#I think this would be the ideal way to die for several reasons the main one being ✨the drama of it all✨

[whimsyprinx]

i truly should’ve been born to a noble family that has more rivals and enemies than they do allies so that one day I would inevitably be caught in the crossfire and dies tragically coughing up blood (and tea) after succumbing to the poison that has laced my tea

[sokkastyles]

i’ve seen people argue that it was selfish/unethical of zuko not to kill ozai when they were alone during the eclipse since he had the chance and placing that burden on aang’s shoulders (even though it had been on aang’s shoulders since the start of the narrative.)

aside from the fact that, from a doylist perspective, aang is the main protagonist and the audience would have been disappointed not to see HIM driving the final confrontation with ozai, i also think it would diminish zuko’s arc as he lets go of the control ozai once had over him, as not allowing himself to be goaded into violence and only defending himself when attacked is defiance in and of itself.

i can’t help thinking, though, what would have happened if he had, and i only see two/maybe three logical outcomes—none of which would have actually helped the team, anyway. either zuko IS goaded into a fight (not in line with his arc at this point, but for the sake of argument) and ozai kills him (because i do still think ozai would be manipulative enough to stall/prolong combat until the end of the eclipse), or zuko redirects lightning at ozai, which maybe kills him. (though iroh survives getting struck by lightning with, like, no healing in book two, so… who knows? not me!) whether it does or doesn’t, zuko would likely be arrested as a traitor (at best, though it seems unlikely execution wouldn’t be on the table), and if ozai did die, i can only imagine that would mean azula, who still actively upholds imperialist ideals and actions, ascending to the throne and carrying on with her father’s plans. i guess there is some small chance zuko could escape after an assassination (attempt), but i find “zuko is either killed or imprisoned, aang never gets a firebending teacher, and the team has a much harder time winning the war and/or they don’t” a far more likely chain of events.

i don’t really know what the point of this is, other than that i can’t stop thinking about it, and i’d love to hear your thoughts if my rambling happens to inspire any <3

Not only has it been Aang's burden to begin with, but another reason why Zuko should not be the one to kill Ozai is for the same reason Iroh shouldn't. It would look like an attempt to steal power from within the royal family. The burden has to be on Aang's shoulders because as the Avatar, he acts as an ambassador of all nations. That's the whole purpose of having all four elements in one body. If Zuko kills Ozai, he actually runs the risk of threatening the peace Aang is trying to create. What would it look like if word got out that the firelord's son did what the Avatar failed to do, after 100 years of people already losing hope in the Avatar? Part of the whole deal is returning that hope to the world, that faith in the harmony that the Avatar symbolically represents. Otherwise, why should the other nations care that one fire nation royal deposes another?

As you say, a number of things could go wrong. One is that Ozai goads Zuko into a fight and kills him, which was Ozai's plan in the first place. Like, does anyone think that Ozai was trying to get Zuko to do this for Zuko's benefit? Ozai is absolutely trying to manipulate Zuko in that scene and goading him into a fight, goading him into being angry and emotional and vengeful in the hopes that he makes a mistake, is one way to do that.

Any of the other possibilities, such as Zuko being arrested or branded a traitor or Azula taking the throne, would only increase the discord in the Fire Nation. Like I said, the Avatar is not just important as the Hero(tm), he is a political symbol. Even those who reject the spiritual significance of the Avatar would have a hard time disputing it if Aang has the backing of an army and several world leaders, whereas it would be too easy to paint Zuko as someone who acted alone, a son trying to steal power from a father. And those who supported Azula would recall how Zuko had been banished, how he had always been second fiddle to Azula, and look, it turns out he's also lied about killing the Avatar in an attempt to steal his sister's glory! Those who support Aang but distrust the fire nation would be suspicious of Zuko killing Ozai seconds before the coup, who again, looks like he is acting alone. Zuko could end up being killed or imprisoned by either side, and since Aang and co. don't know he plans to join them, they wouldn't know any different, either. Imagine the gaang showing up to Zuko, who has been their enemy for the past three seasons, being like "hey guys, I killed the firelord for you!" Do you think they are likely to trust him?

Also, man, these people will do anything to preserve Aang's moral purity but think it should be fine for Zuko to murder his own father? Where is Zuko's lion turtle in this scenario, I wonder?

[silent-partner-412]

ok i need to vent about a trope in video games (mostly rpgs and visual novels) that i really don’t like, and want to talk about why a lot of games fail at it and give a few examples of how it succeeds. however to do so im going to spoil a shitton of games. so if you plan on playing any of the social sim persona games, the xenoblade trilogy, sea of stars, 9 hours 9 persons 9 doors, pokemon mystery dungeon explorers of sky, chrono trigger, the great ace attorney, or danganronpa 2 and 3 (the anime not the game), do not read this post. i will be spoiling all of them.

so what’s up with characters dying But Not Actually so much?? it’s gotten to the point where whenever a main character dies, i’m almost certain that there’s going to be some funny business to justify bringing them back. it kind of drives me nuts, and i wanna talk about why this plot point fails in so many games (and also a few where it works in my opinion because it CAN work).

to start, the xenoblade games, specifically 1 and 3. i think fiora’s death in xenoblade 1 was my first exposure to this trope and honestly i think it’s done alright. there’s a LOT of foreshadowing about the nature of the face units in the early game, and having her be turned into one makes complete sense. also she’s not the only character who’s presumed dead that ends up in a face unit, so the concept feels more complete than just an excuse to bring back a main character. the main problem with fiora is more that her character pre-death is so much better than post-death, but that’s less to do with the resurrection and more just me disagreeing with the direction they take her character. overall this game gets a pass from me, not a bad use of the trope.

xenoblade 3 however i will not be so kind to. mio’s fakeout death fucking sucks and it ruined one of my favorite characters up to that point. they build up the fact that mio is dying all game, it’s a huge part of her character. the existentialism of it all was so compelling to me, i was excited to see where it was going to go. but the body swap with m during the prison sequence was so underwhelming it hurts. it is mildly foreshadowed in the fight against m, but it still felt like they sidestepped the conflict entirely because they didn’t have the guts to actually follow through on what they had set up. which, to be fair, this would be fine if they actually explored how she felt about living when she was supposed to die, but they don’t. this is pretty much the last major character moment for mio all game, and it was so disappointing to me. not a good use of the trope at all.

persona 3 (portable) and 4 use this trope too and it’s also pretty rough. shinjiro’s death is a big moment in persona 3, and saving him in portable feels super underdeveloped and feels like it was just used for fanservice at the end of the day. nanako’s death in persona 4 is almost insultingly underdeveloped too, it feels like it only happens because they needed to add extra tension during the climax of the game, when it would’ve worked perfectly fine if she was just severely injured in my opinion. having her die and come back just feels cheap and unearned.

persona 5 does it much better with akechi in my opinion but that’s also because him coming back is pretty much a mirage. the only reason he comes back in the third semester is because maruki thought him being back would be part of joker’s ideal reality, and once maruki is defeated akechi goes away too. it’s all pretty fantastic, and the way they explore akechi’s feelings about the whole situation is great too. of course, there is the moment at the ending where you seem him through the window but that’s left purposefully ambiguous and i choose to believe it’s just joker’s imagination lol.

chrono trigger is probably one of the oldest examples of this trope and it didn’t really bother me, but that’s mostly because i wasn’t super attached to crono in the first place cuz he doesn’t have much going for him in terms of characterization lol. i also think that because there are multiple endings including one where he doesn’t come back (and you really have to go out of your way to bring him back) makes it feel a bit less cheap? i don’t know, i don’t really have a strong opinion one way or the other for this case.

now sea of stars i’ve gone on record saying i adore, but i still don’t love how they handle garl’s resurrection. it feels almost identical to crono’s, and feels a bit too fanservicey for my liking especially since i thought garl’s death was so extremely well done. it’s cute, and i do love garl, but i prefer the regular ending where he doesn’t come back.

so… remember how all the characters in danganronpa 2 didn’t actually die? cuz they were in a simulation the whole time and it wasn’t a “you die in the game you die in real life” situation like they implied in the game? yeah that was weird. i don’t remember this bugging me a ton back in my danganronpa phase but like… the deaths in that game in particular were really well done for the series (let’s forget about chapter 3 for now) and having none of them matter in the end kind of sucks. it also doesn’t feel like that was the original vision since this reveal only happens in the danganronpa 3 anime and not in dr2, so it feels like it was probably done for fanservice more than anything.

these next two are ones i don’t think were too bad and that’s because they both happen and you kinda just know they’re not gone for good. kazuma from great ace attorney and snake from zero escape (999) both die so early and so suddenly after being set up to be seemingly important that you sort of just know they’re not gone for good, and if they were you’d probably be disappointed. also they both slap when they come back and their characters would probably feel incomplete without their reveal that they didn’t actually die. if you’re going to kill characters and bring them back, this is one of the better ways to do it in my opinion.

finally, this isn’t really a death but it still really bothered me. i really don’t like the ending of pokemon mystery dungeon explorers of sky’s final special episode. for years i thought that once grovyle and dusknoir returned to the future and you and your partner save the world, they’re gone. that’s how the game sets it up. i’ve thought that’s how it was for years since i didn’t play sky until last year. learning that no, they save the world and all the pokemon from the future are fine actually was so… it just felt wrong. i feel like they didn’t want a sequence that grim to end the episode in a game made for children, but i was like 9 when i beat explorers of time/darkness the first time and i understood the implications of what happened. learning that wasn’t actually the case now that i’m an adult bothered me and i wish they had stuck to their guns.

so what’s the common thread here? well, the times where it doesn’t work are usually because it feels like fanservice or like the story didn’t justify it well enough. it feels like you’re being coddled almost, like don’t worry your blorbo is fine!! they’re still alive!!! and i hate that so much. stick to your guns!!! if you don’t have a damn good reason to bring back characters after they supposedly die, don’t bring them back. it usually feels wrong and hollow. look, in real life, people die (i know big shocker), and there’s nothing you can do about it. i’ve had people very close to me die, and while i would do anything to bring them back, that’s just not how it works. i know games are supposed to be escapism where you suspend your disbelief, but i don’t usually feel happy when characters i love die and come back. it just feels like mildly condescending wish fulfillment. i just wish authors would be more thoughtful about this kind of thing.

[moe-broey]

I feel like. Book 6 should have been Book 3 actually. Book 2 could stay the same (well. Preferably without the racism LMFAO), it's largely to further establish our cast of characters and get us attached. Plus killing Bruno in Book 2 would pack less of a punch -- ideally actually if he gets to play a role in the background that would do the same thing, establishing him more and getting the audience invested.

Reason I think it should have been Book 3 is we get the much needed world building of Askr and Embla WAY sooner, Bruno isn't left high and dry for like. Real life years. And like. If he HAS to die, maybe that could be an interesting lead into Actual Book 3. Bring him back!!!!!!! I honestly don't know why it seems like they just. Never revisited the idea of people coming back from the dead, either as Hel's/Ganglöt's minions OR they have unfinished business (but are still ultimately under Hel's/Ganglöt's thumb).

I guess the complications with this though is I do think we have to build up to Alfonse's "I'm gonna kill you too" moment with Letizia. Like. I feel like that scene ONLY hits the way that it does when you have the context of Líf, and how Alfonse acted in Book 5 with Reginn and her brothers actually (offering a peaceful solution at first -- but once Fáfnir in particular makes it clear he has no intention of backing down, Alfonse becomes stern with Reginn. Trying to get her to see what must be done. WHICH... AUGH..... does absolutely carry A Lot of weight after Alfonse had to kill Gustav.) AND. ALSO. THE MOMENT RIGHT AFTER Letizia (where Sharena is scared and hurt by how Alfonse acted) wouldn't carry the same weight without the context of Book 5.

IDK. MAYBE. Things did have to go in the order they're in, for everything to hold its weight and pack the right level of punch. I'm just HUGELY bummed that like. They set up Bruno to be a main character. An antagonist, yes, but a main character. And then they did nothing with him. Until several real life years later they bring him back JUST to finally kill him off. Like. YEAH he was surrounded by death flags since day one. But like. Did they Have to do him so dirty. AND ALSO. LITERALLY. CANONICALLY . IT'S BEEN SHOWN THAT DEATH ISN'T EVEN ALWAYS THE END‼️‼️‼️

And he. Doesn't even have a base form.

[felixcloud6288]

Higurashi: Festival Accompanying Chapter 5

Miyo got that headpat from Hifumi.

Miyo keeps talking about how much she wants her grandfather's work to be acknowledged and his name to be immortalized. Somewhere between now and 1983, we're going to see her ideals become horribly twisted.

When Dr Takano talks about becoming a god, he's talking about vindication and being remembered past his death. Considering his reasons for studying Hinamizawa Syndrome, it may also be a matter of being a cornerstone to building something people benefit from long after he's gone.

But in the vast majority of timelines, Miyo Takano used his research as a cornerstone to drive the Japanese government to destroy Hinamizawa and cast everyone in it as cursed by an angry god. She very much is going to lose the idea her grandfather had.

We meet Hifumi's friend Koizumi who sets Dr. Takano up to meet with several scholars to look at his work. And after how that meeting goes, I want you to understand that I use "set up" in the negative sense cause I feel like Koizumi straight-up is trying to sabotage Dr. Takano's efforts.

Dark skies, faces draped in shadow, and heavy rain. The only way this scene could feel more menacing is if the Jojo "Menacing" kanji littered the scene.

The way those scholars acted pisses me off in so many ways. Just to start, they laugh at how it's "impossible" for a parasite to control human brains. HAVE THEY NEVER HEARD OF RABIES!?! Rabies literally makes people hydrophobic. If you say something is "impossible" in the biology field, evolution will take that as a challenge.

I'm willing to accept a lack of clinical evidence as a genuine critique for Dr. Takano's research, but that's actually a reason to fund his research rather than disregard it. It's a clearly defined shortcoming in his research and a limitation that he's asking for support to fix.

And of course there is the sheer disrespect from these people. I hesitate to call them scholars cause they clearly treat their position as something they can lord over others. They should be looking at this with an open mind and curiosity and should be making sure Dr. Takano dotted all his i's and crossed all his t's when confirming the validity of his work and ideas. Instead they're coming in with full mockery and an "I'm right cause I'm better than you" attitude.

Miyo's Shion foil started to show after this. If she could, she would totally lock those men in a dungeon and torture them to death in revenge for her grandpa. But since she can't she's going to take it out on god and destiny.

Did you know the 1 and 6 on a standard six-sided die are on opposite sides of each other? I'm bringing this up because I want to draw a parallel between Takano and Rika.

Both of them have a sort of luck that causes them to constantly roll 1's on destiny's dice. When it happens to Rika, she opts to try again and hope for a different outcome. Takano meanwhile responds by flipping the table to force the dice to end up on 6's. Takano just refuses to accept misfortune and it only drives her to force a desired outcome instead.

I wasn't expecting to do this, but I think there's a part of Takano that is also a foil to Keiichi as seen in the end of this chapter. They're both very intelligent but are driven by different motivators. Keiichi liked the sense of superiority that came with being the smart guy and loved receiving praise for it. Takano meanwhile is motivated more by an internal desire to prove her grandfather right. We've yet to see Takano hit a wall where her motivation dries up, but considering what normally happens, she probably also takes things out on other people and justifies it because of her status and intellect. But there doesn't appear to be any line Takano won't cross whereas Keiichi does end up realizing when he's done wrong.

And to close out all these comparisons to the main cast, I'm going to compare Takano to Mion. Through her hard work, Takano managed to become a name in high society with the connections that come with it. Compare that to Mion who was born into a position of eventual power (Although technically, she accidentally ended up in that position and Shion was intended to be the heir) and has to learn to play the part even though she'd rather not. And of course, both of them have some very shady connections.

But here we are. We have seen Miyoko Tanashi grow into Miyo Takano. She is an orphan who refused to accept her cursed life. She opposes god and forges her own identity. She loves her grandfather and has devoted her life to proving to the world that he was right. She is intelligent, hardworking, and self-motivated. She is well-connected and ruthless in her methods. She does not accept destiny and has an indomitable will than can defy it.

back

[horizon-verizon]

Do you think Alicent was a bad mother?

Book? If we go by "how kids turned out", yes. Her children are unequivocally horrible, callous, or incompetent people. I can't really peg the intensity of their relationships before the war aside from turning them against their sister...

She wanted them to realize the aristocratic, gendered, Targ identities that she learned from Andal traditions: Aegon, the strong male ruler assured in his legitimacy and ruling over Andal peoples; Helaena, the wife of said king, chaste and supportive; the king's most trusted protector/warrior-son, Aemond; Daeron, the courtly prince representing his rightful family. And all superficially fulfill those roles yet die terrible deaths with untrue and desperate perceptions of their own grandeur.

Show? Most definitely, for the same reasons--none of the green kids are going to survive (due to Alicent's provocations and teachings), as long as Condal and Hess stick to the storyline as much as they let themselves. AND a good parent doesn't consistently slap or grab or intrude on their kids' spaces when they are naked, no matter how angry they are.

Viserys wasn't a good father either, let's be clear. Better than most feudal fathers, but still not ideal. I explain HERE, how he still treats Rhaenyra poorly. For his society, he's emotionally adequate and even more...solicitous? (as long as you aren't thinking that he "took" the throne away from Aegon), as fathers aren't expected to pay what they'd think is "close" and involved attention to their kids and according to those kids' seniority/birth order, he'd likely give them different kinds of attention. you know, because of inheritance stuff. That's why, in one way, Viserys is actually being typical in how he treats each of his children comparatively. Perhaps someone will try to argue that if he had paid more attention to his green kids book/show! Alicent wouldn't be so against Rhaenyra, but the main reason why both book and show Alicent think Viserys is because he refuses to name her eldest son as his heir and (show!) assure his future. And to do that, Viserys would have to reinforce several generations of sexist male primogeniture, which is what we shouldn't want. Viserys keeps Rhaenyra as heir bc THIS.

Rhaenyra and Daemon both were better parents than these two.

[tomwambsmilk]

would love more in depth reasoning for your tomgreg odds and maybe the betrayal plot line

So, with tomgreg, the main question for me is not "do I think, based on their characters and interactions, it's plausible for Tom and Greg to start a sexual or romantic relationship with each other?" (the answer to which is yes btw). The question is - how would tomgreg going canon contribute to the overall themes of the show and the established arcs which are coming to a close in season 4? And, even more importantly - what are the ways in which tomgreg going canon would undermine existing themes and arcs?

Ultimately, I think a canon tomgreg relationship starting in the final season would distract from and undermine a lot of the other themes of the show. There are several themes and ideas which are distinctly reflected in Tom and Greg's relationship, some of which lose potency if their relationship becomes overtly romantic. For instance, the point the show is trying to make about how a certain brand of hyper-sexual and sexually violent masculinity degrades men's relationships with each other gets a bit lost and downplayed if it turns out that the primary reason Tom behaves the way he does towards Greg is that he's secretly in love with him. It's possible to write the relationship in such a way where Tom's behaviour isn't undermined by that, but it would need to be handled very delicately and a lot of people would simply miss the point. If they had more than one season left, I'd probably give the arc a greater likelihood of happening because there's more room to develop and maneuver the relationship in a way that would more clearly preserve those themes, but as it is I don't think they have the runtime for that.

I'm also anticipating Tom and Greg's individual arcs to take the shape of a corruption arc, and I think that arc becomes less potent on Greg's part if a romantic or sexual attraction to Tom is driving his choices. Again, there's a way to write it with more nuance, but I'm not confident that the show has the remaining runtime to pull that off with grace.

Finally, I think Tom leaving Shiv for Greg holds less emotional weight than Tom and Shiv splitting and Tom not having any other readily available options. If Tom and Greg have a relationship, and his position at Waystar falls apart, Tom theoretically has a fallback in Greg. If he doesn't, though, the stakes become so much higher for him.

There are some ways in which tomgreg going canon might add to the show thematically, which is why I do think it is a possibility. Obviously, there's a commentary to be made on the right's response to homosexuality, especially in the context of the certain ideal of masculinity they uphold. There's also commentary to be made about both Tom and Greg as characters and the power dynamics at play, and possibly even about sexual misconduct in the workplace if they want to tie it into the cruise scandal. There are ways to write it that would add new throughlines to themes of Succession. Personally, I don't feel that what might be gained by adding it outweighs what would be lost by adding it. But, at the end of the day I'm not in the writers room, and they may have accounted for other things I haven't considered. So, the fact that it's possible and plausible is what gives it a 1:6 odds for me.

I'm assuming what you're referring to with the betrayal plotline is my long-standing theory that at the end of the show Tom will betray Greg, and he'll go to jail. I held to that really firmly for a long time, and.... I'm not quite ready to throw it away yet. I still think it's a strong possibility that would work thematically. But a lot of that hinged on Logan, specifically, and since I'm now strongly suspecting that Logan will die early in the second half of the season, and I suspect the Tom and Greg running through the newsroom clip is late-season (tied to the election), I'm not so sure. I think Tom betraying Greg is still a strong possibility, but not as strong as I thought it was before we got more info about season 4.

[yuinterrobangapologist]

Kinda want an AU where Tim and Damian are close enough in age to where Damian is taller than Tim. Like Tim is 13 and Damian comes in at 11? Like, a 13 year old boy could be 4'9'' and 11 year old boy 5'1'', neither of those are that weird.

IDK. Tim should be smol.

Also it makes for an interesting dynamic if Damian comes in and attacks Tim and is actually bigger than him. Like, all of a sudden the threat towards Tim feels (logically arbitrarily, but in terms of thematic character design) much more severe, which would lead to Dick and Bruce feeling forced to be harsher towards Damian for threats to Tim.

I think in order for that to work, Tim'd have to have started at around 11. For him to be 11 and still have seen Dick...

Two year olds can be traumatized by something they see, that's possible, but that very rarely translates into an actual visual memory. Maybe if Dick held him at 2, and then Tim accidentally saw footage of it, so it like...reiterated the quadruple somersault.

I still like Dick coming in young though, at 8. But that only leaves a six year age difference which is...hard to reconcile.

Dick leaves at 18, that puts Tim at 12. Jason would come in between that though, and I like him starting 12-13. But that would put Tim and Jason way closer than I really want.

I could make it a confabulation though. Tim was much younger when Dick held, an actual infant, and then he later saw Dick perform a different when old. Maybe Dick does gymnastics as a kid and Tim sees it? And these memories merge? That would still really only give me an 8 year age gap.

So Dick leaves at 18, Jason comes in at 13, Tim is 10. Jason dies at 15, Tim comes in at 11-12, and at age 13 Damian comes in. I like Jason reviving before Damian coming in though, and that would mean Jason'd could only be 16 when he's Red Hood, which is...not what I want either.

Ideally I want Tim: 13, Damian: 11, Jason: ≈19, and Dick: ≈ 24.

And 11 year age gap between Tim and Dick pretty much means either Dick's parent don't die until he's 11-12 or Tim just can't be there when they die, unless I do stupid nonsense with like time travel or something which just adds complexity I'm not fond of.

So: Dick at 8, holds a different Black-haired blue-eyed boy, Tim sees the footage of the fall, and confabulates as a kid he was that boy. That's entirely feasibly, but by 11 he'd certainly've realized he was never actually there, which makes their first meeting different. I could do like...this Earth's Tim died so the Drakes got a new Tim from a universe that's behind by a few years but...that kind of plot would kind of draw away from the Tim-Damian dynamic I wanna focus on.

The last logical options is something like hallucinations, mind control, or telepathy which...is admittedly easier to write and not have it take over the rest of the story. But why would Tim have that false memory? Again, whatever reason for it, that kind of steals the story from being about Tim and Damian (I mean...I would be about the core four Robins but the main difference in the AU is the ages). I could do something like...The Drakes had a false traumatic memory planted to erase a different traumatic event that would implicate them in something criminal, and Dick is the first to notice, and spends his early years with his brother trying to figure it out? That could easily be a background thing, not the main focus, I think?

But with that said, I think I prefer the "OG Tim dies as a kid, and the Drakes get a Tim, but he's younger than the timeline allows." Maybe...a clone?? Again, that side story would basically require the fic be about that.

Okay, what if whatever it is, Tim doesn't tell them he saw it? He tells them he saw the footage, and Tim thinks that's all it was, but it was Tim, and it's a big reveal at the end, instead of kidnapping the entire plot? That's actually a lot more manageable, and frankly more meaningful.

Okay, so Dick leaves Robin at 18. Jason comes in at 13, dies at 15. Tim comes in at 11, even though previous Tim would've been at least 14. When Tim is 13, Damian comes in at age 11.

The only other issue is then I have to decide: Does Tim still strike out as Red Robin, but now at age 13-14, or does something entirely different happen? It seems pretty unlikely Dick and Jason could stomach 13 year old Tim being all alone in more dangerous circumstances than he's previous been in. Even if Tim left secretly, I imagine Dick and Jason would be too worried to let him be alone.

(BTW yes, I like Tim and Jason reconciling not long after Titan's Tower, with it being light canon where its just a fight, no excessive brutality fandom gives it; plus its even harder to see 19 year old Jason torturing a 12 year old.)

I think I'd keep Babs at Dick's age, Cass at Jason's age, and Steph around Tim's. I prefer Cass and Steph as sisters than a couple anyway. Duke is difficult. He comes later in the timeline so I could just...end the story before it gets to him. Honestly, I'm not even great at writing stories that take place over multiple years. Which is sad. It does beg the question at what age he'd even be when he came in in this AU. This is actually an issue in itself, cause I like Duke starting later than everyone else, at age 16 or so, and I generally enjoy him and Tim being closest in age, at 16 and 17 (which is a Tim age I enjoy a lot) (but also I am glad he seems to be an adult in canon now thank god lol).

Which means it would be 4 fucking years later when Duke comes in. Which does fit, in that I actually like him being way behind experience wise than the other Bats. But IDK. That'd be...an ordeal.

*sighs* We might just have to commit Duke to a...different story later on in the AU.

[reihimura]

rei & touya’s relationship is so criminally underrated by canon and fanon imo. people have have pointed out how they look similar, especially when experiencing severe distress or melancholy (which they do look very similar, making their situation(s) all the more sadder), but i also feel a lot of people fail to mention how they are almost… mirror each other, in a sense.

the reason endvr abandoned training touya was because he “inherited rei’s weak constitution”, because he was too much like his mother - not only with the intolerance to heat, but perhaps in personality as well. they have similar reactions when under stress, usually lashing out verbally or sometimes physically. they’re both usually soft-spoken individuals, but also aren’t afraid to speak their minds when need be. they aren’t afraid of getting hurt if it means they deflect or reflect attention from themselves and others (i.e. rei stepping into one of shouto’s training sessions because it was getting too violent, and results in rei getting endvr’s attenttion in a slap. in contrast, touya trained everyday despite the massive amounts of pain it causes to get endvr’s attention.)

they were both the “firsts” in the todoroki family. rei was the first one to take on the todoroki surname as endvr’s wife, and touya was the firstborn todoroki child.

their actions also feel like parallels to each other. they’ve both harmed, or attempted to harm, shouto - but this harm was more-so meant for endvr; these attacks were an extension of the ideals endvr forced onto his family - that only one could be good enough for him.

they both separated from the family in nearly the same amount of time, due to mental breakdowns. they both spent a decade, if not more, away from the family, and then somewhat returned at, once again, nearly the same time. in canon time, it’s only been a year or so since rei and shouto reunited, and perhaps months after touya finally made his grand reveal. it’s kind of funny that this has happened twice - rei leaves, touya leaves. rei returns, touya returns.

and maybe it’s because these two are so similar and so seemingly (and perhaps unknowingly) connected that they don’t know how to help each other, much less themselves. the scene where rei tries to reach out to younger touya really showcases this imo: she almost got through to him, when she asked what he wanted to be. not what endvr wanted him to be; what he, touya, wants.

yet, she loses him when she brings endvr back into the equation - and you can’t fault her for this. her world so quickly and abruptly changed to focus on her husbands rather than her own, when he made her family agree to marry him. the forced marriage and abuse rei suffered from her husband caused her to focus on what she can do for endvr, to focus on him rather than herself. she has to have his children, care for said children, and pay special attention towards the “golden child”. endvr tells rei she needs to “take care of touya”, but not for touya’s sake, for endvr’s sake. because that’s the kind of household endvr has built for years and years. and that’s what causes rei and touya’s interaction to fall apart; because these characters don’t know how to separate themselves from their abuser. it’s a survival tactic; to focus on the needs of the abuser rather than the needs of the victims (including yourself). and neither rei, nor touya, nor any other member of the todofam are at fault for that aside from endvr.

but now, in canon, things are different. rei and touya have been physically separated from endvr for over a decade now, and in terms of mentally/emotionally separating themselves from their abuser, they’ve still got a ways to go. touya’s main goal revolves around killing his father, even if that means touya will die too. rei’s main goal is to bring touya back, and she even encourages endvr to help. while the whole situation regarding what the todofam actually wants to do with touya is still vague, we can see that endvr still has a strong influence over rei and touya.

maybe rei believes endvr can save touya because she couldn’t all those years ago. maybe touya believes he can’t go back to his family and should perish along with endvr instead because, in touya’s mind, he is his father’s ugly, failed creation. something-that-could’ve-been-turned-monster. he’s a reflection of the abuse endvr put both touya and his family through. he even sees himself as his father to an extent, as he’s called his own flames “endvr’s fire”.

they both feel like they can’t do anything for each other because of endvr, when in actuality, i think that rei and touya have always needed each other, and now they need each other more than ever. they had gotten close, back then, with rei asking touya what he wanted to do.

these two characters have so much in common, and their arcs play off of each other’s so well. they can teach each other that they’re not their abuser, and that they’re not what their abuser thinks of them. they are their own person, and it’s time for them to figure out what they truly want going forward.

touya is not his father’s failed creation, he is not weak due to having an intolerance to fire - he’s just touya.

rei is not the hospitalized wife of the #1 hero, she is not a failure of a mother - she’s just rei.

i think the two of them can help each other, and the rest of the family, find healing. they’re so similar, and they should understand each other so well.

basically there’s so much to rei & touya’s relationship that can be explored and analyzed, yet canon (and fanon) seemingly fail to realize this due to the focus on endvr and how He feels rather than… literally anyone else lmao.

there’s still so much about rei & touya’s relationship that we don’t know. but touya does still call rei “mom”, and refers to his father only by name. after all these years, after their brief falling-out before rei was hospitalized, touya still calls her “mother”. that means something.

there’s so much there for rei & touya’s relationship. and it’s a shame that canon and fanon don’t do much with it, or they take what’s been giving to us thus-far at face-value. their relationship has all the seeds planted to make it one that’s complex, caring, healing, and understanding. i just wish canon would actually let it grow instead of focusing on endvr for the millionth time /:

[cappymightwrite]

What draws you to incest ?

*sighs* Ok, here we go. I'm a real card carrying Jonsa now aren't I?

Anon, listen. I know this is an anti question that gets bandied about a lot, aimed at provoking, etc, when we all know no Jonsa is out here being all you know what, it really is the incest, and the incest alone, that draws me in. I mean, come on now. Grow up.

If I was "drawn" to incest I'd be a fan of Cersei x Jaime, Lucrezia x Cesare, hell Oedipus x Jocasta etc... but I haven't displayed any interest in them now, have I? So, huh, it can't be that.

Frankly, it's a derivitive question that is really missing the mark. I'm not "drawn" to it, though yeah, it is an unavoidable element of Jonsa. The real question you should be asking though, is what draws GRRM to it? Because he obviously is drawn to it, specifically what is termed the "incest motif" in academic and literary scholarship. That is a far more worthwhile avenue of thinking and questioning, compared with asking me. Luckily for you though anon, I sort of anticipated getting this kind of question so had something in my drafts on standby...

You really don't have to look far, or that deeply, to be hit over the head by the connection between GRRM's literary influences and the incest motif. I mean, let's start with the big cheese himself, Tolkein:

Tolkein + Quenta Silmarillion

We know for definite that GRRM has been influenced by Tolkein, and in The Silmarillion you notably have a case of unintentional incest in Quenta Silmarillion, where Túrin Turambar, under the power of a curse, unwittingly murders his friend, as well as marries and impregnates his sister, Nienor Níniel, who herself had lost her memory due to an enchantment.

Mr Tolkein, "what draws you to incest?"

Old Norse + Völsunga saga

Tolkein, as a professor of Anglo-Saxon, was hugely influenced by Old English and Old Norse literature. The story of the ring Andvaranaut, told in Völsunga saga, is strongly thought to have been a key influence behind The Lord of the Rings. Also featured within this legendary saga is the relationship between the twins Signy and Sigmund — at one point in the saga, Signy tricks her brother into sleeping with her, which produces a son, Sinfjotli, of pure Völsung blood, raised with the singular purpose of enacting vengence.

Anonymous Norse saga writer, "what draws you to incest?"

Medieval Literature as a whole

A lot is made of how "true" to the storied past ASOIAF is, how reflective it is of medieval society (and earlier), its power structures, its ideals and martial values etc. ASOIAF, however, is not attempting historical accuracy, and should not be read as such. Yet it is clearly drawing from a version of the past, as depicted in medieval romances and pre-Christian mythology for instance, as well as dusty tomes on warfare strategy. As noted by Elizabeth Archibald in her article Incest in Medieval Literature and Society (1989):

Of course the Middle Ages inherited and retold a number of incest stories from the classical world. Through Statius they knew Oedipus, through Ovid they knew the stories of Canace, Byblis, Myrrha and Phaedra. All these stories end more or less tragically: the main characters either die or suffer metamorphosis. Medieval readers also knew the classical tradition of incest as a polemical accusation,* for instance the charges against Caligula and Nero. – p. 2

The word "polemic" is connected to controversy, to debate and dispute, therefore these classical texts were exploring the incest motif in order to create discussion on a controversial topic. In a way, your question of "what draws you to incest?" has a whiff of polemical accusation to it, but as I stated, you're missing the bigger question.

Moving back to the Middle Ages, however, it is interesting that we do see a trend of more incest stories appearing within new narratives between the 11th and 13th centuries, according to Archibald:

The texts I am thinking of include the legend of Judas, which makes him commit patricide and then incest before betraying Christ; the legend of Gregorius, product of sibling incest who marries his own mother, but after years of rigorous penance finally becomes a much respected pope; the legend of St Albanus, product of father-daughter incest, who marries his mother, does penance with both his parents but kills them when they relapse into sin, and after further penance dies a holy man; the exemplary stories about women who sleep with their sons, and bear children (whom they sometimes kill), but refuse to confess until the Virgin intervenes to save them; the legends of the incestuous begetting of Roland by Charlemagne and of Mordred by Arthur; and finally the Incestuous Father romances about calumniated wives, which resemble Chaucer's Man of Law's Tale except that the heroine's adventures begin when she runs away from home to escape her father's unwelcome advances. – p. 2

I mean... that last bit sounds eerily quite close to what we have going on with Petyr Baelish and Sansa Stark. But I digress. What I'm trying to say is that from a medieval and classical standpoint... GRRM is not unique in his exploration of the incest motif, far from it.

Sophocles, Ovid, Hartmann von Aue, Thomas Malory, etc., "what draws you to incest?"

Faulkner + The Sound and the Fury, and more!

Moving on to more modern influences though, when talking about the writing ethos at the heart of his work, GRRM has famously quoted William Faulker:

His mantra has always been William Faulkner’s comment in his Nobel prize acceptance speech, that only the “human heart in conflict with itself… is worth writing about”. [source]

I’ve never read any Faulker, so I did just a quick search on “Faulkner and incest” and I pulled up this article on JSTOR, called Faulkner and the Politics of Incest (1998). Apparently, Faulkner explores the incest motif in at least five novels, therefore it was enough of a distinctive theme in his work to warrant academic analysis. In this journal article, Karl F. Zender notes that:

[...] incest for Faulkner always remains tragic [...] – p. 746

Ah, we can see a bit of running theme here, can't we? But obviously, GRRM (one would hope) doesn’t just appreciate Faulkner’s writing for his extensive exploration of incest. This quote possibly sums up the potential artistic crossover between the two:

Beyond each level of achieved empathy in Faulkner's fiction stands a further level of exclusion and marginalization. – pp. 759–60

To me, the above parallels somewhat GRRM’s own interest in outcasts, in personal struggle (which incest also fits into):

I am attracted to bastards, cripples and broken things as is reflected in the book. Outcasts, second-class citizens for whatever reason. There’s more drama in characters like that, more to struggle with. [source]

Interestingly, however, this essay on Faulkner also connects his interest in the incest motif with the romantic poets, such as Percy Bysshe Shelley and Lord Byron:

As Peter Thorslev says in an important study of romantic representations of incest, " [p]arent-child incest is universally condemned in Romantic literature...; sibling incest, on the other hand, is invariably made sympathetic, is sometimes exonerated, and, in Byron's and Shelley's works, is definitely idealized.” – p. 741

Faulkner, "what draws you to incest?" ... I mean, that article gives some good explanations, actually.

Lord Byron, Manfred + The Bride of Abydos

Which brings us onto GRRM interest in the Romantics:

I was always intensely Romantic, even when I was too young to understand what that meant. But Romanticism has its dark side, as any Romantic soon discovers... which is where the melancholy comes in, I suppose. I don't know if this is a matter of artistic influences so much as it is of temperament. But there's always been something in a twilight that moves me, and a sunset speaks to me in a way that no sunrise ever has. [source]

I'm already in the process of writing a long meta about the influence of Lord Byron in ASOIAF, specifically examining this quote by GRRM:

The character I’m probably most like in real life is Samwell Tarly. Good old Sam. And the character I’d want to be? Well who wouldn’t want to be Jon Snow — the brooding, Byronic, romantic hero whom all the girls love. Theon [Greyjoy] is the one I’d fear becoming. Theon wants to be Jon Snow, but he can’t do it. He keeps making the wrong decisions. He keeps giving into his own selfish, worst impulses. [source]

Lord Byron, "what draws you to—", oh, um, right. Nevermind.

I'm not going to repeat myself here, but it's worth noting that there is a clear through line between GRRM and the Romantic writers, besides perhaps melancholic "temperament"... and it's incest.

But look, is choosing to explore the incest motif...well, a choice? Yeah, and an uncomfortable one at that, but it’s obvious that that is what GRRM is doing. I think it’s frankly a bit naive of some people to argue that GRRM would never do Jonsa because it’s pseudo-incest and therefore morally repugnant, no ifs, no buts. I’m sorry, as icky as it may be to our modern eyes, GRRM has set the president for it in his writing with the Targaryens and the Lannister twins.

The difference with them is that they knowingly commit incest, basing it in their own sense of exceptionalism, and there are/will be bad consequences — this arguably parallels the medieval narratives in which incest always ends badly, unless some kind of real penance is involved. For Jon and Sansa, however, the Jonsa argument is that they will choose not to commit incest, despite a confused attraction, and then will be rewarded in the narrative through the parentage reveal, a la Byron’s The Bride of Abydos. The Targaryens and Lannisters, in several ways excluding the incest (geez the amount of times I’ve written incest in this post), are foils for the Starks, and in particular, Jon and Sansa. Exploring the incest motif has been on the cards since the very beginning — just look at that infamous "original" outline — regardless of whether we personally consider that an interesting writing choice, or a morally inexcusable one.

Word of advice, or rather, warning... don't think you can catch me out with these kinds of questions. I have access to a university database, so if I feel like procrastinating my real academic work, I can and will pull out highly researched articles to school you, lmao.

But you know, thanks for the ask anyway, I guess.

[appleflavoredkitkats]

Sam, Tommy’s Death, and the Trolley Problem

Ranboo: “You are the CREATOR of the prison and the person that had you make that protocol is the person in the prison, making you the HIGHEST authority. You could’ve done SOMETHING. You could’ve done ANYTHING to help and you DIDN’T... You could’ve changed protocol.”

Sam: “...I couldn’t risk Dream getting out.”

1:02:32 of “He’s gone? || Dream SMP” by RanbooLive

I have to admit, I’m not the most well-versed person when it comes to philosophy and psychology as I’d like to be, but when I was watching Ranboo’s newest stream, I can’t help but find connections between Sam’s dilemma and the Trolley Problem.

[essay under the cut | word count: approximately 1k]

Devised by the philosopher Philippa Foot in 1967, the Trolley Problem goes a little something like this: There is an unstoppable trolley on a train track. At the farther end of the track, there are five people who are stuck, unable to move. You, however, are stood next to a lever that can change the trolley’s direction, but on the other train track, there is one person stuck instead of five. The question is, would you push the lever?

90% of people who were proposed this dilemma tend to push the lever- I bet people who are reading this would even choose to push the lever. Most people would reason that they would push the lever because they believe one casualty is always better than five, and losing the life of one person will never amount to the catastrophe of losing five people’s lives. We view this as the action that is “morally better”, hence why we would pick that over the other option.

All of this extends from the philosophy of utilitarianism, or the theory of morals and ethical beliefs and choices. Despite how we think that saving the lives of five over one is better, most people would argue that that isn’t always the case as circumstances could change what people would choose. For example, let’s take the Trolley Problem once more, but instead of a lever, you had the choice of pushing one person in front of the train in order to stop it from potentially killing those five people stuck on the track- would you do it? What about an alternative situation wherein the five people are racist, and the other person is a person of color?

There are many factors to determine in situations like this, and ultimately, there is no definitive correct answer. Additionally, dilemmas like this should not be pondered about 24/7 because some people argue that the chances of this actually happening in real life is unlikely. While there are occasions it does happen, like when one becomes a nurse, or if one had to program self-driving cars, the problem itself is still quite rare. 

Most people who often have moral dilemmas or often question their own sense of philosophy tend to get immensely lost when faced with a dilemma like this. Because of the lack of a definitive answer, one might question how “good” they might be judging by what they believe is right when dissecting the Trolley Problem. I’ve had friends who are super into philosophy spiral downwards at the mere discussion of the Trolley Problem because there will never be a truly ethical choice with this. In situations like this, someone will still die, and the idea of it haunts people who think about this dilemma often.

The main solution to this type of problem though is to realize that the chances of us encountering the problem in real life would be highly unlikely. There’s no rush to find the ultimate answer to the Trolley Problem, and there is no need to find your true stance on the issue, because utilitarianism is very complicated, and there will never be a correct answer. The Trolley Problem is a lose-lose situation, and you shouldn’t define yourself and your morality with a problem that most likely won’t occur in real life.

Now, the scary part about the Trolley Problem though is that as much as it is unlikely in our own world, in the world of the Dream SMP, it is much, much more likely to happen- and that is fucking terrifying.

Many people argue that it was 100% Sam’s fault that Tommy died in the hands of Dream. I agree that most of the prison’s protocols could have been adjusted, and that was undoubtedly Sam’s fault, but you have to consider what Sam fears of happening if he ever breaks protocol.

Ranboo: So, tell me if I’m wrong about this: the way that the prison works- the lava goes down, the bridge goes out, the visitor steps on, the lava goes down. Then, what happens after to get the visitor out? Why couldn’t you have done just the same thing, Sam?

Sam: ...Because what if Dream was waiting for me to do that?

1:03:40 of “He’s gone? || Dream SMP” by RanbooLive

Sam thinks highly of Dream. He’s afraid that anything he does, no matter how ideal it initially seems, would work according to whatever Dream’s plans are. He didn’t break protocol because he believed it would accidentally free Dream from his confines. Sam views Dream as an unstoppable force, as something that will not relent if given the chance to rise once more.

And once Tommy was trapped in prison as the explosions went off, he was faced with an ultimatum: Does he risk breaking protocol to get Tommy out only for Dream to break free as well and inevitably cause more havoc, affecting the entirety of the Dream SMP, or does he trap Tommy in there with Dream, risking Tommy’s last canon life for the ensured safety of the Dream SMP?

When proposed the Trolley Problem, 90% of people would’ve picked to push the lever and kill the singular person at the other side of the track. Initially, it seems like an easy solution, but Sam’s perspective and viewpoint of Tommy’s death makes us comprehend the true severity of the issue. Do we sacrifice the lives of five, or the life of one? Do we sacrifice the safety of the Dream SMP, or the life of Tommy?

And there will never be a true answer to this. Sam did what he believed was the most appropriate choice, but he also knew that neither choice was moral. I just hope that people don’t antagonize Sam immediately because these types of dilemmas are difficult to answer. Sam had two options to choose from, and making a final decision on what to do in this type of scenario would be terrifying. It’s a lose-lose situation. Both options are inhumane, both options have terrifying consequences, and we cannot antagonize Sam for picking what he thought was right between two immensely horrendous options.

Even if it means sacrificing the life of Tommy.

/dsmp /rp

[piano-k-fish]

In Defense of Cauldron,

For reasons I cannot even being to fathom, the fandom as a whole have decided that Cauldron is stupid, incompetent, and evil, when nothing could be further from the truth. In this mini-essay I will explain to y’all why Cauldron is good actually, and the haters are fools. Spoilers for Worm and Ward.

Cauldron Won

At the end of Gold Morning, there were survivors. Billions of people, across multiple worlds, survived, and only a single earth was rendered uninhabitable. This is a victory, and a good victory. The original plan for the cycle was the utter destruction of all possible earths, and Eden's death did not prevent this possibility from happening. Given these stakes, a single earth surviving is victory. Enough people surviving that humanity doesn’t die of inbreeding is a win, even if all society is destroyed and they are forced to rebuild society from the ground up. With these stakes, the losses seen on Gold Morning are nothing, a fraction of a fraction of what would be acceptable losses. When you're operating on Caldron’s scale, a single earth is nothing.

Cauldron’s Plan worked

Cauldron's final plan is fairly easy to see, if you look at the kind of capes they made during canon, and generally how they operate. They wanted to get as many powerful capes together as they could, either by natural triggers, like Armsmaster or Dinah, Cauldron organized triggers, like Lung, or vial capes, like Legend and Alexandria (who A: absolutely let Skitter kill her, she hung out with several precogs and regularly fought the hydrokinetic, bugs in the lungs wouldn’t kill her unless she chose to die, and B: died in such a way that none of her powers were lost to the war effort.) These capes were then to be united in one place and mastered en masse to fight against Scion, forming an imitation of an entity that would hopefully put Scion down. Portals would be used to unite all the capes in the multiverse under one master, who could ideally either be motivated by the existential threat posed by Scion, or controlled by Contessa. This is exactly what happened, and what killed Scion.

Ethics Don’t Matter to the Dead

Was what Cauldron did, in a vacuum, ethical? Of course not, any harm in a vacuum is unethical, that’s the nature of vacuums. Was the harm Cauldron did worth it to save all life on earth? That’s maybe the biggest question in ethics, what harm makes an ultimate good excuse. Answers vary from nothing to anything, but I don’t think anyone has the authority to morally condemn them, to say what cauldron did was objectively incorrect, because ethics don’t work like that. There is no true right, only what cannot be justified, and whole schools of philosophy have been devoted to why what Cauldron did was ethically justifiable. The final question is maybe the simplest: could Cauldron have won while doing less evil? While it is impossible to truly say, I think that generally speaking, if multiple powerful procogs agree that it’s necessary, then it’s necessary. Furthermore, the scale Cauldron operated on was actually pretty small, in the grand scheme of things. They kidnapped, mutated, and killed, at most, tens of thousands of people. It can’t be more than 175000, which is the weekly death toll of hunger in our current world, according to the UN. So, all lives being equal, Cauldron is significantly less lethal than a week of capitalism, and worked towards a much better cause. If you want to measure harm against benefit, than it's almost impossible to conclude that Cauldron is evil.

The Simurgh and Pure Evil

Cauldron, really, had one main weakness, it was banking on every thinker powerful enough to know about them and disrupt their plans putting their duty to mankind, or at least their own interest in survival, ahead of any megalomaniacal power grab or weirdly specific ethical hangup (Seeing as Cauldron is less lethal than most of the effects of capitalism, actors like Accord can be pushed to compromise with Cauldron to solve greater evils, without even having to read them in to the threat of Scion.) If worst comes to worst, Cauldron could just send Eidolon or Contessa to kill them. Enter the Simurgh, an incredibly powerful precog that is immune to all thinker abilities, is almost impossible to kill, isn’t human, and has no self preservation instincts. A being like this could not be anticipated, could not be stopped, and could barely be planned around. Much of the horrors that can be attributed to Cauldron were done either as part of a Simugh plot, or in reaction to her. While it can be argued that this is Cauldron’s fault, as there is some textual evidence that Eidolon is at least connected to the Endbringers, I find it equally likely much of that connection was fabricated in order to destroy Eidolon. It worked, after all. The truth will never be known, unless we want to get deep in the death of the author.

Finally, a note on Jack Slash

The method that Scion chose to end the world wasn’t what entities normally use, harvesting a world and reducing it to energy to fuel the next cycle. Scion didn’t even choose to act as lethally as possible, using precognition and bio tinkering to create something to wipe out all life on earth. Instead, he followed the philosophy of Jack Slash. Jack convinced Scion to act, not with malice towards humanity, but with disregard. Scion wants to bring extinction to humanity not because he cares about humanity, but because it might make him feel better, just as Jack kills because he doesn’t care about the lives he takes, and he enjoys killing. Jack was necessary to trigger Scion into the slowest and least destructive omnicide possible.

https://www.un.org/en/chronicle/article/losing-25000-hunger-every-day

[lovingherwasgay]

So I'm here for a different fandom and don't know about spn. What is "jackles long con AND j2 fallout theory"?

JSJEJSJFJ oh my god. first of all I'm honored you'd ask me about it, and second... strap yourself in

jackles longcon, or "jensen ackles long con", refers to the way Jensen, main actor of spn, behaved after the finale aired. he absolutely despised the ending, especially for his character, and said so publicly, but when he voiced his concerns to the writers they told him he was too attached to Dean and had a clouded judgment (wtf?). They convinced him to do it, he half assedly agreed, and moved on. But then the finale aired and everyone hated it for the same reasons he did (dean dying for no reason, suicide idealization, him dying as a plot point for Sam, unfair treatment of his character, just overall nonsense).

So realizing he was right all along he refused to talk about the ending at all, ever since November and until now (the longcon still going).

Like. I wish I was kidding. He did not say a word about the ending until he was forced to at cons, but whenever possible he'd avoid the subject or talk about how wonderful 15x18 was (ep where cas confesses). And whenever he had to talk about it, he'd go on about how he had issues with it, didn't feel right, thinks dean would ask to come back to life soon (basically "fuck you writers dean did not want to die and it wasn't a proper closure for his character")

After the finale aired he didn't even talk about it on social media, didn't congratulate or acknowledge the show, and moved on to his new role in The Boys as quickly as possible. He'd only use his social media to A. Interact with Misha (his farewell tweet was the most recent thing jensen liked on insta for months), or B. talk to the crew involved in 15x18 (commented on an ig post about the bloody handprint in the confession scene).

AND,,,,,,, j2 fallout theory,,,,,, this one has been boiling for months. Basically, after the finale, Jared was completely the opposite as Jensen, he praised and adored the finale, loved that dean died so Sam could move on, said Sam didn't end up with Eileen (Sam's girlfriend, a deaf woman who got killed on the same ep as Cas) because Dean 'wouldn't have wanted that' and compared her to a demon Sam dated seasons ago, just.......... overall agreed completely with the finale. Also Jared had a new show, Walker, ready to air as soon as Spn ended, and it is painfully clear that the spn finale was done the way it was just to make people interested in Walker (killing dean off, leaving jared as the protagonist, the elements of nostalgia, and more). And the theory was, j2 were growing distant with each other because jensen was upset Jared had no problem with the way they ruined Dean's character. And there were several other issues with Jared that had appeared recently, which just added kindle to the fire

The j2 fallout theory was confirmed when Jensen announced, 30 MINUTES before the Walker episode aired, that he was making a spin off prequel of Supernatural about Sam and Dean's parents before the series. And many spn actors/crew seemed to be aware of it already, but Jared came out on twitter to say that he had never been informed of it. It was the perfect "bet you don't enjoy being excluded and kept aside from the project you worked on for 15 years, right?" after Jared being so completely comfortable with spn doing that to Jensen in the finale to favor his own character.

Anyway, Jared loudly complained about this, basically a temper tantrum, and the next day he tweeted that he spoke to Jensen and they were on good terms again. but it all feels like when kids apologize to each other on a playground because they're being forced by their parents? lmao. AND it still doesn't erase the fact that jensen didn't tell him in the first place, and had his clear reasons for that

Anyway sorry for being so lengthy I hope this helps !!!!!! Any other doubts just let me know, I unfortunately hold an extense amount of knowledge on everything that happened since s16 lmao

[ackermanshoe]

Neither one of rivamika's deaths make sense and it will not make sense, it doesn't ever make sense because it will not happen. None of them will die, period. Isayama can't do it, will not do it. There's just too many untied ends if either of them end up dead, there will be no humanity left to keep going if they don't survive, they are supposed to be humanity's strongest for a fucking reason, they survived through it all when their comrades fell one after the other, there's a reason why in the 2nd last chapter of a manga where death comes like a shooting dart, Levi and Mikasa are the two last human alive, fighting. There is a parralle to them being the last ones of Ackerman clan and of humanity, it's to survive, no, to live.

We all have different theories and it's bound change our perception or even manipulate it, but in the end of it all the fact lies with isayama, and without reading any theories that challenge my belief, I am trusting him to give meanings into the ackermans lives. Do you ever think about the possibility that people say Levi and Mikasa are the side characters because they have the knight/ protector roles, ( erza Scarlett is a good example of fairy tail ) and people see it that way because their purpose in the story as of right now isn't as explored as the main characters? I thought about how Mikasa is always depicted as an indifferent "emotionless" vassel who doesn't act on anything unless it's concerning Eren. Therefore the thing that she is drunk on is Eren. Same with Levi, fighting is all he knows and does, even if it means killing his own comrades who just turned into titans right? Then his obsession with killing Zeke, the promise to Erwin and the desparation to keep it no matter what.

Like we mentioned several times none of these things that they are drunk on, gives meaning to any of their lives. It's simply the act that keeps them going, surviving, not living. The way Levi didn't seem pleased after killing Zeke I believe that panel was a parallel to Mikasa being unhappy in her ideal dream. She knew she wasnt supposed to be there and even if the dream wasn't as clear as day, do you really expect Eren and her to be happy after everything that had been done? It's a cut that runs way too deep.

When it comes to being main characters which they apperently are not because of their roles doesn't mean it can't be changed. After all a character isn't always restricted to being in the same position, in the same significance through out the whole series otherwise what would character development be used for? In attack on titan I never found the concept of their main or side characters any interesting since the dynamic can shift any given time, even the smallest screen time character can help to build the story line. And when it comes to mikasa and Levi they are known for their strength, the contrast would be them living a peaceful family life. Not known for showing emotion and yet so deeply involved with family. That's unconventionality, which isay always aims for. If Mikasa were to die what would isayama do with Levi? Who else is there or ever were to give his life true meaning? I'm not saying Mikasa brings him death but I believe the "bringing meaning to his life" goes hand in hand with growing old with someone and then as time passed you can rest then. And if Levi were to die then what of Mikasa will it become? Hizuru will always be there for her but the purpose? She will continue being a soulless vessel, the one person who she has had countless parallels building up to now it has to meet at some end.

Trust me when I say isyaman has NO reason killing either of them if not for the sole purpose of breaking all our hearts more than he already has. Because if there's a future for humanity and peace, it's through the Ackermans.

[merlinmagicmania]

I'm new to the Merlin fandom (I'm at the end of season 4 but I already know how season 5 ends...) and I'm totally enraptured and frustrated by this show! I wonder: how did you cope all these years with the finale? Do you have your own headcanons on a possible better ending? I don't mind if you publish this! ^^

Hello hello!! Welcome to the fandom and thanks for the ask! I understand your sentiment bc I’m in the same boat! This answer has multiple parts and is a little long, so here goes:

I have a love-hate relationship with the finale. On the one hand, I love how tragically beautiful the show can be sometimes, especially how there were multiple points in time where one action could have rewritten events but the characters would never make a decision different from the ones they initially chose - in this case, it really becomes a tragedy and I find that poetically enchanting even if it’s not satisfying. And on the other hand - denial works!

I think it’s fun to reimagine how things could’ve gone differently if one of those decisions were changed. And I love the characters and the banter, so I just generally enjoy scrolling through the merlin content. And most of the time I pretend the finale never happened unless I want angst.

As for reimagining, I really think for the best possible ending, where all my favorite characters are alive and happy, the events of The Fires of Idirsholas would have to change. I think there were several turning points after that episode, and Morgana may have been brought back to the light in season 3 (whether through Merlin, Gwen, Arthur, or her own brain reminding her that Gwen and Arthur hadn’t betrayed her), but it would’ve taken a more drastic change. And Morgana was the main reason everything went wrong later in the show.

Morgana is obviously responsible for her own actions, and she has agency in her rage (although I think she was a bit ooc in hurting everyone in Camelot, especially Gwen and innocent civilians), but I still feel like Merlin poisoning her was a turning point that kept her from trusting anyone else. The interactions she had with Merlin in The Nightmare Begins and her perspective of things from The Moment of Truth both showed him to be sympathetic to magic users. And to have the one person she thought she could trust poison her, seemingly for no reason other than unfounded suspicion towards a magic user, could’ve been an indication to her that no one would trust her if they knew the truth. And if they were going to turn her into the evil witch, then she’d play her role well. And I really think Merlin just saying something along the lines of, “I found a book in Gaius’s study saying this is a spell that affects magic users and non-magic users alike and only the anchor would remain unaffected. This means the only way to break the spell is for the anchor to die.” would’ve been enough to turn the course of the whole show. Bc the Morgana at that time was kindhearted and would’ve gladly given her life to save others. She would’ve resented being used as a pawn and she would have even done something along the lines of Gaius’s or Arthur’s temporary deaths to sever the spell. And I think from there she and Arthur would fight a lot about magic, and Arthur remaining open-minded would’ve provided more windows for Merlin to reveal his secret. Or maybe not, but there would be fewer things going wrong and Arthur and several knights would no longer be set on a direct course for death without Morgana fulfilling her destined role.

Spoilers for the season finale: But as for a shorter immediate episode fix, I like to imagine that Merlin called Kilgarrah earlier, Arthur got to the lake in time, and Gwaine was taken to Gaius to be treated and survived. This is pretty consistent with other fans’ imaginings. Another option would’ve been for Arthur to make the right choice with the Disir. Unfortunately, the earlier version still leaves Lancelot, Elyan, and Mordred dead, and in my ideal headcannon, everybody lives! Mordred and Merlin are sassy to each other through mind-speak, Morgana is still verbally brutal to anyone who crosses her, Gwen is a gorgeous queen who sees more than she lets on, Lancelot is over Merlin’s chaotic shit and Gwaine is starting to suspect magic, the other knights and Arthur are still oblivious, and eventually Merlin’s magic gets revealed, creating a snowball effect into every other secret of his being revealed, the magic ban is repealed, and everyone lives happily ever after!

There are so many ways I feel like this show could’ve gone differently, and since secret identities/ secret powers is one of my favorite tropes, I really like reimagining things with an earlier magic reveal in mind as well. I have thousands of unwritten fanfics in my head for all the different possibilities, and I think that’s part of the reason I’m still a consistent fan. Content creators keep me consistently invested with all the magic reveal fics, memes, art, and head-cannons as well, of which I am incredibly grateful for.

I think that’s probably enough alternate scenario’s for now lol. Thanks for the ask! And to you and anyone who’s reading this, I hope you have a lovely morning/afternoon/evening/night! 💕

[just-like-playing-tag]

How did sexism play a role in affecting tpn?

※ I'm not tagging this as spoiler since I think it might be of interest for anime onlys as well, however some manga events and characters are mentioned here. It's not any major plot point, but pay special attention or avoid reading this if you don't want to stumble across any spoiler at all.

I don't think Anon follows my blog (otherwise the question would have most likely come a long time ago, since sexism in the second season of the anime is an issue I have mentioned several times already), so I think it's fine to link back to all the posts I could find that addressed the matter. Here's some posts that underline in what ways the anime has been sexist:

First of all you'll want to read this post: as I hope to have made clear, it is not only about what she's wearing, it's never about what a girl is wearing.

Secondly here is an early reaction to episode 5 that hopefully clears up what's wrong with Emma's character in the second season

Further readings that address to the matter, approximately in chronological order from when I first read them:

(ﾉ◕ヮ◕)ﾉ*.✧

(ﾉ◕ヮ◕)ﾉ*.✧

(ﾉ◕ヮ◕)ﾉ*.✧ (in my tags to the post)

(ﾉ◕ヮ◕)ﾉ*.✧

(ﾉ◕ヮ◕)ﾉ*.✧

(ﾉ◕ヮ◕)ﾉ*.✧ (I think this post summarizes pretty well what makes Emma so amazing and revolutionary both as a female protagonist and as a shonen jump protagonist and cutting all of this from her character is, in my opinion, automatically sexist)

(ﾉ◕ヮ◕)ﾉ*.✧

(ﾉ◕ヮ◕)ﾉ*.✧

(ﾉ◕ヮ◕)ﾉ*.✧ (in my tags to the post)

(ﾉ◕ヮ◕)ﾉ*.✧

(ﾉ◕ヮ◕)ﾉ*.✧

(ﾉ◕ヮ◕)ﾉ*.✧

(ﾉ◕ヮ◕)ﾉ*.✧

(ﾉ◕ヮ◕)ﾉ*.✧

(ﾉ◕ヮ◕)ﾉ*.✧ (this one is in Turkish but can be easily understood with the support of an online translator)

(ﾉ◕ヮ◕)ﾉ*.✧

Probably more were made when episosode 6 came out, but I haven't been following the anime as much since episosode 5 so I can't know. Maybe if I'll find any new post on the matter I'll update this ask.

Anyway, to sum up the main points:

• Emma wears a skirt for no reason, enforcing female clothing categories

• Emma is the only girl showed hunting; additionally, her hunting skills are significantly decreased compared to her manga abilities

• Emma isn't the one to kill the wild demon, and the moment was given to her male counterpart to shine

• The fact that Emma was shown being interested in the shelter garden, while in the manga it was so beautiful to have gender roles subverted with her going out haunting and her male counterpart cooking

• The fact that as soon as Emma loses the support of her (occasionally implied love interest) other male counterpart she becomes weak and depressed and useless

• The fact that she thinks she was wrong and naïve not believing in her male friends' words and following her ideals instead (which is so dumb like... Yeah Emma it surely would have been better to leave them all to die)

• The fact that in the demon town she's the only one not carrying a bow to defend herself (?????)

• How she was clearly dumbed up (though this happened to pretty much all the GF children)

• How Emma has lost all her leader qualities she showed in the manga

• Look the simple fact that. I can't think of a significative thing she's done since the start of the second season. She didn't provide for everyone's food. She didn't make any plan to go save Phil. She's just been crying over herself as the next shonen female side character (can she even be considered the protagonist at this point??)

• One of the most striking things is how anime Emma compared to manga Emma has lost all of her independence and individuality. She has no plan, no idea on how to go on, and is quite literally waiting for some (guy) to come and save her. The way Norman was introduced in the anime as a savior was so upsetting.

• Honestly I consider having cut out so many arcs that showed how strong, resilient, brave, determined she is to be sexist on its own

• The only thing that's left of her character is being kind which is... Honestly extremely problematic. One thing is to show a complex and multilayered character who, among many other qualities and strong points, is also kind and emphatic; another thing is enduring the stereotype that kindness and empathy are the only characteristics girls can have.

• Emma is kind, but not stupid; she doesn't like to kill demons, but she won't hesitate to do so in case they create an immediate danger for her family. Her helping the demon at the temple doesn't make any sense.

And this is only about Emma. It's clearly sexist:

• Don's line in episode 4 that literally translates to “don't cry Rossi, boys don't cry” that is,,,, not only unspeakably gross, but also unbelievably ooc from Don who always supports his family and has cried like five times in the manga, always without an ounce of shame.

• Cutting the scene of Gilda being badass in chapters 59 and 96, that featured her repeatedly threatening a grown-up man

• Not including an arc with amazing female characters with breathtaking fights. In Goldy Pond all the girls are always displayed as being equal to guys in their fighting skills; the best (or at least very talented) snipers are considered to be girls, while the medics are two guys (I like to stress this point because it would have been very easy to introduce a sweet kind nurse girl in that role).

• Honestly cutting Gillian deserves to be mentioned on its own. Such a great complex female character. Her role in Goldy Pond was outstanding, and her scenes in chapters 110, 130, 145 and 172 give so much deepness to her character. Moreover, showing how she doesn't sympathize with demons makes her a nice counterpart to Emma, building a solid cast of diverse female characters with different inclinations and natures. Not to mention how we won't have Gillian chosing to support Emma no matter her opinions, which was such an heartwarming example of girls supporting each other. Honestly I can't not consider sexist to exclude such a well written female character.

• Cutting Anna being praised without shame or envy by her male friends to have become the best of them all in the medicine field (a field women have a particularly hard time being employed in), and her male friends aknoweledging how hard she worked to get her competence.

This is only on top of my mind but there's definitely more. Additionally, we still have to see whether they're intentioned to include Ayshe (a great woc who is mysterious, reserved and an impressive fighter, typical qualities assigned to males) and Legravalima (a badass villain who is greedy and at the top of the demon society, again a typically male role). The changes of Isabella's storyline most likely mean they're also going to change (or fully skip) chapter 170, which was such an empowering moment for the mamas and made such a nice metaphor of women overthrowing an oppressive system to find freedom.

Honestly, I could have ignored some of these things had they been lone cases, but all of this together? Again, I'm not saying that CloverWorks is entirely bad, but the second season of the tpn anime surely cannot be praised for its female representation.