute to the escalation and intractability of conflicts by creating a fundamental misunderstanding of the other side’s perspective.  

In other words, we tend to believe that those on the Other Side of a disagreement are more likely to be lying about their motives or opinions in order to benefit themselves or do harm to Our Side, than we are to believe that the Other Side might also be well-meaning but mistaken. Only Our Side gets to have good intentions and flawed outcomes if we get something wrong, the Other Side is is full of grifters who are doing evil on purpose. Well, grifters and idiots who fall for grifters. Our Side is ofc very smart and cares enough to do proper research, unlike those sheeple.

With that being said, ofc grifters do exist, and a few of them make far too much money off of podcasts, but I don't think that's what was going on with Conrad in Lucky Day:

Grifters don't invade HQs and demand answers at gunpoint, they incite their minions to do that. Nor do they wonder, after their third encounter with the Tardis, whether they imagined it. Or refuse to take the Shreek vaccine, after we saw them being genuinely scared of the alien, if they actually believed the alien existed and that the vaccine does what they were told it does. Anti-vax grifters still get their shots because they know they are lying to sell their snake oil.

Conrad was wrong in his beliefs, but I think those beliefs were genuine. The reason why the audience believes he was lying about everything is because Ruby made that assumption after he Mata Hari'd her and because he confessed to lying when the Shreek was right in his face and he was saying whatever UNIT wanted to hear so they'd help him. We like Ruby, so we side with her. And we side with Kate when she siccs an alien on someone for attacking UNIT (well, more because the guy insulted her dad), bc surely that guy is faking his skepticism of UNIT/aliens bc everyone knows aliens exist. Even Donna Noble (now, again) knows aliens exist. Nevermind that UNIT has been lying for decades about e.t. existence, right? Only crackpots would believe that their current alien narrative is some even bigger conspiracy than the previous "Aliens don't exist" one. And obviously, this guy who is functional enough to make good money with his podcast (ew), and, like many people with money, evades taxes (double ew), and who has friends, and plots with friends to topple UNIT, could not possibly be insane enough to genuinely believe in a conspiracy theory, right? He must be lying.

Except 1) you don't have to have a mental illness to subscribe to conspiracist thinking (though it helps; a lot of conspiracy nuts do have unusually strong apophenia and see Signs in everything) , 2) we see him get offended when Ruby calls him a liar, and 3) if you rewatch the ep, he doesn't seem all that rational, actually.

It's implied he frequently saw stuff as a kid that got him accused of lying, which is why he brought (as is typical of conspiracy nuts, very shitty) proof of his encounter, expecting his Mum to just be convinced by said shitty proof. He very vividly imagines the Shreek hunting him while Ruby explains its hunting patterns, before snapping back to reality and reminding himself it's a story. He seemed erratic and obstinate during the mask-off scene (and that thing he said about disability benefits reminded me of what Kate said to Shirley when she briefly became paranoid due to the Toymaker's influence). He rejects what he did to Jordan, and again gets erratic and obstinate when his view of reality gets challenged, coming up with extremely dumb alternate explanations on the spot. And he later seems unsure if the Tardis encounter in his cell really happened... after seeing the Tardis three times, after listening to Ruby talk about her adventures for weeks, he is unsure if he imagined being in the Tardis and holding a whole conversation with the Doctor.

That last one especially is... that guy is not well, and on some level he knows it, but unfortunately he lives in the Whoniverse where weird shit happens all the time and a lot of it is unprovable later or does get hushed up. Bit hard to figure out if you are having hallucinations when cryptids exist and everyone tells you that the formerly secret military branch can deal with them, don't worry about it. So I pity that guy, despite the harm he did, because partially fueled by delusions or not, the mistrust in UNIT (or the government in general, see Children Of Earth) is very much warranted, and also, imo, completely understandable?

Any comparison to conspiracy theories or science-deniers you want to read into this episode fall down because... the Moon's an egg. There's not much a conspiracy theorist could come up with that would trump that. Meds aren't safe in the Whoniverse (see: Adipose, though tbf those weren't so bad. I want 50 of them), neither are phone signals, and also you can summon a Daemon by chanting Mary Had A Little Lamb backwards, so I guess satanism works. And don't get me started on gods. There's too much crazy shit going on to make a call about whose beliefs make sense and who is maybe lying about their beliefs and/or maybe crazy, because how tf do you even define insanity if sometimes trees try to communicate with kids by making them see lights? It's a perfectly reasonable belief that if the military has the tech to fight aliens, then they also have the tech to fake aliens, and since they until recently always denied aliens exist... well, Occam's Razor says they are still lying, bc it's that or the Moon's an egg.

[yupuffin]

I don't disagree with the take that "GenAI bros are just lazy," but I've also read and agreed with the take that laziness is a nonexistent (and lowkey ableist) concept. So I think there's a little more depth and nuance to the sentiment than mere "laziness."

Put succinctly, I think GenAI users erroneously devalue the process of making art relative to the product. This is closely associated with the arbitrary assignment of value to an artistic product based on the perceived skill level required to create it. (i.e. the belief in existence of "good" and "bad" art)

The motivations I've heard from people who use what's commonly called "generative AI" (hereafter "GenAI users") can indeed be summarized as that it's "easier" or that it allows them to create something that they otherwise do not have the skill or the means to create. Basically, they think that using GenAI will allow them to create something "better" with relatively less personal commitment than, well, creating it themselves. Effectively, they want "instant gratification."

While I sympathize with this sort of rationale, I also think it reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of creativity as a concept. When it comes to artistic creation -- or really, any activity that necessitates the development of a skill -- the product is never the only relevant aspect; the creative process, while often less publicly visible than the product, can be at least as meaningful, if not more.

Hence, my tentative hypothesis is that the motivation to use GenAI, specifically to produce an equivalent of visual art, is potentially derived from specific misconceptions about the creative process. Below, I have deconstructed said motivation into several potential misconceptions and included corresponding analysis disproving them. My goal is to further elucidate the purported "laziness" behind GenAI usage and illustrate how genuine artistic creation, while potentially more difficult, is certainly more productive and rewarding.

Myth: The work you put into making art is a "struggle" you have to survive. Fact: I'm putting this misconception first, because it is perhaps both the most common and the most essential. I've seen this sentiment inadvertently and widely perpetuated even by the most staunchly anti-AI artists, in the form of memes such as "In order to get this [highly refined art], I had to survive this [art I made much longer ago that is hence implied to be intrinsically worse]." Frankly, this is also incredibly insulting and discouraging to newer artists, or, really, anyone perceived to have a lower skill level regardless of how "new" they are.

The reality is that the creative process should, overall, be enjoyable. That's where the desire to create comes from. As with the development of any skill, some aspects of the creative journey will inevitably be less enjoyable than others, hence the perceived difficulty; however, in order to be both productive and genuine, the enjoyable aspects of the process should make the "struggle" worth it. I believe that determining how best to enjoy the creative process requires continuous and deliberate self-reflection by the artist -- which can, indeed, be a rewarding journey of self-discovery.

Which leads me to the next point:

Myth: The fear of making "bad" art. Fact: Every artist will sometimes create art with which they are deeply unsatisfied. When people ask me how to deal with artistic disappointment, I remind them first that "good" is highly subjective, and second, that in order to make "good" art, one must also inevitably sometimes make "bad" art. It's okay to give yourself space to feel disappointed in your art, as long as you likewise allow yourself to celebrate when you create something you're really happy with.

Consider: GenAI can also provide an unsatisfactory product. Though GenAI is commonly treated as a "shortcut" to "good" art, it is not actually so infallible. Because the process is highly automated and, likewise, involves so little human input, getting a product that's sufficiently to your liking can be a genuine headache.

Effectively, you will make "bad" art regardless of if you are using GenAI or your own skills.

If the product and process are both your own, the process can be deliberately fine-tuned and optimized, and then applied to your future works to continue your artistic journey. Again, it's work, but it's rewarding work! (You may start to notice a theme here...)

Myth: Creating "good" art is expensive. Fact: Expensive materials and tools certainly have their place, but an infinite number of possible artistic journeys can be made without them. In fact, it's often unnecessary or even counterproductive to spend copious amounts of money on highly specialized tools if you don't have the training or skillset to know how to use them.

I'm sure many artists out there will be willing to demonstrate the possibilities behind even the most basic and accessible tools; in this case, I'll provide a personal anecdote to illustrate: As an adolescent, I used to use professional-grade, highly specialized Prismacolor pencils. Now, as an adult, despite having over twice as many years of artistic experience, my go-to traditional art tool is a tiny box of "school-grade" colored pencils. I'm happier with the results at a tiny fraction of the cost, because I realized that having limited color options and more generic applicability works better with my thinking, drawing and coloring process.

When it comes to classes and lessons, which can likewise be expensive and hence inaccessible... While they can serve specific artistic goals depending on what you want to do, the number of "self-taught" artists out there proves that these are far from obligatory. Plus, right now, there's more knowledge out in the world for free than there has been ever before. (If you're reading this soon after I posted it, I just reblogged a post full of visual art resources 😆)

Myth: I'm not creative or imaginative enough to make my own art. Fact: Creativity and imagination are also skills that can be learned and cultivated; as with any other skill, this requires practice. As expanded upon above, skill cultivation is certainly work, but it can be intrinsically rewarding when done right. This is scientifically proven: learning and accomplishing things, as happens when one develops a skill, releases the neurotransmitter serotonin, which is directly associated with mood stabilization and feelings of happiness and contentment. Likewise, having pursued multiple forms of creativity over the course of my life, I strongly believe that enjoying the creative process, whatever that means for you personally, is the most crucial factor for cultivating a skill. Maximizing enjoyment likewise maximizes the amount of time you can put into a skill, and, as a general trend, invested time is directly proportional to skill improvement.

GenAI usage denies the user this opportunity to develop their creative skills, as it prioritizes the artistic product at the expense of the process. Because it's arguably easier, it likewise lacks that intrinsic reward.

This can be associated with the point above about making "bad" art; art that is mundane or unoriginal is often arbitrarily called "bad." In reality, each person's creative endeavors, regardless of their perceived skill level, are a unique synthesis of their individual lived experiences. Compare this to GenAI, the output of which is based solely on what it most statistically probable, and is hence quite literally unoriginal.

Honestly, as an artist, I recommend making art yourself in part because the rush of happy chemicals you get, either when someone compliments it or when you're happy with it yourself -- because YOU MADE THAT! THAT'S WORK YOU PUT IN! -- is so worth it. And for that to happen, you have to give yourself the space to make art you're disappointed with and art you're happy with.

As a disabled artist myself, I think it's also worth noting that there may be some very specific forms of art that are less accessible to you, but I also think, from my experience, that for each of these forms, there are countless possibilities and approaches for utilizing the same medium or general type of art that can still be just as fulfilling.

How do I start? A crash course...

To make "good" art, you must first make art. Pick up a pencil and some paper. Doesn't have to be a specific kind -- it can be generic and inexpensive. Now, draw anything. Draw something you want to draw. It can be super simple. What do you like about it? What do you not like about it? Draw it again, making changes accordingly. If you can't think of anything in particular to change, just keep drawing what makes you feel fulfilled. Repeat! If you ever find yourself demotivated out of self-criticality, try focusing more on what you do like -- "playing to your strengths" is just as worthy a pursuit as "compensating for your weaknesses."

When people tell me they use GenAI because it's "easier," I think back to a conversation my coworker talked about having with her significant other. Her significant other would ask her to cook, because she was so much better at it, so wasn't it a waste of time for him to do it? A little bit under the influence of THC (as she claims), she took a breath, and asked him:

"How are you ever going to get better if you don't try?"

[aihoshiino]

Hey there! I love your OnK posts especially about Ai so I wanted to ask you something that's been on my mind this week. Do you think she was "fridged" just for shock value? I've heard people call it that because of how it starts Aqua's revenge quest and I was curious how others saw it. Would love to hear your thoughts!

anon can i just say. not calling you out but the thing about being active in other parts of the fandom outside tumblr means i will get asks like this sometimes and immediately know which post on the subreddit I am being asked to indirectly reply to. again, not calling you out, but i did read this ask with a strong sense of like;

but anyway, to actually answer your question: No, I don't think Ai was fridged and I think that anyone passionately insisting she was has a fundamental misunderstanding of what purpose her death serves in her own arc and that of others and also just… what fridging even is as a concept. I've commented on this before and basically summed up my thoughts as best I could so lemme grab that old comment of mine.

Fridging implies a certain disposability and lack of care for the woman at the center of things. It's sort of drifted and gotten muddled because of misuse in modern discourse like the term 'Mary Sue', but as it was coined, it was specifically, explicitly both observation and critique of how female characters are treated in fiction primarily centered on men: the ways in which they are treated as uniquely disposable, their interiority as less full and complex, their stories as less valuable and their tragedies as inherently unworthy of exploration and interrogation. The term literally originates from the phrase 'women in refrigerators' which itself was coined by Gail Simone in reference to the trend in American superhero comics of gratuitously brutalizing, sexually assaulting or killing specifically female characters for the sole purpose of spurring the protective instincts of their male counterparts. While it's true that Ai's death spurs Aqua's revenge arc, it is also the very explicit capstone to Ai's own character arc that she goes on over the course of the prologue arc and her life in general. It is the textual manifestation of something that exists in subtext: that being an idol and growing up in the entertainment industry has robbed Ai of the opportunity to have a normal life. It makes pitch perfect thematic sense for this idea to climax in an embodiment of the misogyny, purity culture and fan entitlement that has caused her so much pain to make that idea literal in bringing an end to Ai's actual life. On top of that, Ai's actual death scene is entirely about her: it takes place entirely from her POV, centers her feelings and pain and resolves her character arc and the two most important relationships to her. The manga even frames the scene in such a way that Ai's own thoughts and feelings drown out and crowd out the most bloody and shocking moments, spending page time that could be used on goggling at the spectacle of her pain instead on forcing the reader to look at her heart and understand her. Rather than focus on her bodily agony, up until the last moment, Ai's death is about her strengths, her flaws and the absolute purity of her love. From there, interrogating the tragedy of her life and death is the entire driving force of Oshi no Ko's narrative. Ai touches and contextualizes every character's story; her legacy is the light that every one else chases while standing in her shadow. She's the beating, bleeding heart of almost every emotional beat. Almost every arc involves her, directly or indirectly, and the current arc of the manga is built explicitly on the idea of understanding and empathizing with Ai as a person and trying to honor her wishes even though she's gone. So no, I don't agree that she was fridged and I think it's reductive to try and make that call entirely off the first episode. As someone who has spent the better portion of the year having a cognitive energy dedicated to this character that surely makes me in some way mentally unwell, I think her death is so incredibly, miserably satisfying as the capstone of her arc and getting to go through the rest of the story with her heart and legacy as its foundation has enriched pretty much everything else about it.

'fridging' is not 'anytime a woman dies' anymore than 'bury your gays' is 'anytime a gay person dies'. The context surrounding these phrases is important and by extrapolating them to the point that they can mean literally anything, they lose their edge when it comes to serving as tools of critique and commentary on harmful trends in fiction.

[hellerfanboy91]

Supernatural Revisited 5x04 The End

Dean and Sam are still taking separate holidays, and this time Sam is mostly absent from the episode. I would say this makes the split between the brothers feel more real, but unfortunately the opposite is true. The main thrust of this episode is that separation is apparently bad for Dean and Sam because they keep each other human. Or so the show wants us to believe. Not five episodes ago, Sam nearly killed Dean in cold blood, and a handful of episodes before that a siren played on their deep-seated resentment of each other to get them to kill each other. In the very next episode (5x05 Fallen Idols) Sam will blame everything on Dean and Dean will let him, thereby ensuring Sam does not grow up, but please do go ahead and tell me how their fraternity is a good thing which keeps them human.

Dean and Sam's brotherhood is one of the selling points of this show. A huge percentage of the fanbase watch it for them and their relationship, and many will claim the show is 'about the brothers' as though they are saying something profound. The result of this is that the two have to be kept together and schisms between them cannot be long-lasting of have any real consequences. Part of the reason for this is the nature of serial television: it is reliant upon viewership and people coming back week after week. In order to ensure that, the audience needs to be given what they want. The network, producers, and many of the writers insist that what the viewers want is Salmondean in stasis. Were the show shorter, this would be less of an issue, but long before the show ran out of steam their relationship became tiresome and repetitive for me.

As a point of comparison, I will once more refer to Vilhelm Moberg's The Emigrants series (and not just because I finally got to see the musical version Kristina frå Duvemåla in Oslo last month). Two of the three main characters in the novels are brothers; Karl Oskar the elder brother and Robert the younger brother. The two are fundamentally different characters representing different archetypes of men, and this causes deeo disagreements and misunderstandings between the two. Karl Oskar is the ideal of a rural man in 1840s Sweden: practical, industrious, perseverent, realistic, and earns his living with his muscle and by the sweat of his brow. He sees how things are and deals accordingly. Robert, on the other hand, is a hopeful yet naïve idealist who dreams of a better life for himself but sees only what he wishes for.

Karl Oskar sees Robert as an air-headed, idiotic liar in need of a good slap and an honest day's work, whereas Robert sees Karl Oskar as a decent man but not something Robert ever aspires to be. This difference in character means the brothers can never fully understand each other, and the difference leads to resentment, anger, mistrust, and ultimately violence (mostly because Karl Oskar refused to ever entertain the notion he might be wrong and assumed the worst of his brother). Without spoiling too much, the conflict between Karl Oskar and Robert had dire consequences which separated the two of them forever.

I am aware you are not here to read about my thoughts on post-war Swedish literature, so back to Supernatural. Dean and Sam had reached a breaking point in their brotherhood and decided to have a lengthy break from each other. I was thrilled when Dean cut Sam out of his life; it showed growth and implied awareness of his ability to live without being his brother's keeper. It should have also been a slap in the face for Sam because his actions at long last had consequences and his 'puppy-dog eyes', sanctimony, and apologies no longer work.

Sam was taking baby steps towards accountability, adulthood, and facing the consequences of his actions. He had lost the closest he had to a friend and the person shielding him from the world, and might have ended up repenting and changing his ways. Dean was finally able to be independent after drawing a line and saying what he is not willing to accept from his nearest and dearest, but The Show insisted on yeeting him back into the poisonous co-dependent relationship with Sam. After the promise of consequences and character development, all is essentially back to normal after only two episodes. This is a problem which is perennial in this show: characters are not allowed to truly learn from their mistakes (except Dean sometimes) and are not allowed to properly grow.

Part of the reason is the abovementioned audience who watch for Salmondean. They are watching a show about two brothers with a dysfunctional but ultimately loving relationship and they want nothing to get between the brothers. To the detriment of the narrative, this section of the viewers is the onle the writers and producers mainly cater for because it is the safe, conservative option which leaves everybody's boats unrocked. It is easy to sell and has worked well enough so far, so why fix it?

The fact that the show's viewership tanked in series seven after Cas's apparent death and absence from the show is proof that Salmondean ran out of fuel relatively early in the show and the viewers wanted something else. Even my friends who are watching the show for the first time got tired of Salmondean's bickering and their damaged relationship somewhere around series three.

There is another part of the fanbase and viewership who are watching quite a different show about two brothers with an unhealthy, destructive relationship with the narrative keeps them trapped in. This, however, is more complex, less 'feel good', and harder to sell, especially when a huge part of their unhealthy relationship is the abuse they experienced at the hands of their father, both canonical and implied.

The final series of this show as good as told the viewers that the writers were being censored and not allowed to write the stories they wanted. The network and producers perhaps more so than the showrunner decided what could and could not happen (see e.g. Misha Collins' surprise that Cas's 'I love you' was actually allowed in the show), and it seems like what they wanted to happen was for the formula to continue.

The result of this is that the show cannot have real long-lasting consequences and cannot keep Salmondean apart for long, because that is the formula used to sell the show. The potential for conflict, organic drama, change, and recovery was wasted so that Salmondean could be together and the story could be reduced to the simplistic premise of 'two brothers fighting monsters'.

Now with that lengthy preamble aside, a brief summary of the episode. After Lucifer told Sam he is Lucifer's vessel at the end of 5x03 Free to Be You and Me, Sam calls Dean in a motel to tell him he 'wants back in'. Dean wisely refuses to let Sam back into his life, stating that they are safer as far apart from each other as possible, then goes to sleep. Unfortunately, he wakes up a few hours later in an Apocalypse world. The year is 2014 and the Croatoan virus is turning mankind into not-zombies. After a run-in with some not-zombies, Dean ends up with a group of survivors whose leader is his future self. After telling Dean that Sam said yes to Lucifer, future!Dean leads Dean and a group of survivors on a suicide mission to kill Lucifer. The mission ends in failure with everybody but Dean dying, and after Sam!Lucifer talks for a few minutes while wearing an ugly white suit, Dean is zapped back to the real world.

The whole thing has been orchestrated by Zachariah to show Dean the consequences of not saying yes to Michael. Zachariah's plan failed and Cas rescues Dean at the last second. Following this, Dean shows that he did learn a lesson from Zachariah's holodeck and invites Sam back into the fold. Apparently the real problem in Zachariah's future was that Dean and Sam were not together to keep each other human.

Due to this being another 'gimicky' episode, I only have so much to say about it. Other than the last two minutes, I enjoyed it. Cas and Dean having more screentime without Sam present is a joy, and stoner-hippie future Cas was an interesting take on what Cas could become in a post-Apocalyptic world. The not-zombie apocalypse world was atmospheric enough for a genre show on a budget (and about a year before The Walking Dead premiered) and the Lucifer!Sam scene was ominous (though if we are told something is definitely one hundred percent going to happen, it takes some of the drama out of the story).

That said, my latest rewatch of this episode crystalised a conviction, that being that the vision of the future was a complete fabrication. I hinted at that earlier with my 'holodeck' reference, and the main thing which finally convinced me was how completely convenient future!Dean's exhortation to say yes to Michael etc were.

If we speak in philosophical terms (which physicists might agree with), the future does not exist. There is only the past and the present, and it is impossible to know the future because there are so very many different things which can affect what the future will look like when it becomes the present. Early last year, I read Melvin Burgess's Loki wherein Odin was driven mad by his ability to see all possible futures. There is simply too much which could possibly be and too much which can impact it. As a result, Zachariah cannot see 'the' future and cannot show 'the' future to Dean. He might be able to see 'a' possible future, but no more than that.

However, this does not diminish th epossible impact such a vision can have on a simple mortal. Once more, I am reminded of Buffy, this time of 6x16 Hell's Bells. It is Xander and Anya's wedding day, butwhen a demon shows Xander a vision of his future wherein he and Anya are a miserable, middle-aged married couple who hate each other and are physically abusive, just like Xander's parents were. Even though Xander finds out the vision was fake, it still seriously affected him and people who have watched the show know how that episode ends.

Future!Dean telling Dean to say 'yes' was clearly Zachariah talking, but the idea of a future Dean wishing he had let Michael use him as a vessel is not too ridiculous. After all, some of us have watched the whole show and know what happens later. But this was Zach's holodeck, and Dean's takeaway from it was to keep Sam close in order to prevent him saying yes to Lucifer like he did in Zach's future.

Dean's time without Sam was fun while it lasted. It allowed the viewer to see Dean as a competent hunter unburdened by his brother, as well as showing resourcefulness in e.g. pulling a nail out of the floorboards to free himself of handcuffs. He also got to draw and keep his boundaries by e.g. telling Cas to give him a few hours' sleep, and reiterating to Sam in the cold open that no, Sam is not welcome back in Dean's life.

But regarding boundaries, less than a minute after Dean frees himself from future!Dean's handcuffs he is once again assaulted by a woman with hurt feelings. I bitched about this in 5x02 Good God, Y'all when Ellen slapped Dean, and I intend to reprise my bitching here. Whatsherface tried to punch Dean in the head, then tried to knee him in either the stomach or the groin... because of her hurt feelings. I cannot say enough how this is one of my least favourite tropes and it genuinely does make these women look like they have absolutely no control over themselves.

And if we are to believe that future!Dean and Whatsherface ( I know she has a name, but I hate her, so I ain't using it) were in a relationship of some kind, then she has shown that she was perfectly happy to enact partner violence on Dean. In front of future!Chuck, no less. And when Dean's back was turned. This does not make her look kickass or strong, but makes her look like a child in an adult's body who needs to be taught a lesson about what happens when Chihuahuas yap at German Shepherds. If a man had tried that with Dean, he would have got decked in seconds. I absolutely loathe this, and the partner violence aspect just makes it worse. The viewer is also supposed to laugh at this, clearly, because a big muscly man is about to get hit by a woman. Can this just die? The less of this I see in my media, the happier I will be. Having seen partner violence in my life at close range (with men and woman as both victims and perpetrators), I do not want it anywhere near me.

Alhamdullilah she dies at the end of the episode. Good riddance to bad rubbish.

Further to the subject of ladies, Dean's line about once having tried on underwear intended for ladies has taken on a life of its own in some sections of the fanbase. This is in spite of it being apparent from the conversation that it only happened once a long time ago. Though Ben Edlund has the writing credit for this episode, Edlund has said that this line was actually a Kripke insert.

I might have known it was a Kripke line because it honestly had his stink all over it. The Boys has all the 'correct' left-wing politics and talking points, but in some aspects Kripke gives the impression of being seriously regressive, e.g. the mockery of male victims of sexual assault and the typical 'male gaze' which sees men's bodies as objects of either disgust or humour. Almost every single violent, on-screen death on that show is a man, just like in Supernatural, and the first three series of the show still give off vague gay men are a little bit gross really vibes.

By which I mean someone on the writing staff seems intent on mocking the idea of Dean being 'manly' by making him the butt of all the homophobic jokes in the show. Moreover, little things like 'Dean once tried on pink knickers' are thrown in which on the one hand could just be silly jokes, but could also be more of the same old 'he's compensating for something' jibes. Coupled with Kripke calling Dean a 'wussy' (because he was not allowed to say 'pussy') in the commentary for 4x22 Lucifer Rising, a picture emerges which is not flattering.

I recently watched this episode with two friends who did not react at all to this line. I think it might have got a nose-laugh from me initially, but it is completely forgettable because they are just underwear. I do not care. Would anybody care if e.g. Ellen revealed she once tried on Jo's dad's boxers? No. So why has a certain section of the fandom leapt on this one line? Ironic that in a time when we supposedly should not care about gender at all, a man trying on ladies' underwear once twenty years ago is apparently earth-shattering. From my perspective at least, it really does look like a bunch of people going 'Oh look, he is a total poof. And the bender even wears ladies' underwear. Ha, what a fruit!' (for the young among you, 'poof', 'bender', and 'fruit' are all derogatory terms for a gay man).

Am I getting a bit too intense and jumping the gun a bit? Perhaps. Then again, having spent thirty-three years surrounded by this kind of bollocks I can spot it immediately. Given Kripke's propensity for playground homophobic jokes in Supernatural and worse in The Boys, it is difficult not to come to these conclusions.

Ben Edlund recently appeared on Supernatural Then and Now podcast (the same one Jensen and Jeffrey appeared on two years ago when Jensen claimed 'Dean didn't really have a problem with John') to discuss this episode. Unfortunately, I have only listened to two minutes of the podcast because I am not made of money, but the section I listened to was enlightening. Some lines from Edlund's script did not make it to screen, and these lines pertained to the nature of Dean and Cas's relationship.

While in the car together, Dean and future!Cas have a conversation about Cas now being human. In Edund's original version, Cas says (with 'unadorned sincerity') that he and Dean are all they have left. On the podcast, Edlund says that he was asked to make the dialogue less obvious, i.e. that the text had to be buried and made into subtext. Suddenly calling me crazy for thinking Dean and Cas were more than friends looks like less of a tenable position, especially considering future!Cas waited for Dean to arrive to begin the orgy.

This is gratifying. One of the other reasons I started these analyses was to explain why I understand Dean and Cas the way I do, since I was heartily sick of the gaslighting and mockery from people who were not really paying any attention but knew for certain that there were no fags, fruits, or queers in their show. It is difficult to gaslight somebody when there is hard evidence to back up what they are saying.

Anyway, future!Cas was first envisioned as a far more insane character after having become human. Unfortunately, the idea of Cas crushing a beetle, bringing it back to life, then crushing it again was thought to be too dark (is this supposed to be a horror show for adults or not?) so instead Edlund wrote him as a stoner hippie type. This does not get any particular complaints from me, and the version of future!Cas in the episode is probably more appealing. He is a figure of fun, but the old-fashioned word 'fey' came to mind, i.e. the kind of 'craziness' a person might feel before death or when s/he knows death is coming soon. His attitude is very much one of 'we're all boned, so let's have some fun while we still can because there's nothing we can do about it.' He has chosen to stick by Dean though, as well as follow him into certain death at the end.

On the subject of that certain death, Dean tried to call out future!Dean's plan to use his friends as bait at the end. "You're just gonna throw your friends into meat grinder? Cas too?" The language here indicates that there is a difference between Cas and 'friends', and the 'too' here serves the same function as 'even', e.g. "Even Cas?" Cas is here put into a category above 'friends', a category of person it is all the more surprising future!Dean would sacrifice. Bearing in mind Edlund's original script where Dean and Cas were all they had left and the 'subtext' he talked about in Supernatural Then and Now, a picture emerges of what the true nature of future!Dean and future!Cas's relationship might have been. Although given it was Dean who said the line, this also says a lot about Dean's own view of Cas.

Lacking a proper segue, time to discuss the cold open. I had to watch the opening of this episode several times in order to digest all the information in it because it was packed and difficult to follow. In the space of about two minutes, there is a street preacher whom the audience must assume will be important later, a brief discussion between Dean and Cas about the colt and its whereabouts, and the viewer learns that Dean has serious sleeping issues.

On top of that, Sam calls Dean asking to be let back into the club, Dean rejects him, and then Dean goes to sleep and wakes up in The Walking Dead.

The opening introduces all of this stuff efficiently, but there is a bit too much. Dean's conversations with both Cas and Sam are important to the end of the episode, but perhaps the part about the colt could have been left out to avoid overload.

As for the conversation with Sam, once again it was All About Sam. 'I want back in', 'I want redemption', 'I can do it'. The reason he left was because he thought he was a danger to himself and others, but now that he has found out he is a bigger threat than ever due to being Lucifer's muppet, he wants to return to hunting with Dean. For once Dean stood his ground and kept Sam out in the cold where he belongs. This is where the conversation should have ended for a few more episodes at least. Sam is supposed to be recovering from addiction, but instead of going to rehab and a support group, he wants to carry on as if nothing has happened. Sam has clearly not learnt any lessons whatsoever.

The point of this episode was to make Dean cave into Sam's wishes and let him back into the fold, but this (and the following episode) frames the whole malarkey as something which Dean needs to learn a lesson from. As if Dean's apology and Sam's lack thereof in the final scene did not make that clear enough, it is Dean who is in the wrong here, not Sam.

You will remember two analyses ago I made reference to Lachrymosa by Evanescence, and it still feels relevant. 'Willing/ to let you blame it on me / and set your guilt free'. Notwithstanding the fact the song is about Amy Lee's break-up with Sean Morgan after a family suicide and alcohol addiction, these are uncannily apt for Dean and Sam. Whether literally or not, Dean is 'lying' in order to keep Sam near him. He is leaving much unsaid and once more allowing Sam to blame him. The loop of mistreatment and self-flagellation in their brotherhood is frustrating, but unfortunately true to life for many relationships. But I sure as Hell ain't gonna celebrate Salmondean or wish it well.

This unfortunately undermined the far more enjoyable scene between Dean and Cas. Their conversation in the cold open ended with Dean telling Cas to pick him up in the morning after letting Dean sleep, whereupon Cas utters the much-memed line 'I'll just wait here then.' And indeed he did wait there until the agreed time when he rescued Dean from Zachariah's clutches in the nick of time. Relieved at being saved and happy to see Cas, Dean looks him straight in the eyes and says 'Don't ever change'. Their relationship has changed a lot since even the beginning of the previous episode, Cas's smile in return says very clearly that Cas was very much in love Dean at that point.

A far more pleasing end to this episode would have been Dean and Cas in the car together with no toxicity or heavy baggage to show that things have changed since Sam left, but alas.

Lucifer!Sam was an interesting take on Lucifer, quite different than what the viewer might have expected. Jensen and various staff have praised Jared's performance. It was very different than Sam and when watching the scene, I did not Sam. However, it did not personally appeal to me, perhaps because this is far from the first time I have seen a deity in human form; Buffy and Angel got there way before this, and The Sandman and American Gods before them. The last of these is perhaps why I do no personally care about Lucifer in a white suit: it almost feels derivative of Gaiman. It also feels too Supernatural, i.e. low-budget.

As for the content of the conversation, I am sure I have heard this version of Lucifer's story elsewhere, but I do not remember where. It is remarkably similar to (surprise surprise) Lucifer in Gaiman's Sandman, who is also heavily influenced by Paradise Lost. Whatever the ultimate source, the idea that Lucifer refused to bow to mankind because he loved God more is clearly an attempt to portray himself as the victim in the whole situation (kinda like Sam, really), whether or not it is true.

But since this is all Zachariah's holodeck, it can be concluded that this was Zachariah's attempt at breaking Dean's will by showing him that Sam will say yes to Lucifer. The only thing Dean can do to prevent what he saw coming to pass is to say yes to Michael, or so Zachariah wants him to believe.

While listening to The Sandman the other day, I heard Lucifer refer to himself as Samael, which jogged my memory after having read that bit of lore a few months ago. This led me down a rabbit hole to a film I watched at about 1 o'clock in the morning on holiday in Skegness in roughly 2008, Gabriel. The main character in this is archangel Gabriel and the antagonist is none other than Sammael, i.e. Lucifer.

Before he became known as Lightbringer (which is what Lucifer means in Latin), his name was Sammael. If I did not know the story of how Dean and Sam's names were chosen, I might think that Sam's name had been chosen for this reason.

As an aside, I also have no idea where the idea that humans are 'hairless apes' comes from. Humans are hairy, especially the men, so who is hairless?

Using the Croatoan virus from 2x09 Croatoan was a clever idea, but unfortunately it did not come to much. One scene with a hoard of not-zombies disappointed me. If this were The Walking Dead, the survivors' compound would have been overrun by sudden, unexpected zombies ex nihilo and only Dean and Cas would have made it out. Fortunately for us, though, this show is not The Walking Dead, because the writing on that show makes Supernatural look fantastic. In the first episode of Dead City alone there were about five instances of zombie ex nihilo, the first one in the first two minutes. And that is not even getting into how silly most of the stuff with the marshals was. Yikes.

One last comment on the not-zombies: Dean had to run from them, but in the scene it is clear that Jensen is not running his hardest. The reason for this is that he runs too fast and the actors playing the infected could not catch up to him. Because of this, the scene would have lacked all threat, so Jensen was asked to run slower.

Thus concludeth this analysis. The angels are putting pressure on Dean to say yes, but he has shown again that he will refuse them and choose his own path. If only he had the same strength of will regarding Sam. Sam's opportunity to sort himself out a bit and become an adult has been scuppered, but at least he does not have to take the blame for anything anymore. And Cas has definitely latched onto Dean. Next time, Paris Hilton eats people and Sam continues the regular scheduled broadcast by gaslighting Dean into oblivion. Such fun!

You can read more of my analyses here:

Series 1

Series 2

Series 3

Series 4

Series 5

Sundry

You can read Paula’s review here and Demian’s here.

[lostcauses-noregrets]

Sometimes I'm still a bit confused about Levi's choice or rather with Isayama's philosophy about death. Like yes Levi let Erwin rest to preserve his humanity and free him from his guilt and suffering right? But that sounds like people that are broken never have a chance of healing, which kinda contradicts Levi's ending because Levi (seemingly) was able to atleast find peace, and also how him and Hange were talking about how Erwin would be excited and try to feed the car carrots and buy the whole ice cream cart. Sometimes it feels like Levi gave up on Erwin, because he clearly didn't believe Erwin is broken to the point he can't heal, am I wrong? Idk I just feel like it contradicts itself sometimes and I don't like this philosophy of death being the only way to heal/save someone especially when it contradicts itself with the ending. Like i realise Levi has a different personality and is stronger mentally but the way Isayama and co. talked about how much Erwin's death affected him and how much Levi loves Erwin and how Levi is Erwin's stronghold, and also that Isayama or Kamiya quote that goes something like "To Levi, as long as Erwin was okay and as long as he was by his side, everything will be ok" it's just kinda hard to believe that death was the only way to save Erwin especially because he didn't neccesarily wanna die? I hope you understand my question, I was kinda rambled a bit there my bad 😭

Anonymous asked

Levi letting Erwin rest feels a bit like he was beyond saving and sometimes I have a hard time accepting the philosophy, especially since Isayama contradicts that mindset in his own writing sometimes. I don't think Levi thinks Erwin was beyond saving, and if he did it seems like he gave up on Erwin kinda? Erwin didn't seem suicidal, he was just burdened with guilt but also Levi was his stronghold? It's hard making sense of Levi's choice sometimes tbh, he himself seems like he thinks life is worth living even if the world is shit, because there are some things worth living for, even though there will always be pain and something missing. I don't know if you get my point hahaha but maybe you can explain your view of this? Especially because Levi says he has no regrets makes me think doesn't he ever think of what could have been or if he did something different? I know he's the type of person to not look back because you can’t change it anyways, but he's still human and we know he thinks of Erwin like "If Erwin was here..." and he misses him. Help, I love eruri but i always had trouble with this.

I’m going to answer both these asks together because I suspect they’re from the same person. The first one has been in my inbox for months now, so I apologise for taking so long to answer. 

So, this is an interesting one.  As Anon has said, there’s a perception among some fans that the reason Levi chose not to give Erwin the Titan serum, is that he had reached such chronic depths of despair and depression that the only way to save him was to let him die.  Some fans are understandably unhappy about this because it implies that people with depression are beyond recovery, or as Anon puts it, “people that are broken never have a chance of healing”.  However there’s a fundamental misunderstanding here about why Levi made the decision to let Erwin die.  It’s true that Erwin suffered from guilt and despair as he struggled to reconcile his desire to fulfil his dream with his duty to save humanity (despite the fact that both goals were entirely in line).  And it’s true that in chapter 80 he said that there were many times that he thought it would be easier to die, however to understand Levi’s decision you need to turn to chapter 84.  Levi’s initial decision is to use the Titan serum to revive Erwin, but there are two things that convince him to change his mind. The first is Floch’s insistence that Erwin is the devil who deserves to spend more time in hell because only the devil himself can destroy the Titans.  (Floch was right about that, but he was wrong about who the devil was.) This is what starts to turn the tide and change Levi’s mind.  Erwin had already become the devil because that’s what humanity demanded of him and Levi did not want to drag him back to hell and compound his torment by turning him into a literal monster. 

The second is his remembrance of Erwin’s pursuit of his dream, and Kenny’s parting words that “everyone is a slave to something”.  Levi knew that Erwin was enslaved by his dream and he understood the toll that had taken on him, but he was able to give Erwin his humanity back by absolving him of his guilt and setting him on the path he knew he had to take. This is why Erwin looks at peace when he thanks Levi, and this is why Levi makes his decision.  In death Erwin would finally be free from the hell of the world and his enslavement to his dream. 

Isayama makes this crystal clear in the Character Encyclopaedia. 

As to whether Levi regretted his decision, that’s a different question. It’s worth remembering that Levi’s no regrets philosophy isn’t that you should never regret your actions, it’s that you should try to take the course of action you’ll least regret, which is a bit different.  By letting Erwin die, Levi took the path he believed he would regret the least, and later in the manga he is unequivocal that he has no regrets about not choosing to revive Erwin.  This is hardly surprising given everything they have been through and the appalling odds they faced attempting to stop Eren’s catastrophic genocide. I don’t think that means he doesn’t miss Erwin though, it’s clear that Erwin, and the vow he swore to him are never far from his thoughts, right to the bitter end.

One thing I’m curious about is why this argument has sprung up in recent years. I don’t remember anyone interpreting Levi’s actions in this light when Midnight Sun was first published.  I suspect it’s partly due to lack of familiarity with the supplementary materials such as the Answers book and Character Guide, where Isayama spells out his intentions, and partly due to the benefit of hindsight. People see Levi living his best life with Gabi, Falco and Onyankopon and are sad that Erwin isn’t there, that he didn’t have the opportunity to live on with Levi after the war.  I understand that, I’m sad that Erwin didn’t live to see the end of the war too, but when I think about how much more of his humanity he would have had to sacrifice in order to get there, I can’t help thinking that Levi made the right decision. 

[knightotoc]

The beginning and end of Crosshair's arc each address a separate frustration I've had with Star Wars backpedaling on its own drama.

The first is the wishy-washiness of the clones' implanted brain chips. The original concept art from Attack of the Clones shows the clones to be victims of brainwashing. The sterile, science-gone-wrong imagery is inspired by Lucas' debut THX-1138, a bleak film with a tenuous and generally confrontational relationship to Star Wars. AotC, with its forbidden romance and evil fetus-growing laboratories, is the SW movie most similar to THX, and also my favorite.

The AotC concept artists went so far as to speculate that the clones did not have souls, an extreme reaction but certainly a dramatic tabula rasa to build characters upon. RotS briefly shows the Jedi's complete trust in the clones and the clones' ruthless betrayal; the explanation for this shocking behavior is implied through a parallel to Anakin, as is everything else in that movie.

But once the darn cartoon had been on cable for a few years, the writers lost faith in the THX reference and Anakin parallel and decided to replace brainwashing/manipulation with a physical Order 66 chip in the clones' brains. The idea that their characters had become too lovable to ever willingly do something so bad is a fundamental misunderstanding of Star Wars, the operatic genre, and human nature.

Season 7, while knocking it out of the park with the Maul stuff, made this brain chip thing even worse by having Ahsoka break Rex's before he had to kill any Jedi. So even though the clones are innocent, the protagonist clone is even more innocent.

And now he's supposed to lead the clones away from the Empire, but why should they follow someone who can't even relate to their fundamental curse? He's like Galahad, the only knight chaste enough to find the Holy Grail, and they're like Bors, who is technically chaste except for that one time he had sex because he got tricked by a magic spell. Thank God for rigid moral hierarchies beyond earthly control!

The only other clones who can't relate to the chip curse are the Bad Batch, since their mutated brains made them immune to it. But while the goodies don't hurt a fly, Crosshair uses his special gift of free will to shoot at a cute little Padawan. And not just any Padawan, but one of the most beloved Jedi to ever do it, the future Kanan Jarrus.

So in a bent around way, Crosshair punches through this annoying loophole the cartoon writers made in one of the movies' darkest scenes. He's not matchy-matchy, but he is still genuinely brainwashed, which makes him the only clone who still follows their original violent vision.

So, the twist at the beginning of Crosshair's arc course-corrects a decision made in a spin-off about the motivations for background characters -- but the end of his arc addresses a much bigger problem, one that affects the greatest scenes and biggest characters in the whole story: amputation.

Luke's spiritual pain from learning the truth about his father is accompanied by the physical pain of amputation. Obi-Wan demonstrates his unexpected badassery through amputation. Luke demonstrates his burgeoning badassery by Force-pulling his lightsaber toward him...shortly followed by amputation. Anakin's repeated carelessness for his weapon and life leads to him stupidly running right into amputation. Kreia proves her twisted devotion by amputation. Cay Qel-Droma becomes dependent on his brother because of amputation. Obi-Wan will not kill Anakin, but he will amputate him.

And these scenes are scary and intense, in the moment. But they do not have consequences. All of these amputees are either alien villains who we never hear from again, or Force-wielders supported by a wealthy institution which instantly provides a perfect prosthetic. Only Kreia runs around with an actual stump, but her signature move is telekinetically spinning three purple lightsabers.

There are several heart-stirring images, such as Anakin's robotic hand holding Padmé's at their wedding, or Luke's hand revealing gizmos instead of blood when he's shot on Jabba's yacht, but these images have more to do with Lucas' problematic theme of "nature > technology" than the theme of disability.

But Crosshair does not have the Force, and he certainly doesn't have the support of any institution. Most dramatically of all, his amputation is not the tragic finale of his battle, but only the penultimate act.

As a fantastically skilled sniper, Crosshair relies more upon his hands than any other SW character I know. His astounding precision is demonstrated most memorably in this scene from an earlier season, in which the music stops to allow his laser fire to ricochet off a spinning disk, down a hallway, and right into his clanker target's head:

This isn't the Force. This isn't believing in something you can't see. This is deliberate!

Throughout the last season, Crosshair has a tremor in his dominant hand which significantly affects his aim. This comes to a terrible head when he misses the shot meant to attach a tracking device to the ship kidnapping his sister Omega (again). After years of doing wrong, he finally wants to do right, and he fails because of his humiliating and unprepared-for disability.

This disability continues throughout the long journey to track her down by their wits, until he is finally captured himself. Just as escape seems close, the Imperials cut off his dominant hand to punish him. In all the other cases of amputation in Star Wars, it takes a guy completely out of the fight. But Crosshair can't afford to lose, yet. He has to keep going.

In the final battle scene, the villain is hand-cuffed to Omega on the other end of a bridge (with no hand rails of course), and Crosshair has to shoot the hand-cuffs off so the badguy can fall without dragging down Omega. Crosshair has to lean his rifle on his brother Hunter's shoulder, balance with his stump, and pull the trigger with his non-dominant hand.

The first Star Wars movie is actually unique among the franchise for having a purely satisfying victory -- the other ones all pile on some tragedy or irony -- but I think that Crosshair's victory is the most satisfying of all.

[cleromancy]

Something has been bugging me recently. Do you ever notice how people (particularly Jason stans) go on about how Tim victim blame's Jason for his own death, but fail to mention how Alfred and Bruce are guilty of doing the same thing in the past? Why do these two (especially Alfred) get a pass?

LMAO LIKE... EVERYONES DONE IT. BRUCE ALFRED DICK BABS *SELINA* OF ALL PEOPLE ONE TIME... actually id have to double check that one idr exactly what she said about jason it might have just been that hes unhinged (<- also a thing everyones said at some point) but like. everyones freakin done it. or at least *implied* it.

tim is a special case for a reason though--and ill come back to bruce and alfred later--and its not just bc fandom wants a scapegoat to pin All The Victim-Blaming on. on a meta level tim was specifically created to be jasons opposite, and to ~rehabilitate the robin role and make robin palatable again to modern readers. (and to be clear this wasnt bc readers didn't like jason specifically--it was the idea of robin at all, and to a lesser extent just replacing the orig. jason just took on the mantle at a really unfortunate period in comics culture.) so the comparisons to jason are baked in right off the bat. and tim has to be "better". tim had to prove that a robin was necessary so that dc could keep having one, he had to justify it so that the blame didnt fall on bruce for getting a child killed (or yk even just out there fighting crime at all). theres also an element of class dynamics thats. i mean. jason was a homeless street kid and tims this fancy little distinctly upper middle class kid who replaces him, without derailing to get too deep into that the optics already arent fucking great.

but tims creation aside, just as far as how often it comes up... tim also takes the role of robin really seriously, and its everything to him, so he spends a lot of time thinking about it, what it means to wear the uniform & fulfil the role. so hes the one whos most frequently in the position to be thinking about jason, after bruce. so tim winds up being the one pushing the bulk of the bad/angry/impulsive robin narrative retcon dc wanted to push bc... its the most directly relevant to him. bruce doesnt have much narrative need to think about jason "failing" or not being good enough until under the red hood... except to be like "i dont have to worry about tim bc hes not like jason." lmao. and then you have tim who does not want to get killed, like jason did, so he spends time thinking about how to not end up like jason. which is a fundamental misunderstanding of how being a victim of murder works but i think understandable thing for a child replacement of another dead child to latch onto (particularly one as prone to arrogance & god-complex-itude as Our Timmy, lol). and both on a meta level and in-universe this is about shifting the blame off of bruce and onto the victim because tim needs to keep filling the role hes filling without it being bruces fault that jason died in the first place, bc reckoning with batman and child endangerment is not smth the comics had ever really planned on doing in a serious way.

but as for why singling tim out over bruce and alfred-- the kind of ppl who do this already generally think bruce sucks past the point of being interested in ~holding him accountable~ for absolutely anything... like "bruce sucks, everyone knows he sucks, enough said." i think the logic is generally like "if tims not a total shithead like bruce, then why is he doing shithead stuff like bruce does :/" and then pinning it all on tim as opposed to considering like "hey uhhh do you think maybe hearing stories about jason from bruce influences how tim thinks of jason over the years." if that makes sense

as for alfred. people do not want alfred to have any interiority or to ever have been mean or wrong bc then theyd have to actually think about the fact that bruce has a 24/7 domestic servant in his employ, which is just the. tip of the iceberg when you start thinking about alfred as a full character and not a convenient cardboard cutout to prop up whoever the narrative needs him to. also alfreds role in almost every batman narrative is strictly as support, almost no agency within the story to have a meaningful impact, and people generally respond to the character in kind.

finally i think tim mmmmight be the only character at least as of the reboot who ever talked *to jason* outloud style about certain things relating to jasons death... this answer is already getting too long so i dont want to get into depth about titans tower. but tt 2003 #29 is a great example of the comics pitting tim and jason against each other to make Jason look worse by comparison--for all that tim doesn't actually *say* anything victim blaming jason for his death, *and* for all that jason totally kicks tims ass in the fight and its not even close, on a meta level the story is 100% presenting jason as the bad robin, the robin who failed, Unlike Tim Drake, A *Good* Robin. (i accidentally reread the issue ... im going to make a post about it later probably. god i wish this fucking issue had been good)

but yeah i could probably go on and on even further but yeah, i think thats where people are coming from when they single timmy out. tim only exists at all bc of jason n would be fundamentally unrecognizable without having been crafted to be the anti-jason. and on top of that he has repeatedly been used by dc to make jason look worse (or rather jason was used to make tim look better), and a lot of my fellow jason stans understandably resent tim for it. i however am built different, and want them to kiss.