hamliet

[hamliet]

Yang's Songs Burn Gold

A quick meta on our golden beauty's songs, with a special focus on "I Burn".

First of all, I have always thought "I Burn" was the song that told us the least about its character, when compared to the other trailer/volume 1 songs. After all, we have Red Like Roses Pt2, Mirror Mirror and From Shadows, which give us deep dives into each girl's psychology and trauma. And then we have "I Burn", which is effectively about how awesome Yang is :''')

I burn! Can't hold me now And you're not stopping me I burn! Swing all you want Like a fever I will take you down.

Still, just like our yellow beauty this song is more than meets the eye.

A SUPERFICIAL SONG FOR A PARTY GIRL?

At surface level, "I Burn" is simply Yang singing to Junior that she is gonna trash him:

You're starting up a fight that you just can't finish Watch the little hearts while they scrape you off the floor Bringing out your rockets? Well, shoot 'em up, baby High as you can go, but I'm the one who's gonna soar

It doesn't have to be this way Let's kiss and make up, then you'll learn You can fight your life away I get what I want, so don't bother and just watch me burn

That's why the lyrics directly reference the yellow trailer (the little hearts, the rockets, the "let's kiss and make up" line). And yet, if one goes a little deeper it becomes clear the song sets up Yang's major themes. To be precise, it delves into the meaning behind Yang's trailer quote:

Scathing eyes ask that we be symmetrical, one sided and easily processed. Yet every misshapen spark's unseen beauty is greater than its would be judgement.

Yang's main theme is that asymmetry is beautiful. There is no person, who is "just right". On the contrary, everyone is imperfect, unbalanced and misshapen. And yet, it's this complexity so difficult to process that's true beauty. This idea is carried on by Yang's character herself:

She is an asymmetric beauty both:

Physically - she loses an arm throughout the series

Psychologically - she feels incomplete, as if she is missing something:

Past Yang: Isn’t that what you want? To be whole again? Yang: No. My losses, my failures. Those more than anything are what have shaped me into who I am, showed me how I need to grow. If there’s something I’m missing, it’s not because I lost it. It’s because I haven’t found it yet. And the only way to do that is to keep going.

At the same time, Yang herself needs to learn to process complexity in both herself and others:

Weiss: You're right though. I don't know loneliness like you do. I have my own version. And, I'll bet Blake has her own version too.

In short, to truly accept herself, she must first learn to see things in a way which is less black and white. This is her arc in a nutshell.

"I Burn", though, is meant to be the very beginning of her story. So, Yang has still a simplistic vision of herself and the world. As a result, she is straightforward, as it is typical of her personality. Not only that, but at the very beginning of the story Yang is very out of touch with her inner world, or at least she hides it. She is focused on the outside, not the inside. This is why her song is about an enemy she meets once and easily trashes. For her it is easier to build an identity on physical strength, rather than going deeper within herself. And yet, no matter how much Yang tries to mask it, the set-up for her wonderful and complex character is already there.

MORE THAN MEETS THE EYE

Come at me And you'll see I'm more than meets the eye

Yang is more than meets the eye. What does it mean exactly?

In the context of the yellow trailer, it is about Yang looking like a sexy blondie, but being a great fighter:

Junior: So you know who I am. You got a name, sweetheart? Yang: Yes, Junior, I've got several. But instead of sweetheart, you can just call me sir.

In the context of our golden girl's arc, it is about Yang being a misshapen spark whose beauty can't be understood by scathing eyes:

Yet every misshapen spark Suffers the judgment and pain But just as light conquers dark There's a beauty that's greater Than pure symmetry can contain -From the song Ignite

And as every spark ever, she burns:

You think that You'll break me You're gonna find in time You're standing too close to a flame that's burning Hotter than the sun in the middle of July

So, she is hot, in the sense of both hot-headed (her semblance) and "beautiful". That is the dichotomy Yang's song is built on. At the same time, "I Burn" sets up other major motifs of Yang's character.

Like her super-saiyan inspiration:

Reign supreme? In your dreams You'll never make me bow Kick my ass? I'm world-class And Super Saiyan now

And the imagery of an "army" linked to her:

Sending out your army, but you still can't win Listen up, silly boy, 'cause I'm gonna tell you why

YANG, THE SUPER SAIYAN

Yang's looks and powers make her similar to a Dragonball's Super Saiyan, like she herself sings to us. Whenever she uses her semblance, she even looks like one, as her hair shines and her eyes change color. It is just that Super Saiyan's eyes turn blue, whereas Yang's turn red. Other than physically, though, Yang is like these warriors in two ways.

On a superficial level, Yang's Burn works like the saiyans' powers:

saiyans grow stronger when angry, just like Yang's semblance is partly activated by her fury

saiyans grow stronger when they get hurt and then cured, which is the idea behind Burn in a nutshell

Ruby: Don't worry! With each hit she gets stronger, and she uses that energy to fight back! That's what makes her special.

On a deeper level, Yang's arc is about:

growing stronger, as she gets more in touch with all her feelings, not just anger

learning that what makes her stronger isn't her getting hurt, but rather her healing from her wounds

In other words, the super saiyan's allusion is used to design both Yang's semblance and her story. She grows stronger not when cured physically, but after healing psychologically:

That was before But not anymore I've left it behind As much as I lost Once I'm across, I'll find I've found the strength to grow so much more A whisper to a roar No more crying It's time for me to soar Feel like I'm finally unbroken Feel like I'm back from the dead My strength back and confidence growing Out of my way 'Cause I'm armed and ready!

YANG, ONE WOMAN-ARMY

Yang has an "armed/army" motif going on in her songs.

From "Sending out your army, but you still can't win" in "I Burn", to Armed and Ready:

Armed and ready Ready! Armed and ready I'm ready! Armed and ready Ready! Ready! Armed and ready

To Nervermore:

You had me down, defeated A state that I can't allow It's over, my fear's retreated I'm more like an army now

What does it mean?

At face value, it means Yang is one woman-army. After all her introduction is her single-handedly (pun intended) defeating a literal army. And even after Adam steals one hand from her, she is still strong enough to recover and to be reborn as her own army. She gets armed and ready to fight again and to defeat new enemies.

If one digs a little deeper, though, it becomes obvious the "army" symbolism hides a play on words, which is perfect for our pun-loving Goldilocks. The interpretative key to this joke lies in the song Ignite:

And any remarkable heart Has gone through the hardship and shame That's born of standing apart From the easily processed The uniform army of "same"

Yang's enemy is the uniform army of "same". In short, it is symmetry. This checks with her trailer, where Yang fights Junior's army:

And the Malachite Twins:

Both are declination of "uniformity" and "symmetry":

Junior's army are the judgmental "bears" of Yang's fairy tale, as some wear bears' masks. They even have red tinted glasses, so they look at Yang with scathing eyes

The Malachite Twins are hot and cold and together they are symmetrical, even complementing each other's fighting styles

Yang defeating them marks her superiority over symmetry, as a concept. She isn't a part of the uniform army of same. This army made of symmetrical people, all the same, all with two arms. They are arm-y, but Yang is gonna become arm-less. And yet, she is still worth an army, both as a fighter and as a person. How is it possible? It's because every misshapen spark's unseen beauty is greater than its would be judgement.

YANG, THE HOTTEST

Yang is built on the idea of "hot":

Hotter than the sun Feel my fire Pyromaniac: my desire Thought that you could see the truth 'Til I just burned down the booth Human Torch can't fuck with me Johnny Blaze: Suspect B Strike 'em quick, lightning fast Melt them bitches down to ash Gasoline, kerosene Strike a match, ignite the scene Shit will never be the same Feel the fury of my flame Beg for mercy: it won't help Embrace the ending you were dealt Seems you fucks will never learn Now sit back and watch me burn

She is "hot" in the sense of a beautiful girl. She is "hot" in the sense of hot-headed. She is the "too hot" of her fairy-tale, so she can't be just right. She is asymmetrical. And yet, in this asymmetry lies her beauty. So, she is hotter (more beautiful) than everyone else. She is the "hottest". So hot that she can play the beauty in "The Beauty And The Beast":

Black the beast descends from shadows. Yellow beauty burns gold.

And yet her true beauty isn't as easy to see, so Yang herself makes fun of us. She sings "thought that you could see the truth", but by the time of the Yellow Trailer we really can't. All we can do is to see her story unravel and show its complexity. All we can do is to "sit back and watch her burn".

I BURN = GOLDILOCK AND THE THREE BEARS

There are two versions of "I Burn". The first is the complete version, which sounds like a rock song. The second is a remix used for the Yellow Trailer. The Yellow Trailer version combines all the other girls' songs and ends with a short version of "I Burn". This choice is interesting on two levels:

-Alchemy: We start with Red Like Roses, which is about RWBY as a whole. We end with "I Burn", which combines everyone's song together. That is because Ruby (red phase) and Yang (yellow phase) are two different side of the same archetype: the self. And the self combines all the archetypes (shadow, animus and persona) together in one unit. So, our introduction to RWBY starts and ends with our two alchemical sisters:

-Goldilock: Yang's fairy tale motif has RWB play her three bears, as they grow into her adoptive family. Ruby (red) is the too hot, Weiss (blu) is the too cold and Blake (purple= blue + red) is the just right. So, Yang's song uses the three girls' songs to metaphorical illustrate Yang's Goldilock story. She goes through the too hot (red like roses), the too cold (mirror mirror), the just right (from shadows) only to explode into a burning beauty which is like the sun. It is impossible for normal eyes to even look at it.

[hamliet]

As romance fan, have you ever read any manga/manhwa (either m/f, m/m or f/f) that you wish the main couple don't end up together like they just have strong platonic bond? Or either character end up romantically with other character (2nd ml or fl)? Sorry for this random ask.

For me some are Maomao/Jinshi (Apothecary Diaries), Eren/Mikasa (Aot), & Yamato/Yuuji (Koimonogatari)

Not exactly manga/manhwa, but I wasn't super into Kataang. I preferred Katara and Zuko. However, I also wasn't opposed to Kataang in theory, but more how it was written (which was weak) vs how her bond with Zuko was written. I believe the writers even stated that they realized they kind of botched the Katara and Aang getting together part, which yeah. They did.

I'm pretty open to ships. Pretty much all I want from a main pairing is for it to embody the themes and matter for the story. I may feel less consumed by some ships (as main ships can be sanitized) than side ones (like say Ed and Winry vs Roy and Riza in FMA), but I still want them to end up together because the story set it up.

So while I haven't read Koimonogatari, for Eren and Mikasa and for MaoMao and Jinshi, I absolutely think they needed to get together romantically for the story to make sense. Because while all forms of love are powerful, romantic love is not identical or interchangeable with other types (and platonic is not interchangeable either). It's more exclusive typically, and involves a sexual component and physical vulnerability that, in certain stories like The Apothecary Diaries, are extremely relevant to the themes.

In TAD, Jinshi pretending to be a eunuch is symbolic of his reluctance to fully self-actualize, understanding who he is and whom he wants to be. While of course sexuality isn't necessary to be an adult, it is a significant part of it for many people, and in these types of coming-of-age stories (which TAD is), it would be a major turning point. Him accepting desire and pursuing what he wants is necessary for his growth. Similarly, for Maomao, her growing up in a brothel but believing she's incapable of love is something she has to overcome. Platonically, she always has overcome it--the mental bind for her is specifically romantic (and sexual) love. Them feeling safe to live that life together and form their own--healthy--family is kind of integral to the themes, and the foundation of the story.

For Eremika, I would also say that Armin and Annie was my OTP. Eremika didn't give me all the feelings. That said, I knew it was romantic and that it had to be for the story to make sense. What Mikasa always wanted was a family. Her killing Eren was her sacrifice, less a rebuke of her love and an affirmation. She still got her family, of course, but her love for Eren endured. I've talked about this before, but I think the romantic aspect was crucial because it had unhealthy and healthy aspects to it, and it would have been less powerful as a conclusion without this. Armin killing Eren just wouldn't have the same impact, and that's why the story ends with Armin taking credit for it--to allow Mikasa to grieve, because she and Eren shared something romantic.

However, and this is important--what I think and prefer from ships and dynamics doesn't matter! It's fine to en joy what you enjoy and prefer friendships if you prefer those. We all look for different things from the stories we engage with and enjoy. I'm just explaining why, for me, those ships have to be romantic.

[hamliet]

Ready For This

"Ready For This" marks the beginning of Charlie's transformation and is (together with the final fight) the climax of our Princess's arc in season 1. As a result this song is meaningful for both:

Charlie's external journey

Charlie's internal journey

1- THE EXTERNAL JOURNEY: FINDING ONE'S VOICE

Charlie: Lilith thrived, empowering demonkind with her voice and songs.

Charlie wants to grow into a person like Lilith, who inspires others with her songs. This is a metaphor for her becoming a political leader, capable to move people with one's voice. Just a little problem... Charlie initially sucks at this, as her two introductory songs make clear.

Happy Day in Hell has nobody sing Charlie's song. Rather, they all sing the opposite and nobody follows her rhythm.

Inside of Every Demon is a Rainbow has everyone meet Charlie's musical number with scorn and laugh.

So, our Princess tries hard to enthrall people with her voice, but she keeps failing. Why is that so? It has to do with who she is inside.

2- THE INTERNAL JOURNEY: PERSONA + SHADOW

Who is Charlie inside? She is a mix of different parts. According to Jung, in fact, a person's self is made by two halves:

The persona or the mask, which is what is shown to both others and oneself

The shadow or the inner beast, which is what is hidden from both others and oneself

Both parts are equally important and together they make the person. In particular, a person with a strong self integrates persona and shadow, accepts both and knows when to use one and when to use the other. However, Charlie is a walking persona, who represses her shadow. So, she presents herself as naive and innocent with no negative emotion ever. However, this is false. It is just that she represses every bad feeling she has:

Vaggie: Well, I mean... You're the princess of Hell. Charlie: So? Vaggie: So, you don't really use the power that comes with that, which I love about you, but maybe you can... I don't know, command a little more... Authority? Charlie: But that's so mean...!

This repression isn't good and makes so Charlie struggles to communicate. That's because she suffocates herself behind a pollyanna mask, that gives an impression of childishness and shallowness. In short, by repressing her negative feelings, she also represses her potential as a communicator/performer. It is only by facing herself as a whole, that she can bloom into her most powerful self.

VAGGIE, ALASTOR AND ROSIE: INTEGRATING THE SHADOW

In order to complete her external journey (grow into a good political leader), Charlie needs to go through an internal journey (integration of the shadow). This happens thanks to three characters.

Vaggie has Charlie’s shadow come out. As a matter of fact Vaggie's own Jungian Shadow shatters Charlie's understanding of the world and forces the Princess’s dark side to appear. That is because Vaggie is at the heart of Charlie's coping mechanism. The Princess of Hell can go through everything as long as her partner is by her side. Still, what to do when said partner isn't who Charlie thought? After all, Vaggie is so important to Charlie because she is the only one who believes in her dream. However, if Vaggie could not trust Charlie enough to share her past as an exorcist, then what does it say about her faith in Charlie and her Hazbin Hotel? And if Vaggie doesn't truly believe in Charlie, what is left of Charlie herself?

Alastor teaches Charlie everyone wears a persona and hides a shadow:

Alastor: Just because you see a smile don't think you know what's going on underneath.

The cover isn't the book. At the same time, the cover itself can be a powerful weapon if well honed:

Alastor: A smile is a valuable tool, my dear. It inspires your friends, keeps your enemies guessing, and ensures that no matter what comes your way, you're the one in control.

A person should know what to show and what to hide to better reach her objectives.

Rosie helps Charlie face her shadow. In particular, she helps the Princess of Hell:

Deal with a little fragment of her negative emotions

Deal with Vaggie's complexity and contradictions

On the one hand Charlie has to face herself:

Charlie: She always supported me, and my ideas, and-and- and now, I don't know whether or not that was just more of the lies! Oh no that's a horrible thing to think! Do i think that?! Yes! N-no. Kinda?

It is normal to be angry because your partner lied to you for years. And yet, Charlie is so scared of negativity and conflict she feels guilt over such a natural reaction. She is scared her dark side will destroy her world. What if she doesn't love Vaggie anymore? Charlie's reality would crumble. Still, she only has to be brave enough to look inside to see nothing is destroyed:

Rosie: You said you love this girl? Charlie: Yes. Or well, I...yes

On the other hand Charlie has to face Vaggie:

Rosie: Have you ever once doubted that she loved you in return? Charlie shakes her head Rosie: Well, then what's the problem? Charlie: She took part in the very thing we've been working so hard to end! Rosie: Well, isn't that silly hotel of yours all about redemption? Charlie: Yes? Rosie: Perhaps this girl, was trying to redeem herself too.

She has to understand Vaggie, just like everyone else, isn't as easy to read and needs to be looked at through a more complex lens:

Rosie: If there's anything I've learned, it's that words are cheap, but actions, they speak the truth. So, what have her actions said?

So, Charlie faces herself and is able to face Vaggie as a result. She realizes what's holding her back is the fear of her emotions, rather than her emotions themselves. After all, she was always going to forgive Vaggie to begin with:

However, she could have never discovered this, if she hadn't accepted her own pain first. After all, you can't forgive, if you do not admit you are angry.

READY FOR... A NEW SONG?

In "Hello Rosie" Charlie integrates a little bit of her shadow, which lets her:

Resolve her feelings for Vaggie (internal journey)

Get through the cannibals (external journey)

When it comes to the second point, she charms the cannibals with a brand new song, which is the pinnacle of her character development up until this point. In particular, she combines Rosie and Alastor’s teachings. On the one hand she taps into her inner shadow to deal with complexity (Rosie). On the other hand she uses her persona strategically (Alastor).

In other words, "Ready For This" is a song where Charlie's shadow and persona start coming together. This musical number combines:

Charlie's newfound self - a leader in the works (the shadow)

Charlie's old self - a smiling princess who loves old musicals (the persona)

Let's see how it happens.

THE SHADOW - NOT INSIDE OF EVERY DEMON IS A RAINBOW

After integrating a part of her shadow, Charlie becomes able to see others' complexity better. This marks a huge improvement in her inspirational skills, which becomes obvious if you compare "Ready For This" with "Inside Of Every Demon Is A Rainbow". This comparison is suggested by the series itself:

Charlie: Well, I run this hotel with my part... well someone and...Wait, let me start over. Angels are coming to kill us all and we need help defending our realm. So-- we, uh... we need your help-- With your assistance, we can make a stand for-- [Charlie sings] I...I have a dream and I--

Charlie starts a reprise of "Inside Of Every Demon Is A Rainbow" only to be booed by Susan. Why is that so? And why does she get through the "ornery old bitch" with "Ready For This?"

First of all, let's compare how the two songs start:

Both have Charlie standing on a stage, as light shines upon her. She is in the spotlight and is ready to deliver a very important speech. Still, she goes at it in opposite ways:

I have a dream, I'm here to tell About a wonderful, fantastic new hotel Yes, it's one of a kind, right here in Hell Catering to a specific clientele

On the one hand Charlie's focus in Inside Of Every Demon Is A Rainbow is herself. She has a dream she is here to tell. She shares her big project, the dream she adores without doing anything to target it to her public.

Charlie: Have you ever wanted something That was so clear in your mind that you could taste it? Susan: You mean like human flesh? Charlie: Uhh, sort of.. It's a feeling like a rumbling in your gut That you could finally be faced with A billion needy faces, I guess what I mean to say is

On the other hand Charlie's approach in Ready For This is focused on the people in front of her. She describes how she feels by using words that will easily resonate with the cannibals, like "taste" and "gut". Moreover, she asks them rhetorical questions to help them relate to her. She is trying to make her ideas easy for her public to understand.

At the same time, Charlie isn't compromising herself nor her feelings. If anything, she is sharing with the audience something deeper than the happy dream she sings about in "Inside Of Every Demon Is A Rainbow". She is sharing her vulnerability:

For the first time in my life I might have to be ready for this Ready to be the one who's leading from the front Gotta come into my own Gotta come into my throne Gotta take charge and defend my only home And although I kinda feel unsteady Now I need to be ready for this

Charlie is finally being honest with herself, so she appears more genuine in her performance. As a matter of fact our Princess has the tendency to present herself as a paragon, someone perfectly perfect in every way. Still, this usually backfires, as people get annoyed by this behavior. Ironically, Charlie is much more inspirational when she shows a glimpse of her unsteady and imperfect self. After all, it is her strength and honesty to persevere despite her flaws, which is amazing.

Another interesting point of comparison is how Charlie's body language differs in the two songs:

In Inside Of Every Demon Is A Rainbow she stands on the piano as if it were a stage. In Ready For This she instead slowly steps down from the stage, so that she can be closer with her audience. This ties with how our Princess tries to draw people into her performance.

In the pilot, she suddenly goes from singing on a stage to jumping around among the demons, which confuses them:

In Hello Rosie, she keeps asking questions and slowly involves the cannibals in her musical number:

Have you ever felt like you're willing to die To save the people of your city? Susan: By die, you mean use my teeth to rip flesh apart? Charlie: That's a start! 'Cause right now, we need a leader And it seems to me that Destiny has picked me to be that If you'll permit me So who's with me?

She encourages Susan and proposes herself as a leader, but makes clear it is the sinners' choice if to accept her or not.

It is only when Charlie is sure she has the demons' attention that she switches to a more upbeat rhythm and makes use of her natural showmanship. In short, at this point she goes back to her usual smile (her mask) and uses it to enchant the cannibals.

THE PERSONA - OLD SCHOOL MUSICAL

Charlie's usual Disney-Princess-who-loves-musicals personality is a good fit for Cannibal Town, as both Alastor and Rosie highlight:

Alastor: I know just who can help. As long as Charlie can be her normal, charming self.

Rosie: With sparkle! Razzamatazz! and that oh so appealing moxie of yours.

Why? It is because Cannibal Town and Rosie herself are a homage to old school musicals:

An early exploration sketch of Rosie references several songs from Hello Dolly (It Takes A Woman, Just Leave Everything To Me, I Put My Hand In There) and Mary Poppins (Practically Perfect, The Cover Is Not The Book).

Rosie is a combination of Dolly from "Hello, Dolly!" and Mary Poppins. This is why she plays both:

The matchmaker for Charlie and Vaggie (Hello Dolly!)

A step-in mother for Charlie, as she needs comfort (Mary Poppins)

Moreover, she is the metaphorical embodiment of the musical genre, as both "Hello, Dolly!" and "Mary Poppins" are classics. This is why Rosie is confident Charlie's song will find an interested public among her people:

Rosie: Well how do you normally explain your hotel? Charlie: By singing. But that never works. Rosie: It will work here. Trust me.

Charlie reads the room correctly and her musical number turns out to be a homage to Rosie's inspirations. It resembles songs like Step In Time and it references Dancing:

The choreography of Ready For This is very similar to that used in the movie musical Hello Dolly!

And Before The Parade Passes By:

In both songs there is a parade, which is used as a metaphor for the main character (Charlie and Dolly) to take back control over her life.

In general, Charlie charms the cannibals with tip tap dance, some classical tunes and old timey lyrics:

Wouldn't it be super to see more of Hell? Join up now if you like travel Come on boys, hop in the saddle Lotta sights to see en route to my hotel Not to mention the camaraderie Yes siree, you'll form life-changing friendships With the folks along the way

In short, the whole performance is targeted to the cannibals. This shows our Princess can be cunning, when she doesn't jump to conclusions and properly observes others (shadow/newfound maturity). At the same time, these 1910 Cannibals are an easy public for her because they happen to match her personal style (persona/natural personality).

NOT QUITE THERE YET

So, Charlie manages to combine shadow and persona, hidden depths and natural charm, new and old self. Does it mean she has reached her full maturity? No, as it is made clear by the song:

Alastor: And feast on all the angels you can eat! Charlie: Oookay…? Cannibals: Free food? I'm in Oh whoa Food

Charlie: Well, that's a little violent Can we tone it down? Rosie: Oh, don't be put off by their snarlin' That's enthusiasm, darlin'! Charlie: Eh, they just seem a little murdery right now Rosie: Don't worry, honey That's their thing Keep singing Charlie and Rosie: We're super duper grateful To have you folks aboard Cannibals: Can't wait to taste an angel's wings (Charlie: Oh, Lord...)

Charlie still needs Alastor and Rosie's help to fully succeed:

Alastor gives Charlie a little push by promising the cannibals what they want more than anything else (to eat)

Rosie invites Charlie to accept the cannibals as they are, rather than trying to "make them right"

So, Charlie has made progress at communicating with others and at understanding them. However, she is still learning and is supported by her two mentors.

Alastor enhances her voice:

Rosie helps her lead:

At the same time, Alastor and Rosie are two "evil mentors":

Alastor: She's filled with potential that I could guide Rosie: I concur Rosie and Alastor: Stick with her, you'll be on the winning side

They support Charlie, but they also have their own plans and goals. They teach the princess complexity, but they too are multi-layered. They too have their mask and shadow and are exceptional at using them.

So, our princess has learnt some tricks, but she still needs to become better both at:

Knowing what to hide and what to show (Telling a bunch of feisty cannibals whose help she needs to tone it down is not the best idea)

Reading others (she ignores Alastor and Rosie's schemes)

That said, "Ready For This" is Charlie's initial step in her development, which makes it normal that she is far from perfect. Maybe this is why the transitions are so raw that this musical piece sometimes feels like two different songs. It is a mirror of Charlie's own soul: two sides, which are coming together, but aren't completely integrated yet.

THE SELF - READY AS I'LL EVER BE?

The beauty of "Ready For This" is that it captures Charlie's unsteady and yet developing self. In this sense, it can be juxtaposed to the banger "Ready As I'll Ever Be", one of the most iconic Tangled's songs.

Ready As I'll Ever Be is just before the climax of Tangled's season 1 and it has all the characters affirm their determination by singing they are "ready as they'll ever be". Well, "Ready For This" has a similar function. Moreover, Charlie herself is strongly inspired by Rapunzel.

Both princesses have golden braided hair and golden hearts. Both are cheerful, optimistic, love singing and inspire others with their idealism.

And yet, "Ready For This" isn't as straightforward as "Ready As I'll Ever Be".

In Tangled everyone is in fact ready:

Now it's time to rise up or it's time to stand down And the answer is easy to see And I swear by the sword if you're in, get on board Are you ready? I'm ready We're ready (we're ready) Ready as I'll ever be

And at first sight you may say the same goes for Hazbin Hotel:

All: For the first time in our lives We know that we are ready for this Rosie: We'll show Heaven a fight they won't forget! (Alastor: Ahhh-ahhh-ahh) All: It's time to take a stand Charlie: It is time to lend a hand! (Cannibals: Huzzah!) Against the angels and their deadly threat! All: We cannot take it anymore The time has come to go to war Prepare to fight, we're ready for... THIS!

Alastor, Rosie and the cannibals all sing they know they are ready for this. Their last line is even that they ARE ready for the fight.

Still, is Charlie ready?

For the first time in my life I might have to be ready for this Ready to be the one who's leading from the front

And although I kinda feel unsteady Now I need to be ready for this

Charlie: For the first time in my life Maybe I can be ready for this I can be the marshal leading the parade I can come into my own And I think I've always known My destiny could never be postponed When Adam brings the battle here I must appear like I'm ready for this

She says she "might have to be ready", "needs to be ready", "maybe can be ready", "must appear like she is ready". Finally, she ends the song with:

Charlie: I really hope that I'm ready for this...

She never once sings that she is "ready for this". So, she definitely isn't "ready as she'll ever be". In fact, she isn't even sure she is ready at all. And yet, it is this realization that forces her to step up and to put all of herself in the game. It is by handling her doubts and channeling them she is able to inspire others to be ready:

Rosie: They're dancing along They're singing her song Alastor: Surprised? Why, I knew she could do it all along

In "Hello Rosie" Charlie faces a complex self, realizes the cover is not the book and learns how to use different parts of herself to obtain what she wants. She gets a lesson on herself and uses it to reach others in what is neither the truth (she isn't showing the cannibals everything about herself) nor a lie (she isn't tricking them), but simply a good performance (shadow + persona).

[hamliet]

What are your favorites feel good movies ?

Mmm. Depends on what you classify as "feel good." I'm not including movies that cover heavier subjects even if they do end happily.

Ever After

Easy A

Legally Blonde

Most animated Disney films

Mean Girls

Pride and Prejudice

10 Things I Hate About You

The Parent Trap (the Lindsay Lohan version)

Ferris Bueller's Day Off

One Small Hitch

Monty Python and the Holy Grail

Barbie

Night at the Museum

To All the Boys I've Loved Before

Stuart Little 2

I'm probably forgetting quite a few...

[hamliet]

I can’t believe I never thought of this before but do you think it’s possible that the xianle trio in TGCF are a Freudian trio? I feel like it could make sense for Xie Lian to be the ego as both Feng Xin and Mu Qing reflect darker parts of himself that he must accept in his arc. I could be way off though idk it just seems interesting to me.

Oh, for sure! Though I am not quite sure if either Feng Xin or Mu Qing fit well into id or superego... must think more on this.

[hamliet]

This is probably a constant discussion within the fandom but what do you think Dazai's overall relationship with women is in bsd? Like as a gender? Because I know the real author had very complicated feelings towards women and I I wanted to know if this general attitude is translated into the character as well?

Mm, I don't think there's a lot of similarities there--at least not that are dwelled upon! It's mentioned, not shown.

Dazai the character is very flippant towards people in general, and yes, that extends to women and he's joked about sleeping around. However, there is not a singled-out focus on his perception of women like there often is re: the author for understandable reasons. Dazai the character's relationships with Yosano and Kyouka and other female characters appear to be no inherently different from the male ones like Akutagawa and Atsushi. Like the real life author, he does discuss double suicide often, but he doesn’t have a focus on finding a perfect woman for it--he jokes about it, but also jokes about that in regards to other people as well.

[hamliet]

Have you watched Legally Blonde?

Yes and I LOVE it. It’s one of my favorite feel good movies and it’s hilarious.

[hamliet]

Russian Literature: Babe come over

The Devil: I can’t I’m an allegory

Russian Literature: We’ll have a courtroom scene and talk shit about organized religion

The Devil:

[hamliet]

Have you seen Andor?

I haven't because my trust in Disney Star Wars died with TROS, then resurrected with The Acolyte, then got smashed on rocks. But I've heard good things, and I do love Cassian Andor's character, so I might check it out at some point.

[hamliet]

Thanks Hamliet for sharing your wonderful fics...!

Because of you, I became XiYao shipper.

And your AshEiji fics are so great! I really love to reread them....

And your Shin Soukoku fics? Absolutely amazing! See, it's hard for me to find Shin Soukoku fics that are just my taste & are not ooc, and you nailed it!

I know that most of your favorite romantic ships are het ones, but thanks to you, I learn a lot about myself and now have accepted that it's okay to love all ships and to stop thinking comp het...

Now, I realized that I prefer m/m & f/f ones in romance stories compared to m/f ones ....

And I can't help but love to ships (mostly m/m) from most anime/manga that I enjoy 🥰😆🤩

Thanks so much for inspiring me, Hamliet. Hope you have a wonderful day..

AW thank you so much!

[hamliet]

Hamliet, have you seen that interview of Banana Fosh author? She said that "Ash deserved to die for what he had done. That because he was a killer he had to pay the price"....

I'm so dissapointed with her. When I read your metas or even your Banana Fish fics, seems like you can understand Ash better.....

Hi! I have seen it. I have a couple thoughts, which are firstly that I think, based on interviews, she seems to have been in a bad headspace at the time of ending Banana Fish. To what degree she took it out on the characters, I can't say. I kind of commented about this here.

I know Yoshida has made… contradictory and, frankly, offensive statements on the ending, in which she’s said things such as that Ash narratively had to die because he was a murderer and people who kill need to pay with their own lives. In general, Yoshida seems to struggle in interviews–like saying she hates Yut-Lung when the story’s moral center character (Sing) literally tells him in his last scene “I can’t hate you” and promises to help him redeem himself. This is hardly unique to her. It’s hard to explain a complex element of story in a few sentences of an answer.

tl;dr I don't think it was a responsible thing to say but I don't necessarily attribute that as the ultimate summation of what she actually thinks and believes. However, I do side-eye the way she handles similar characters in other media, which isn't great.

[hamliet]

THE PHILOSOPHY OF KAGURABACHI

So, Kagurabachi is my favorite manga in shonen jump right now, but my enjoyment of it comes from a different place than most people's. While I liked the first chapter, the manga did not really click for me until chapter 17 when Chihiro was forced to recognize that his enemy had interpreted the actions of his dead father entirely differently, and he was fighting with a conviction too, even if Chihiro did not agree with that conviction.

Since then, Chihiro has slowly been changing his outlook on the world from a simple avenger to acknowledging the complexity of the world around him and this is the most interesting aspect to me - Chihiro and his changing beliefs over the course of the story.

I have been waiting in anticipation for Chihiro's reaction to learning the truth about the war, and the genocide one of the sworsman carried out with his father's weapon. We see his reaction this chapter and I was a little bit surprised to say the least.

Chihiro states that it's wrong to kill all five of the sword-bearers in order to disarm the nukes essentially, remove the potential for anyone else to cause another disaster and wipe out hundreds of thousands of more people. This seems inconsistent with something that has been Chihiro's belief since chapter one, his entire mission is to take his father's swords back in order to make sure they never end up in the wrong hands and can't be used to hurt innocent people.

I had to ask my friend @kaibutsushidousha for Chihiro's reasoning here, but thankfully Comun is really smart and has good taste:

I feel like Chihiro is extremely influentiable. He has a lot of moral opinions inside his head, but can only use one at a time. And the one he holds changes easily depending on the most recent thing people tell him. What he's currently holding is how much he relates to Iori, so he's in it to prevent Iori from losing a father like he did Only once that's resolved that he can start thinking about his other moral opinions that conflict with this one.

When I read that I returned to the question of: what are Chihiro's morals? I finally realized the answer that Chihiro is practicing what we call moral relativism. If we dig in a little deeper we can see some of the ethics and morality that Kagurabachi is exploring in the story as a whole.

LETS TALK ABOUT ETHNICS

Moral philosophy is defined by the oxford dictionary as "sign up to pay a $9.99 subscription in order to read the rest of this article."

Moral philosophy is the study of morals. What people do, how should they act, what principles should guide their lives. Which started out all the way back with Plato who argued for the "form of the Good." Plato was theorizing on where higher-minded ideas like "justice" comes from and his conclusion is that these ideas exist as "Forms", perfect, eternal, and changeless concept existing outside of space and time.

Plato asserts that goodness is a force outside of us, that pushes us to strive towards things like justice. His argument essentially that good is inherent, that people possess the spirit of good inside of them and that drives them to seek out good.

This is what you would refer to as moral absolutes. That morals exist outside of us and they are absolute rules we should follow. "Goodness" isn't just an idea, it's a force which compels us to do good.

Rules like "Don't kill people" are absolute. They don't exist because someone wrote down in a law that it was bad to kill people, but because the moral principle of "don't kill people" is universal and should be followed by everyone.

The question is if these moral principles are absolutes then where do they come from? Plato put forward the idea of an objective moral order linked to a transcendent reality, while Aristotle believed that morality came from objectivity and human nature.

Under Christian doctrine morals are also absolute and there is an idea of good which we all strive for, but the reason those morals are absolute is because they are given to us by god. "Don't kill people" becomes "Thou must not Kill."

The opposite of moral absolutism that morals exist as a set of rigid principles that exist outside of us, is moral relativism. Moral relativists assert that there are not "objective" morals, usually following two basic principles.

1.  Moral judgments are true or false and actions are right or wrong only relative to some particular standpoint (usually the moral framework of a specific community). 2.  No standpoint can be proved objectively superior to any other. [SOURCE].

If I say "killing people is wrong no matter what the situation because human life has inherent value", I'm arguing for moral absolutism. If you rebuttal with "Chihiro was killing human traffickers, who if they had lived would have created more victims" that is an argument for moral relativism.

To dive deeper into moral relativism though, let's explore one of the biggest critics of moral philosophy.

In Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to the Philosophy of the Future, Nietzsche rejected the works of all of the moral philosophers that had come before him, especially to Plato who argued for that "form of goodness." He took a special offense to the idea that good and evil and in the first place. Nietzsche suggested the modern man and the modern philosopher needed to reject good and morality entirely.

"Let us not be ungrateful toward it, althought it must certainly be admitted that the worst, most drawn-out, and most dangerous of errors hitherto has been a dogmatist error- namely, Plato's invention of the Pure Spirit and the Good as such. But now that it has been overcome, when Europe, rid of this nightmare, can again breathe freely and at least enjoy a healthier sleep - we, whose duty is wakefulness itself, are the heirs of all strength which the struggle against this error has fostered. turning the truth on its head and denying perspectivism itself, the fundamental condition of life, to speak of the Spirit and the Good as Plato of spoke.

Nietzsche's took particular umbrage with the idea that good is fundamental and innate. That these are not concepts just made up, but they just exist... somewhere.

"Here we need to learn to think differently, as we have learned to think differently about heredity and "innateness."

In Nietzsche's viewpoint humans aren't rational creatures striving towards some objective good, but rather they are extremely subjective, and all of them fallible to their own personal biases. People aren't driven by the spirit of good, they are driven by emotions and instincts, and their own personal values.

"Conversely, in the philosopher there is absolutely nothing impersonal; and expecially his morality furnishes a decided and decisive testimony as to who he is - that is to say, in what order the innermost drives of his nature relate to others.'

One of these most important drives is what Nietzsche labeled "the drive to power", but it could also be translated as the "drive to agency".

"A living being seeks above all else to discharge its strength - life itself is will to power - self-preservation is only one of the indirect and most frequent results thereof."

A lot of the material covered in this book is a criticism of christian doctrine, which puts forth that we must follow these absolute morals because they are imposed on us by god. Nietzsche pointed out and rightly so that for a large chunk of european history, a peasant class has been ruled over tightly by an aristotcratic class, one that is supported by the church.

His explanation for why the peasants never rebelled against the aristocrats and why this structure remained in place is that christianity wishing to keep the lower class complacent began espousing morals about "turning the other cheek" and "the meek should inherit the earth". Suffering under the boot heel of the rich and not fighting back became a moral virtue. In Nietzsche's mind the church has hoodwinked the general population into believing that instead of rising to power they should remain powerless and suffering in this lifetime, for the reward of happiness in some theoretical afterlife.

"From the beginning, Christian faith is a sacrifice: sacrifice of all freedom, all pride, all self-confidence of spirit; at the same time it is enslavement, self-mockery, and self-mutilation."

I'm not going to go into religious philosophy, but I do think these are important questions to ask. Why does the church tell us we shouldn't envy our neighbor? Why does the church tell us we should not desire for more than we have?

You could apply this very easily to the modern day. Several christians say that trans people are immoral, because god says there are only two genders and these two genders are absolutes there is no wiggle room. Not only is being transgender immoral, but also they have the right to create laws regulating what people do to their own bodies. Governments have to make laws violating people's personal autonomy like this for the greater good? But, for who's greater good is this?

Nietzsche's describes the origin of christian morals as master and slave morality herren- und sklavenmoral. Master and Slave morality has some negative connotations so let's try to explain this using memes instead.

Nietzsche's assertion was that the chads of the world don't listen to the church and the people in power telling them that suffering is righteous, that they should fast, and stay impoverished. That they should not make a morality of suffering like it is some kind of virtue.

"It cannot be helped: we must mercilessly call to account and bring justice he sentiments of surrender, the sacrifice for one's neighbor, and all self-renunciation-morality ... There is far too much magic and molasses in these sentiments "for others" and "not for myself" for us to not have to be doubly distrustful...

The chads of the world are out there employing chad morality. They are goated enough to invent their own morals, to think for themselves, and assert their own power. Not only is the nietzschian viewpoint that morality is relative, but also that a free thinker must create their own morals.

Which is where we finally tie this back into the manga, is Chihiro as a character following Nietzschian principles? Is he employing Chad morality to become a truly goated individual?

Has he taken the steps beyond good and evil?

Well, to start with you would have to ask what Chihiro's morals are which is a hard question to answer because they are not consistent. Early on he states that the swords are to: defeat evil and protect the weak. He definitely believes that evil exists.

However, he doesn't view them as absolutes. He admits himself that murder his horrible, that killing people makes him a monster and therefore evil, but he also believes that this evil is killing others can be done to commit good.

There's a pretty obvious contradiction in Chihiro's ideals. He is simultaenously both a killer, but also a hero protecting others. He maintains that same paradoxical view of his father and the other sword-bearers, they are responsible for the deaths of countless people but they are still: "heroes." Chihiro may be going to hell for everyone he has killed, but there's still a nobility to what he is doing.

The idea of going to hell and being punished for his evil means he knows on some level murder is horrible and he'll eventually face punishment for it, but he is going to do it anyway even if he goes to hell?

Is there a paradox to this statement? How can one be a hero and a murderer at the same time? For Nietzsche there isn't. Nietzsche would argue that following christianity's ideas of meekness and turning the other cheek you can never be a hero, and the only way to be a hero is to transgress.

That the only people truly capable of being heroic are not those who passively turn the other cheek, but those who have the strength to to fight back and assert themselves.

"A man who seeks to achieve goathood, looks upon every one whom he encounters on his way either as a means of advance or a delay and hindrance - or as a temporary resting-place. His characteristic, lofty kindness to his fellow-men is only possible once he has reached the height from which he rules."

So, let's touch briefly upon Chihiro's choices again. Chihiro's father is murdered and he is left alive with a scar, and all the blades his father made to end the war are stolen by criminals except for one. Chihiro could have gone into witness protection like Iori and lived a normal life. You could see that in one of two ways, Chihiro is deciding to be above revenge and trying not to continue the cycle of harm. Or you could see it as Chihiro passively accepting all of the harm that's done to him, shutting up and taking it instead of choosing to fight back against the evil done to him.

Chihiro has a second choice which is assert his will-to-power, and evolve into Chadhiro someone who has the power to fight for what he believes is moral.

A man who says: "I like that, I take it as my own. nd will guard and protect it from everyone", a man who can conduct a case, carry out a resolution, remain true to an idea, keep hold of a woman, punish and overthrow insolence, a man who has his indignation and his sword, and to whom the weak, the suffering, the oppressed and even the animals willingly submit and naturally belong; in short, a man who is a master by nature- when such a man has sympathy well! That sympathy has value.

Because Chihiro embraced Chad morality and became the Chadhiro, he gained the power and strength to help people, people who would not have been helped if he did not decide to become an avenger.

So you may ask in the first chapter what does it matter that Chihiro did not quibble over slaughtering human traffickers in the first chapter? He was using his power to do what he thought was right, killing criminals in order to prevent them from selling any more human beings in the future.

Then I would ask: Who gets to decide whether they deserve to live or die?

The Nietzschian response is Chihiro does. Chihiro decides his own morals for himself, and has the power to assert them over others. In fact if he didn't, he would be completely ineffectual. If Chihiro passively turned the other cheek and forgave his enemies, then he would not have the power to help anyone.

Is there something wrong with this? As we see in the story, Chihiro is very principled, he hates unnecessary killing, he has sympathy for people like Hakuri and Iori and won't sacrifice them for the greater good.

He's even capable of putting aside his revenge if it means saving people like Hakuri and Iori. If all morality is relative, then isn't Chihiro just doing what everyone does, deciding for himself in the moment what is moral and what is not?

Even in opposing Samura's decision to disarm the nukes that could potentially blow up the country at some point in the future Chihiro is raising an interesting point, is it fair that an orphan like Iori has to lose her father because of a danger he might represent? Is it alright to trample over an orphaned little girl and take her father away?

If Chihiro has the power to protect the people he wants to protect, to punish the people he sees doing evil and harming innocents, then what is wrong with him asserting this power even if it means killing people?

Is the option to choose to passively suffer somehow more noble?

"It has the same effect on them as Epicurean philosophy on the sufferers of higher order by refreshing, refining and effectively using suffering and finally even sanctifying and justifying it. There is perhaps nothing so admirable in Christianity and Budhism as the art of teaching even the lowest to elevate themselves by a piety to a higher, illusory order of things and thereby keep themselves satisfied with the actual world in which they live in great hardship - but precisely this hardship is necessary!"

Well alright, it seems like we've got this figured out. Chihiro is someone we can trust, because he creates his own morals and he has freed himself from the biases society's morals. We can trust he will do good, because he has the strength to always think for himself and follow his own morals and he doesn't submit to anyone else. Chihiro would never submit to anyone else's morals, and he would especially never join a shady government organization that was totally cool with doing nothing when humans were being sold on an auction block in the auction arc.

Oh, wait hang on a second.

DR. STRANGELOVE: OR HOW I LEARNED TO STOP WORRYING AND LOVE THE BOMB

The flaw with moral relativism is that it is at best incoherent and vague. Let's take the nietzschian argument, if there are special people in this world who have the right to transgress over other people in order to achieve great things, like the way Chihiro has murdered so many in order to achieve his revenge then how do you distinguish that type of special person from a normal person.

"They begin executing other people?" "If it's necessary; indeed, for the most part they do. Your remark is very witty." "Thank you. But tell me this: how do you distinguish those extraordinary people from the ordinary ones? Are there signs at their birth? I feel there ought to be more exactitude, more external definition. Excuse the natural anxiety of a practical law-abiding citizen, but couldn't they adopt a special uniform, for instance, couldn't they wear something, be branded in some way? For you know if confusion arises and a member of one category imagines that he belongs to the other, begins to 'eliminate obstacles' as you so happily expressed..." Crime and Punishment

This quotation is taken from Crime and Punishment where the main character Raskolnikov is discussing with a detective his theory that certain people have the inherent right to remove obstacles out of their way in order to achieve greatness. The detective's counter argument is the obvious: Well, what makes them so great exactly?

Well, from Nietzsche's perspective there are in our society members descended from an ancient Aryan race... wait, what?

"Was Nietzsche Woke?" Philosophytube

Nietzsche died in 1900, but fascists loved using his ideas as justification for their actions, especially Hitler and Mussolini. Does that make Nietzsche specifically responsible for it, well not really because he's dead.

Instead of discussing whether Nietzsche's ideas are inherently fascist which I think is a boring discussion, I am going to touch why fascists find these concepts of moral relativism and nietzsche's rejection of morality so applicable to their won ideas and the answer is that it's vague. If your entire belief system is just "everything is relative" then you're not really operating under any kind of consistent rules.

Trying to string together a consistent ideology from Nietzsche's writings is hard because so many of its writings contradict itself, that his message becomes very vague. Trying to describe what moral relativists believe is like trying to describe post-modernism or porn to other people, I don't know how to describe it but I know it when I see it.

I talked about how earlier that if you reject the notion that "Thou must not kill", then Chihiro has every right to assert his power over the human traffickers and kill them in order to punish them. Yet, if as Nietzsche argues that the "drive to power" exists within everyone then what about the human traffickers? Don't they have the same "drive to power" and right to assert their power over other people, in this case by kidnapping humans and selling them in order to make money? If there are no objective morals, then slavery isn't objectively evil either. Neither Chihiro or the Human Traffickers are good or evil, they are just both asserting their power. Then Chihiro isn't the moral victor, he's just STRONGER than them.

"All morals are relative" is in itself, paradoxically, a moral absolute. As much as Nietzsche challenges us confront our own biases and challenge what society taught us to think for ourselves, there's also no such thing as an unbiased person. If you read Nietzsche's work, a lot of what he says is also parroting pretty common attitudes of Jewish people at the time in germany.

Chihiro is definitely not unbiased either, he is extremely biased by his hero worship towards his father. So far we have seen him completely sidestep the greatest moral dilemna of this entire manga.

When Oppenheimer was released, a lot of Japanese people protested the movie, especially the decision to focus on the man who made the bomb instead of the over 200,000 victims that the bomb created.

The swords are nukes. They are explicitly nukes. They were dropped on an island nation and wiped out the entirety of the population in order to end a war. Nothing short of godzilla crawling out of the water to attack Chihiro could make them more obviously a metaphor for nukes. 200,000 is around the estimated number of dead at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The enemy had surrendered, a peace treaty was signed to preserve the civilians of the island, and then one of the five swordsmen decided that was not good enough and killed 200,000 people in an instant.

Who's fault was this?

Well, one obvious one is the guy who made the nukes in the first place. If that weapon had never been placed in the hand of the fifth swordsmen, then he never would have had the means to kill an island full of 200,000 people.

The justification that the Kamunabi give is that they needed the magical swords in order to fight off the invaders, and if they didn't have those swords the number of casualties would be much higher.

I am an American and this is the exact same justification I have heard over and over again for Nagasaki and Hiroshima. "Well, the japanese never surrender so way more people would have died in a land invasion if we didn't drop the bombs."

The underlying point though is that if you decide who gets to do what based upon who has the power to do it, then that very quickly slides into fascism. Why did the last swordsman decide that he had the right to kill 200,000 people because someone gave him the power to. He used his power to do what he believed was right even if it means stepping on other people, and eliminate his enemy.

Is Chihiro killing criminals the same thing as killing an entire island's worth of people? Not necessarily, but in principle Chihiro is killing people because he believes he has the right for himself to decide who lives and who dies, and the way he asserts that right is by power.

It's also very easy to fall right down that slippery slope. Fascism is very appealing to people who are feel they have been injured or victimized by something, and want the power to take vengeance against that vague something.

Chihiro would not kill civilians right now, he draws the line very clearly and will even give his life to protect civilians but it is also true that Chihiro is not unbiased and his morals are very bendy.

As I said above, Chihiro says he that he will do anything to protect innocent people, but if that's the case then shouldn't he be in support of killing Samura and disarming the nukes even if it means all the swordwielders have to die?

He is making a personal judgement that Iori is more important than the potential deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people, not based off of any ethical principle but because his dad died and he relates to Iori and she also loved her father.

Chihiro's morals are not consistent and well-thought out, and that is dangerous because Chihiro doesn't really submit to anyone's authority other than his own and he definitely does not follow due process. We as the reader have to trust Chihiro's judgements that he is a moral person, but Chihiro is biased.

Chihiro is currently working for the government organization that decided to cover up their mistake in killing an island full of people, use the heroes as propaganda and brand the island dwellers as inhuman savages, and then not disarm the nukes.

For example, if the Kamunabi had done the opposite then what then? What if the Kamunabi had arrested Chihiro's father in front of his son, dragged him into court, gave him a fair trial and then decided to hang him for his crimes against humanity in his decision to build the bomb I mean the swords.

If that had happened would Chihiro have accepted the decision, or would we be reading an entirely different manga where Chihiro was fighting against the government in order to avenge his father?

That's a hard question to answer, because Chihiro's morals are so vague and easy to influence. Hopefully Chihiro will figure it out for himself over the course of the story, because as badass as Chihiro saying that he'll choose to face god and walk backwards into hell in order to get his revenge I think it would be much better if he found some other reason to live for revenge by the end of the story.

[hamliet]

Have you read The Little Prince? If you have, can I ask you to explain a bit about the Prince's relationship with the Rose? I understand why he keeps loving her and considers her his most beloved, but I am struggling to understand why the novel seems to frame the Prince to be "responsible" for the Rose even though she seems to be always mean to him... Or maybe I misunderstood the whole novel? I haven't yet found a satisfactory explanation for this. Thank you!

Hi! Yes, I love The Little Prince.

I don’t think the novel itself emphasizes this per se, but I think the Prince does. He chooses to love her despite the fact that she isn't exactly kind, and good and bad things come from this love. The whole reason he embarks on his journey is because of the Rose, but at the same time, she's not particularly kind to him.

Yet, he still loves her. Love can be a choice even if it seems nonsensical. Even if that choice brings some detriment, it also brings good (the Prince's travel and all his subsequent encounters).

It is the time you have wasted for your rose that makes your rose so important.

To a degree, you could see the above sentiment as a sunk cost fallacy. Well, he's invested so much time into her, so that's why he's stuck with her. And maybe it is to a degree. But, does the novel frame this as a mistake, or rather what is? If you've spent so much time on someone, then even if you walk away, they will have impacted your life.

The Rose is important because the Prince has made her important and invested his time into her. It's an existentialist idea: his choices and experiences shape his reality, and to what degree he shapes his reality and his reality shapes him is something the story wants people to ponder.

The reality also is that the Prince realizes that he is important to the Rose because of the time she invested in him. He leaves because he doubts that she loves him, but then the Fox helps him realize that, essentially, her love may not take the same steps he wants for it to take... but that doesn't mean it's not love. She does love him. But is that enough? The story doesn't answer that.

[hamliet]

Ik you haven’t seen FMAB in a while but what are your thoughts on Envy as a character? I’m personally very conflicted about him, though I think he’s a great antagonist and serves the themes of the story really well.

I would have to rewatch/read to do a proper analysis, but I remember him being extremely dynamic as a character and very complex! He was one of the most compelling of the homonculi.

[hamliet]

Hi Hamliet! I’m a big fan of your blog and understanding your tastes I think you should be watching To Be Hero X. I think it is right up your alley and would love to read your analysis of the story as it unfolds.

Oooh I shall look into it--thanks for the rec!!

[hamliet]

have you read charlie mackesy's novel and do you think it deserved an oscar?

Alas, I haven't!!

[hamliet]

Do you think Charlie Morningstar can be unintentionally insensitive towards those she cares about even though she doesn’t mean to. As shown with Vaggie and Angel Dust?

Definitely. I think Episode 4 shows this most clearly when Charlie thinks she's helping Angel, and has good intentions, but is actually hurting him by enraging Val. She's ignorant of her own privilege which means she won't face his wrath (but that only redirects it to Angel). However, she does seem to realize this a bit.

I think a recurring theme in the narrative going forward is that while Charlie's intentions are good, she can miss some of the effects her actions have on others (and also be unaware of some of her own motivations--Alastor's line about her working through her daddy issues by fixing sinners is not wrong). This is a pretty childlike trait, which fits since HH is pretty much a coming of age story for Charlie.