#LITERALLY I LOVE MORALLY GRAY PROTAGONISTS AND EVERYTHING BUT THERE IS LITERALLY NO REASON ON GODS GREEN EARTH

[toss-a-coin-to-your-stan-account]

i need more cozy mysteries where the amateur sleuth isn't married to a fucking cop and doesn't fucking have one as a love interest. and also doesn't have random fatphobia for no reason

[punkeropercyjackson]

I truly believe that i never would've cared about the Batfam long enough to stick around the fandom til now and plan to stay as long as i can if they were like what fanon stans want them to be canonically.Jason is unironically one of the love's of my life as a selfshipper who started reading comics because of him but i detest the 'better' version of him they've created and same goes for the rest of the Bats and all the non-Bats they've ruined to prop them up

No,i don't want to hear about a white man adopting kids just because they have blue eyes and canonical good parents being bashed or killed off so he can replace them.No,i don't think it's right to reduce one of the most iconic and influencel character's in comics history to a chronically happy dumbass manchild who's obsessed with his looks and sex and as an irl eldest sibling i feel personally insulted by what they've done to Dick because they don't know how siblinghood works.No,i don't like that Tim is always either getting demonized and called a bigot and abuser and 'incel' for being a realistic teenage boy constantly dealing with nonstop bullshit thrown at him in addition to already having childhood trauma or woobified and bamfified into a white male power fantasy-Often coupled with sexualization which is just plain horrifying because he's a fucking toddler.No,i don't feel taking an extremely rough and tough and canonically uncomfortable with society's ideas of femininity and what should be romance chinese girl and literally silencing her wants by erasing that she learned how to talk and how even before that she had major attitude and not only feminizing her but having the audacity to not even make her feminine in a chinese way and instead go the white girl femininity route

No,i don't enjoy seeing a brown arab boy who's already a victim of islamophobic stereotypes in canon have even more added onto it by adultifying him either for bashing or simping and even fucking animalizing him so the white boys he's shipped with can 'domesticate'(an actual term i've seen used for him multiple times)him.No,i don't care that Jason being an angry goth asshole and morally gray is hot to you so you decided to erase his canonical trauma response of not being open to dating or sex unless it's with someone he's super close to due to how much hurt he's been through because you see traumatized men as a fetish instead of people and think you're not being ableist because you're a cis woman.No,i don't think i'm being 'too mean' by insulting and saying i fucking hate people who leave out the ONE black Batkid we've ever gotten in all almost 100 years of Batman comics for no real reason yet inserting the blonde white girl who's not even Bruce's daughter in any way because she DATED HIS SON and is basically dating his actual daughter now while doing it in the most mid fanarts and headcanons imaginable and when he's literally everything they love in white boy protagonists from other medias but they refuse to relate to autistic and queer black kids of any kind

I hope everybody who popuralized it back when the fandom was starting out rots and you're foul as hell if you perpetuate it too,i'm 10000000% serious from the bottom of my heart

[princess-of-the-corner]

One of the things I find frustrating about ML is that besides the protagonist-centered morality, they keep insisting on this good person bad person binary, which not only just kills any nuance that the younger target audience could (and honestly should) learn about (because people are complicated and not everything is black and white) but also runs on the idea that intent is all that matters like, Gabriel may have been a terrorist whose wish literally killed everyone and Marinette may be gaslighting the entirity of Paris and perpetuates abuse cycles (not just Adrien's but Chloé's too) but they did it Out of Love and for "good" reasons so the writers say they're heroes. Felix is forgiven for tricking Ladybug and trading all the miraculouses to the main terrorist, snappping people out of existence, and kidnapping Kagami (probably among other things, do they ever bring up the shit he did in Felix the episode?) because he did it "for them" because he cares oh so much.

Meanwhile, Chloé was a hero and yeah she might have done shit for attention but that doesn't cancel out that she has helped and saved people but the writers keep yelling about how she's not genuinely good because her heroism wasn't for "good" reasons and also "because she caused the akuma" despite the fact that literally the only person capable of causing akumas is whoever has the butterfly, Chloé (and a lot of other people, including Marinette herself!) just makes people feel bad enough (side eyes the actual villains actually making people feel so bad on purpose) that they're vulnerable to manipulation. Whether or not she deserved to be replaced has no place has no bearing on this because she did actually help people y virtue of just having fought alongside the main heroes and not making things worse when she did.

And in S1 Lila was literally just some chick who lied for attention and that's all we knew about her and it was easy to assume she was just lonely because she knows no one and she supposedly just moved to a new country. But everyone wanted her dead or whatever because... she's a liar that doesn't have a "good" reason for lying? She got in the way of Adrienette (as if Marinette was making any progress)? She got akumatized (because of Ladybug publicly shaming her)? What made her "bad"?

Yeah it's.

It's double annoying because they really seem to want to have the gray morality. Whether it be Gabriel and Felix doing bad things for 'good' reasons or Chloé doing 'good' things for 'bad' reasons as they later claim. Or even Season 1-3 Chloé being a 'bad kid' who is learning to be good.

But they always just either use the bad actions to make Chloé's good actions bad in some way(saying her heroism was just for attention. Saying she only cares about Sabrina and Adrien because they're items to her), or sweeping atrocities under the rug because of One Good Thing.

[lara635kookie]

Okay...Not the ship analysis yet but a little snippet of it. To write the analysis I had to think about why I like Red Crackle so much. And I realized one of the reasons why is that they remind me of another ship I also love:

(Warning:Spoilers of both Carmen Sandiego and Spider-Man Into/Across the Spiderverse ahead.)

Yes, they got differences but also massive resemblance either that once you notice, you can't unsee it. It isn't noticeable when you try to compare Gray and Miles and Gwen and Carmen, but once you switch...

Both Miles and Carmen are latino main characters, just that Miles is black and Carmen is brown. While Puerto Rico is a USA territory, in culture terms they share more with Latin America. And Even Miles not being born in Puerto Rico, his puerto rican roots and heritage are clear. 8/B in spanish is nowhere near as bad. As a Brazilian, we speak portuguese, which is a very similar language to Spanish(I myself know a little bit of spanish), but overall, both languages tend to sound very difficult, specially when you're learning in a place that doesn't speak any. Carmen didn't seem to be totally fluent in spanish either since in the Lupe Peligro episode she says her Spanish is getting better. So not fluent, at least in that point in time. Maybe that changes after that so I'll just assume both Miles and Carmen are working on their spanish. Another point is that they are both very smart. Carmen knows her geography and history AND can speak multiple languages and Miles is great at physics AND art, both very different areas from one another. Saying that, Carmen had everything to be a Mary Sue, just like Miles had everything to be a Gary Stu but instead, while they are extraordinary, we also see their weaknesses, flaws and mistakes. On the first two episodes of the first season of Carmen Sandiego and on the first spiderverse movie, we see Black Sheep/Miles Morales transition to becoming Carmen Sandiego/Spider-Man. And on that transition, someone was always by their side...

Both Gwendolyne Stacy(Spider-Woman) (or Gwanda ;) and Graham Calloway(Crackle) have a four letter nickname that starts with G and the protagonist always call them that(Gwen and Gray). Both have a surname that ends with Y. Both are a little bit older than the main character(Gray is two years older than Carmen and Gwen is 15 months older than Miles). Both are trans to a lot of people(I don't actually believe this, I think both Gwen and Gray are cisgender, specially Gwen, because of the comics and because while I think her revelation to her father was made in purpose to resonate and pass as a metaphor for coming out, I believe in the less popular theory that she was an ally and her Peter was actually trans and that is one of the reasons he suffered bullying and Gwen defended him and had that "Protect Trans Kids" poster in her room, this is literally the vibe she passes me:

Some time ago I saw a theory that the relationship of Miles and Gwen was a metaphor for one of the difficulties that interracial couples pass that the most privileged has to learn that the same society system that protects them, won't protect their partner in the same way, and that is shown through the way Spider Society treats Miles and I know there are more black spider people like Hobie and Margo but the parallel still works:he is not being accepted because he is different. The thing is, that theory kinda breaks the trans Gwen theory because if she was trans, sadly, the system wouldn't protect her either. I also don't believe it because of the voice actors. Some years ago, an adult could dub a children if he did the right voice. Nowadays, they cast a voice actor more similar to the character. Like, black characters need to have black voice actors, etc, otherwise they get canceled. And both of the voice actors for Gray and Gwen are cisgender, and I saw people complaining that if the producers wanted to make characters "potentially trans" they should have casted trans voice actors, for both characters. But anyway, I don't mind and respect the people who think they are trans). Both got competition for the other's affection(Gwen has now Spider-Byte and Gray has Ivy, Julia and pretty much everyone you can ship with Carmen in this show, which is a lot of people). Both are the lighter skin love interest not from where the protagonist is(Gray is from Australia and Gwen is from another dimension).

And now with the storyline similarities. Both pairings start as friends, so both lead to a slow burn. Both were an amazing partners in crime duo, working really great as a team, and being just the two of them or even with more people, their connection always stood out. Miles and Carmen never became official members of Spider Society/V.I.L.E. but disagree with them and escape from them to do what they believe is right. Both Gwen and Gray make a mistake and are expelled from Spider Society/V.I.L.E. (Gwen with the portal multiverse dimension go home machine or whatever and Gray by having his memories wiped) and then they realize too late they made a mistake with Miles/Carmen and now have to fix that mistake. Also both Carmen and Miles say "Goodbye Gray/Gwen." in the most DRAMATIC way possible before doing an grand triumphal exit and I love that for them. And the look Gray/Gwen gives them before they leave is THE EXACT SAME LOOK, I SWEAR. So as you can see, both ships leave a room for A LOT of angst and drama. Also just the way they look so fondly at each other and the way both Carmen/Miles and Gray/Gwen look sad when they have to leave or when the other has to leave them says it all. Platonic or not, both couples have an undeniable bond and just work so well together, being as friends, lovers, partners...They are each other's ride or die. They are each other's everything.

(Also just an personal opinion is that both Spiderverse and Carmen Sandiego have the MOST BEAUTIFUL ANIMATION I HAVE EVER SEEN) (Along with the new Miraculous movie) (Ladybug and Chat Noir are also very similar of Carmen and Gray but that's something more noticeable to pretty much everyone, I don't have to elaborate much on that matter) (I've got nothing to say about LadyNoir/MariChat being similar to Red Crackle that hasn't been said before)

The major difference about them is that, while both the Spiderverse movies and the Carmen Sandiego series don't have romance as their main focus, Miles and Gwen will most likely be canon in the films, just like they are in the comics. I think it will be a movie trilogy so they'll probably get together in the third movie(Beyond the Spiderverse in january? Anyway, 2024, save the date). I mean, Spider-Byte is cool and all but she's a game avatar or something so I don't think Miles and her can get together, even if he travels to her universe and decides to stay there or vice versa. They introduced her just now and we barely know anything about her, and Miles and Gwen clearly already have a whole build up story going on with a consistent arc so why mess it up? Besides, I think we need more main interracial couples representation in media. Aside from these two, the only GOOD main interracial couples I can think of are Druig and Makkari from Eternals(I never even watched Eternals and I know they are better than Ikaris and Sersi)(They are also an interracial couple but they clearly don't have the chemestry Drukkari does and Ikaris seems to be kind of a jerk tbh), Ricky and Gina(from HSMTMTS, which I don't watch either but their clips I saw on YouTube are just the cutest thing), Ben and Devi from Never Have I Ever, Daphne and Simon and Kate and Anthony from Bridgerton, and Julie and Luke(Juke) from Julie and The Phantoms(JATP) which is literally an impossible love story since Luke is dead(he's a ghost) and Julie isn't(she's alive) and the series was cancelled(still mad about it and will forever be). My point is:Couples with different ethnicities are not only little but the ones we do have are mostly either impossible to happen, unfairly treated/messed up by writers/not well executed or when treated right, we don't get enough content of them/they are forgotten, in the majority cases, and that needs to change. Anyway...Meanwhile, with Red Crackle, as Carmen Sandiego had a pretty open ending, canon can be whatever the hell you want, and for me is red crackle. That's it. Thank you for coming to my ted talk. Will be posting more "written podcasts" soon.

[rose-tea-and-strawberries]

Trey: *Trying to explain Riddle is that way because of his mom*

Me: Give me a minute as I pull up my ‘Trauma Doesn’t Excuse Sh*t Behavior’ PowerPoint.

Say it with me, everyone: an explanation is not an excuse 😊

You know, the other day I was watching one of Ryan George's Pitch Meetings and when Producer Guy asked Writer Guy how the audience would root for the villain of the franchise and the response was "he's handsome" which basically explains most people's reactions to fictional men.

Prepare for incoming rant that has little to do with the ask

This probably might come as a shock because one of the main appeal of twst would be the whole villainous aspect/Disney Villain fanbase but I don't really like villains that much, at least, not romantically. Like don't get me wrong, I think that they're incredible characters and it would be so fun to sit down with one and have a conversation with one. Villain songs are so fun (I was literally singing ‘This Day Aria’ to myself the other day I haven’t heard that song in like a decade) and you can tell that that characters like Scar or Hades or Shere Khan or Jafar or Maleficent are having so much fun being deliciously evil and even the more serious, complex ones like Loki or Frollo are fun to pick apart so yeah I understand the hype. I just always rooted for the heroes and I guess heroic characters have always been more my type.

My mother absolutely loves Erik Destler and is forever salty that Christine chose Raoul (despite my many many attempts at arguing why Raoulstine is the superior couple - smol primary school me could not understand why my mum liked the chandelier dropper and was deeply concerned), my best friend has been in love with Heathcliffe since we were eleven, and my little sister has literally told me that her type of fictional men are the toxic red flags (not exactly word for word but she did explain why she likes bad boys over good boys when I was complaining about how my type (wholesome soft boys) always get sidelined for the arrogant, snarky bad boys - we're also very diametrically opposed on our views of friends to lovers (my s++ tier all time favourite and her loathing) vs enemies to lovers (I can't really stand it - Pride and Prejudice is the only exception - and that's literally all she consumes) so that might also be a reason).

Like, I understand the appeal of a Byronic hero (Mr Darcy has far too much power) - a closed off, broody man that hates everything but you? And will burn down the world to keep you warm? I can respect that there are people who dig that. But their not really for me.

The mild bout of insanity thirteen year old me had where I spent two months attracted to Edward Rochester is an outlier and should not have been counted (though that was during my wattpad phase so...)

But I can admit that I have yet to shake off my feelings for Dr Henry Jekyll, Victor Frankenstein and Dorian Gray (though to be fair, Mr Gabriel John Utterson the lawyer and cinnamon roll artist boy Basil Hallward do own my heart). And yes, Jeremy Jordan did make me question my morality as he did make my feelings for Light Yagami be too positive to be sane for a brief moment (Touta Matsuda is still my man, don't worry). But apart from them, literally all of my faves are what you'd call your traditional, morally upright heroes.

Basically what I'm saying is that my perception might be skewed because I've never had the whole 'villains are cooler' mindset when it came to stories. Yes, I love the villains as characters but I always liked their heroic foils more (goodness is just so attractive to me). You get lots of amazing heroic protagonists that have horribly tragic backstories and they're the ones I always fall for because the idea of being a kind sweetheart despite the world being anything but is just *chef's kiss* that's a kind of strength that's so swoon-worthy.

I guess that's why it's harder for me to look past the characters' actions in twst is because, well, they chose to do everything they did. They made a conscious choice to be terrible, despite understanding the consequences. Riddle may have been brainwashed into becoming a tyrant by his mother but he still admitted that he knew he was being horrible - he understands the concept of morality, of good and bad, and he willingly and deliberately did everything he did.

I suppose this text post I found on Pinterest would explain my point better:

[psychewritesbs]

I think one of the reasons I love Jujutsu Kaisen because it feels like a reverse-parody of shounen, atleast to me. Gege takes common shounen tropes and instead of doing the same thing as the writers before him, he takes those tropes seriously instead of just using them as clutches to make things happen.

For example Sukuna, he isn't just an evil magic battery inside our main hero to get him out of tough situations who gets tamed with time but a fully realized character with motivations of his own. Or the failed older generation that reflects and mirrors the current trio (Nobara is still alive and nothing can take this delusion away from me) who are not just copypaste with a minor twist to them. Gojo isn't just the strongest character who our protagonist will have to eventually overcome and the world doesn't revolve around Yuuji, like literally 7 other characters could have been the main characters as well. Even with the KennyMommy twist we got nothing but a crushing irony that Yuuji was made to be expendable instead of being the most special character out of them all. (Even if there is more to the story -which is very likely, but who knows because it's Gege- and he was in fact more special than that, it still works because next to someone like Maki or Yuta, it's like nothing lmao)

I also love the grading system and how realistict it is, the special grade curses/sorcerers are treated more as monsters than the goal the characters should work towards, I never once felt that grade 1 sorcerers were ever disregarded or degraded to constantly up the power scale. Grade, technique, curse level or even domain expansion isn't the ends of all means, every fight is unique and fresh, unlike in some other shounens were the fights start to feel like dick measuring after a time.

Also also our main character isn't the moral epitome of the whole world with writer's clairvoyance, who knows everything better than everyone else. No, he isn't always right and his approach isn't always the right one or the only right one, something that was showcased with both Megumi, Junpei or even Mahito. When he faced the awakened Junpei, he didn't want to accept his actions and preeched without knowing anything, it is only when Yuuji tried to understand Junpei is when he made a big push through, which was handled greatly in my opinion. It's understandable that Yuuji rejected him at first and I don't neccessarily see it as a flaw, but him trying to connect to Junpei is what made him a great protagonist in my opinion. Everything is chaotic and gray in JJK, there is no clear right and wrong, there is only your side and their side, or more accurately you vs them. There are no one-dimensional bad guys who suddenly turn one-dimensional good guys once they are defeated (which I'm so thankful for, my god). Curses, for fuck's sake this universe has curses which could have been the faceless unthinking monsters the heroes could massacre en masse without ANY moral implications, then Gege went ahead and said Lmao, Lol even, here, kill these innocent civilians made by a sentient curse that's the manifestation of humankind's fear and hatred for our own kind while you are there and then things just went further downhill after that. (I just want to say, when Nanami and Yuuji defeated those curses without knowing their true nature, I really cried seeing those poor people suffer, I can't wait to see the Shibuya arc being finally animated. Maybe this time Nanami and Nobara won't die if I am delusional enough).

Sorry for rambling, I may not have worded things exactly the way I wanted them but writing in English is not my greatest expertise. Also idk if someone has already made this point or not, I try to avoid the JJK fandom as much as possible because 90% of it is just SatoSugu or Character x Y/N and I'm not interested in either of those (no hate towards the fans tho)

HOLA anon! Ehem...

So... when your ask came through I was getting ready to go Cancun+ing, but I promise that even while my skin scorched under the sun (I am sunburnt af 🥲) I was in deep thought regarding your magnificent ask because.................

HOLY DAMN YES!

Welcome to another JJK-Sunday Confessionals.

I love it! Thanks for sending your #thoughts. I honestly don't even know that I have much more to add to this other than saying that I love how you've captured many of the #things I love about jjk.

Ok, jk, have we met? I vomit words and words I shall vomit under the cut.

Gege takes common shounen tropes and instead of doing the same thing as the writers before him, he takes those tropes seriously instead of just using them as clutches to make things happen

I love this so much and I've been thinking about what it is about how Gege writes that is so refreshing and I think it defo has something to do with how he fleshes out the tropes he uses in detail.

Perhaps he understands that tropes are at their core experiences. And where most mangaka rely on tropes at face value, he re-imagines new ways of expressing the same core concept. i.e. the Kurama vs. Sukuna example you shared.

Honestly, this is one of the reasons I like jjk so much. I simply cannot predict it to a t. There's a lot of media that I simply do not indulge because, as soon as I am able to predict the story because of the tropes used, I get bored.

the failed older generation that reflects and mirrors the current trio

Ok but listen. What if Kenny, Tengen and Sukuna were such a trio? Same trope, take it back, way back. There's something about how Gege is writing about Tengen (especially in relation to Kenny) that is interesting in that there's this sense that fate has been repeating itself for many, many years.

I haven't been able to gather my thoughts on it but... something about it...

the world doesn't revolve around Yuuji, like literally 7 other characters could have been the main characters as well. Even with the KennyMommy twist we got nothing but a crushing irony that Yuuji was made to be expendable instead of being the most special character out of them all.

Just today I was thinking about how Yuji is such a refreshing and unique take on his trope as the mc of a battle shonen. Like Megumi, he is all the #things that define him according to his trope, and yet he does it in a way that is unequivocally Yuji.

As for the other main characters, that's what I love about them. It's like they are all the protagonists of their own lives. There are a few plot devices in the story, but for the most part Gege's character writing is absolutely fantastic.

Also. Crushing irony is abso-fucking-lutely on point lol.

Grade, technique, curse level or even domain expansion isn't the ends of all means, every fight is unique and fresh, unlike in some other shounens were the fights start to feel like dick measuring after a time.

YES. I have to half disagree about how the fights don't feel like dick measuring tho.

There's something very ironic and absurd about Hakari vs. Kashimo and Gojo vs. Sukuna that is 300% dick measuring but in this very Gege-kind-of-egotistical-way 😂. I personally love it tho. No complaints here.

Also also our main character isn't the moral epitome of the whole world with writer's clairvoyance, who knows everything better than everyone else.

Loved this 🥲. All of it!

I can't wait to see the Shibuya arc being finally animated. Maybe this time Nanami and Nobara won't die if I am delusional enough.

oh hey! it's like me thinking Tokyo Babylon's volume 7 will have a different outcome if only I read it enough times. I have not successfully managed to manifest a different ending but shall keep trying lol.

So relatable.

Sorry for rambling, I may not have worded things exactly the way I wanted them but writing in English is not my greatest expertise. Also idk if someone has already made this point or not, I try to avoid the JJK fandom as much as possible because 90% of it is just SatoSugu or Character x Y/N and I'm not interested in either of those (no hate towards the fans tho)

Nah, please ramble away. Thank you for sharing your #thoughts with me.

You are using British English, does that mean you are on the other side of the world (Europe/Asia)? Also I'd say you write quite well in English :) better than many USAmericans actually lol.

Yeah so... about the fandom.

What I'll say is that I have had several negative experiences that have left a very sour taste in my mouth. It's gotten to the point that sometimes people will comment on my content with inoffensive messages and I immediately get defensive because I think they're being mean when they aren't. It actually makes me sad to react like that and it is something I'm working on.

For that reason I've stayed here in my little Tumblr corner for the vast majority of my fandom experience and interacted with others very little because I found some posts and attitudes to be too triggering.

But alas, I've come out of my shell and have met good friends/moots through here as a result. So thank you to my Tumblr moots for helping make my jjk experience better!

I also only recently started interacting more on twitter with others in the fandom. So I have a small circle of mutuals who share the same level of understanding as me but it isn't always easy to find people I vibe with in such a large ocean of loud voices.

It's interesting to note that the most popular content for jjk isn't necessarily the kind of discourse I enjoy. To your point, sometimes I see a a very popular post that is specifically about satosugu and I wonder whether it would be as popular if it wasn't about the ship. So I totally share your feelings about the state of the fandom on all levels.

And while I personally do enjoy "shipping", I also like to explore and understand the characters as individuals. That is not to mention I consider myself to be on camp ship and let ship.

What I've learned is that you have to curate your content experience and I get the feeling you're already on it for yourself.

Anyways anon! Thank you so much for dropping by!

I really enjoyed reading your thoughts on why you love jjk and look forward to hearing about what other #jjk thoughts you might have.

[finallythebest]

Books That Will Ruin Your Life

(trigger warnings under the cut)

A Little Life, by Hanya Yanagihara

This book, which is about 800 pages long, is one of the best pieces of literature I have ever read. It follows four friends after they move to New York City and pursue their goals, but most of the story focuses on one of the men: Jude St. Francis, who has a mysterious past that has wrecked him emotionally and physically. But despite the darkness of the subject matter (and it gets DARK) the acts of love and kindness and friendship from the people in Jude's life will bring you to tears. It’s a gorgeous study of trauma, human relationships, and the marriage of joy and pain that inevitably comes with living. I read it two months ago and have thought about it every day since. It’s one of those books you want everyone to read and no one to read. (DEFINITELY check out the trigger warnings for this one.)

The Traitor Baru Cormorant, by Seth Dickinson

This book is a sprawling political fantasy, packed with detail and diversity and some of the best, most complex worldbuilding I've ever seen. Baru grows up under the shadow of imperialism and eventually joins a rebellion to break free of the empire that has begun to take over the world. She's also a lesbian, which is forbidden in the new empire, but against herself is drawn to the enigmatic Duchess Tain Hu. There are devastating twists, loves, and heartbreaks that will break your heart along with Baru's. To say anything else would be a spoiler, but if you like complex, morally ambiguous fantasy, check this one out.

As Meat Loves Salt, by Maria McCan

This book follows a man named Jacob as he slowly falls in love with a fellow soldier during the seventeenth century English Revolution. After the war, they attempt to establish a utopian farming commune and keep their relationship together. This book is a really interesting foray into 17th century England, but it is ultimately a dark, passionate tale of obsession and vindication that will leave you as sick with the actions of the protagonist as he is with himself.

The People in the Trees, by Hanya Yanagihara

This book is written as a memoir of a disgraced scientist, who discovers a hidden tribe in a small Pacific island that he believes holds the key to a longer (and even immortal) life. You almost forget that the events of the book are fiction and not a real memoir--everything described seems meticulously researched and vividly real. As always, Yanagihara’s writing is gorgeous, absorbing, and well-paced. It's a haunting tale of how science, hubris, and greed can lead to someone's personal downfall, as well as colonialism and cultural genocide.

The Goldfinch, by Donna Tartt

You might have already heard of this one, but I had to put it on the list anyway! After a traumatic accident kills Theo Decker's mother, his life is thrown into turbulence and eventual crime, all stemming from a stolen painting. The story is tense, beautifully written, and will make you root for yet another morally gray narrator. For fans of dark thrillers, art history, homoerotic friendship, and/or coming-of-age stories, this one is for you.

Daytripper, by Fàbio Moon and Gabriel Bà

Although Daytripper is a graphic novel, it deserves a spot on this list. It follows Bràs, a Brazilian writer, and his journey through specific turning points in his life, each represented as a "death." The art is gorgeous and the story flows impeccably, capturing the beautiful mundanities and joys of life. This book will leave you touched, inspired, and deeply affected.

The Vintner's Luck, by Elizabeth Knox

After a vintner saves his life, an angel named Xas visits him every year for a single night. As the vintner grows, so does their relationship, just like a fine vintage. It's difficult to say too much about the plot without spoiling the story, but I can say that this book explores the nuances of human relationships and the love we feel for each other, as well as the hate and fear that can pervade those relationships.

Beloved, by Toni Morrison

Toni Morrison is one of the greatest American novelists and Beloved is my favorite of her works. The book follows Sethe, an ex-slave, and her daughter Denver as they reckon with a ghost from Sethe's past that begins to haunt them more literally than metaphorically. The story is both captivating and difficult to read, but Morrison's writing is gorgeous and the characters come to life on the page. It superbly explores the depth of trauma and motherhood, as well as depicting the horrors of slavery in a way that doesn't feel cartoonish or exploitative.

Everything I Never Told You, by Celeste Ng

Celeste Ng’s work has gotten a lot of hype recently, and for good reason. This book follows a family after the middle child, Lydia, drowns. We see the buildup to Lydia’s death and its brutal aftermath, as relationships are challenged within the family. It’s a brilliant look at familial dysfunction, generational curses, and interracial marriage in 1970s America, and a deeply haunting portrayal of how these issues can tear apart a family.

Trigger warnings:

A Little Life: graphic self harm, suicide/suicidal thoughts, graphic child sexual assault, rape, domestic violence, child physical and emotional abuse, disordered eating, forced prostitution of a minor, discrimination against disabled characters, PTSD, drug abuse/addiction, child death, mental instability, emotional manipulation, gaslighting.

The Traitor Baru Cormorant: homophobia, eugenics, violence.

As Meat Loves Salt: rape, domestic violence, physical violence.

The People in the Trees: child sexual assault, child physical and emotional abuse, suicide, cultural genocide, animal abuse.

The Goldfinch: substance abuse, underage drinking and drug abuse, suicidal behaviors/attempts, age gap relationship, child neglect and abuse, violence, racial slurs, casual racism.

Daytripper: suicide, graphic self-harm, graphic violence.

Beloved: racism, slavery, child death, graphic violence.

Everything I Never Told You: child death, racism, xenophobia.

[itsclydebitches]

I would to love and talk in-legth about the friendship thing please, because it makes no sense. James never had an issue with having friends, correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought the only reason Ironwood didn’t want Penny out and about was to hide the fact she was a robot. Since this is after she was exposed, he has no reason to keep this secret. The Ace Ops say they aren’t friends (they are) and James has friends, himself. They just added it in to make him look bad.

Then talk we shall, friend!

For me, the two things are largely synonymous in the early volumes. It's like getting only the first half of a motivation. Yes, it's true that Ironwood didn't want Penny to have friends... because she was a top secret military project. And yeah, there's a TON to criticize there, some of which is alluded to through Glynda's horror at experimenting with souls and Ironwood's panicked explanation to Ozpin that Penny wasn't a weapon crafted against him, but for their protection. It's one of those choices that's dubious as hell, but has nuance attached when (as always) we throw RWBY's specific context into the mix. Is someone justified in creating a human-android hybrid in an effort to save the world from literal monsters and a grimm queen? Does it matter if people like Glynda are disgusted by experimentation if they're ultimately willing to let it happen for the greater good? Is one girl's desire to explore a city worth more than the risks attached to letting her wander unsupervised? Once the deed was done and there was no going back, was Ironwood justified in telling Penny to keep her distance when the second she ran into a group they marked her as "weird"? That within just days of knowing Ruby, Penny had not only taken action that could reveal her nature to an observant party (stopping a truck/scraping her palms), but went on to freely reveal the secret herself? Penny freely announces her identity, her unique characteristics (first synthetic person to generate an aura), and her ultimate mission for the Good Guys. If Ruby weren't the Hero Of The Story, that information would be really bad to hand out to someone. Someone like, say, the three Salem subordinates who have infiltrated the school as students and manage to take out Penny as a part of their school-ending plan.

"One day, it will be my job to save the world. But I still have a lot left to learn."

Much like Blake and Yang deciding to trust Robyn without good reason, or Oscar trusting Hazel without good reason — because trust is positioned as inherently good — that message bumps up against the realities of a war based in information, driven largely by betrayal. Penny revealing her android identity didn't backfire because Ruby is the protagonist. Trusting Robyn and Hazel didn't backfire because that choice was made by the protagonists. But everything outside of the story helping the heroes from a meta perspective says, "History shows trusting without cause — even with good cause — can end in disaster." Like, say, trusting Lionheart and giving him the power to eradicate an entire Kingdom's huntsmen. Viewed from that context — the context of Ironwood not being a hero protagonist, therefore forced to follow the rules of his complex, morally gray world, rather than banking on the fact that reality will twist to assist him: Amity is suddenly fixed! You have an all powerful cane nuke! — we need to ask whether it's really a sin to tell the incredibly young, naive, top secret military project not to go making friends in the new city because she might reveal her secret... which is precisely what she did. We may well decide it IS a sin, but the point is the actual situation is a bit more complicated than Ironwood being a big meanie who hates friendship as a matter of course.

Given those complexities and the strong arguments on both sides, I have more of a problem with the double standard. Meaning, drag Ironwood as much as you please for building a person-weapon and then dictating how she lives her life... but drag Pietro too. Fans hate Ironwood for telling Penny not to make friends, but no one cares that Pietro also told Penny to keep that low profile:

"My father asked me not to venture out too far, but... You have to understand, my father loves me very much; he just worries a lot."

Just because it's framed as fatherly devotion instead of military strategy doesn't change the fact that Pietro was dictating her movements as much as Ironwood was. Fans hate Ironwood for giving the go-ahead to build Penny, but not Pietro for both building her and coming up with the idea in the first place.

"My father's the one that built me! I'm sure you would love him!"

"When the General first challenged us to find the next breakthrough in defense technology, most of my colleagues pursued more obvious choices. I was one of the few who believed in looking inward for inspiration."

Fans hate Ironwood for putting Penny in the tournament to test her skills, but no one hates Pietro for doing the same thing for the same reasons, watching this experiment from afar.

For me, this is a case of characters being treated differently because of how they're otherwise coded. Meaning, people have more of a problem with the white general whose disabilities are hidden by his clothes doing ethically dubious stuff than they are the black scientist in a wheelchair doing ethically dubious stuff. But they're both doing the same ethically dubious stuff. If people really took issue with building a daughter, using her as a military tool, denying her friends, and throwing her into an experimental tournament... then they'd be equally disgusted by the guy who came up with that idea, supported it 100%, and went so far as to rebuild Penny so she could immediately take up her "correct" role as protector of the people. But they're not because the problem lies more in hating Ironwood as a concept (military general, supporting the greater good over saving every life, etc.) + the show telling us we need to hate him now, than it is the actual actions he took pre-shooting Oscar. When you already don't like a character everything they've ever done is a sin and no, there's no gray area here because they're a Bad Person. Inherently. When you do like a character everything they've ever done is a wonderful choice, or at least justifiable and yes, the world is populated by gray choices with them doing their best because they're a Good Person. Inherently. Never-mind that in this case the choices are the same. Ironwood is the evil man who built a weapon. Pietro is the loving man who built a daughter. We come to two very different readings of the same event based on whether people otherwise like the character in question. Insert "Ruby is allowed to lie about Salem to her allies because she's inherently a strategic genius, but Ozpin can't lie about Salem to his allies because he's inherently a manipulative person" here.

So not only does the story grow hypocritical in regards to who carries responsibility for the ethically dubious choice, but the show failed to maintain a consistency that would at least say, "Pietro might have done shady stuff in the past, but he's improved while Ironwood has not." We don't get that. Putting aside Pietro's questionable characterization — the story completely ignoring his admission that Penny was built as a weapon, having him make the team upgrades when they join Ironwood even though the military is supposed to be criticized here, him being the only one besides Watts to literally take control of her (played for laughs), his desire to keep her safe framed as another adult controlling the protagonists, the show straight up forgetting he exists after that — Ironwood is not written as someone who is infringing on Penny's rights, let alone doing so in a way that is comparatively worse than Pietro. 'Ironwood won't let me have friends' Penny says, to her friend Ruby, while their mission time is used primarily to hang out in the truck and catch up, her uncle and the leader of the Ace Ops literally chilling in the back playing cards. 'He won't let me have friends,' is the claim right before Ironwood has Penny announce a surprise party, encouraging everyone to enjoy themselves now that work is over, leaving her there to hang with all her friends and eat cake. 'Friends are totally not allowed' is the message as Penny goes off to an election party, supposedly to act as a bodyguard, but since no one expects any real problems it's framed as another chance to hang out with Ruby while Nora kisses Ren and everyone else goes to the movies. As friends.

"I am so glad you made it! It's just Marrow and I tonight, so more friends means more fun."

There's no friendship as they spend every briefing sleeping on each other and bringing in coffee. No friendship as Penny personally shows them around the Academy and wakes them up every morning. No friendship with Winter which is why there wasn't any conflict when they disagreed over how to handle Salem's arrival /s

And there definitely wasn't a literal line in which Penny says, referring to Ruby vs. Ironwood's group:

"I do not like it when friends fight."

Because Winter is her friend. The Ace Ops are her friends. Even Ironwood is arguably a friend considering how chill she is around him (the boss you genuinely like and are okay goofing off around). They're all different kind of friends from what she has with Ruby, but that just shows that Penny has a wide variety of relationships. You know, the one thing the show has her insist wasn't the case in an effort to make Ironwood look evil. But it's the same as Amity being done only when the group needs it. Or Winter criticizing Ironwood for enacting martial law when she was the one to suggest it. Or the writers announcing that there was always this semblance influencing things... there's just no evidence for that in the canon. RWBY has a long-established habit of claiming something and then refusing to do the work of showing it. It's not a matter of "hand-holding" that many claim, but simply a matter of actually writing the events you say are happening in this world. Ironwood had a strong (if ethically dubious) motivation for keeping Penny from making friends in Volumes 2 and 3. That motivation was lost once Penny was revealed to the world, so what reason does he have to perpetuate this? We're not told because the only reason is a meta one: make the guy who will be the eventual antagonist look mean for no reason. Except RWBY didn't even manage that. Yeah, maybe there could have been a version of Ironwood that rejected friendship simply because he (allusion time) lacks a heart... but that's not the version we got. Ironwood is on his knees in happiness at Ozpin's return. He's the one initiating a hug with Qrow. He welcomes new allies with open arms and in every scene Penny is allowed as much friendship as she'd like. If Ironwood is the dictator in the making who controls it all with an iron fist, don't we think he'd try a little harder to keep Penny from doing friendship things if he thought that was wrong? He's presented as actively encouraging friendship and bonding in his own, awkward way. But RWBY wanted a villain and, you know, saying he forbids friendship is a shocking thing that a lot of fans will take at face value. The same way it's shocking for Harriet to announce that they're not friends either... even though they quite obviously are. RWBY, particularly the Atlas arc, gets by largely on the viewer believing whatever the characters say over what we're shown on screen.

[leportraitducadavre]

On Itachi, his fandom, and moral standpoints

Once again I come back with a meta, unsurprisingly, of Naruto’s manga and, more specifically, about a character in particular, Uchiha Itachi, his fandom and what it entails and represents. My decision to make him the primary focus of this meta is just to bring light (open the door for more in depth debates) of a deeper, much more complicated problem that Itachi represents, but undoubtedly surpasses him and the Naruto manga as a whole.

Be warned, my take on Itachi’s fandom does not contemplate those fans who merely enjoy him but do not negate important parts of his character, if that’s your particular case, then be assured that I did not have you in my mind when writing this. This is about, let’s say, the hardcore fandom he possesses, that justifies (and to some extent, celebrates) his implications in the UCM and blindfold loyalty to Konoha and its system.

How can I even begin to introduce Itachi’s character? What he was supposed to be and what he surprisingly became? How to start to explain his fenomenon? Itachi was not supposed to be good, from his introduction he was a manipulative, dark character that tortured physically and mentally Sasuke and was a threat to Naruto’s (the protagonist) life. At no point during the first part of the manga were we able to see glimpses of a “good” Itachi that the narrative later on tried to establish, and yet, there were three (conected) factors of imperative importance to understand the raise of his character from the first part of the manga to the other. 

The first one was, let’s call it, his intrinsecal persona's appeal (and everything it encompases).

Itachi’s not the first cryptic male character that gets favored by a large part of the fandom for that mere trait (look at any shönen or show and see how many characters whose sole trait is to be mysterious becomes the fandom’s favorite), added to the fact that he’s powerful enough to subdue men who’s status of geniuses are often highlighted in the manga (Orochimaru and Kakashi), and his... physical charm, you have a powerful combo to make readers incline more and more on his favor. Itachi had sparked their interest. 

There are boxes to fill to attract the public interest to a character, and Itachi filled in all of them. 

The Power-Mystery-Beauty triangle is not an unknown formula (Christian Gray, Edward Cullen, to name characters from mainstream, from other manga there is Light, now surprisingly, Dabi) and in every fiction work it has appeared, it worked to lure the (female) public towards it.

But is that enough? For some, yes, for most, Itachi represents something that they desired profoundly, and that’s entirely attached to Sasuke’s character.

Even back in the first part of the manga, Sasuke’s character was received mixedly, there were people who saw his personality as too abrasive (similar to Itachi’s but because Sasuke was supposed to be with the nice guys, this aspect of him clashed rather harshly with his position on the narrative) and considered him a mere emo who believed himself to be better than Naruto and Sakura (he was, but he also acknowledged this fact, which make some readers disapprove of him even more). 

Itachi challenged that “so-called” superiority, additionally downgrading and humiliating him in a way readers felt he, to some extent, deserved. The dislike of part of the fandom of Sasuke’s character found a way of purchase inside the manga. Naruto wasn’t strong enough (and eventually cared too much) to subdue Sasuke, Sakura was too in awe with him to “stand up against him”, Kakashi saw his greatness and taught him powerful jutsus while paying zero attention to his other students. Until Itachi, no other character seemed to put Sasuke “in his place”, because even the villains of each arc seemed particularly obsessed with Sasuke and Sasuke only, elevating even more his importance and status and sidelining Naruto and (of course), Sakura, who were left with mere participations in what seemed a Sasuke-focused plot. Up at this point, Sasuke was far more important than the actual protagonist of the manga but Itachi, who was actually Sasuke’s goal, who was actually the person Sasuke aspired to surpass, abused him, manipulated him and -more importantly- seemed more focused on getting Naruto -hence, retribution: the only person Sasuke seemed to care about didn’t seem care about him at all.

Itachi’s coolness, strength and mature handsomeness (that Sasuke did not present until Shippuden, but Itachi was literally introduced with), plus the dislike of Sasuke’s character and the belief that he needed to be rectified, the reason of which will be brought up next, appealed the teenage fandom in a way strong enough to catapult him inside the popularity polls just right after his presentation. 

The Self-inserts inside Itachi’s fandom

As I introduced, a large part of the fandom back in the first part already, and in Shippuden particularly, had a deep dislike of Sasuke’s character and wanted him to suffer -to be beaten, to be “owned”, Itachi’s character fulfilled that wish, which takes me to the second factor. 

You can’t explain this point in particular without adding the “self-insert” and “reader-insert” notions that often gets attached to Itachi (Sakura, Naruto and Hinata) fans, 

“Self-insertion is a practice by authors of writing themselves into their own stories, either explicitly or in thinly-disguised form; in a fannish context this most often means fan writers writing themselves into their favorite source material so that they can interact with canon or its characters” (X)

Whilst

“Reader-Insert is a type of fanfiction, almost always written in 2nd person Point of View; the protagonist is always the reader, and is usually paired with one of the canon characters. "Reader-insert" typically has a hyphen hyphen, but is also known as Canon X Reader (sometimes CanonXReader).” (X)

In this particular case, many readers had succumbed to something slightly in between. The manga doesn’t belong to them, so the only one in position to literally self-insert is Kishimoto (canonically), so they are left with the option of attaching themselves personally to a pre-existed character with whom they feel somewhat represented. If not, then at least they attach emotionally to a character because it represents what they desire (this can be more observed in the shipping part of the fandom). Meaning, they use a canon established character that is not literally the reader, but who clearly represents them or represents what they want in their significant (romantical) other. 

Sakura was the only female lead who had a crush on the cool guy, readers (particular female ones) didn’t need much to feel a connection with her (during the first part, Kishimoto didn’t even give them much to do so, but they still attached to her with the prospect of what she might become), while Naruto was the dead last, it appealed to those who also felt that they weren’t popular or were mistreated by their peers.

But what the self-inserts of Sakura or even Naruto had to do with the increasing love for Itachi? 

To explain this in a way that can be understandable: Sakura fans who believed Sasuke disrespected her when not acknowledging her feelings or when downgrading her skills often turned their attention to the man of similar physique and strength to fulfill their fantasies of reciprocation -because canonically, Itachi had neither rejected, nor downgraded her character. In the same fashion, Naruto fans who believe Sasuke is egotistical by not caring for/acknowledging Naruto in the same manner he does (hence, not deserving him), tend to also indulge in the same type of behavior previously mentioned. 

Later on, when the narrative introduces the idea that Itachi stands alongside Konoha (Naruto and Sakura), thus, against Sasuke (from an idealistic standpoint), this particular practice deepens, grows. They feel validated on their idea that Itachi will treat  their favorite character (them) better, while at the same time punishing Sasuke for rejecting them.

There are not many cases of Itachi self-inserts, I’m not denying their existence however because he did fulfilled a wish many readers had (against Sasuke), but Itachi’s self-insert part of the fandom seems to be more in terms of female character fans that desire their favorite kunoichi to be loved/desired/respected? by a powerful, handsome, mysterious character. 

Sasuke’s importance in the narrative (and character growth)

Sasuke escaping Konoha to get to Orochimaru, train, and become strong enough to defeat Itachi and avenge his clan won’t hold up for the four hundred or so chapters Naruto Shippuden lasts. After Itachi’s defeat at his hands, Sasuke had no reason not to return to Konoha, more importantly, he had no reason to fight Naruto as it was the intention and ultimate and most important clash in the manga since the introduction of their rivalry. 

Sasuke’s growth as a character (that I spoke more detailed in this post) was tied to the introduction of a deeper, more important problem: Konoha’s involvement in the UCM. It wasn’t new in Naruto to present the dichotomy and harsh truths of the shinobi system (Hyuga clan, Haku, Jinchurikis), and the intervention of Konoha’s government in the massacre of the Uchiha clan provided the narrative with a reason to have both Sasuke and Naruto fighting in different sides of the battlefield, but also presented a deeper problem: Itachi couldn’t be bad.

He couldn’t stand in the “bad” side of the field because both, that would put Naruto (the hero) in the same morally bad position, and Itachi's fandom (which was massive), was eager for redemption, they demanded it, and Naruto is not a manga that doesn’t get influenced by what its purchasers want. In consequence, they needed to justify Itachi’s actions. We can talk about how abysmally bad they did it, we can talk about how much better this problem could have been sorted out, but that is not the core of this post. 

Kishimoto loved Sasuke, I have said this before, despite the fandom wishes, he stood his ground when it came to Sasuke and his revolutionary position until the very end. Maintaining that ideal as just, put Naruto (hence, Itachi) in the wrong. But because the narrative needed Naruto to be good and in the right, he ended up justifying genocide by justifying Itachi.

Consequently, and with the appeal he earned with his introduction and the Sasuke-hate (self-inserts), Itachi became a favorite character amongst favorite characters despite being a plot holes with legs. Readers eagerly consumed whatever panel proved that Itachi was not the bad guy he was previously believed to be. (proved or at least didn’t show, Itachi still commited genocide, but we don’t get to see such attrocities so its easier to forget he slaughtered innocent people, children amongst them). Readers who liked him were desperate for the narrative’s validation.

Core of the issue

Which brings me to the core of the post and in retrospection, I have already presented it: moral standpoints. This is not new, I’m not introducing any new idea, and this is hardly something that happens solely in the Naruto’s (and most specifically Itachi’s) fandom. Liking or not a character is tied to so many subjective variables that it’s hard to pinpoint exactly what makes a character desirable or despicable despite solid traits being commonly shared on particular troups. And yet, liking or not a character became a moral standpoint for which people judged each other on a personal level. It has happened since always, but the internet did nothing but make more accessible and public this type of clashes. Therefore, Redemption Arcs became the most precious gem inside fictional works and Naruto fell for it, and fell hard. 

It’s almost mandatory to have the narrative’s validation in order to enjoy a character freely and Naruto provided it to Itachi’s fandom. His actions were justified by the manga and the most important (and beloved) characters stood by his side, even those who were victims of him forgave his actions because there was someone (with less appeal and more morally questionable actions under his belt) to blame further. Having the narrative’s moral validation is more important than actually being in the right. 

Itachi was manipulated by the Will of Fire who he learned from Hiruzen who was passed to him by Tobirama who created it because he was raised during the Warring States Period, so his apprehension to the Uchiha was justified. It’s a train of justifications that ultimately holds no one responsible for the genocide of an entire clan/race which then becomes something bound to happen. So to save face, they use an escape goat: Danzo and the Curse of Hatred. They put the blame of the massacre to a single character and the actual victims because, well, they were genetically prone to disaster and killing them was the only way to ensure (temporary) peace.

Liking a character doesn’t automatically mean condoning its actions but because that subjective appeal became more and more the reflection of the reader’s ideals (for some reason I’m not here to trace), those two actions merged, which translated consequently into demanding the narrative’s validation of our tastes. There’s no denial of the pleasing sensation that comes with having the plot’s endorsement for liking a complex/morally gray or even dark character, but that approval turned to be the most important/valuable requirement, which, in turn, made readers justificate (supported by the narrative) despicable actions, such as genocide. 

Let’s go back to the second bullet point, self- inserts, as to discern more in depth their reasons to look for a justification on Itachi’s character: Itachi (an Uchiha that was not affected by the Curse, as his peers were) who the narrative proclaims wanted his brother’s safety and happiness above all things, stands morally with Konoha (hence, the readers’ favorite character). Therefore, justifying his actions is justifying Sakura and Naruto’s actions against Sasuke (manipulation is alright because Itachi did it, trying to kill Sasuke because he didn’t want to bend to their will is alright because Itachi did it), it gives them reasons to believe that they are on the right side of the battlefield, it gives them moral superiority. They’re in the right, they are good people, Sasuke was too deep in his hatred to either see it or correspond their feelings and that’s why he needs to be saved, and who more appropriate to do so than the two characters that were mocked by him during the first part of the manga? Even in the end, Itachi still gives them the retribution they still feel deserve and that Sasuke -still- didn’t give. 

[kitkatopinions]

It feels so out of place how the narrative and the characters have always treated the Atlas military (alternatively suspicious, tyrannical or incompetent), yet when push came to shove that same military fought and died for hours against Salem's invasion to protect the tens of thousands of people trapped in Atlas BECAUSE of Ruby while Ruby sat and drank tea. How long did that battle go for? Four hours? Five? And if that wasn't enough, it only ended because Oscar was only covering the escape. 1/2

No lie, I feel like the world they invented pretty much requires the presence of a militarized force to sustain itself and it's one reason why approaching the Atlas military as 'point blank bad with no gray area' and approaching Hunters with 'point blank good with no gray area' makes no sense to me.

I've seen fans literally say that they knew Atlas, its military, and James were bad from the get go because of the use of the words army and military, and that army = bad, but ffs it's a fantasy world where the rules are one hundred percent different than the real world. The world of Remnant we're presented with is one with dark monsters thriving on negativity and attacking indiscriminately, reproducing at a fast rate, and adapting while showing intelligence and the understanding of consequences. They're known to bring down towns when something goes wrong, like a bandit raid. Single Grimm can take down whole towns. Panic stirs up Grimm activity and enough of it can bring down whole Kingdoms. The Hunter system we've been shown is A. corrupt, and B. a profession that doesn't seem to churn out a good many hunters, and many of the Hunters we see are concerned with big picture things or specific tasks, or retired or dead, due to the inherent danger level of the job. There simply aren't enough Hunters. There aren't enough Hunters to run border control, to protect the cities if they get attacked, to ferry kids back and forth from school while Grimm activity is up, to investigate suspicious activity and handle it when things go wrong, to save civilians when push comes to shove, to be parts of secret organizations while also maintaining their oaths to protect. Hunters seem more like specialists, at least from what I've seen in show. They're trained to be able to take on high level threats and go through a rigorous program, but they can't act as the only line of defense, partially due to their lack of numbers. They aren't actually the driving protective force keeping the Grimm out of the kingdoms on a day to day, hour by hour basis.

We see this over and over again in the show. Hunters get overwhelmed, towns fall, cities fall, they can't do the work of hundreds of people. Teams RWBYJNR and the Happy Huntresses never would've been able to protect Mantle from a direct attack from Salem, for example, when they couldn't even keep all the civilians safe from the Grimm that were occurring naturally due to political upheaval and unrest. In a world where demon monsters from hell will manifest and attack if too many people feel negatively at once and feelings of safety and security are needed to try and prevent the Grimm from coming in droves, an army is the only real solution here. Remnant is not the real world, the way we view armies is not automatically the way the people in Remnant view armies. And in fact, the show in the early seasons does a very strange thing; they have Ozpin express a belief that unrest and nervousness will occur due to James bringing his fleet to Vale (with every sign pointing to him having been asked there by the Vale Council,) and yet the reactions that we do see are actually the opposite, but this is still somehow heralded as foreshadowing by both the fans and seemingly the show itself. From Ruby geeking out about seeing the Atlas robots being displayed, to everyone being relieved and awed when the army showed up to protect everyone in the episode "Breach," where Atlas ships saved Ruby and she gave a grateful smile, salute, and wave, the Atlas military seems well received.

And the Atlas robotic soldiers taking down Grimm as civilians run past during the Fall is another example.

Even Oz, Qrow, and Glynda who were the only three people to express mistrust or anxiousness towards the presence of the army in Vale, are only seen either telling James to use his army (Oz,) or are seen fighting by the army's side, and then being welcoming and taking direct orders from James without being even the slightest bit suspicious of him.

We don't see the supposed anxiousness and mistrust in anyone outside of Oz, Qrow, and Glynda, who all one hundred percent trusted James anyway and were only worried that everyone else would be worried. The fact that Watts (someone everyone thought was dead) managed to hack the Atlas robots, has been the only negative effect we saw in the first three seasons, and that's not due to any corruption or mistake on the part of the Atlas army or James himself (something going horribly wrong in a way no one could expect due to the evil actions of a group of other people is not actually the fault of the person trying and succeeding to do good until the group of other people did bad.)

I could get into more reasons to not think the Atlas army is corrupt, but I don't want this post to get too long, and I want to address your very right statements about the way they portrayed their protagonists versus the army even while they were trying to push the concept that the Atlas army is corrupt and bad.

Ironwood: Desperately doing whatever he can to save lives from Salem, planning ways to bring down the Whale Grimm, trying to protect the Relics and the Maiden from Salem's grasp.

Team RWBY and co: Risking the lives of literally everyone on purpose because they don't want to be in a no win situation, preventing Ironwood from taking life saving actions because it won't save every live, expressing zero concern or grief for the hundreds dying to Salem on the battlefield.

The Ace Ops: Trying to navigate their morals while they do what they can to try and protect the civilians in Atlas who are directly in danger, trying to convince Penny to actually save people, planning to take down the whale grimm even if they have to suffer knowing a kid died in the process of protecting hundreds and likely thousands of other kids directly in danger of dying.

Team RWBY and co: Prioritizing their friends, prioritizing missions that logic says won't help people especially with the fall of Atlas making it impossible to protect everyone who's going to be in danger, picking fights with people who are trying to save others.

Team FNKI: Delving into war and battle while facing their fears, trying to protect people, trying to do the job they chose and stare floods of Grimm down.

Team RWBY and co: Drinking tea in mansions, worrying about their love lives, crying on staircases, laughing with a murderer...

Even while they were having Ironwood shoot down people that stood in his way and express that he wished he'd thought about torture and sending bomb threats, they still didn't have the protagonists actually seem like likable, convincingly good protagonists that I would want to root for. It seems like they had to try hard to make James someone people couldn't root for because they couldn't make Ruby and her team actually right, effective, and good. They really seem so selfish, immature, unprepared, and entitled. Which isn't to say that the protagonists can't have those flaws, but they're not getting treated like flaws, which is the most frustrating thing.

Before the writers needed to push their message that Ironwood is completely evil and everything he's involved with is inherently wrong, we didn't get much sign that the Atlas army was corrupted and bad, because projecting real world standards onto a fantasy world that we know is very different from ours isn't it. That's not to say that I think 'not showing us this system is corrupted early' means that there's no possible corruption, but I think it's clear that the fandom pushed narrative that the Atlas army is inherently bad and worse somehow than being a Hunter which is somehow much better is very biased, especially when we also see corruption in the Hunter profession.

Making James and the Ace Ops do vile thing didn't make the protagonists seem better. They still fell way short of adequate.

[marimopeace]

d. gray-man still fucks me up...

in the best of ways, even after all these years plus breaks on my end as a fan and hoshino's circumstances.

loved all things gothic and fantasy in middle school to escape my life via power-wielding teens (i.e. 07-ghost, pandora hearts, soul eater, karneval, hakkenden, etc.) and d.gray-man was huge for me since i was still in a phase where i was binging all the long anime series i could since it gave my attn span something to latch onto and be immersed in for a good amount of time. tbh i can't tell if my attn span has gotten even shorter considering i usually substitute streaming social media videos over tv nowadays or better since i'm able to better sustain interests in specific niche things?

i switched to consuming content on a more seasonal basis in high school but i became more of a manga reader so at the time i was still on the nose for the rare new d.gray-man chapter. i was so excited for when hallow was announced! i think the hallow promo visuals + posters were some of the last things i shared on my old tumblr blog actually lmao. didn't love hallow as a show but i loved it for what it brought back to me in terms of bringing hoshino's drawings to life via sound + color and seeing ppl turn into fans via gifs in comment sections. that's part of the reason why the furuba reboot meant a lot to me too tbh! always so nice when you can see new and old fans come together to show artists the love they deserve <3

took a break from d.gray-man specifically since the searching for a.w. arc was just a lot for me to take in chapter by chapter since it was hard to keep track of intricate plot details without needing to re-read some chapters for every release and that's not how i enjoy content personally. and i guess from there life just kind of ? came and went? college + growing up in general with new life obligations have changed the way i pursue entertainment aha.

i don't know what switched it on but i ended up spending this past weekend going through everything from scratch! i haven't sat down to marathon 100+ chapters/episodes of anything in a long time since i either keep up with shorter serials now or keep up with things on a monthly basis and wowwww the immersion hit different this time fr XD i swear i felt like a kid again!

but wow going through the entire manga + anime bit by bit from my new position in life really made me appreciate hoshino's storytelling a lot more; it's not so much that the plot of d.gray-man aged well, but that the whole series works together to tell one of the most cohesive stories i've seen for a fantasy shonen (esp with such a young protagonist--allen is the age of a high school sophomore!!!!!! a literal child!!!! someone be on his side kthxJohnny).

when i say i went through bit by bit i MEAN IT i fully had a list of episodes via wikipedia out and i was going through chapter arcs as they were recreated in the old anime series i went in completely XD god i'm crazy.

but it felt so sweet and so wonderful to dive into the adventure head-on.

i'm trying to do the same with the hallow sequel but reading/watching d.gray-man like this is really making me see how rushed it was ^^; it's taking more chapters to get to where each episode of hallow ends and i get why hoshino was so peeved with both shows now to be honest for the out of order details or skipping of content.

i'm also really resonating with hoshino's anger towards TMS for the hallow promo materials and i get why she went as far as to shoot their bank accounts in the foot bc the way i started tearing up during hallow episode 6 with talk of the lotus, flashbacks, and the hand reaching up to the sky....ㅠㅠ #bigoop

kanda shouldn't have been shoved into a yaoi narrative for the sake of money (nor allen esp considering his age) since it completely goes against his character arc and everything he is with alma. i'm getting so fucked up by their past lives' love story and their current again like when i say the tears i'm shedding come from something so old and deep inside of me ㅠㅠ (oh lorde it's so sad!!)

i had to pause my marathon since i spent my monday without wifi bc of a storm in my area and it'll prob be a while until i can finish re-reading/watching until the end of hallow. i'm excited to read new saying goodbye to a.w chapters though! i know it'll definitely be worth waiting these past few years <3 seeing allen's character growth as he matured as a "destroyer who saves" and how he grapples w mana's influence is fascinating and exploring the nitty-gritty of the morality that pervades the Black Order is just! ugh love this kind of worldbuilding with strong characters sm

planning this next content binge will be tricky though since i meant to catch up on the furuba reboot before it ends next week...welp i'll see how this goes ^^;

// time to get to writing this thesis marimo! //

[cinearia]

The "Morally Grey" in ACOTAR

I decided to write something I have been thinking about since I saw some people saying this when pointing out the wrong attitude of some characters in ACOTAR (aka Rhysand and company), but I think this can apply in general. In another specific story, but I will focus on ACOTAR.

And please, if you disagree, that's fine. This is an opinion of mine that I decided to write and post, because I find it an interesting subject that does not necessarily apply only in ACOTAR, but that is in the saga and I have seen people commenting on it. I don't want to fight with anyone, okay? I put in the tags that fit in.

So...

I love morally gray characters, but just to make it clear right now, I don't think that EVERY story has to have ambiguous characters. It's okay if the story is to follow a line more heroes versus villains line. But one of the things I saw here on tumblr and twitter about the attitudes of IC, Rhysand and Feyre was using that same argument, that they are not perfect, that they have their flaws. I definitely agree with that.

But history itself does not recognize this (and some fans too). Because nobody seems to call their shit out.

Starting from a general view that can include all of the IC. Like, how not to worry about your image while protecting your city? Okay, i get it, we had to be the tHe BaD gUyS, but y'all will suffering the consequences for this, especially if its to protect your own city. Some other people are protecting their citys too. Doesn't mean that you are wrong, but everything has consequences.

Or, how they constantly abuse their power; how Rhysand threatening and using his powers even at a political meeting sound good? How Feyre ended up hurting someone during that same meeting, even if unintentionally, was just fine? No one will call their shit about using their powers? Do you really seek to make allies and friends in the middle of a war by showing abuse of power and threatening others (and not just feysand doing this)? Or saying that they should step over the others so that there is only one king and queen in Prythian (that was right for you, Amren).

And that is partly the fault of writing. Now, more specific:

They lie and steals a valuable artifact from a possible ally and political leader of an entire court? Ah, but it is for a greater good. It will not jeopardize the confidence of a HIGH LORD OF A COURT who was supposed to be his ally in the midst of a war.

Did Feyre decimate an court? Ah, but the leader was abusive to her, she felt trapped in the place that was rebuilding because of a curse of hundreds of years, even though there are innocent people. And, of course, you will have the consequences for this.

(this one more personal and less political) Elain, perhaps the least worst of all, neglected Feyre as much as Nesta did, and also do nothing when she went hunting? Ah, but Elain is Elain.

Did Rhysand hide information from Feyre's pregnancy that she and the baby could die in childbirth? Ah, but he didn't want to worry her, he was scared to lose her and her son. And the whole IC agreed not to tell her anything? Ah, they also care about her, the High Lady.

(And this is the worst and yes, I’ve seen someone say that) Rhysand did it all with Feyre UTM, drugged her, put her in a dress that didn’t cover anything, made her dance all night on his lap? But because he wanted to protect her, we need to hear both sides of the story.

And that's fine because they are the good guys in the story. But it is nothing more than pure hypocrisy, and no consequence falls on them. If it happens, it will be unfair, is just to move the plot.

Do you want us to believe in the heroes of history, do you want us to side with them? Great, we can do that. We could have liked Feyre and Rhysand and the whole IC more, as a group that doesn't always do the right things, except that would have to change literally EVERYTHING (a little bit of charisma would be good).

Instead, for me, it became an egocentric boring FoUnD FaMiLy group that only cares about their own city - and it's not necessarily wrong to be concerned only with Velaris, it's part of their history. But forcing an image on them that doesn't match their actions makes me believe the opposite, especially cause started in ACOSF, again from AMREN, about a King and Queen in Prythian.

So, I came to believe that it was a POV issue. For IC, they are the heroes of history, and think they are better than the rest.

It would be curious, in fact, if the whole point was that Feyre's POV would incapacitate us from seeing the flaws that she doesn't see. And totally proposital. That is why we have to see her as a saint, but at the same time so badass. Wow, no one, i repeat, NO ONE, suspect of me while i pretend to be innocent.

Or how we see her mate so perfect, to the point that history doesn't allow us to stop and think 'wait, this is kind of ...weird'. Or that, as much as there is an error there, but not leat the reader question the characters themselves. Rhysand, for Feyre, is perfect.

We have to see Rhysand as that altruistic, laid-back person who does everything for others, mostly because he did it for Feyre, and that can't be denied. He saved her, took her to her city, her family. What made me stop to think is how Feyre may be reproducing their behavior. How he seems to want her to be part of it so badly. I don't know how to put it into words, but that's more or less what I wrote in another rant I did.

Everything she does is justified by the other characters. At the same time that she, Rhysand and everyone in the IC have hypocritical and very wrong attitudes that history itself does not recognize. And, worst of that, the story seems glorify her POV.

Seriously, when she disobeys the instructions given to her (what she does the most) she has no one to say 'girl, please stop. Just STOP)

And with this said, i add:

We don't have to agree with everything that the characters and the protagonist do. We can love them and still disagree with them, because they are people, or fae, like any other, and there will always be something in them that we will disagree with. It makes them real. They can be heroes and still have their dark side.

The reasons may be as noble as possible, but that will not exclude the consequences, it will not exclude them from being wrong. They do not necessarily need to take a spur or a lesson in morals, but just do not miss out on what every action can bring, especially political leaders in the midst of a war.

Whenever the IC does something, it is for a "bigger" reason, but without giving us the chance to even question it. We don't see them paying for their words, without necessarily moving the plot of the story, in a story that focuses so much on the development of the characters themselves and putting the war in the background (or how should been). Without us being able to question the motivations of the good guys and always doubt the villains.

And this is where I’m going to focus on a more specific point; funny like any character who is "MoRaLlY GrAy" and who "have YOUR rEaSoNs" are men or with history of abuser. Thats funny, right? The new one now is Eris, who was part of Mor's trauma and one of Lucien's nasty brothers, that one who already attacked Lucien, the one who was going to kill Feyre. Who did all that to Mor.

But having Eris saying that she, the victim, didn't tell the whole truth, and the history is now showing that we will see his side...

It just makes me ask, how, in ALL the process of creating and writing these books, passing for her editors, in the books that she wants to pass the message of feminism so much, SJM didn't stop to think, or didn't have a friend to put their hand on your conscience, how wrong does it sound for the abuser to say that the victim is lying?

Why are the men in this saga constantly gaining the gift of doubt?

I can no longer see Rhysand as being morally gray precisely because of what SJM wants us to believe as he is and justifies his actions. What could have been in ACOTAR stopped being completely from ACOMAF, probably because SJM wanted that in her story, the girl would stay with the """villain"""

For from then on, every action of Rhysand is justified and without future consequences, since we are supposed to root for him. Now he is the protagonist's new love interest. So we don't blame him for what he does. So, everything is fine. He's not the bad guy.

And meanwhile, Tamlin comes down to being the bad, abusive guy and... That's it. And no, I don't think he's a good person, he doesn't have to have an arc of redemption, what he did with Feyre is still wrong. The difference now is that Tamlin is just that, those are his only attributes now, while Rhysand has attitudes as bad as, perhaps more, than he had. One is being extremely vilanized while the other is the hero of history, when they are only two sides of the same coin.

I can share this hatred as ALL characters feel for Tamlin, if I didn't see how everyone else did such bad things. Let's remember too, one has the job of torturing people, another has decimated an entire village. They really do what they want and... It's okay.

Doesn't work say that the story has a morally grey area with the characters if the consequences balance it does not lean towards the protagonists.

It costs me less to believe that they are what they are every time SJM reinforces in Feyre's POV how selfless Rhysand is and how much Feyre talks about how badass she is and the two of them such a powerful couple. Literally, I start to think the opposite.

(I did a second part of this rant, but I think it can get a little more personal cause focus in Nesta and Feyre that I decided to split it in two)

[crimeronan]

Can you explain the appeal of Julian Blackthorn? This is a genuine question because I read the books and came away utterly bored by him and unconvinced of his moral greyness as opposed to like, Adam Parrish’s. He seemed so one dimensional to me but I want to know if I’m Wrong TM considering I tend to be very very biased toward my favourite characters and bored by the rest, and my favourites were Mark and Kieran. So maybe I just didn’t pay him enough attention??

it’s been a while since i wrote any earnest tsc meta but cringe culture is dead and the chance to infodump about my julian thoughts has me vibrating where i’m sitting so.  yes okay.

technical stuff

(aka: things pertaining to How The Story Is Constructed)

cassandra clare’s characterization has become much stronger just in general since she first began writing the series like twenty years ago

perhaps most importantly: the more recent stuff i’ve read from her has involved characters who actually grow, change, and learn from their past mistakes 

rather than repeating the same stupid decisions over and over again

and over and over and over some more

seriously take a shot every time someone in tmi miscommunicates or self-destructs in ways They Have Learned Not To Do for no real reason. u will die of alcohol poisoning

in tda this shines ESPECIALLY with the evolution of mark, kieran, and cristina’s relationship, but that’s a separate post

clare’s trademark is also the angsty traumatized jerkass love interest with a secret heart of gold

the woman is almost singlehandedly responsible for draco in leather pants and the proliferation of this kind of character type in fandom and teen lit. this isn’t a criticism it’s me marveling at how if you commit hard enough to a single trope you truly can change the world.  follow your dreams

sad jackass with a heart of gold isn’t an Inherently Problematic Character Type

but poorly done it can lead to relationship dynamics in which one partner is constantly being hurt by and then forgiving the other despite them making no real effort to change, because they are narratively absolved due to being sad

(there’s a lot of this with earlier jace content.  in some ways i think will was later created specifically to be a same-archetype protagonist who actually does get called on his shit and grow. that’s also another post)

also if all of your sexy male love interests are tortured jackasses with a heart of gold then people start calling you a one-trick pony

enter julian blackthorn!

from the very start everything about him is designed to be the INVERSE of the heart of gold jackass.  which immediately makes him interesting just from a meta perspective

(mark and kieran are also both alternate angles on this time-honored archetype.  mark gets the heart of gold and kieran gets the jackass and then they’re both much more deeply messy than that.  yet another post)

julian is kind, self-sacrificing, empathetic, artistic, emotionally supportive, responsible, and favored by old grannies everywhere

so a completely nonthreatening milquetoast guy, right

immediately forgettable if you’re only here for the dramatic conflicts and shithead antics of clare’s other protags

except that he is A Mess

and that he has structured his priorities very carefully, and they are as selfless as you expect from The Hero (TM) but they are also Not Heroic (TM) and they do not align with the moral framework The Hero (TM) is supposed to use

moral ambiguity in characters always exists in relation to their narratives imo. you mention adam parrish - trc’s narrative already mucks around in different ethical shades of gray, and adam falls on the canon scale about where julian does on his canon scale.  both more willing than the average pov character to do the ruthless thing or make the fucked-up choice if the ends justify the means; both with an intensely strong sense of internal priorities that they adhere to at all costs, both so unbelievably fucking down for murder; etc

i do think there are ways julian’s choices could have been pushed even further, but considering the number of readers who hate his guts already, i can see why clare opted not to go for the most controversial possible conflicts

so we’re flipping the narrative

instead of seeing this angsty bad boy and peeling back the layers of his trauma to find his heart of gold, we’re seeing the put-together selfless family man and peeling back the layers of his Responsibility Mask to expose the rotting husk underneath

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

THAT IS FUN AS FUCK

then when julian DOES lash out in hurtful, uncontrolled ways, he has significantly more narrative justification for it than most of clare’s protagonists (will elaborate in characterization thoughts)

julian is also interesting as fuck because of how his struggles allow for a more in-depth look at the failings of shadowhunter society, something that’s also sorely lacking in clare’s earlier work

his apparent amorality is simply the result of him making pragmatic and impossible choices because he has been faced with fucked-up ethical dilemmas since age 12 Because Society Has Failed Him

which opens the door for narrative exploration of how and why he’s been failed so badly & what needs to change

i also love that he has such a coldly calculated way of analyzing situations and allowing harm to occur when need be, bc a lot of clare’s early protagonists have such a bad case of Rush In And Get Myself Killed Because I’ve Got Feelings About Impulsive Heroism syndrome that i wanna push them in front of a truck

probably there’s other meta narrative stuff i could say but i’m stopping myself and moving on to character analysis

characterization stuff

(aka: reasons why i’m also attached to him in a vacuum)

i don’t read him as one-dimensional at all tbh

u may feel the narrative pushes “ruthless julian blackthorn” too much without delivering enough actual ruthless julian But i don’t think that’s the same as having only one dimension

from the get-go, the big question centered on julian is always “how far are you willing to go?” and the narrative pushes the stakes slowly higher and higher to continuously test julian’s “the price is always justified” mindset

he has a far more layered and realistic response to trauma than clare’s early protagonists - trauma affects every single aspect of his personality and how he conducts himself, and the effects vary depending on the circumstances

his conviction that he has to be the perfect parent to his siblings because they will fall apart if they see him show weakness??  rooted in how he feels like he’s fallen apart since losing the stable adult support he once relied upon

his willingness to hurt semi-innocent people, commit coldblooded murder, manipulate people using political leverage, allow harm to befall any stranger if it protects his family??  rooted in how he has already had to ask himself how much he’s willing to sacrifice, and how his family is his only source of stability when the world has never done Shit for him

his conviction that he has a darker heart than anyone else because he killed his possessed father, even though intellectually he knows he was saving his brother’s life??  rooted in having no means of processing this trauma and being unable to voice his feelings for fear of backlash from a deeply non-understanding society

the way he represses every single negative emotion he ever has, to the point where emma - his actual literal magic soulmate who can feel his emotions - is startled to find him hurting or angry??  once again all about how he has to be the perfect father or he’s failed completely

the way his anger is so totally disproportionate to different situations and the way his negative emotions can only come out in completely uncontrolled breaks??  all that repression baybey.  this kid has not processed a single bad feeling in five years.  every single real grievance and petty annoyance has been festering indefinitely inside him like a slowly spreading infection

julian’s arc involves him needing to get thru being his worst self to actually start to heal

as in, he has to actually learn to acknowledge his feelings, take care of himself, lean on his family, and let other people take some responsibility

he also has to learn that in his quest to be the perfect emotionally controlled authority figure, he has not actually learned how to control or deal with his emotions. like. At Fucking All. good god

the narrative setup is also about asking “how far are you willing to go?” until the answer is finally “not this far.  not this far”

and once he reaches that point, he has to reevaluate everything about how he weighs his priorities and morals and plans, etc

(i also like that emma has a perpendicular arc in which she’s always the one tempering julian and telling him “no we can’t go that far” until she’s willing to do something horrific that he absolutely won’t and HE has to stop HER. very sexy)

it’s also just really nice to have a character who’s learned to relate so well to literally every single member of his family while still having a very detached ruthless interior consciousness. i have similar feelings about how adam teaches himself to love people, but with julian it’s spelled out more explicitly in canon & it’s a more central character theme

i’m sure i’m also forgetting stuff here but this post is long enough so i’m gonna say good enough

and like i said in the tags on my other post, there are things i’d personally write differently if it were my story - plot points i’d shift, character contrasts i’d up, themes i’d explore differently, pacing i’d adjust, etc.  i have plenty of ways i could be nitpicky and editorial about the effectiveness of julian’s arc.  but i also don’t feel like writing them out at the moment & none of my critiques on effectiveness have an impact on the core appeal of his character 2 me.  he’s so fucking good

[bloodbenderz]

humaniterations (dot) net/2014/10/13/an-anarchist-perspective-on-the-red-lotus/ this article from oct 2014 is very dense — truly, a lot to unpack here, but I feel like you would find this piece interesting. I would love it if you shared your thoughts on the points that stood out to you, whether you agree or disagree. you obv don’t have to respond to it tho, but I’m sending it as an ask jic you feel like penning (and sharing) a magnificent essay, as is your wont 💕

article

i know this took me forever 2 answer SORRY but i just checked off all the things on my to do list for the first time in days today so. Essay incoming ladies!

ok im SO glad u sent me this bc it’s so so good. it’s a genuinely thoughtful criticism of the politics in legend of korra (altho i think its sometimes a little mean to korra unnecessarily like there’s no reason to call her a “petulant brat” or say that she throws tantrums but i do understand their point about her being an immature and reactionary hero, which i’ll get back to) and i think the author has a good balance between acknowledging like Yeah the lok writers were american liberals and wrote their show accordingly and Also writing a thorough analysis of lok’s politics that felt relevant and interesting without throwing their hands up and saying this is all useless liberal bullshit (which i will admit that i tend to do).

this article essentially argues that the red lotus antagonists of s3 were right. And that’s not an uncommon opinion i think but this gives it serious weight. Like, everything that zaheer’s gang did was, in context, fully understandable. of course the red lotus would be invested in making sure that the physically and spiritually and politically most powerful person in the world ISNT raised by world leaders and a secret society of elites that’s completely unaccountable to the people! of course the red lotus wants to bring down tyrannical governments and allow communities to form and self govern organically! and the writers dismiss all of that out of hand by 1. consistently framing the red lotus as insane and murderous (korra never actually gives zaheer’s ideas a chance or truly considers integrating them into her own approach) 2. representing the death of the earth queen as not just something that’s not necessarily popular (what was with mako’s bootlicker grandma, i’d love to know) but as something that causes unbelievable violence and chaos in ba sing se (which, like, a lot of history and research will tell you that people in disasters tend towards prosocial behaviors). so the way the story frames each of these characters and ideologies is fascinating because like. if you wanted to write season 3 of legend of korra with zaheer as the protagonist and korra as the antagonist, you wouldn’t actually have to change the sequence of events at all, really. these writers in particular and liberal writers in general LOVE writing morally-gray-but-ultimately-sympathetic characters (like, almost EVERY SINGLE fire nation character in the first series, who were full on violent colonizers but all to a degree were rehabilitated in the eyes of the viewer) but instead of framing the red lotus as good people who are devoted to justice and freedom and sometimes behave cruelly to get where theyre trying to go, they frame them as psychopaths and murderers who have good intentions don’t really understand how to make the world a better place.

and the interesting thing about all this, about the fact that the red lotus acted in most cases exactly as it should have in context and the only reason its relegated to villain status is bc the show is written by liberals, is that the red lotus actually points out really glaring sociopolitical issues in universe! like, watching the show, u think well why the fuck HASN’T korra done anything about the earth queen oppressing her subjects? why DOESN’T korra do anything about the worse than useless republic president? why the hell are so many people living in poverty while our mains live cushy well fed lives? how come earth kingdom land only seems to belong to various monarchs and settler colonists, instead of the people who are actually indigenous to it? the show does not want to answer these questions, because american liberal capitalism literally survives on the reality of oppressive governments and worse than useless presidents and people living in poverty while the middle/upper class eats and indigenous land being stolen. if the show were to answer these questions honestly, the answer would be that the status quo in real life (and the one on the show that mirrors real life) Has To Change.

So they avoid answering these questions honestly in order for the thesis statement to be that the status quo is good. and the only way for the show to escape answering these questions is for them to individualize all these broad social problems down into Good people and Bad people. so while we have obvious bad ones like the earth queen we also have all these capitalists and monarchs and politicians who are actually very nice and lovely people who would never hurt anyone! which is just such an absurd take and it’s liberal propaganda at its best. holding a position of incredible political/economic power in an unjust society is inherently unethical and maintaining that position of power requires violence against the people you have power over. which is literally social justice 101. but there’s literally no normal, average, not-politically-powerful person on the show. so when leftist anarchism is presented and says that destroying systems that enforce extreme power differentials is the only way to bring peace and freedom to all, the show has already set us up to think, hey, fuck you, top cop lin beifong and ford motor ceo asami sato are good people and good people like them exist! and all we have to do to move forward and progress as a society is to make sure we have enough good individuals in enough powerful positions (like zuko as the fire lord ending the war, or wu as the earth king ending the monarchy)! which is of course complete fiction. liberal reform doesn’t work. but by pretending that it could work by saying that the SYSTEM isnt rotten it’s just that the people running it suck and we just need to replace those people, it automatically delegitimizes any radical movements that actually seek to change things.

and that’s the most interesting thing about this article to me is that it posits that the avatar...might actually be a negative presence in the world. the avatar is the exact same thing: it’s a position of immense political and physical power bestowed completely randomly, and depending on the moral character and various actions of who fills that position at any given time, millions of people will or won’t suffer. like kyoshi, who created the fascist dai li, like roku, who refused to remove a genocidal dictator from power, like aang, who facilitated the establishment of a settler colonial state on earth kingdom land. like korra! she’s an incredibly immature avatar and a generally reactionary lead. i’ve talked about this at length before but she never actually gets in touch with the needs of the people. she’s constantly running in elite circles, exposed only to the needs and squabbles of the upper class! how the hell is she supposed to understand the complexities of oppression and privilege when she was raised by a chess club with inordinate amounts of power and associates almost exclusively with politicians and billionaires?? from day 1 we see that she tends to see things in very black and white ways which is FINE if you’re a privileged 17 yr old girl seeing the world for the first time but NOT FINE if you’re the single most powerful person in the world! Yeah, korra thinks the world is probably mostly fine and just needs a little whipping into shape every couple years, because all she has ever known is a mostly fine world! in s1 when mako mentions that he as a homeless impoverished teenager worked for a gang (which is. Not weird. Impoverished people of every background are ALWAYS more likely to resort to socially unacceptable ways of making money) korra is like “you guys are criminals?????!!!!!” she was raised in perfect luxury by a conservative institution and just never developed beyond that. So sure, if the red lotus raised her anarchist, probably a lot would’ve been different/better, but....they didn’t. and korra ended up being a reactionary and conservative avatar who protected monarchs and colonialist politicians. The avatar as a position is completely subject to the whims of whoever is currently the avatar. and not only does that suck for everyone who is not the avatar, not only is it totally unfair to whatever kid who grows up knowing the fate of the world is squarely on their shoulders, but it as a concept is a highly individualist product of the authors’ own western liberal ideas of progress! the idea that one good leader can fix the world (or should even try) based on their own inherent superiority to everyone else is unbelievably flawed and ignores the fact that all real progress is brought about as a result of COMMUNITY work, as a result of normal people working for themselves and their neighbors!

the broader analysis of bending was really interesting to me too, but im honestly not sure i Totally agree with it. the article pretty much accepts the show’s assertion that bending is a privilege (and frankly backs it up much better than the original show did, but whatever), and i don’t think that’s NECESSARILY untrue since it is, like, a physical advantage (the author compares it to, for example, the fact that some people are born athletically gifted and others are born with extreme physical limitations), but i DO think that it discounts the in universe racialization of bending. in any sequel to atla that made sense, bending as a race making fact would have been explored ALONGSIDE the physical advantages it bestows on people. colonialism and its aftermath is generally ignored in this article which is its major weakness i think, especially in conjunction with bending. you can bring up the ideas the author did about individual vs community oriented progress in the avatar universe while safely ignoring the colonialism, but you can’t not bring up race and colonialism when you discuss bending. especially once you get to thinking about how water/earth/airbenders were imprisoned and killed specifically because bending was a physical advantage, and that physical advantage was something that would have given colonized populations a means of resistance and that the fire nation wanted to keep to itself.

i think that’s the best lens thru which to analyze bending tbh! like in the avatar universe bending is a tool that different ethnic groups tend to use in different ways. at its best, bending actually doesn’t represent social power differences (despite representing a physical power difference) because it’s used to represent/maintain community solidarity. like, take the water tribe. katara being the last waterbender, in some way, makes her the last of a part of swt CULTURE. the implication is that when there were a lot of waterbenders in the south, they dedicated their talents to building community and helping their neighbors, because this was something incredibly culturally important and important to the water tribe as a community. the swt as a COLLECTIVE values bending for what it can do for the entire tribe, which counts for basically every other talent a person can have (strength, creativity, etc). the fire nation, by contrast, distorts the community value of bending by racializing it: anyone who bends an element that isn’t fire is inherently NOT fire nation (and therefore inherently inferior) and, because of the physical power that bending confers, anyone who bends an element that isn’t fire is a threat to fire nation hegemony. and in THAT framework of bending, it’s something that intrinsically assigns worth and reifies race in a way that’s conveniently beneficial to the oppressor.

it IS worth talking about how using Element as a way to categorize people reifies nations, borders, and race in a way that is VERY characteristic of white american liberals. i tried to be conscious of that (and the way that elements/bending can act in DIFFERENT ways, depending on cultural context) but i think it’s pretty clear that the writers did intend for element to unequivocally signify nation (and, by extension, race), which is part of why they screwed up mixed families so bad in lok. when they’ve locked themselves into this idea that element=nation=race, they end up with sets of siblings like mako and bolin or kya tenzin and bumi, who all “take” after only one parent based on the element that they bend. which is just completely stupid but very indicative of how the writers actually INTENDED element/bending to be a race making process. and its both fucked up and interesting that the writers display the same framework of race analysis that the canonical antagonists of atla do.

anyway that’s a few thoughts! thank u again for sending the article i really loved it and i had a lot of fun writing this <3

[oquinn53]

BNHA THEORY RAMBLING WITH SPOILERS

Okay so second bnha rambling with theories because I can’t think straight so I think of bnha! Specifically Deku.

Specifically, Deku’s endgame. There are so many theories out there and I just.... think about Deku specifically a lot. I mean he’s the protagonist and everything and I love him and a common theory that I actually do kinda think about a lot is Deku losing OFA. But I don’t think he’ll end quirkless. I think a lot of things need to happen but let’s start with me rambling about Deku’s characterization, how it can all be wrapped up in this:

Deku has PTSD. (This part is LONG and talks about masochism and mentions suicide and all that. Other points are shorter!) And I don’t mean post war arc or even post Bakugo’s kidnapping, if we want to go that far back. Deku has PTSD from the VERY start. This kid is a walking mental illness. Sources? Hi, I’m a Civilian With PTSD and I saw Deku at the beginning and I watched Deku’s horrible mental health deteriorate EVEN MORE than it started off as. This is really important to me, to state that he has it from the beginning, because I believe in the character growth and development. I might be talking out my ass but it’s fun so. Why do I say he starts out from it? Let’s look at symptoms.

A) hyperfixation, my old friend. Deku fixated hardcore on All Might and Heros in general. But he fixated specifically on All Might and he gets EMBARRASSED about it a lot. (Funny enough, the embarrassment of it is also a symptom of ADHD but I’m not as well versed in that). Hyperfixation is a very very common coping method.

B) His anxiety. Kinda self explanatory here. He’s a bully victim. He also has been literally classified as LESS. Quirkless. But also defenseless. Useless. We’ve heard that, his anxiety is there but it’s because of what DEFINES him. His self identity was born from what everyone else tells him. He’s a determined boy, but his sense of self is only wrapped up in what other people think—or specifically, what All Might thinks. Which blends a bit with...

C) A loss sense of identity. I talked about this a little bit he last part but Deku’s goal to become a hero is so tied to All Might that even when he gains the quirk, he has to have it beaten into him with warning of losing the use f his arms for him to realize he’s NOT All Might. But that’s still what he sees, even when he switches to using his legs more. He has no idea who he is. He just copies. He copies Bakugo’s moves again and again. And while it’s cool to see all the parallels and growth of Deku learning from others, there is a message of “making it his own” when Deku copies others again and again because he has no idea who HE is. He analyses like crazy because figuring out how other people do things is the only way he can figure out how HE can do things. Also, the whole language change because his image of victory is Bakugo? Literally his speech pattern isn’t his own, his every day one matching his mother’s.

D) repressed and heavily released emotion. He’s 0 or 100, both when he gets OFA and with his emotions. I mean. Feral!Deku. Do I need to say more? Yes, because I was to drive home how not okay Deku is from the very beginning. Boy cleans the beach and screams bloody murder. He has no idea what emotion to have and needs to let it out. Doesn’t matter he just did a shit ton of physical release, he has so much emotions that he doesn’t know what to do with. Just like Bakugo’s anger, Deku’s emotion usually comes out as his tears. Boy cries a lot but sometimes tears aren’t enough and Deku screams a LOT. Even his own excitement bursts out in bigger ways, with his mumbling and fact dropping (god, also slightly autistic coded maybe? Blurred lines with ADHD there, it again, not my area of expertise)

E) black and white thinking. He’s young, so that explains some of this but just like I mentioned above with the 0 or 100, he represents the mindset of civilians. He literally blinds himself at the very start to even what’s happening to HIMSELF. He sees hero and he sees villian and those are his two categories. Bakugo literally tells him to kill himself and Deku thinks about how that would negatively affect Bakugo. He doesn’t and never does see Bakugo as a villian for this. He sees “wow that wouldn’t be good for his Hero image” and because Deku sees Bakugo as a hero, everything has to fit into that. And while Deku has huge growth with this next part, he also originally viewed villains as just villains. He learned a LOT and while the society’s image becomes less black and white for him (because the whole manga revolves around the gray morality of it all) he still doesn’t see much gray area. It’s win or lose. With the sports festival, he literally won the race without his quirk. He got through the Calvary battle despite being a giant ass target. He placed in the top 8 (which he probably would have gotten higher on if his goal didn’t change) and despite accomplishing his goal with Todoroki, he broke down about not doing what All Might asked him despite gaining permanent scarring and a hell of a warning re his arms. But to point back at the beginning, this is reinforced with his entrance exam. Passing the written exam meant NOTHING because he did “””nothing””” in the practical.

F) last point, Deku’s a masochist. Obviously with the broken bones and things but I’m not even just talking about the physical damage he does to himself—which is, what, 95% of the time what he gets most of his wounds from? Anyway—I’m talking about his mindset. Masochism isn’t just the physical act of causing pain. It’s that mindset of deserving pain. The reasoning doesn’t matter. Deku only “betters” himself for the sake of giving more to others. He trains so hard, not for himself, but for others. On the outside it might seems like his goal of becoming a hero is his own but he sacrifices his body and dives into situations where he’s literally been warned he’s going to die and he just does it anyway. Eri’s Arc and him “changing the future” is what I’m referring to here and you could say “well he DID say he would change that future!” And okay, sure, but he was told Sir is never wrong. But he would rather rush into that future where he dies than take even a moment to think through his actions. But anyway, my point is him at the beginning so I specifically mean the training montage. Where he was ALREADY on a tough schedule that he knew would be difficult and he literally adjusted it and added MORE. Because, to circle back to other points because mental illness always overlaps points, he can only think of himself as 0 or 100, black and white, Able To Save or Failure. If he can’t be at 100 then he believes he deserves pain and causes it to himself. The only time he regrets his injuries is when it prevents him from giving MORE of himself to others. He learns his shoot style not because he doesn’t want to hurt himself but because he doesn’t want to become useless to others. He trains and loses sleep and puts his body through hell because he thinks of himself only as something for others. (I think wanting to save Shigaraki is a powerful moment not because it’s Pure Boy Deku but because it’a his own thinking, his OWN want, but.... it’s still not for him and will still cause him pain). And a last point on this, Heros Rising showed us that Deku is willing to give up his quirk and his dream to win and it showed us that while he believed he didn’t have any other choice, he was deeply disappointed in himself. Winning wasn’t enough. Hurting himself THAT MUCH wasn’t enough. He let All Migjt down and giving up his dreams, almost dying, becoming quirkless, all wasn’t enough to counteract the shame he held. Like god. Baby.

Other small observations or relevant commentary:

1) The doctor who told Deku he was quirkless is the same doctor who worked on Shigaraki. Same doctor who can perseve dead bodies. Same doctor who worked with AFO and all that. (See? Short! Will be relevant soon)

2) One for All is tied to All for One. OFA was literally created the moment a hand reached out to help. Can one even exist without the other?

3) Bakugo needs to apologize. Horikoshi has literally said in an interview post Heros Rising that Bakugo needs to apologize. Sacrificing his life to save Deku is NOT how you apologize to Deku. Deku will ask for a receipt on this type of apology. Return to sender. Unacceptable. So. Bakugo needs to apologize.

4) Deku’s dad isn’t in the picture yet. Hasn’t even been spoken of except for the fact we know his quirk is fire breathing and his name is Hisashi. Oh and he’s abroad. Oh and Horikoshi said he’ll be in the picture at some point. Given we’re in the final arc......... this might not be relevant at all to my theory because I have mixed thoughts on AFO being Deku’s dad but it would connect a few things in the theory.

SO. Finally, all of this together had me thinking about Deku’s characterization and what this (now with COMBAT related ptsd and not just civilian ptsd) means for his ending.

Like I said, I think he’s going to lose OFA. And I originally didn’t think so because Heros Rising showed his losing it and why would they do that again? The movie is canon. Horikoshi himself said so and was a huge part of the production of it. So they did that and wouldn’t do it again. Except.... Deku GAVE OFA away. Which is significant because it was his choice. And he had shame and we witnessed how much that hurt him, but we haven’t seen what’s now been tried TWICE: OFA being forcibly taken from him. Maybe by Shigaraki, since that is building up big time. But maybe by saving Shigaraki.

Either way, what’s more significant to me than how he has it taken is what that means for him, based on everything else above: he would lose his entire self identity. He would literally have no idea who he is anymore except for the only reference he’s ever had, which his from when he was quirkless. He gained friends only after he had a quirk. Every bond he has is tied to him being a hero and he was told it was impossible for him to be a hero without a quirk. Even All Might’s adjusted answer to him at the beginning involved giving him a quirk as the answer for him being able to become a hero.

I think this is the absolute perfect chance for Bakugo to say “since when did you need a quirk to be a hero”. And it doesn’t matter much what the context is, what causes Deku to still need to be a hero (whether a Situation or just an identity crisis) and I think about Quirkless Deku as a hero a lot, since that’s how he was originally written in the one shot before he was revamped for bnha.

But I don’t think Deku will end quirkless either because of who his doctor was. I think Deku had a quirk. I think the doctor stole it. Whether that’s because AFO is Deku’s dad and saw his quirk and knew he had to take it for some reason or whether it was independent and the doctor saw it and took it. The whole toe thing can be written off so easily that Deku could easily have had a quirk at some point.

And maybe, if AFO and OFA are cancelled out, the quirks that were stolen go back to their original owners. Meaning Deku gets his ORIGINAL quirk back.

As in, Deku gets his own identity.

And what would that quirk be? Hm. I don’t know. But. His mom can move small objects. His dad can breath fire. A mutation, maybe? I’ll leave that one up in the air.

And there are a lot of implications here that this could mean for him, as far as healing. And I just want him to be happy.

[sweetsassymusic]

The Long Kaz Rant I Told Myself I Wouldn’t Write, But Here We Are

This is probably an unpopular opinion. And I hope it doesn't come across as confrontational or anything because I don't mean it that way. But I've always been super confused by the way Kaz is accepted, basically across the entire fandom, as either morally gray or straight up villainous? He doesn’t really seem like either of those things to me. On a surface level, obviously there are things he’s done that are normally considered evil. He’s stolen, he’s killed, he threatened a child, he gouged out someone’s eye. And that’s all pretty bad, right? But it completely ignores the context given in the books. (More after the cut because this got too long...)

There’s a difference between doing something evil and doing something that’s shocking, “dark,” or difficult to watch.

Before I read the books, I heard fans discuss all the horrible things Kaz does. And the way people talk about him, I was expecting him to be… Feral Kaz – someone who delights in doing horrible things because he’s just so twisted and angry. The author herself even referred to him on her blog as being utterly despicable. Wow! This guy must really go out of his way to hurt innocent people, huh? So when I sat down to actually read it, I was so surprised. Most (if not all?) the killings were done on some level of self-defense. His “murder victims” were actual evil people trying to kill him or someone he loved. And the reason he threatened a child was because the only alternative was killing her – something he would never want to do. You know, because he’s not evil.

I don’t know if I just have very different definitions of these terms than most people? But to me, the idea of Kaz being “utterly despicable” should not even be on the table to begin with (Leigh Bardugo, you good?) and even the idea of him being “morally gray” is questionable.

When I think of a morally good character, I don’t think of someone who never does anything questionable or always perfectly makes the correct choices. I think of someone who is on a mission–either to protect the world, a loved one, or simply pursuing a personal goal–who at least tries to conduct his mission in a way that either does no harm to others, or (when that’s not possible) does as little harm as necessary to get the job done. 

Whereas, when I think of a villainous character, I think of someone who has no regard for others at all. Someone who either relishes in harming the innocent, or pays zero consideration to whether he harms innocents while pursuing his goals (which are usually, in themselves, harmful to innocent people). 

And finally, when I think of a morally gray character, I think of someone directly between these two. Someone who is a little bit evil, a little bit sadistic, but not entirely evil. He’s got a few good points too. Maybe he’s someone who keeps switching sides, unsure if he wants to be a hero or villain. Maybe he has hurt a lot of innocent people unnecessarily, but he joins in with the good guys for personal gain, and people don’t mind him there simply because he doesn’t interfere with the protagonist’s goals. Or maybe he’s the “Bad Cop” to someone else’s Good Cop: someone who uses more violence than is necessary, just for fun, but still helps the good side in some capacity, so everyone chooses to look past it.

Under these definitions, Kaz (to me) seems more like a good character. While pursuing his personal goals, he protects people he loves, and yes, he does do “dark” things. But he doesn’t relish in doing them (despite his reputation in-universe of being a chaotic sadist. His reputation is not accurate; he invented it for his own protection). He does them because he has to. If he can get the job done right without hurting anyone, that’s the route he’ll take. But that option isn’t always available. And he’s not the type to lie down and die just to avoid getting his hands dirty (nor should he, imo). 

Again, maybe I just have a different idea of what constitutes being morally gray. But I always thought it was meant to be a judgment on the choices you make when you actually HAVE a choice? A morally gray character has the choice to be good or evil, and they choose to do both (which one depending on how they feel that day). 

Whereas, if you do something “bad” because circumstances force you to do it–because you or someone you love will die otherwise–that’s pretty much the same as having a gun to your head. You’re not morally gray. You’re doing it under duress. It’s survival, not a reflection of where you stand on moral topics. Like, if you trap a vegan in a room with only a piece of meat, and you leave them there for days, weeks, that person doesn’t suddenly become a “fake vegan” if they eat that meat to avoid literally starving to death. You forced them to do it. When it comes to their moral beliefs, they would still be a vegan if they had the freedom to make that choice. You just put them in a situation where those choices aren’t available to them. Your lack of freedom in a situation shouldn’t define you.

The same can be said for placing a starving, homeless orphan boy alone in the dog-eat-dog world of Ketterdam. The option of being a sweet little law-abiding citizen is not available to him. So is it really fair to define him by something in which he had no choice?

I’ve come across so many GrishaVerse fans who, while sipping on their Starbucks in the comfort of their own home, go “Ugh, Kaz. He’s so DARK, so EVIL!” (Fun fact: while my mom was watching the show, she said Kaz is evil because “he seems to always have a plan.” Oh no! Not PLANS!)  “He must be some kind of monster to be able to do the things he does and still live with himself! I could NEVER do those things!” Well…you’ve never actually had to do those things? Your life has never depended on it? Idk, to me, it’s just a very privileged take. And I’m not trying to make this into a big social issue. It’s not like criticism against a fictional character is anywhere near the same level of importance as the issues marginalized people are facing in real life. I’m just saying, it’s very easy to condemn activity you’ve never been forced to engage in for your own survival.

One of the biggest reasons people have given me for why they think Kaz is evil is that he is “for himself.” Even the author said she thinks Kaz is worse than the Darkling (who, I’ve gotten the impression, she believes to be irredeemable) because the Darkling has communal goals (he wants to bring positive change for other people/the world at large) while Kaz’s goals are just personal (he wants to bring positive change for himself and only himself). And for one? It just isn’t true: many (if not most) of the things Kaz does is either for his Crows or for his late brother; he just disguises it with supposed self-interest for the sake of his reputation. And second? It’s…not actually wrong to have personal goals or to act in self-interest. Bettering your own life is a valid desire. It’s not the same as being selfish. Not everything you do has to be for other people.

(And, tbh, this is something Leigh Bardugo seems to have a problem with in general, not just in this scenario. I could write a whole separate rant about other characters that were demonized in-narrative for engaging in “too much” self-care, and how her unforgivingly black and white morality ruined the Shadow and Bone trilogy for me. Worst of all, she even seemed to imply recently that the only reason real-life antisemitism is wrong is because “the Jews didn’t fight back”? [Like, if they had met her criteria of “fighting back”, would that make antisemitism somewhat justified to her? What? Idek, but she should really clarify.] Basically, she seems to take “non-selfishness” to an extreme. I don’t know her personally, I don’t want to make assumptions, I don’t have anything personal against her, and I’m not trying to get her cancelled or anything, I promise. But please, when you read her books, please don’t accept all her ideas at face value, because there’s some Weird Shit™ in there sometimes.)

Anyway, another reason people say Kaz is bad or morally gray is that he wants revenge. “Revenge is a bad coping mechanism! You should want JUSTICE! Not REVENGE!” And again, this argument is wild to me. I mean, yes, there are situations–especially in real life, modern, western contexts–where revenge is a bad coping mechanism someone has developed, and transforming their anger into a desire for justice is a way for them to overcome that and express their anger in a healthier way. But that’s a very specific scenario. When we’re talking generally, the line between revenge and justice is a lot thinner than people think (and in some scenarios, there is no line at all). 

For example, real life victims and their families often say they can’t wait to see the perpetrator rot in prison, even wishing (sometimes even fantasizing) that the guy gets abused in prison by fellow inmates. For them, justice and revenge are wrapped up together in one big court-issued sentence. And while some people find that disturbing or take issue with it, it’s…generally considered valid outrage? This guy is evil and hurt them, so it’s okay for these people to want him to suffer. And most importantly, these people called the cops instead of taking matters into their own hands, therefore they’re Good, right? They’re good citizens who obey and rely on the established authority, therefore they are handling their anger in an Acceptable™ way?

But in the world of Ketterdam, if someone has victimized you, or is trying to kill you or someone you love, you can’t just call the fucking cops (and let’s be honest, looking at irl cops, it’s a questionable idea here too sometimes). If we’re analyzing Kaz’s outrage and how he handles it, we have to analyze it in the context of where he lives, not where we live. We have options in our lives that Kaz doesn’t have. So we have to ask, what are the most productive steps he could realistically take in his world?

I see activists and bloggers on websites like this, publicly fantasizing about gouging the eyes out of certain politicians and right-wing figureheads. And they would probably do it for real if they could. On Tumblr and Twitter, this is generally considered righteous anger. The politicians are evil, so it’s okay to hurt them, right? That’s how the logic goes, anyway (I know some will disagree, but it’s a common take here). Well, imagine if, instead of just being a bigot, one of these evil people personally stabbed–possibly killed–your girlfriend. And there were no cops to call, no news stations or social media to turn to, to show people what this guy did. No authority or community on your side. No way to ensure this guy faced consequences for his actions. There’s just you, your dying girlfriend, your helplessness, your anger. What would be the appropriate way to handle this situation, so you were acting out of justice instead of revenge? What does “justice” even mean in a world like that? It’s a world where either you hurt others or you lie down and just let others keep hurting those you love (which, in itself, would be evil). I can’t think of any “appropriate” response Kaz could take. Which, for better or worse, is probably why he just went for the eye. You probably would too in that context. Are you morally gray? I doubt it.

It’s really weird to me how people seem to hold Kaz to this high standard of absolute Moral Purity, but they don’t hold other characters to it. Like, was the dad on Taken being “feral” or “morally gray” when he told his daughter’s kidnapper that “I will find you and I will kill you” and then pursued him with fury? His motivations were personal and not communal. He was coming from a place of revenge, just as much as justice. But most people consider him a hero. He’s not controversial or “dark.” There are plenty of other heroes who do terrible things (sometimes to innocent people! Even when it’s not even necessary!) for the “greater good” or just because it’s convenient. People call them a “badass” and then turn around and say Kaz is just “bad.” Idk, it just seems really arbitrary the way people draw these lines.

If we’re expanding the definition of “morally gray” to include anyone who’s ever done anything questionable, made a mistake, been forced to do something they wouldn’t normally do, done something for personal reasons instead of for the world at large, or wanted revenge for something, then there literally are no heroes in fiction (except maybe a few cardboard cutouts) or in real life.

(Ironically, the most morally gray thing Kaz does, imo, is something most people don’t even have a problem with: the fact he runs a gambling house to “take money from pigeons.” And even that is really mild [no one is forcing the “pigeons” to gamble their money away]. But yeah, that’s one of the few instances I could think of where he actually hurt innocent people unnecessarily. That and the time, as a kid, where he stole candy from that other kid...and even that might be mostly-but-not-entirely excused by the fact he was starving to death. But yeah.)