You know what's interesting to me? For all people keep claiming at every juncture that perhaps Bells Hells will come around on the gods and see the harm they do (which, as discussed extensively, is, half the time, simply not intervening) not only have they never done so, but also they never quite cross the line into saying the party should join the Ruby Vanguard or aid them - and indeed, they defend against it - so what does this achieve? It feels like they're asking for a story in which the party stands idly by, which isn't much of a story nor, if I may connect this briefly to the real world, a political stance anyone should be proud of.
That's honestly the frustration with the gods and the "what if the Vanguard has a point" conversations in-game. What do we do then? Do we allow the organization that will murder anyone for pretty much any reason that loosely ties into their goals run rampant? The group that (perhaps unwittingly, but then again, Otohan's blades had that poison) disrupted magic world-wide, and caused people who had the misfortune to live at nexus points to be teleported (most, as commoners, without means of return). While also fomenting worldwide unrest?
Those were the arguments before the trip to Ruidus; with the reveal of the Vanguard's goals to invade Exandria, the situation becomes even more dire. Do you let the Imperium take over the planet?
And do the arguments against the gods even hold up? If Ludinus is so angry at them for the Calamity, what does it say that he destroyed Western Wildemount's first post-Calamity society for entirely selfish means? (What does it say about the validity of vengeance as a motivator?) What does it say that Laudna told Imogen she could always just live in a cottage quietly without issue before the solstice even happened? (Would this still be true if the Imperium controls the world?) What does it say that when faced with a furious, grieving party and the daughter she keeps telling herself was her reason for all of this, Liliana can't provide an answer to the question of what the gods have done other than that their followers will retaliate...for, you know, the Vanguard's endless list of murders. (That is how the Vanguard and Imperium tend to think, huh? "How dare your face get in the way of my boot; how dare you hit me back when I strike you.") She can't even provide a positive answer - why is Predathos better - other than "I feel it", even though Imogen and Fearne know firsthand that Predathos can provide artificial feelings of elation. Given all the harm Ludinus has done in pursuit, why isn't the conclusion "the gods should have crashed Aeor in such a way that the tech was unrecoverable?"
Even as early as the first real discussion on what the party should do, the fandom always stopped short of saying "no, Imogen's right, they should join up with the people who killed half the party," it was always "no, she didn't really mean it, she just was trying to connect with her mother." Well, she's connected with her mother, and at this point the party doesn't even care about the gods particularly (their only divinely-connected party member having died to prevent the Vanguard from killing all of them). So they will stop the Vanguard; as Ashton says, the means are unforgiveable. As Laudna says, it's not safe to bet on Predathos's apathy. As Imogen says, she's done running; the voice that she used to think of as a lifeline belongs to someone she doesn't trust. So I guess my question is: if they're stopping the people who are trying to kill the gods (and defense of the gods isn't remotely their personal motivation)...do you think the next phase of the campaign is Bells Hells personally killing the gods? Reconstructing the Aeor tech and hoping none of their allies notice? How does this end? Does your ideology ever get enacted? Or is this entirely moot and pointless and the story ends with Bells Hells saying "well, I'm really glad we stopped the people who [insert list of Vanguard atrocities from above]; none of us follow the gods or plan to, but honestly, the status quo we return to is preferable to whatever nightmare Ludinus had concocted in his violent quest for power and revenge"?
107 notes
·
View notes
I think people who pick one character from AsoIaF/GoT to be The Protagonist are missing the point, because pretty much all of the characters think THEY are The Protagonist™ and that’s ultimately what screws them over.
(I also want to preface this by saying that that’s the reason I find these characters so interesting, and that this is not meant to insult any of them. I LOVE this story, and this is one of the many reasons why.)
Cersei thinks she’s the Villain Protagonist™ of a gritty drama. Even if it doesn’t make sense for things to work out for her, she assumes they will, seeing everyone around her as faceless idiots serving her narrative. Anyone and everyone will betray her because that’s what always happens in stories like this, so she won’t give them a chance to ever get there. People will move the way she assumes they will; everyone is predictable and stupid and shallow and cowardly. And as such, no one possesses the necessary skills to take her down. If she’s more ruthless and ambitious and paranoid than everyone else, she’ll get what she wants. But that’s not how life actually works, so all she does is alienate those around her, even necessary allies. People aren’t always predictable, not all of them are compliant or subservient or easily-frightened or incompetent. And if you prioritize ruthlessness and distrust, the people who aren’t those things aren’t going to see any reason to keep you around or give you aid.
Jaime thinks he’s a Cynical Misunderstood Antihero. He doesn’t need to work on bettering himself or de-internalizing his violent impulses, because he’s not the problem, it’s society, it’s people’s incorrect assessment of him. Look, he made a friend in Brienne, that must mean he’s not all bad, right? He thinks this story ends in a Public Image Rehabilitation, but he still conflates love with violence, and he still has a fucked up relationship with consent, he’s arrogant to a fault, he still insults Brienne (and just about everyone else) when the opportunity presents itself, and he never bothers trying to change that. And it’s all of this that prevents him from every truly becoming a good person. He’s so mired in this idea of being misunderstood that he doesn’t make a concerted effort to prove that he actually is. People think he’s an oath-breaker, that he has too big of an ego, that he doesn’t care about the people he swore to protect, and he thinks that simply going, “Yeah, but they don’t have the whole picture” is enough in and of itself to prove them wrong because, in a lot of stories, it is. But all his behavior does is cement his reputation as these things.
Dany thinks she’s The Chosen One, which means whatever she does is automatically the right decision. People will accept her rule because it’s hers, she deserves it, it’s morally right. All of her enemies are blanketedly wrong on all accounts in all cases. Her goals supersede anyone else’s because those goals are the way to a Happy Ending, and she doesn’t consider that other people might not see it that way. Many people’s gripes with her stem from gross places like misogyny or wanting to continue keeping slaves, but she forgets to acknowledge that some people’s issues with her might actually be valid. And that The Chosen One is actually a terrifying idea to people outside that person’s immediate personal context. She has three sentient WMDs, essentially. And if she thinks that using them is always morally correct, that the fallout from doing so can’t possibly be a problem because she’s using them and it’s for a noble cause, you end up with what happened in Astapor; and you end up with Drogon killing a child in Mereen and, eventually, her demise at the end of the show.
Sansa starts out thinking she’s an Optimistic Child Hero in a fairytale. This leads to her being held captive at court (she trusted that the authority figures were benevolent), writing a letter to her family that almost comes back to bite her to a deadly degree once her sister finds out in the show (she thought she could solve everything herself via a peaceful resolution), and to her trusting a complete monster of a boy until it’s too late (she thought he was Prince Charming). She thinks that being the Soft, Beautiful Heroine means people will love her and everything will end nicely and neatly, but sometimes instead of “love”, people just take advantage of you. And sometimes their reaction to your beauty isn’t innocent appreciation-sometimes you end up with Littlefinger. (Or Tyrion or The Hound who...let’s just leave it at “they have their own issues,” especially book-wise.) This morphs into assuming that a fairytale-esque betrayal will befall her with every new person she meets. It’s why she defends Petyr after his murder of Lysa, and it’s why she doesn’t leave with Brienne; if she’s going to be betrayed anyway, she might as well at least stick with a villain she understands.
Ned thinks he’s the Noble Hero in a typical fantasy series. He doesn’t consider everyone else’s capacity for cruelty or the idea that honor alone might not be enough. Sometimes there are no perfect choices, sometimes mercy does not give you the end goal you envisioned, and sometimes you can try your best and that can all be undone by one impulsive, unforeseeable action. You can’t honor your way out of ruthless political conflict.
Robb thinks he’s a Romantic War Hero, and thus everything will magically work out for him. His ideals and his marriage will conquer everything. But he broke a marriage promise to a powerful family, and that has consequences. The world won’t bend to his will, not even if he is doing the right thing or has noble goals, not even if he’s had war success, not even if the people at home love him, not even if he’s in love (show) or doing the most honorable thing he can (books). He thinks that being the hero means he can make it through Westeros without having to play the game, and he gets murdered for it.
Theon thinks he’s an Underdog Outcast Hero. He’ll come up from behind with an unsuspecting War Victory, and that will earn him respect, the love of his family, and a legacy he can look back on with pride. And that mindset leads him to murder two children, to drive away any allies and good grace he had at Winterfell, and the reason that the War Victory he imagined was so unexpected is because it’s completely untenable. He gets more and more desperate and it’s increasingly harder and harder to hold onto the control he’s managed to obtain. He has reasons for wanting this that make sense, and he’s been dealt a pretty bad hand in life, and he thinks that’s and his determination to overcome his personal identity struggles is enough to not only justify his actions, but ensure that those actions will be successful. And then his plan blows up in his face, he assumes he’s been miraculously saved (probably still having something to do with seeing himself as The Unexpected Hero), and ends up at Ramsay’s mercy.
Arya thinks she’s a Badass Heroine in the making, a skilled swordslady and Rebellious Princess who’s destined for more than this stuffy life of politics and dresses and formalities. But rebelling isn’t always enough. It doesn’t help with the Mycah situation, and she still needs to rely on others’ help in getting out of the city after Ned is executed. When she does try to embrace the “fully self-sufficient sword lady” idea while with the Faceless Men in Braavos, she is told to functionally discard her identity completely. She does an unauthorized kill because she, not her assassin-persona-in-training, wants to (though the victim’s identity differs in books and show), which leads to her being temporarily blinded and prevented from going on assassination missions, and outright forced to beg for food in the show. In the show, after being reinstated as an apprentice, she is tasked with killing an innocent person, refuses (rebels), and realizes that this life is one she can’t handle. She goes home, and her heading straight for her sword is one of the things that almost completely ruins her relationship with Sansa. In the upcoming Winds of Winter release, her chapter excerpt has her prioritizing revenge over her apprentice duties, and she remarks that her new identity is ruined with this rebellious action. When you rebel, there are consequences-this doesn’t change just because your intentions are good or because you are or think you are important.
Jon thinks, similarly to Ned, that he’s The Good Guy, that doing the right thing, that following The Code is paramount. He thinks that, because he’s The Good Guy, that doing the right thing with the maximum amount of good for everyone will always be a workable option, and that the heroic option will always yield the best result. This is why he thinks proclaiming his love to Ygritte in the show will end well (because love is good and conquers everything) and is, instead, shot by her several times. It’s why he doesn’t foresee a mutiny in either medium, which leads to his (temporary) death. (Let’s be real, he’s getting resurrected in the books, too, this is the one thing I’m sure of.) Because yes, everything is tense and he’s on bad terms with the Watch, but surely they wouldn’t go that far. It’s rough going, and he has to juggle the needs of several widely different groups of people, but he’s doing the right thing and that will win out; his conviction will protect him, at least for the time being while he tries to manage the bigger threat of the White Walkers. The real fight is with them, the mysterious overarching enemy, not within his own ranks. This is a story where everyone puts aside their differences to fight a greater threat-except for the times when it isn’t.
Even Catelyn isn’t immune, as she assumes that Petyr, since he’s her childhood friend, is invested in solving the mystery of what happened to Bran when he tells her the dagger used in the attack was Tyrion’s. Lysa is her sister, she can’t possibly be suspicious. She thinks the Lannisters are evil, her instincts tell her that they were behind everything, she’s the Protective Mother Heroine, so she must be right. But although she is to a certain extent correct, that’s not the complete picture. And this slightly-misplaced confidence leads her to arrest Tyrion, the retaliation of which is Tywin siccing his forces on her homeland, one of the major first steps in the upcoming political war. Then, her continued focus on saving her children-something that must take precedence because they are her children, and this is her story-leads her to taking Walder Frey’s supposed offer of a fix-it solution for Robb breaking his marital pledge at face value, despite House Frey’s reputation, and despite this neat resolution seeming far too good to be true. She’s so focused on the Lannisters-the Obvious Endgame Enemy-that she doesn’t consider the possibility of betrayal from the Freys. She thinks that the world is giving her a break-because she is so desperately looking for one, because she deserves one, because her family deserves one, and those are reasons enough for her to have one-that she doesn’t even bother to re-evaluate the situation until it’s too late.
Melisandre thinks she’s a Religious Hero, but she ends up burning a child alive and alienating one of her few remaining allies in the process (and Davos was barely an ally to begin with). She thinks she’s Doing What Needs To Be Done to serve her savior, but it hurts Stannis more than it helps him, and he just ends up being murdered by Brienne. This is obviously in the show only (at least at this point), and I don’t know if Stannis is going to burn Shireen in the books or not. Stannis thinks he’s the Lawful Hero, and thus, because according to law he’s the Rightful Ruler, anything he does is automatically excusable; he’s just righting a wrong. And in the process, he imprisons his closest friend, has a hand in murdering his brother (when kinslaying is one of the most universally hated breaches of conduct in this fictional universe), allies with a dangerous woman that much of his own court despises, and, in the show, murders his only child and drives away most of the rest of his remaining team.
They all think that, since they are the main characters of their own stories, that they’re the main character of the larger, overarching narrative. That having understandable reasons or sympathetic qualities or even just having a clear goal that they desperately want, that’s enough to cement their importance. And they think that means that they’re justified in everything they do, that everything will work out for them, that the consequences will be lesser for them than for others, because that’s what it’s like to be the main character. The whole point is that there is not A Protagonist™ and that maybe we should examine why a story needs A Protagonist™ in the first place and what that narrative tradition tells us. When GRRM said he turned down adaptation offers because they only wanted to focus on Jon and Dany, this is why.
598 notes
·
View notes
eiffel's problem is that he sees every injustice as an interpersonal issue. he doesn't understand how his flippancy or apparent leniency towards hilbert might look to hera; in his mind, it doesn't contradict his support for her. to eiffel, it seems obvious - he is also one of hilbert's victims, hera is his friend, of course he's completely on her side - but he fails to fully grasp how the stakes are different for her.
ep 19: "you need to stop treating this like a joke, officer eiffel." / "hey, i'm the person for whom the joke tolls." / "i get you're scared he put something inside you. but i hope you haven't forgotten emergency code alpha victor. he put that in me." and ep 51: "they're just jokes! they don't really mean anything." / "see, eiffel, you get to have that. they can be 'just jokes' for you because you're... well, you. but we don't get that."
the issue in shut up and listen is eiffel's repeated, if unintentional, microaggressions, but it's also his general use of dark humor as a coping mechanism - jokes he feels justified in making because of how the subjects of those jokes have impacted him. eiffel sincerely believes in treating people equally, but his idea of 'equal treatment' can be idealistic and naive. he has an awareness of interpersonal harm, but he's lived most of his life without ever being confronted with the reality of structural harm - being pre-judged and othered and having his life devalued on the basis of outside categorization.
but the thing about that is that it has happened to him, too. eiffel is an addict, and a convict, and marked as from a lower socioeconomic class than minkowski or lovelace, and those things are the reasons goddard futuristics was able to buy him as prison labor and - without his consent - consider him expendable for medical experimentation. none of that is a coincidence, but he doesn't see the systems at work, only his own actions and regrets. which he then equivocates to the worst actions of people who don't share his sense of morality or guilt.
eiffel's ability to recognize and bring out the humanity in the people around him is one of his best qualities, but... on the basis of his identity, he's been able to live a life where he conceptualizes himself as the default person, and that's been reinforced by the pop culture he loves so much. that's a massive blind spot. he assumes everyone navigates the world in a similar way, and so, on some level, he sees everyone around him as an extension of or a reflection of himself. if evil is always personal, then it can always be reasoned with.
123 notes
·
View notes
An argument over whether or not Dan Heng is Dan Feng seems to have begun getting sparked again in certain parts of the Fandom and it does nothing but hurt my head to no end
Both sides cherrypicking or treating it like a strange situation, making false equivalents. "Yknow governments don't consider people who've lost their memories to be separate people" that's a flawed argument to use in favorite of DH = DF because it's not just he lost his memories. He literally grew up, experienced his own childhood, had a whole identity cultivated based on those experiences and that life and continues to live his own life. To treat the situation like it's just him getting a bit of amnesia is wild to me
But also I hate when people continue to insist he's running from Dan Feng and his past and how he's miserable and shouldn't ever confront the past and deal with it as if his and Blade's whole stories aren't centered around rebirth and karma, paying for your past life's karma. He needed to confront the past to ensure a freer future! He literally has!! And he will continue to do so because he realizes this, DH isn't dumb and he's grown since we first saw him. He understands
But yeah uh I'm so tired
This whole thing feels very Ship of Theseus. What makes the ship what it is, the physical aspects of its planks, its sailing history, or both?
For him, the question is what makes someone who they are? Is it the body that makes them up and any inherent genetic factors (like traits)? Is it their experiences, how they've grown up, and the identity they've developed in that time? Or is it both factors mixed together?
Personally in the case of Dan Heng, I think it's both! Yeah he has a lot of traits from Dan Feng. There's a lot inherently there. But we can't disregard his own experiences and the identity that has formed based on his history and what he's seen.
Again I can't stress this enough... It is a false equivalent to compare him to people who lose their memories or get amnesia, he didn't just lose those memories. He started life from the beginning, a whole different kind of life. And even then, the amnesia topic comes with its own debates. Isn't there a whole other thought experiment regarding someone put to trial who ends up with amnesia and what their verdict should be?
I guess in the end, it's all up to people's own philosophical beliefs after what constitutes a person. My personal belief that DH and DF will always be connect but the separation between them is also meaningful is something based on my own ideas of what consisitutes a person and their individual identity, similar situation with how I see Rukkhadevata and Nahida as connected but still not the same person exactly. At the end of the day again, it's personal beliefs
But what I can't stand and can't stand by, is someone acting all high and mighty like they're perfectly right and everyone else is wrong, especially when they're cherrypicking or not holding all their evidence to the same standard. According to some ppl, apparently it's better in the CN fandom where instead of treating it like "I'm right you're wrong" people have divided themselves into "DF and DH one person" and "DF and DH two people" groups and most importantly of all, they treat both like theories and just keep to their space and tag which they believe when it's relevant. Why can't we just do that? Why can't we follow in their footsteps instead of bringing up this argument every so often with the same tired flaws from both sides?
24 notes
·
View notes