#I know this does not apply to every evil character

[twilit-creature]

It's so funny to me when a character has some bad traits and people only ever look at those when discussing said character.

Imagine never looking at positive things. Embarrassing.

[holytrickster]

also i finally finished the silm earlier and oh my god i understood narn i chin hurin so much better this time. like i know the whole thing isn't included but the fact the main parts are mentioned *after* i knew who the heck everyone in it was and where everything was happening made it so much more understandable now than when i first read it back when i was like 14 bc i went like hobbit -> lotr -> children of hurin with a lot of time in between where i forgot stuff

[cripplecharacters]

The Mask Trope, and Disfiguremisia in Media

[large text: The Mask Trope, and Disfiguremisia in Media]

If you followed this blog for more than like a week, you're probably familiar with “the mask trope” or at least with me complaining about it over and over in perpetuity. But why is it bad and why can't this dude shut up about it?

Let's start with who this trope applies to: characters with facial differences. There is some overlap with blind characters as well; think of the blindfold that is forced on a blind character for no reason. Here is a great explanation of it in this context by blindbeta. It's an excellent post in general, even if your character isn't blind or low vision you should read at least the last few paragraphs.

Here's a good ol’ tired link to what a facial difference is, but to put it simply:

If you have a character, who is a burn survivor or has scars, who wears a mask, this is exactly this trope.

The concept applies to other facial differences as well, but scars and burns are 99% of the representation and “representation” we get, so I'll be using these somewhat interchangeably here.

The mask can be exactly what you think, but it refers to any facial covering that doesn't have a medical purpose. So for example, a CPAP mask doesn't count for this trope, but a Magic Porcelain Mask absolutely does. Bandages do as well. If it covers the part of the face that is “different”, it can be a mask in the context used here.

Eye patches are on thin ice because while they do serve a medical purpose in real life, in 99.9% of media they are used for the same purpose as a mask. It's purely aesthetic.

With that out of the way, let's get into why this trope sucks and find its roots. Because every trope is just a symptom of something, really.

Roughly in order of the least to most important reasons...

Why It Sucks 

[large text: Why It Sucks]

It's overdone. As in — boring. You made your character visibly different, and now they're no longer that. What is the point? Just don't give them the damn scar if you're going to hide it. 

Zero connection with reality. No one does this. I don't even know how to elaborate on this. This doesn't represent anyone because no one does this.

Disability erasure. For the majority of characters with facial differences, their scars or burns somehow don't disable them physically, so the only thing left is the visible part… aaand the mask takes care of it too. Again, what's the point? If you want to make your disabled character abled, then just have them be abled. What is the point of "curing" them other than to make it completely pointless?

Making your readers with facial differences feel straight up bad. I'm gonna be honest! This hurts to see when it's all you get, over and over. Imagine there's this thing that everyone bullied you about, everyone still stares at, that is with you 24/7. Imagine you wanted to see something where people like you aren't treated like a freakshow. Somewhat unrealistic, but imagine that. That kind of world would only exist in fiction, right? So let's look into fiction- oh, none of the positive (or at least not "child-murderer evil") characters look like me. I mean they do, but they don't. They're forced to hide the one thing that connects us. I don't want to hide myself. I don't want to be told over and over that this is what people like me should do. That this is what other people expect so much that it's basically the default way a person with a facial difference can exist. I don't want this.

Perpetuating disfiguremisia. 

"Quick" Disfiguremisia Talk

[large text: "Quick" Disfiguremisia Talk]

It's quick when compared to my average facial difference discussion post, bear with me please.

Disfiguremisia; portmanteau of disfigure from “disfigurement” and -misia, Greek for hatred. 

Also known as discrimination of those mythical horrifically deformed people.

It shows up in fiction all the time; in-universe and in-narrative. Mask trope is one of the most common* representations of it, and it's also a trope that is gaining traction more and more, both in visual art and writing. This is a trope I particularly hate, because it's a blatant symptom of disfiguremisia. It's not hidden and it doesn't try to be. It's a painful remainder that I do not want nor need.

*most common is easily “evil disfigured villain”, just look at any horror media. But that's for another post, if ever.

When you put your character in a mask, it sends a clear message: in your story, facial differences aren't welcome. The world is hostile. Other characters are hostile. The author is, quite possibly, hostile. Maybe consciously, but almost always not, they just don't think that disfiguremisia means anything because it's the default setting. No one wants to see you because your face makes you gross and unsightly. If you have a burn; good luck, but we think you're too ugly to have a face. Have a scar? Too bad, now you don't. Get hidden.

Everything here is a decision that was made by the author. You are the one who makes the world. You are the person who decides if being disabled is acceptable or not there. The story doesn't have a mind of its own, you chose to make it disfiguremisic. 

It doesn't have to be.

Questions to Ask Yourself

[large text: Questions to Ask Yourself]

Since I started talking about facial differences on this blog, I have noticed a very specific trend in how facial differences are treated when compared to other disabilities. A lot of writers and artists are interested in worldbuilding where accessibility is considered, where disabled people are accepted, where neurodivergence is seen as an important part of the human experience, not something “other”. This is amazing, genuinely.

Yet, absolutely no one seems to be interested in a world that is anything but cruel to facial differences. There's no escapist fantasies for us.

You see this over and over, at some point it feels like the same story with different names attached.

The only way a character with a facial difference can exist is to hide it. Otherwise, they are shamed by society. Seen as something gross. I noticed that it really doesn't matter who the character is, facial difference is this great equalizer. Both ancient deities and talking forest cats get treated as the same brand of disgusting thing as long as they're scarred, as long as they had something explode in their face, as long as they've been cursed. They can be accomplished, they can be a badass, they can be the leader of the world, they can kill a dragon, but they cannot, under any circumstances, be allowed to peacefully exist with a facial difference. They have to hide it in the literal sense, or be made to feel that they should. Constantly ashamed, embarrassed that they dare to have a face.

Question one to ask yourself: why is disfiguremisia a part of your story?

I'm part of a few minority groups. I'm an immigrant, I'm disabled, I'm queer. I get enough shit in real life for this so I like to take a break once in a while. I love stories where transphobia isn't a thing. Where xenophobia doesn't come up. But my whole life, I can't seem to find stories that don't spew out disfiguremisia in one way or the other at the first possible opportunity.

Why is disfiguremisia a default part of your worldbuilding? Why can't it be left out? Why in societies with scarred saviors and warriors is there such intense disgust for them? Why can't anyone even just question why this is the state of the world?

Why is disfiguremisia normal in your story?

Question two: do you know enough about disfiguremisia to write about it?

Ask yourself, really. Do you? Writers sometimes ask if or how to portray ableism when they themselves aren't disabled, but no one bothers to wonder if maybe they aren't knowledgeable enough to make half their story about their POV character experiencing disfiguremisia. How much do you know, and from where? Have you read Mikaela Moody or any other advocates’ work around disfiguremisia? Do you understand the way it intersects; with being a trans woman, with being Black? What is your education on this topic?

And for USAmericans... do you know what "Ugly Laws" are, and when they ended?

Question three: what does your story associate with facial difference — and why?

If I had to guess; “shame”, “embarrassment”, “violence”, "disgust", “intimidation”, “trauma”, “guilt”, “evil”, “curse”, “discomfort”, “fear”, or similar would show up. 

Why doesn't it associate it with positive concepts? Why not “hope” or “love” or “pride” or “community”? Why not “soft” or “delicate”? Dare I say, “beauty” or “innocence”? Why not “blessing”? “Acceptance”?

Why not “normal”?

Question four: why did you make the character the way they are? 

Have you considered that there are other things than “horrifically burned for some moral failing” or “most traumatic scenario put to paper”? Why is it always “a tough character with a history of violence” and never “a Disfigured princess”? Why not “a loving parent” or “a fashionable girl”, instead of “the most unkind person you ever met” and “total badass who doesn’t care about anything - other than how scary their facial difference is to these poor ableds”? Don’t endlessly associate us with brutality and suffering. We aren’t violent or manipulative or physically strong or brash or bloodthirsty by default. We can be soft, and frail and gentle and kind - and we can still be proud and unashamed.

Question five: why is your character just… fine with all this?

Can’t they make a community with other people with facial differences and do something about this? Demand the right to exist as disabled and not have to hide their literal face? Why are they cool with being dehumanized and treated with such hatred? Especially if they fall into the "not so soft and kind" category that I just talked about, it seems obvious to me that they would be incredibly and loudly pissed off about being discriminated against over and over... Why can't your character, who is a subject of disfiguremisia, realize that maybe it's disfiguremisia that's the problem, and try to fix it?

Question six: why is your character wearing a mask? 

Usually, there's no reason. Most of the time the author hasn't considered that there even should be one, the character just wears a mask because that's what people with facial differences do in their mind. Most writers aren't interested in this kind of research or even considering it as a thing they should do. The community is unimportant to them, it's not like we are real people who read books. They think they understand, because to them it's not complex, it's not nuanced. It's ugly = bad. Why would you need a reason?

For cases where the reason is stated, I promise, I have heard of every single one. To quote, "to spare others from looking at them". I have read, "content warning: he has burn scars under the mask, he absolutely hates taking it off!", emphasis not mine. Because "he hates the way his skin looks", because "they care for their appearance a lot" (facial differences make you ugly, remember?). My favorite: "only has scars and the mask when he's a villain, not as a hero", just to subtly drive the point home. This isn't the extreme end of the spectrum. Now, imagine being a reader with a facial difference. This is your representation, sitting next to Freddy Krueger and Voldemort.

How do you feel?

F.A.Q. [frequently asked questions]

[large text: F.A.Q. [frequently asked questions]]

As in, answers and “answers” to common arguments or concerns. 

“Actually they want to hide their facial difference” - your character doesn’t have free will. You want them to hide it. Again; why.

“They are hiding it to be more inconspicuous!” - I get that there are elves in their world, but there’s no universe where wearing a mask with eye cutouts on the street is less noticeable than having a scar. Facial differences aren’t open wounds sprinkling with blood, in case that's not clear.

“It’s for other people's comfort” - why are other characters disfiguremisic to this extent? Are they forcing all minorities to stay hidden and out of sight too? That’s a horrible society to exist in.

“They are wearing it for Actual Practical Reason” - cool! I hope that this means you have other characters with facial differences that don’t wear it for any reason.

"It's the character's artistic expression" - I sure hope that there are abled characters with the same kind of expression then.

“They’re ashamed of their face” - and they never have any character development that would make that go away? That's just bad writing. Why are they ashamed in the first place? Why is shame the default stance to have about your own face in your story? I get that you think we should be ashamed and do these ridiculous things, but in real life we just live with it. 

"Now that you say that it is kinda messed up but I'm too far into the story please help" - here you go.

“[some variation of My Character is evil so it's fine/a killer so it fits/just too disgusting to show their disability” - this is the one of the only cases where I’m fine with disability erasure, actually. Please don’t make them have a facial difference. This is the type of harm that real life activists spend years and decades undoing. Disfiguremisia from horror movies released in the 70s is still relevant. It still affects people today.

"But [in-universe explanation why disfiguremisia is cool and fine actually]" - this changes nothing.

Closing Remarks

[large text: Closing Remarks]

I hope that this post explains my thoughts on facial difference representation better. It's a complicated topic, I get it. I'm also aware that this post might come off as harsh (?) but disfiguremisia shouldn't be treated lightly, it shouldn't be a prop. It's real world discrimination with a big chunk of its origins coming out of popular media.

With the asks that have been sent regarding facial differences, I realized that I probably haven't explained what the actual problems are well enough. It's not about some technical definition, or about weird in-universe explanations. It's about categorizing us as some apparently fundamentally different entity that can't possibly be kind and happy, about disfiguremisia so ingrained into our culture that it's apparently impossible to make a world without it; discrimination so deep that it can't be excised, only worked around. But you can get rid of it. You can just not have it there in the first place. Disfiguremisia isn't a fundamental part of how the world works; getting rid of it won't cause it to collapse. Don't portray discrimination as an integral, unquestionable part of the world that has to stay no matter what; whether it's ableism, transphobia, or Islamophobia or anything else. A world without discrimination can exist. If you can't imagine a world without disfiguremisia in fiction... that's bad. Sad, mostly. To me, at least.

Remember, that your readers aren't going to look at Character with a Scar #14673 and think "now I'm going to research how real life people with facial differences live." They won't, there's no inclination for them to do so. If you don't give them a reason, they won't magically start thinking critically about facial differences and disfiguremisia. People like their biases and they like to think that they understand.

And, even if you're explaining it over and over ;-) (winky face) there will still be people who are going to be actively resistant to giving a shit. To try and get the ones who are capable of caring about us, you, as the author, need to first understand disfiguremisia, study Face Equality, think of me as a human being with human emotions who doesn't want to see people like me treated like garbage in every piece of media I look at. There's a place and time for that media, and if you don't actually understand disfiguremisia, you will only perpetuate it; not "subvert" it, not "comment" on it.

I hope this helps :-) (smile emoji. for good measure)

Mod Sasza

[quirkle2]

so one thing i rly like abt mob psycho (shocker !) is that the Incident between the kageyama brothers is kept entirely contained. like, most other shows—at least ones that i've watched—feature long monologues of characters traumadumping to other characters, sometimes in the middle of fights, and while that Does happen a lot in mob psycho, the kageyama bros never do this abt The Incident, and i think that's a fascinating choice bc The Incident is the entire reason why the show starts in the first place. it's the reason mob meets reigen at all, it's the reason mob doesn't fight back against teru, it's the reason ritsu goes through his character arc. it is arguably the Most Important Story Beat and the show has countless opportunities to let the characters spill their guts on screen for drama, and yet neither of the brothers let this spill. neither of them talk about it, except with each other

there's been numerous times i've watched shows where people suddenly traumadump and tell their life story unprompted when truly not a single soul asked, but with mob psycho, both the bros are Constantly berated with questions on Why they do these things; Why are you so off-putting and quiet, Why do you not use your powers, Why won't you fight back, Why do you want psychic powers so badly, Why are you ruining these students' lives now that you have them, Why are you helping me defeat my evil dad . all of these questions eventually loop back around to The Incident, and yet neither of them ever let it slip. neither of them Ever share, and the only time they come anywhere close to it is in the wd arc

it is the event that Shaped Who They Grew Into, and yet it is not known by the main cast at all. teru has no idea, even reigen doesn't seem to understand the full extent of it, even though The Incident is what caused mob to come to his office. their parents prolly don't even know

idk, i just think that's a good detail. the brothers both hold the weight of their troubles close to their chests. and even though that makes it seem as though they figure it out on their own, it couldn't be further from the truth

their own experiences with the people around them allowed them to grow and make mistakes and learn from them, all without sharing their deepest secret, and then both took those new experiences and lessons and applied it to this issue, and learned Again

meanwhile, the rest of the cast is largely clueless abt this Entire issue. it's Crazy to me that most of the cast has no idea what the main issue is, and i think it's a brilliant choice. these characters helped the kageyama bros without ever meaning to or knowing about it, no matter how big or small the role. you truly never know what somebody else is going through !

and even in the end, it's not like there's a big reveal that tells every character the kageyama brothers' Tragic Backstory. nobody fucking knows, still. like Yeah they should totally talk this out and go to therapy or smth but i just like the fact that the story doesn't treat it as some dramatic fanfare for Other Character's Shock Value and doesn't let them air their troubles to the ends of the earth. i appreciate that

[homunculus-argument]

You know what? If you're trying to get back into the habit of reading books - just reading any books at all - it's best to not start with anything fancy and high brow. This is one of those things where "quality over quantity" really does not apply. You can start with something goofy, really something that doesn't take itself too seriously. I procrastinated starting my "read at least a little bit of a book every day" new year's resolution for well over a week, but now that I got around to it, I've picked up something goofy set in the Warhammer universe.

It starts with introducing the main characters, one of whom is a dwarf with a mohawk and a nose ring chain who - within the first eight pages of the story - tries to fight a whole forest's worth of undetected, likely imaginary ghouls, one very real huge horse carriage of some sort of evil demon presence, and one wooden door. The other protagonist is a human dude who basically just follows this other guy around, with the goal of observing what he could possibly fuck up next.

[deadlyangelofpurity]

The overall defanging of Hell in Viv's shows crippled it. Like it's become very noticable that when Viv wants you to like a character she will legit pull every stop imaginable regardless of whether it makes sense to ensure this happens.

The problem is not only is she not subtle, but her show is in Hell. This is like the worst place for this kind of thing. Seriously Ozzie going on how about consent is great and how his crystals can't be forced to take you places(Omg this is so fucking stupid). Does anyone remember how this was harassing Moxxie in his first appearance and how he later let's Veroiska(you know the rapist) perform at his club and let's her have a crystal to use sex magic on unsuspecting people with her friends?

Viv, I know you're relying on your fans being immature fools who won't question your writing can you stop trying to twist yourself into a pretzel by defanging your own characters and making your setting pointless. All of this to avoid having Ozzie be an outright rapist because she doesn't want him to be unlikable even when it makes the setting feel stupid because some tacky moth pimp wannabee is somehow more evil than a Eldritch being that has existed for eoms. It's so obvious she's trying to dance around the problem and her fans will defend her saying Rape isn't about lust and that it falls under Wrath but that feels like a cop out. Also I'm pretty sure most destructive/evil behavior could realistically fall under multiple sins at once so I'm not sure why that doesn't apply here.

Seriously I think her shows being in Hell is not needed at this point. This safe edgy stuff doesn't work, especially since Viv wants to have it both ways. She wants to be edgy and cool, but she's too scared to go all in so she's pretty much playing ping pong with the story.

[yellowocaballero]

i very much enjoy the extremely scientific analysis of the naruto verse in which there are three genders, aka naruto, sasuke, and Woman.

AM I WRONG? AM I WRONG? pulls down projection screen and plays powerpoint

Obviously let's give room for nuance. A ton of Naruto characters don't fall into these gender norms. This does predominantly apply to the rampant proliferation of the three-person dynamics that were assigned by the government and dictate your entire life. And, like, society. It does not end. Gender isn't a biological factor in Naruto, it's a social dynamic constructed entirely by your homoerotic tension with other men. And there are so many.

Madara (S), Hashirama (N), Mito (W). Izuna (N) and Tobirama (S) - tragically, Izuna died before women could be invented. Sarutobi (N), Danzo (S, horrifically) - see above about women not being invented yet. Jiraiya (N), Orochimaru (S), Tsunade (W). Yahiko (N), Nagato (S), Konan (W). Obito (N), Kakashi (S), Rin (W). Shisui (N), Itachi (S), that little deeply unimportant girlfriend (W). Um, fucking, Naruto (N), Sasuke (S), Sakura (W). Even - even, fuckin, Rock Lee (N), Neiji (S), Tenten (W).

And what do they all have in common????

(OT3. They're all OT3s. Is what I'm saying).

There is some room for alternative gender expressions here, like being butch or femme. Naruto gender expressions: teacher, otouto, woman who you can't even tell is woman gendered because she has no backstory but you just have to kinda assume that she has a polycule-based backstory where she was Woman Gender. I feel almost as if 2/3rds of the Rookie 9 are liberated from this. InoShikaCho just doesn't fit (their chaotic cousin energy is just too strong and Ino's too much of a lesbian). Hinata's too busy being defined entirely by a different throuple's N to have codependent dynamics with her own N and S (and I'm hesitant to even say that, since I actually don't know if Kiba and Shino have a codependent rivalry - do they?).

I get, like, the reason for all of this. Curse of Hatred. Cycles. N and S Genders being sourced from demigods or something. Narrative parallelism. Sympathy points. It's not the bad guy's fault he's evil, his N and W gendered counterparts died :(. But an extremely strange side-effect of this is that all of the male characters are, like, Just Naruto or Just Sasuke. But the vast majority of the female characters are - like, completely defined by the men in their lives - but also they are more likely to be a unique person. Mito, Sakura, and Rin have actually nothing in common. Writing so sexist it creates more interesting characters?!?!

Unironically, this is why I'm always saying that Sasunaru is the ship of all time, nothing will ever top it, you will NEVER do it like Sasunaru, etc. Every important relationship in the series is meant to evoke Sasunaru. (Notably, none of the explicitly romantic ones. But we're beyond such paltry understandings of the most iconic pairing of all time as fundamentally based in romance. We're operating on a higher level than that). This unbroken chain of toxic yaoi has culminated at the end point of Sasunaru, and it exists to parallel Sasunaru and define their relationship by the dysfunction of generations of tragedy. That's why Naruto has to consciously break the cycle and free them from the generational hate - it was the only way to save Sasuke. This is also why I'm always saying that Sasunaru is the point of Naruto, and that the entirety of Naruto is about Sasunaru. Come back to me when your work has invented new genders in the all-encompassing pursuit of toxic yaoi.

This also means that the only truly gender non-conforming individuals in Naruto are its mightiest heterosexuals: Minato (W) and Kushina (N). Truly insane. The N/S/W configuration is the societal norm, it's bonkers to make a major good-aligned male character a wifeguy. By Naruto standards Minato and Kushina are the only queer couple.

[ariadne-mouse]

This post discusses addiction & mentions related heavy topics.

The addiction comparison for what Laudna has going on with Delilah is certainly not 1:1. Most obviously, addictive substances & activities IRL are not sentient evil wizards who have found a way to cheat death (that we know of). Put more seriously: in-universe, warlocks exist all over and the relationships they have with their patrons don't necessarily evoke addiction; someone saying they are a warlock does not mean are an addict. But I've seen a couple takes thrown around for why Laudna's connection with Delilah isn't or can't be compared to addiction, and I'd like to examine those briefly.

Let's start with the origin of their entanglement - it's notable, for instance, that Laudna's fusion with Delilah's spirit was not something she chose or was necessarily even conscious of at first; however, equally notable is that not all IRL addiction begins with a person making bad choices to do the addictive thing, such as in the cases of forced drug use in trafficking, painkillers post-surgery, etc.

There is also the point that Laudna would die if Delilah were to be removed, whereas addicts can put aside the object of their addiction. But here there is also grey area: in some cases, unassisted withdrawal from serious substances can in fact kill you. And for another angle, even when it is quit the object of addiction will still exist in the world somewhere; it cannot be completely removed either, and it is the recovering addict's challenge not to engage.

Next is the way feeding Delilah gives Laudna new powers she can use to help the group - and certainly, IRL addiction doesn't give you magical combat abilities! But a substance being abused may indeed provide an effect that the user can leverage to their advantage (stimulants for work productivity, alcohol for relaxation or confidence, etc). Addiction happens because the mind and/or body are getting something in return that feels good, at least in the short term.

I mention these counterpoints not to say it's all a slam dunk, but rather to point out that addiction is a hugely complex issue, both mental and physical, taking many forms. If you want an addiction comparison to apply to Laudna, or not, you can probably find a manifestation of addiction out there that aligns with your argument. Marisha and others of the cast using addiction to describe Laudna's behavior just gives us one (1) possible lens to orient her experience and motivations, and, critically, to envision a way out for her: to fight Delilah with every ounce of willpower she has, to ask for the support of her friends in that effort, and to shove Delilah back into the sub-basement of her brain and keep her there for good. A common adage around addiction is that there is no "curing" it, just the lifelong work of recovery; and similarly, if Delilah can't be fully removed from Laudna, she has been successfully suppressed before and could be again. I think it would be incredibly powerful to see Laudna take that journey! She has agency in her circumstances and she can seize it. Also, she still has responsibility for her actions when they harm those around her; addiction, like trauma, explains but doesn't excuse.

The addiction comparison for Laudna and Delilah seems to have mixed reactions from fandom, and that's fine! If it truly just doesn't resonate with you, fair enough - there are plenty of other valid ways to describe Laudna's behavior and circumstances, and not mutually exclusive with the addiction angle either. We don't have to pick only one way of interpreting what characters do (in fact I advise against it), and as the story evolves our frameworks of interpretation may change too. A lens is just a tool for understanding. But for the handful of folks on the two sides of the polarized reaction coin at the moment - those either overly defensive about the comparison or conversely leaning into it in an ugly, mean way - if you think the word "addict" by itself irrevocably condemns Laudna or deprives her of compassion for her circumstances, perhaps consider mulling over how you view addicts IRL.

[ayphyx]

Why is it that whenever someone talks about media literacy they only talk about things like rape, incest, pedophilia, and murder but never misogyny, racism, fatphobia, or ableism

Like it’s always about “problematic ships” and “evil characters” but never about how the treatment of woc in media influences how woc are treated in society and vice versa. How female characters are almost always the ones being singled out as “annoying” compared to male characters. Or how, yeah, there might be an in-story reason to why this lazy, depressed character is fat but societal views on fat people being lazy, depressed, unhygienic, etc., most definitely influenced the writer’s choice to make that lazy character fat.

I find that a lot of the “media literacy” arguments that pertain to subjects of sexual abuse and violence don’t really apply to other subjects in a way that isn’t wildly or even somewhat bigoted. Ofc there’s not gonna be a catch-all argument for how every theme should be treated in media but the arguments should at least be somewhat consistent.

I rarely ever see anyone talk about media literacy in a way that doesn’t boil down to “ok but liking evil/bad/taboo characters/themes/stories don’t make you a bad person and authors can write things they don’t agree about.” This statement isn’t wrong and i agree with it but it shouldn’t be your only knowledge on what media literacy is.

Sometimes, a story that has a rape scene in it depicts rape poorly. Whether its because rape was written in a fetishistic light or because the victims weren’t treated with the respect that they deserve, you need to be able to know how and why that scene is (cant think of a better word rn but I’ll probably change it later cause i don’t really like using this word) problematic. The fact that the story depicts rape isn’t the problem, it’s how they chose to depict it. And yes, how this story depicts rape can absolutely affect how a person views rape victims irl.

Sometimes, an author includes racist views into their work. Sure, depiction isn’t endorsement but when an author writes primarily about white characters, and has the first character of color in their book be executed as that character’s introduction, don’t be surprised when that author turns out to be a racist.

Yes, fiction isn’t one-to-one with reality but they both influence each other in a way that cannot be escaped. You will never find a piece of media that isn’t influenced by reality and you will never find a person whose views havent been influenced by a piece of media.

(Also, there is a tendency that i see in a lot of fandom “media literacy” people. And that is the tendency to use leftist, anti-racist phrases and terminology to refer to fandom discourse. “Kill the cop inside your head” refers to killing that part of your brain that has been drilled by society to view black, brown, and poor people as threats. It does not refer to people who don’t like your 20k incest fanfiction and are kinda mean about it. Stop fucking fandomizing anti-racist rhetoric. You just look fucking racist)

Sorry if this is kinda incoherent, I’m mostly just rambling.

[evilbihan]

Congratulations, OP, on making the most factually incorrect post I've ever seen on this hellsite.

Let's take this trainwreck of an "analysis" apart step by step, shall we?

Oh, good lord, now I'm seeing Bi-Han stans say his father was abusive. There is literally nothing in MK1 implying that.

In the previous timeline, Bi-Han's and Kuai Liang's father literally kidnapped them and killed their mother and sister, then raised them to become assassins against their will, but now we're supposed to believe that man's a saint?

I've said this in a different post before and I'll repeat it here too: The core essence of every character in MK1 is basically still the same as it was in the old timeline. Geras is still loyal to his creator (previously Kronika, now Liu Kang), Scorpion might be a different person now but he's still vengeful, Sindel is good now, but she's still a merciless ruler, Kung Lao is still ambitious, etc. Not a single one of these characters is a completely new and different person. Following that logic, the same thing would apply to the old grandmaster.

At first glance, it may seem like nothing implies that Bi-Han's and Kuai Liang's father was abusive, but that's only if you ignore anything outside of the main story.

I made an entire post about it here, but I'll give you the short version:

Additionally, there was a node in the previous season of invasions mode that involved another fight with Bi-Han, titled "second best". Second best at what? We know that in the old timeline, Bi-Han was the Lin Kuei's best assassin. Therefore, this could have only been referring to the new era's Bi-Han, again confirming that their father had a favorite son, Kuai Liang, not Bi-Han.

Believe it or not, this is a form of emotional abuse.

Y'all (thirsty fandom bitches) are so obsessed with your villain faves being victims of parental abuse, even when canon doesn't imply that or literally says otherwise. I've seen it in the Scream fandom, now it's in the MK fandom, too.

Still not convinced? How about we change perspectives from my favorite character to my least favorite one then? Everyone who's been following this blog knows I can't stand Kuai Liang, but I even believe him to be a victim of abuse at his own father's hand, albeit in a different way than Bi-Han.

Nitara: Had you ever known hunger, you wouldn't judge us. Scorpion: I have, and I will.

So, what does this intro tell us?

Kuai Liang has known hunger, so there must have been a period in his life where he has been starving, but why? Poverty seems highly unlikely. The Lin Kuei seem well organized and in his tower ending, Bi-Han talks about how many of their resources were spent on the cyber initiative, so I doubt the Lin Kuei were ever poor or he wouldn't have been able to afford all that technology at all. The brothers also come across as quite arrogant. Growing up poor would have probably made them more humble.

So, why was Kuai Liang starving? Would loving parents let their children starve? Was it perhaps part of their training or a way to punish them for disobedience? And if so, why does Kuai Liang still think and speak so highly of his father? Stockholm syndrome maybe.

And let's say it wasn't the grandmaster's fault that they were starving, then wouldn't it make Bi-Han's ambition to give the clan more wealth and power noble instead of selfish? It would mean no more starving for any of the Lin Kuei in the future.

Regardless of your takeaway from this, the end result remains the same: Bi-Han is not evil.

Bi-Han has always been an asshole. He's power-hungry and he is a bad person. Him murdering his father (whom his brothers haven't implied anything bad about) is no surprise, and trying to make up completely non-canon things to justify it because you can't handle liking a fictional villain is moronic.

Bi-Han has always been an asshole? Always as in previous timelines? Because by that logic, his father has always been an asshole too. See how you're contradicting yourself here? Secondly, Bi-Han is not a bad person. That's straight up wrong.

Ashrah said he's redeemable.

Kuai Liang said he and Bi-Han were once close.

Bi-Han shows genuine regret over Sindel's death.

Tomas, one of the nicest characters in the game, used to look up to Bi-Han.

Kitana's announcer voice when selecting Bi-Han: "You were a decent person once."

He's flawed, not evil.

The only person making up completely non-canon things is you.

Oh, and for the record, I'm a huge fan of Homelander and there's no saving grace to that man. I don't care though, I love villains.

Here's the punchline though, Bi-Han isn't a villain, he's an anti-hero/anti-villain type of character. Do some research.

It's Bi-Han. Bi-Han would sell his little brother to Shang Tsung for a single corn chip! (And I don't mean Tomas; he'd give away Tomas for free.)

Bi-Han literally refused to deliver Kuai Liang to Kronika in MK11 as Noob when Geras told him to.

Geras: Bring your brother to Kronika. Noob Saibot: The dead are my clan. Geras: Do you serve or do you not?

Bi-Han doesn't wish harm upon either of his brothers in MK1 either, he tells them multiple times to surrender and join him. Just watch their intros, it's all there. He even admitted that he wanted Kuai Liang to rule by his side. In his intros with Shang Tsung, he also mentions that he regrets ever trusting him.

The whole original post is a joke. Implying that people who are upset over mischaracterization and bad writing must be thirsting over a character is just ridiculous.

How wrong do you want to be?

OP: yes.

[acewizardinspace]

People complain that the jedi don't act appropriately to being forced to use a slaver army, but they seem to forget that the jedi can't. Not just in universe (although yes, in universe there was nothing the jedi could do about this decision made by the senate) but narratively.

The jedi can't comment on the clone's slavery because the narrative won't let them! As a matter of fact, the narrative won't let anyone mention this! Literally no one calls the clones slaves seriously, even characters who by all accounts should feel that way because the narrative won't let them because they are fictional people created by a team of writers.

The clones aren't slaves in universe because the writers refuse to write them that way. Do I personally feel that this should have been a plot point? Yeah I think it would have been interesting! But they didn't!

Is it fun to explore this in fanfiction? Yeah it totally is! I know I would mention it in any fic I write in the future.

Does it make for good media criticism or analysis? No! This is just straight up not how you professionally analysis media. It is worth bring up in a discussion about the creators and exploring why they didn't bring these things up in the series. That would be good media analysis.

But as "proof" that some characters are bad this fails dramatically. Why? Because then you must apply this logic to every character, meaning not just the jedi are evil but actually every single character in the whole series, yes all of them, are evil. Once you do that you have successfully thrown away any meaning the original work had. It is all pointless now.

People confuse in-universe (watsonian) and out-of-universe (doylist) analysis. 'Why did no one do anything about the clone's situation?' is a shit watsonian analysis. But 'why the fuck did the writers write the clones like this?' is a GREAT doylist question.

Media analysis should add meaning, or explain meaning, or even describe why you feel the work lacks meaning, but it should never take all meaning away.

It is the same reason droids aren't called slaves. It would complicate the narrative and distract from whatever the writers were actually trying to say. The writers don't want to go there, so they don't.

[ewingstan]

Finished 14.10. Kinda got dueling reactions, because on the one hand I think it is an excitingly tense, knife-twisting conversation. You could practically feel Amy's stomach drop every time Dot revealed something through an off-hand comment. And the ugly knots Amy has tied herself in are captivating in places. I've already said that I don't think her recent habit of blaming other people for not letting her change is in-line with her character, or makes sense as a countertheme to Breakthrough's theme of working to change. But her comment about wishing one of them had died in Gold Morning? That was great. This horrible thought she keeps circling around and trying to steer away from because she knows how horrible it is—for all that it makes her look inhuman, it actually feels the most like something Worm-era Amy would say out of anything she's said this chapter.

That said, that good character work is being applied to the wrong character. "I know its wrong, but I resent that the people who hate me for justified reasons are still alive" is something that the members of Breakthrough should've been dealing with this whole story, not just their villain. Its an emotional reaction that's hideous, and is so wrong on the face of it that it makes you feel heinous, but its also what you'd expect someone who's badly hurt others to feel: to wish that there wasn't someone out there who hated them, and who hated them for good reason. Breakthrough's whole thing is that its made up of people who have horribly hurt others! If this is a story about confronting the hard parts of changing, don't pretend its just the bad evil people who have those types of fucked-up wishes!

But the members of Breakthrough have been given outs. The people who most hate Rain turned out to be brainwashed or evil, so their hate doesn't feel justified the way Vicky's hate for Amy does. The people who hate Sveta are all portrayed as bloodthirsty extremists, so Tress doesn't need to feel bad about wishing them ill. The people who hate Kenzie are beefing with a nine year old. Most of the people who'd have justified reason to hate Ashley are dead.

The one character who was in a situation like Amy's, where they ended up resenting the person they hurt for continuing to exist as a reminder of what they did, was Tristan (because of course). In the flashbacks, he seemed to sometimes wish Byron had actually died rather than having to deal with him being in the back of his mind, trapped and rightfully angry. And it was fascinating to read, because it was horrible, and he knew it was horrible, and yet you could understand why he felt it even as you screamed at him. But then for the non-flashback bulk of the story, Byron has forgiven him and Tristan doesn't need to deal with those thoughts!

If you want to make a story about people changing for the better, you can't have everyone they've wronged either forgive them or turn evil. You gotta explore what being hated for understandable reasons means. And you can't pretend that only the really bad people who never change their behavior have those types of ugly thoughts.

[dealilcats]

Have you ever thought about the fact that Macavity just sounds sick. Like, "very tall and thin", "eyes are sunken in", "coat dusted from neglect", "whiskers are uncombed", "he sways his head from side to side", "always wide awake".

Which makes sense. T.S.E. based him on Professor Moriarty, and sickness and 'uglyness' were often associated with evil in literature (think like Jekyll and Hyde), so Macavity is evil and he carries it on his body like an illness.

He has a "respectable" side, and he can be found "in a by street", "in the square", "resting, or a licking of his thumbs, or engaged in doing complicated long division sums". (The latter is, again, just a reference to Moriarty, but hilarious when applied to a cat, like the equivalent of whistling with hands behind your back).

Because all his crimes are either done for him, it seems, or carried out so efficiently, that he doesn't need to linger one moment. So that even though "the Secret service" swears up and down "it must've been Macavity", they have no real way to prove it.

When applied to Moriarty, this creates an evil mastermind:

"The greatest schemer of all time, the organizer of every devilry, the controlling brain of the underworld, a brain which might have made or marred the destiny of nations—that's the man!

But so aloof is he from general suspicion, so immune from criticism, so admirable in his management and self-effacement, that for those very words that you have uttered he could hale you to a court and emerge with your year's pension as a solatium for his wounded character."

Holmes, The Valley of Fear

"He is the Napoleon of crime, Watson. He is the organiser of half that is evil and of nearly all that is undetected in this great city..."

Holmes, "The Final Problem"

(Citations from wikipedia)

But then you remember Macavity is a cat, and so the idea that he's "broken every human law" is as preposterous as him being capable of complex equations. It's just exaggeration. There's no real consequences. Macavity does crime, he's as slimy and slippery as a snake, and he gets away with it, and it's funny because he's a damn cat, baffling the entirety of Scotland Yard.

But if we're talking song, that's an entirely different story. Demeter sings about him, and she's stricken with grief and fear, and she sounds like she's warning you to keep watching over your shoulder because you never know where you might (not) encounter him. Bombalurina seems mildly turned on, but it's not like she's paying him any compliments. They changed the line from "they say he cheats" to "I know he cheats", which along with "always wide awake" makes it sound like she's speaking from experience, and with the choreography sounds more like she's telling Demeter (but mostly the audience) not to believe whatever facade he may put up because, after all, he's a "monster of depravity".

And adding onto what I was saying earlier about sickness, with the way he's "not there" and no one can catch him, not even his footprints, he almost sounds like a ghost. Hell, apparently he has "powers of levitation". Demeter certainly looks like she's seen a ghost, like it's whispering in her ears and tormenting her with all that he's implied to have done to her.

And his costume is just as horrifying - in the 98 ver, the makeup is so over the top, the long claws, the messy fur, the sharp stripes, he looks nightmarish, and completely out of place when compared to the other cats. He matches the description to a T, he's exactly what you expected, and then some.

I guess what I'm trying to say is, the musical makes you think about the consequences of what he does. It's not a silly cat confusing the humans. It's a depravate spreading his sickness on anything he touches, who fascinates with his appearance, but still cannot hide what he really is - and the fact that he gets away with it is terrifying.

[kittyit]

One thing I don't like about trans critical spaces is how they are focused on trans women being unattractive and 'cringe.' this is just my personal experience, but I have been sexually victimized by multiple trans women, most of whom passed, many of whom were skinny and beautiful and most of which had high brow tastes and no interest in anime or other cringe topics. one of these TIMs was a serial sexual assailant and I think probably attracted to underage boys, and she was also beautiful and charismatic. Meanwhile, I also know multiple trans women who are good people and don't infringe on female spaces but who are conventionally "ugly", broad-shouldered, and have masculine interests. It also seems like the only thing TIMs criticize about each other publically is being "ugly", large, or fat.

my position has consistently been for about 15 years that mocking someone's appearance is not a feminist act. it simply isn't.

mocking appearance is essentially a cruel hobby, it's primate social aggression we're using our huge brains for. it's really fun, and that's why almost everyone does it. i sometimes do it too, in private, in intimate company, and it's enjoyable. i say this to clarify that despite my position, i don't set myself apart or above from women who do it. i do it too. and it's constant in basically every subculture online. julie bindel actually posted on her facebook recently troubled about this same thing. as you said, it's so common in queer/trans circles too, the long-forgotten 2013 values of tenderqueerism fallen to the wayside. stan culture, politics, just basically everything...i really can't stress enough that in my opinion, it is a hobby

mocking appearances is not feminist or activism. it quite often is anti-feminist. it's kindergarten stuff to not judge a book by its cover. it doesn't matter what a male person looks like - he is still male and all considerations that apply to male people apply to him. i don't need to think a male person has a hideous appearance to criticize him for any of the oppressive acts he's doing. focus on appearance (or other unrelated personal attacks) often takes the sting out of a criticism of someone's character, morals or actions and makes your argument easier to dismiss. and of course the now mocked & dismissed concept that when you rip into someone's appearance, you do friendly fire to anyone around who shares those features. but of course this doesn't matter to anyone because it's 1. so fun 2. we're so used to it 3. everyone is doing it 4. so who cares? (I do. However)

i also just can't really scrape up that much finger wagging anymore at women who do spend a huge amount of time blowing off steam mocking the insane parodies that trans women present as. it's basically evil imaginative play. it's just not activism and acting like it is, as you said, is really detrimental to radical feminism being understood as a feminist way of thought that deeply affects women's lives.

as for the rest of this, have you read pronouns are rohypnol? you do not have to call a serial rapist pedophile you knew she. there is no one here but us, he cannot hear you. i encourage you to free up processing power in your mind, especially if you've survived trans male violence. calling the men who harmed you he can be a turning point in reclaiming your own sense of reality, it was for me

[punkeropercyjackson]

Hot take but Percy Jackson actually isn't anything like Harry Potter and the reason they're popularly compared is due to the mass mischaracterization and misenterpretation that leads to sanatization of Percy to turn him into a more standard protagonist despite the whole point his character being that he's NOT normal while Harry's is that he IS and that made him into a very bland and lowkey passive aggressive bigot that's an awful example for kids while Percy is the perfect role model.Like let's look them over.Percy:

Was born poor and never becomes rich

Is a child abuse victim with consistent trauma responses and unhealthy coping mechanisms all the way starting at The Lightning Thief

Beat up bullies as a kid,was targeted by them to begin with because he's neurodivergent and his teachers picked on him too

Has nothing but love and respect for his fellow minorities,women especially thanks to being a mama's boy with no positive older male figures in his life except Beckendorf

Is pessimistic,sardonic,anger issued,bad at socializing and gets embarrased to be overly open with his emotions but none of this turns him into a bad person but instead makes him realistic and relatable

And he's also kind,gentle,nurturing to the point of basically adopting younger demigods as his found siblings and pseudo-kids if they don't have positive adult figures in their lives already,encouraging,loyal to a literal fatal fault and has a distinctive and iconic sense of humor that never dosen't land

Didn't like Annabeth or Rachel for shallow reasons and instead for their personalities and only wasn't into Reyna because he was taken at the time and treats all three of them very nicely

Is an instigator who's driving point as our hero is taking down corrupted figures but also does activism for the lesser treated people in his world by helping out every time he gets a chance to,has one of his core trait's being that he's COMPLETELY devoid in power hunger and pretty arguably counts as an anarchist because of this

Relating to the sense of humor thing again,his whole PERSONALITY is distinctive-He's not just some fantasy protagonist,he's PERCY JACKSON.The name alone gives everybody who's read the books flashbacks to all his crazy ass shit(affectionate)and that's how you know you've got a well-written protagonist

And Percy is legitimately transfem-coded,because i've met so many trans women in the Pjo fandom and every single one of them without exception have said that she's a femme trans woman egg.This also applies to black/afrolatino folks and autistics in the fandom like me to a less near universal extent

While Harry:

Grew up middle class and then got riches out the ass when the series started

Is a very poor attempt at positive abuse survivor rep because he uses his mental health as an excuse to a huge dick with no consequences given to him afterward

Had no tormenters other than the Dursleys

A 'dosen't know better and refuses to learn' typa bigot with tons of passive aggressive remarks about girls and ableism and fatphobia thrown in too,not to mention racist moments like hating Dean for dating Ginny

Is the quintessential young male fantasy protagonist and this is exactly his problem because it makes him boring asf and we're dealing with so much fucking damage in the kids fantasy genre thanks to his musty ass

All his crushes were shallow(Only liked Cho for a pretty girljock and only noticed Ginny when she became one too and prioritizes looks and society's idea of 'coolness' on the other girls his age too like damn i wonder why he only ever saw Hermione as a sister,surely it can't be connected /s)

Never does actual justice fighting unless he's required to and don't tell me he shouldn't have needed to because this wasn't real life,it was a magics series so he should've fought evil on purpose like Percy did and so did Katniss Everdeen and the Pevensie Siblings and all the other actual good kids books protags.This genre is supposed to be a power fantasy for kids that they can be heroes too and Harry failed big time at his job just like he did at everything else

Again,he is VERY mediocre as a character but mediocrity sells and now we have a million clones of him instead of real mcs

Is part of exactly zero minorities,neither intentionally or accidentally,and that made him grow up to be a cop.Douchebag ass white straight boy Harry vs Autistic afrolatina transfemme slay Percy.No competition,Percy's punk so she'd kill Harry to earn her blue laces

And before Maraturds and Luke/gods stans get bold,you're literally him irl but worse besties♡

[cringecompanionapologist]

Some Observations About Tegan

I have the classic fandom problem of paying more attention to the boys than the girls. I know. But here's some stuff about a woman. Well, not really, since it's above a dynamic between that woman and a man, but it's not in a romantic sense, so maybe that helps? I don't know.

But I do wanna say some stuff about Tegan.

Looking at both the show and fandom response to the character, I can't help but think that Tegan is one of the most screwed-over companions in the history of Doctor Who. The same could be said to some extent of every Saward Era companion (Adric, Nyssa, Tegan, Turlough, Peri, and Mel), but it's frustrating with Tegan in a way slightly different from the others, especially among Five's group.

Every companion from this era was screwed over by the writers, the fandom, or both in their own unique way. Some of it was fixed in hindsight, especially with Nyssa, favorite companion of Peter Davison and beloved of Big Finish that she is. By the time we get to Peri and Mel, it feels like the companions were being set up to fail and doomed from the start. Adric and Turlough, as male companions, have to fight an uphill battle to justify their existence, especially since they both break away from the traditionally male companion role of "handsome man of action who does the fight scenes and convinces women to watch the show".

Tegan was the most "normal" of Five's companions, which is why she stuck around for as long as she did. She could fill a sort of generic companion role that you couldn't convincingly do with the alien companions. She had more in common with the audience. But, having her just exist to ask "What's that?" over and over didn't do much for her characterization.

Looking into the show's history and what the team behind the scenes seemed to want to do with it at the time, it all sort of makes sense. Most of the writers seemed more interested in sci-fi concepts than in characters. The characters were kept generic to avoid distracting from the worldbuilding and complex plot exposition. This is probably how Five got his reputation for blandness. A lot of televised Five stories have the Doctor as a generic Doctor and the companions as generic companions. They didn't have to be written this way. They had personalities. But most of the writers had little interest in actually using them.

The isn't as big of a problem in EU media. You got a new generation of writers with more interest in the characters, so the characters got developed in a way the show never really let them. However, that doesn't mean that the EU just came in and made everything perfect. This applies to pretty much every character but the way it applies to Tegan is interesting. It's my belief that Tegan, though written well at times, was never utilized in the way that would've worked best.

To explain what I mean by that, we'll have to step away from Tegan for a moment and look at the Fifth Doctor. Since the Doctor is the main character for most eras of the show, the companions are usually written to compliment them in some way. The male companions of the 60s were made into action heroes because that was something the Doctor couldn't do. The companions often have different moral positions from the Doctor, creating situations for them to learn from each other. The plot of the early seasons was basically all about the balance of the worldviews of the Doctor vs. Ian and Barbara. And from them, the basic ideas behind how companions are supposed to work were established.

But, as the Doctor regenerated, you ended up with different personalities and different skill sets. The Second Doctor had better social skills than the first and was often easier to get along with. He occasionally needed his companions to call him out, but the tone of it had changed. Compare The Edge of Destruction, where the Doctor is definitely in the wrong and needs to learn to listen to Barbara, who talks some sense into him, to The Evil of the Daleks, where Jamie calls the Doctor out for lying to him and risking his life, but the audience is given enough context to know that the Doctor is doing the best he can and tried to avoid risking Jamie to the point of offering himself up in his place, making the situation more of a misunderstanding. The Doctor was being dishonest, but he put more thought into Jamie's safety than Jamie was aware of. The conflict is now far more two-sided.

We could go into the whole history of this process, but I think I've made my point. Now we've got to ask how this applies to the Fifth Doctor. Every Doctor sort of serves as a response and contrast to the previous one. Two is more socially aware than One, but this awareness allows him to manipulate people and be more dishonest. Now we look at how Five contrasts with Four.

The important thing here is actually a trait of both Three and Four that Five seems to lack, but that he doesn't really know how to solve problems without, something I could describe as a Vibe of Authority. Three and Four could show up in a room full of strangers and make them all shut up and listen to them. It was in their force of personality. Five doesn't have this trait. He tries to make people shut up and listen, but they don't and then people start dying.

The thing is, the Doctor is perfectly capable of saving the day without the Vibe of Authority. We already know this by Five's time because Two pulled it off easily. He was a funny little man in shaggy clothes. When he showed up in a situation, he didn't feel like an authority who needed to be listened to. He was just a traveler who happened to be in the neighborhood, noticed that there seemed to be some trouble, and now he's curious. Two would often stay on the sidelines, ask questions, learn about what was going on and the motives of everyone involved, and only take action once he already knew everything and had been around for long enough for the locals to realize that he knew what he was talking about. They'd notice that the people who dismissed him tended to be killed by monsters more than those who listened to him, and they started listening.

Some Doctors have the Vibe of Authority and some don't. Some are a bit more vague about it. 3, 4, and 6 definitely have it. 2 and 7 don't and know how to get by without it. The new series tends to give the Doctor the Vibe of Authority or the ability to gain that authority with one good speech. Midnight is about what would happen in 10's usual Vibe of Authority failed him. 13 has the same problem as 5 with the added implication of sexism being involved. 15 has the Vibe of Authority unless racism is involved.

So you end up with three (2 and a half, really) lose categories of Doctors with Authority, Doctors that lack Authority and can make it work, and Doctors that lack Authority but can't make it work and thus suffer. 5 invented this category.

The thing is, the audience wants to see the Doctor save the day. A few tragic failures here and there are memorable. You have the occasional Midnight where things don't work like they're supposed to, the occasional Dot and Bubble where it's all outside the Doctor's control, and it works. But, if it happens all the time, it's just depressing. You don't wanna have too many be losses in a row. You'll notice that Midnight and Dot and Bubble are both stories where a Doctor with Authority gets into a situation where their authority is compromised. This isn't the norm for them. But, with Doctors like 5, people not listening and dying tragically is the norm. It's very cynical and no fun.

So, how do we get around this? Companions. If the Doctor can't take control of the situation himself, you get a companion who can do it for him. Get everyone to shut up and listen to their friend the expert.

Tegan is perfect for this. We see it from the very beginning. In Logopolis, when she ends up in a situation, she tries to take charge. This clashes with Four's authority, but that's not a problem with Five. He thinks it is, because he expects to be treated like Three and Four, but instead of trying to be like them and failing, he could learn that Tegan could help him out. The flight attendant keeps the passengers calm and instructs them on what to do in an emergency while the pilot sorts out what's wrong with the plane.

In this format, Tegan is a sort of update of Barbara designed for a Doctor like Five. The Doctor has to learn that, despite her being an ordinary human, she's someone worth listening to. They develop a sense of mutual respect and start working as a team. They get into situations. The Doctor is the one who knows how to fix it, but Tegan is the one makes sure it gets done.

If you look at Castrovalva, you can see that Bidmead, season 18's script editor who wrote season 19's first story on the way out, seemed to be aware of this. It's kind of funny that Bidmead basically wrote the instructions for how to manage the new TARDIS team into the script and either no one noticed or no one followed them.

Tegan takes charge and keeps the group together. Nyssa is the STEM genius who handles the technobable. Adric is the show's connection to the past, connecting the Doctor to Tegan and Nyssa kind of like how Susan connected the Doctor to Ian and Barbara. Also he can sort of fly the TARDIS with his math powers.

But, instead, we got Tegan being portrayed as an obnoxious complainer, Nyssa as a borderline non-entity, and Adric refusing to get along with anyone and none of his skills amounting to anything.

Between this and Frontios, which gave Turlough an arc without being his introduction or exit, Bidmead was obviously one of the most competent writers of this era.

Anyway, this is the part where I blame sexism.

This TARDIS team set-up would be based on its own version of The Edge of Destruction, a crisis that gets everyone working together for the first time. Specifically, it would involve the Doctor learning to listen to Tegan, like the First Doctor learned to listen to Barbara.

Yes, the third story of the Hartnell era was basically about the Doctor learning to listen to and respect a woman. Yes, the Hartnell era is dated, and that includes its treatment of women, but by Classic who standards, it was one of the most progressive eras in that regard. You started off with Verity Lambert as producer, a woman with a major role behind the scenes and it pays off. Yes, the women screamed a lot and needed to be rescued sometimes. Susan was particularly bad about this, despite having the potential to not be. But, Susan is recognized for her intelligence. Ian and Barbara are treated as equals and treat each other as equals. The Doctor learning to respect humanity is somewhat based in respecting Barbara in particular. By The Edge of Destruction, Ian had called the Doctor out on his bullshit multiple times. The Doctor would behave better for a little while, but he kept being a bastard. It's Barbara calling him out that causes him to change. Basically, when the Doctor thinks about his love and respect for humanity and how great humans are, he's thinking of Barbara.

Tegan was basically Barbara for a new generation. An ordinary human woman who was still intelligent and capable as a leader. But, Tegan's more assertive side was consistently portrayed as something annoying, with the implication that she needed to shut up and listen to the Doctor. It's the opposite of what you got with Barbara twenty years prior.

And, though Tegan has been given more depth and written sympathetically, this aspect of the character still hasn't really been recognized. To my knowledge, there still isn't a story where the Doctor has to put aside his pride and listen to Tegan. And I think that's kind of sad.

A lot of new series companions (especially Donna) have worked to make up for this. It's not the 1980s anymore. But we can't fully dismiss this as "people from the past sucked" when the show was more progressive in 1964 than it was in 1984.

Anyway, tldr: Tegan deserved better

That's all I got.