#She is NOT a footnote

[anghraine]

It's always been intriguing to me that, even when Elizabeth hates Darcy and thinks he's genuinely a monstrous, predatory human being, she does not ever perceive him as sexually predatory. In fact, literally no one in the novel suggests or believes he is sexually dangerous at any point. There's not the slightest hint of that as a factor in the rumors surrounding him, even though eighteenth-century fiction writers very often linked masculine villainy to a possibility of sexual predation in the subtext or just text*. Austen herself does this over and over when it comes to the true villains of her novels.

Even as a supposed villain, though, Darcy is broadly understood to be predatory and callous towards men who are weaker than him in status, power, and personality—with no real hint of sexual threat about it at all (certainly none towards women). Darcy's "villainy" is overwhelmingly about abusing his socioeconomic power over other men, like Wickham and Bingley. This can have secondhand effects on women's lives, but as collateral damage. Nobody thinks he's targeting women.

In addition, Elizabeth's interpretations of Darcy in the first half of the book tend to involve associating him with relatively prestigious women by contrast to the men in his life (he's seen as extremely dissimilar from his male friends and, as a villain, from his father). So Elizabeth understands Darcy-as-villain not in terms of the popular, often very sexualized images of masculine villainy at the time, but in terms of rich women she personally despises like Caroline Bingley and Lady Catherine de Bourgh (and even Georgiana Darcy; Elizabeth assumes a lot about Georgiana in service of her hatred of Darcy before ever meeting her).

The only people in Elizabeth's own community who side with Darcy at this time are, interestingly, both women, and likely the highest-status unmarried women in her community: Charlotte Lucas and Jane Bennet. Both have some temperamental affinities with Darcy, and while it's not clear if he recognizes this, he quietly approves of them without even knowing they've been sticking up for him behind the scenes.

This concept of Darcy-as-villain is not just Elizabeth's, either. Darcy is never seen by anyone as a sexual threat no matter how "bad" he's supposed to be. No one is concerned about any danger he might pose to their daughters or sisters. Kitty is afraid of him, but because she's easily intimidated rather than any sense of actual peril. Even another man, Mr Bennet, seems genuinely surprised to discover late in the novel that Darcy experiences attraction to anything other than his own ego.

I was thinking about this because of how often the concept of Darcy as an anti-hero before Elizabeth "fixes him" seems caught up in a hypermasculine, sexually dangerous, bad boy image of him that even people who actively hate him in the novel never subscribe to or remotely imply. Wickham doesn't suggest anything of the kind, Elizabeth doesn't, the various gossips of Meryton don't, Mr Bennet and the Gardiners don't, nobody does. If anything, he's perceived as cold and sexless.

Wickham in particular defines Darcy's villainy in opposition to the patriarchal ideal his father represented. Wickham's version of their history works to link Darcy to Lady Anne, Lady Catherine (primarily), and Georgiana rather than any kind of masculine sexuality. This version of Darcy is a villain who colludes with unsympathetic high-status women to harm men of less power than themselves, but villain!Darcy poses no direct threat to women of any kind.

It's always seemed to me that there's a very strong tendency among fans and academics to frame Darcy as this ultra-gendered figure with some kind of sexual menace going on, textually or subtextually. He's so often understood entirely in terms of masculinity and sexual desire, with his flaws closely tied to both (whether those flaws are his real ones, exaggerated, or entirely manufactured). Yet that doesn't seem to be his vibe to other characters in the story. There's a level at which he does not register to other characters as highly masculine in his affiliations, highly sexual, or in general as at all unsafe** to be around, even when they think he's a monster. And I kind of feel like this makes the revelations of his actual decency all along and his full-on heroism later easier to accept in the end.

------------

*The incompetently awful villain(?) in Sanditon, for instance, imagines himself another Lovelace (a reference to the famous rapist-villain of Samuel Richardson's Clarissa). Evelina's sheltered education and lack of protectors makes her vulnerable to sexual exploitation in Frances Burney's Evelina, though she ultimately manages to avoid it. There's frequently an element of sexual predation in Gothic novels even of very different kinds (e.g. Ann Radcliffe's The Mysteries of Udolpho and Matthew Lewis's The Monk both lean into this, in their wildly dissimilar styles). William Godwin's novel Caleb Williams, a book mostly about the destructive evils of class hierarchies and landowning classes specifically, depicts the mutual obsession of the genteel villain Falkland and working class hero Caleb in notoriously homoerotic terms (Godwin himself added a preface in 1832 saying, "Falkland was my Bluebeard, who had perpetrated atrocious crimes ... Caleb Williams was the wife"). This list could go on for a very long time.

**Darcy is also not usually perceived by other characters as a particularly sexual, highly masculine person in a safe way, either, even once his true character is known. Elizabeth emphasizes the resilience of Darcy's love for her more than the passionate intensity they both evidently feel; in the later book, she does sometimes makes assumptions about his true feelings or intentions based on his gender, but these assumptions are pretty much invariably shown to be wrong. In general the cast is completely oblivious to the attraction he does feel; even Charlotte, who wonders about something in that quarter, ends up doubting her own suspicions and wonders if he's just very absent-minded.

The novel emphasizes that he is physically attractive, but it goes to pains to distinguish this from Wickham's sex appeal or the charisma of a Bingley or Fitzwilliam. Mr Bennet (as mentioned above) seems to have assumed Darcy is functionally asexual, insofar as he has a concept of that. Most of the fandom-beloved moments in which Darcy is framed as highly sexual, or where he himself is sexualized for the audience, are very significantly changed in adaptation or just invented altogether for the adaptations they appear in. Darcy watching Elizabeth after his bath in the 1995 is invented for that version, him snapping at Elizabeth in their debates out of UST is a persistent change from his smiling banter with her in the book, the fencing to purge his feelings is invented, the pond swim/wet shirt is invented. In the 2005 P&P, the instant reaction to Elizabeth is invented, the hand flex of repressed passion is invented, the Netherfield Ball dance as anything but an exercise in mutual frustration is invented, the near-kiss after the proposal in invented, etc. And in those as well, he's never presented as sexually predatory, not even as a "villain."

[aingeal98]

More Jason and Cass thoughts (sorry but also not sorry) but if I was magically given full control over DC and could write what I'd want obviously I'd make Cass Batman but I've been thinking of what sort of reaction and role Jason would have in response. I think I'd write his version of "Congrats on the new job!" as a test, involving the Joker and civilians and gangs and Red Hood and a ton of explosives. Bruce failed me, and now he's given up. You're his successor, let's see how you handle this dilemma that freaked him out so badly he threw a batarang into my throat rather than let me avenge my own death in front of him.

So obviously Cass will overcome the traps and the puzzles. That's the fun part to show how competent both of them are and sprinkle in little character moments as we go. But then we reach the emotional crux of the matter, probably laid out as some sort of saw trap because it's Jason. Here I am, a victim of murder. You say nobody dies tonight but I did, and I want the man who did it dead. Not only did Batman fail to avenge me but he failed to stop the Joker from going on to create even more victims. What right do you have to stop me from getting justice for myself? What right does this man have to life after what he's taken from me and from countless others? I'm not trying to kill a random stranger, I'm specifically demanding justice for my own death that I never got while I was gone.

There are two ways this could go. The straightforward route if I knew my time on this run was limited would probably be a pyrrhic victory like the ones Cass's og series was so fond of. Just like Bruce in utrh, she acts on instinct and saves the Joker (and Jason this time) . A win technically, but she fails the test. Jason is once again vindicated but with nothing to show for it. The story ends with Cass sending the Joker back to jail and going back to the batcave, where the old Robin costume looms judgementally, highlighting her failure. It would be the most fitting end given their character molds, all tragedy and conviction and unstoppable force meets immovable object etc.

However... I think the option I prefer would be a little different. Cass levelling with Jason, a killer talking to a murder victim. She has no right to stop Jason from getting justice, she has no love for the Joker but she knows any death she allows to happen like this would devastate her, just like that death row inmate long ago she tried to break out but ended up letting go once the family of the victim talked to her and demanded justice. I think... In this specific situation, she'd just be honest. Morally she has no right sure. Personally she just really really doesn't want anyone to die. Give her one chance, please. Let her try it her way. Not demanding, not lecturing or insisting, just... Please. Don't do this. Let me try another way.

And then what? Jason asks.

In the end a deal is struck. Cass will take the Joker and lock him up, ensuring he never harms anyone again while also trying to rehabilitate him. But the second she fails and he gets free, Jason kills him and she won't stand in his way. It's the kind of deal that leaves both of them mildly disgusted and dissatisfied with themselves, neither of them naturally creatures of compromise when it comes to this specific topic. But Cass is willing to do anything to avoid death and Jason did not expect the new Bat to be so... Flexible? Kind of? Of course maybe she won't actually hold up her end of the deal and when the Joker gets loose she'll try and stop Jason from killing him and he'll get his miserable vindication, but right now this is something strange and new and he's mildly confused and curious about where it will go. He doesn't believe in her ability to contain the Joker forever but he's willing to let her try because her reaction to that future failure interests him. She's given him a sword of damocles to hang above her head and he didn't ask for it or expect it. It's the type of power he never thought the Bat would just... Hand to him.

The conflict ends with neither of them fully winning or losing. They both don't really know what to feel about this.

The thing is, the second Cass let's Jason kill the Joker she's hanging up the mantle. She's staking the Bat on this, because it's always go big or go home with her when it comes to saving others, even someone like the Joker. In this magical universe where I have unlimited power, Cass would lock the Joker in a secret bunker and have Leslie Thompkins talk to him daily, mostly because I think her pacifism speeches and debates in the comics would make a fun contrast to the Joker's evil sadism. (But what about his rights? Doesn't he deserve a trial and to be held in a regular prison? I'm going to be honest I think Cass would be very comfortable bending the rules on this specific situation. Morally questionable but I'd have fun with it. She's going to let Leslie treat Joker like her personal pet project to save his soul because yes she wants him to change but also she's got a city to save every night so go crazy Leslie, have fun.)

And the Batman series would continue with Cass as the lead, new challenges and new antagonists and every twenty issues or so for the first hundred we'll cut back to the Joker briefly if his chats with Leslie can help highlight some thematic element of the current arc. But bit by bit he'd slowly fade away onto oblivion, maybe getting referenced every hundred issues or so until eventually no one remembers or cares about him because there's so much else going on. Meanwhile Jason's got a good thing going as Red Hood, primarily based in Park Row and a tentative ally on the occasion when their vigilante work aligns. Unlike Joker he's a much more frequent character in the comics, and after say 10 years (this is my magical fantasy universe Cass's batman run is going to last for a very long time alright) when people think of DC characters they think of Red Hood long before they think of the Joker.

Is any of this realistic? Right now of course not. It's why I'd go with the pyrrhic victory if I actually got the chance, because it would be the best way to tell the story in the larger context of the Bat narrative. But it's my fantasy DC editor and writer daydream and I'm going to dream big. They're never going to be normal happy siblings, their personal demons will never fully let them be free and the looming possibility of losing everything they currently have narrative wise if Bruce comes back as Batman will always be there. But it's maybe the closest to peace they'll ever get. Unsatisfying and tame compromise that probably violates several laws and ethical codes but whatever. Cass has never read the Geneva convention and Jason's not going to shed tears over the Joker. Let him die relevancy wise if not physically.

[mohntilyet]

veilguard spoilers regarding a josie romance. but can we talk about the letter josie sends to a romanced inquisitor because. i’m sorry. fucking losing my mind at the fact that the inquisitor and josephine are close enough friends with the guy the inquisitor duels in her romance to be invited to meet his third child. implying they’ve been invited to the other two. at a baby shower and getting introduced as the one who dueled the baby’s father because he was trying to steal your girl. antivan romances insane.

NO LITERALLLYYYYY. AND HE’S AN IN LAW. ITS TOO FUNNY. i cannot imagine how they met and how yvette probably was like “teehee…. the man that my sister spurned…. has fallen in love with ME!” and the best/worst part is that ortranto really has. i like to think of them running around with each other and secretly meeting as though their families actually hate each other (they really don’t lol) . the ortrantos would probably be delighted to have their son actually marry a montilyet like they wanted, even better that they’re actually in love and it’s not arranged!

i have this image of josie going like “you can’t marry him. is this a joke, because it’s not funny. i almost embarrassed him! the only reason the ortrantos do not hate us is because he is a very kind man who saw that i was in love with the inquisitor! ….yes i suppose a very kind man like that could love you…….. yes of course i want you to be happy…… yvette gabrielle montilyet, i fear you are not hearing what i’m saying— DON’T SAY YOU ARE ALREADY AN ORTRANTO. DID YOU ELOPE? ah okay. don’t do that. i said don’t do that. yvette come back and listen to me” etc etc

of course i must believe that there was a big scene caused (once again) by a montilyet and ortranto that ends with lord ortranto making a speech where the publicly declares his love for yvette in front of all of antiva city to see and hear. so there’s no backing out from this one. in my mind there’s a rehash of the big “BECAUSE I LOVE HER!” (ortranto, desperate but genuine), “you do?” (completely aghast josie who has somehow missed the fact her sister has been giggling even more than usual), plus an “OF COURSE HE DOES!” (a thrilled yvette) that reminds josie so fondly of her own love story that she's immediately relaxed (and suddenly accepting) about this whole thing <3

[immediatebreakfast]

Sheridan le Fanu you can't do this to me, it doesn't end like this it can't be. I need an alternative reality where Carmilla did juuust enough to transform Laura into a vampire, along with a very pissed off Bertha who climbs to her window to ask "so... what in the seven hells do we do now?"

[thatneoncrisis]

race as an element in fantasy stories will never not intrigue me btw i will always yap about the external choices and author makes affecting the internal machinery of text itself and how intentional any given off the cuff statement appears to be

[huggywuggysuppy]

hi i just read your e!gem post (same anon) and yeah. e!gem is such a fantastic character 💜💚 i don't have much to say that you practically touched all the points as to why gem's pov and her character in empires felt so special to me 🏔

but now i'm interested in your traffic!gem thoughts, because she's also one of my favorite blorbos to think about; on one hand she's really difficult to crack because a lot of things don't really seem to face her (at least after secret life) and she like, barely creates attachment to material things. on the other hand, her relationship with pearl does help to know gem as a character better because of how uniquely they treat each other (both in sl and wl).

i definitely think she tries to put a facade of "i don't heavily care about death or anything because this is all a game" while also constantly bringing back secret life, almost like that season and what happened (end portal, eye taken 'against her will', a camel and the weight of leadership she never desired) haunts her to some degree that she won't ever admit outloud. some things she brings back are certainly remembered with fondness (her saving that camel during ep6 and then making sure it stayed safe in the barn... you could tell she missed pearl) and others are not (she does not like sacrifices after sl).

the idea that a celestial being, who had been boundless all her life and held control over every aspect of her existence, now keeps coming back to the games because she wants to recuperate what, for the first time in all her life, she lost during sl (her agency? control? freedom?) is an interpretation i'm a fan of rn, but ofc there's so many other things you can delve into (i could rant way more about how she actually is her own biggest enemy and that ties into her trying to not care too much about people and stuff after sl but it’s kinda late lol).

as for fic recs, i definitely recommend this series from dustaundonut (https://archiveofourown.org/series/2796937) basically a canon divergence that explores a reality where corrupted!gem isn't cured, roseblings are really nuanced and complex, shinyduo is shinyduo, and the world is still moving forward. updates for the main fic are slow, but it’s still soooo worth it for the great narrative. one of my faves ever

(also i do think someone should put all gem variants in one room and see which one comes out of the room as a better person and which leaves wanting to commit more crimes)

Hey !! Thank you for all of this !! I’m so proud of my Empires 1 Gem analysis, glad you enjoyed and extra happy you want to hear more :)

I'll do my best.

Traffic Gem’s theme is control. She is constantly fighting to maintain it, to get it back, to pretend she has it, while the whole world makes it their mission to take it from her. She’s a trophy, threat, leader, lover, and at the end of the day: she is and has lost. The tragedy of Gem is her inability to fulfill her full potential, how her situation leaves her no option but to resign, giving a glimpse into what could have been if she was allowed. And the triumph of Gem is when she rejects that, spins things around so her only option is committing, delighting not in the spoils but in the hunt.

Gem is wonderfully difficult to pick apart, with Traffic!Gem as the worst offender -- most of my #analysis were posted during WL trying to figure her out. But the fun is in discovering another aspect/layer that completely changes an interpretation. All to say: this isn't my first crack at Traffic Gem, and it certainly won't be the last. Written mostly in January, I was gonna wait till I had a companion fic to post with this (EDIT: now posted!) but Simple Life April Fools spelled soooo much out, I can't resist posting now. Enough disclaimers, let’s get into the great Gem analysis!

Traffic Gem, willingly or not, is the villain of everyone's story. Even her own.

Gem (and most other mcyts) are very utilitarian with adapting to what reputation is thrust on them: as it's the smartest decision if she wants efficient power/control over the situation. There's less legwork for her in establishing motive, skillset, tone, etc. and makes her very accessible to other players: they already know her story and can work around/within it. Her HC intro season having a cottagecore theme and really her cute girl aesthetic in general is fitting into a marketable stereotype that she can then go on to subvert. And this is the fun of CC's in general, especially for the audience! The difference comes in how freely they're able to act.

In every season Gem is sought after by others: defending them, being a target, challenging them to act. If she's standing near someone, she can't be ignored, and people are always seeking her out. Many other traffic villains (Scar, Martyn) don't try taking leader at the same time, and the few that have (Ren, Lizzie) dedicate their time entirely to managing it. Gem has the worst combination because she can't turn it off: she's too aware of playing the physical and social game (and playing it well) to not lead. Because of her skill she must be used and fought against. Funnily enough Scott has this same problem, which is why he usually attaches to someone with a similarly strong reputation (social and/or skill) to mask his movements. Grian also falls victim, but his position as gamemaster and first victor often takes the heat off: people trust him to prioritize lore and not overextend. Obviously Gem and Scott would also like to RP, have you seen them, but to individual players it's more tactical to be wary.

So Gem is caught in a terrible cycle. If she embraces her villain leadership status, she has power over the server, but will never catch a break or get to tell any other type of story. And if she tries to reject her reputation, an uphill battle on its own, she'll be targeted anyway for an entire season, without the allies to block the bullets. She still finds ways to thrive in subversion: Gem explicitly follows the rules of the Life Series to the letter: passive till it kills her, because everyone's expecting her to murder from the start. Gem loves playing the villain, her SL aesthetic lives rent free forever, but also longs for peaceful episode segments and initiating her own shenanigans -- which can only come when others are independent. Oddly, I think Real Life demonstrates her ideal vibe: everyone was a lot more laid back so while she was still feared and followed, it wasn't stopping her from having fun. Meanwhile, Simple Life is her nightmare. All this to say: Gem has a lot of complex emotions around embracing slash being forced into villainy and leadership.

Gem uses this reputation for her benefit. She doesn't have much choice.

Let's talk about how other players see her, and what she does about it. Gem was typecast as everyone’s antagonist before she even entered the games. Subbing in for Cleo with her only direction as “Kill Etho if you can” only cemented her reputation. In her actual seasons, she shows sportsmanship with her kills, but rarely seems (or really has reason to be) apologetic for them. Gem takes initiative to gear up and becomes a problem if left alone too long, all the while grinning behind honeyed words and pretty walls. And even regardless of any actions, she’s known for pvp and building prowess, cutting wit, and seemingly effortless control over most situations. If Gem's this deadly when she's forced to hold herself back, what is she like at full power? She can never be under the radar because Gem’s entire existence is a challenge.

The contrast between SL and WL is insane. SL feels like a joyride: she’s got her historically closest allies and they’re completely loyal, the server is entirely at her mercy either in competitions and dragon fights or actively hunted as prey, she even gets to rp toxic yuri with no consequences! And then in the final hour her hubris blinds her to both Scar and Pearl's feelings, and she dies in disgrace. WL Gem is significantly more skittish: narrowing her field of view to only a few goals and broadcasting how uncomfortable she is with everyone paying attention to her all the time. Making a point not to tryhard for kills, merely surviving out of obligation, Gem acts like she's given up everything. She's trapped by the narrative, so she stops fighting against the current. Obviously, at least.

And the other players are clearly off balance from this change. They're unsure whether to fear Gem's machinations as if she was at the height of her boogeyman army, or to hang out sympathetically at her base. Most opt to take the safe route and target her anyway: only to face tauntingly little resistance as she uses their attempts as evidence to her innocence. Is her head still a trophy if she stands still under your minecart? Why are you making her a more dangerous color? Gem admits she played "aggressively passive:" her offense was a manipulatively weak defense. It aims to disorient others and gain sympathy for herself. There's a clear rebranding effort at play, all to change popular opinion towards Gem into something favorable.

Lifelong Allies (by accepting they all want you dead.)

After SL, Gem changes targets from directly winning to interpersonal goals. She’s already demonstrated her strength, though learned the hard way that nobody will ever leave her alone long enough to safely take her win. And since she's joined late, there's no foundation of trust or love to fall back on -- if anything, she's almost ostracized -- so now she chooses to build one. Gem needs strong allies, but even stronger ties to her enemies. If Grian and/or Pearl hadn’t intervened, had they gone for the other enemy instead, she almost certainly would’ve been crowned. Don’t be fooled by her facade: Gem never gave up on winning. Everything she does in WL is setup for her next Red rampage.

If there’s anything she learned from Scott, it’s having relationships everywhere. She wants to have a stronger tie to them so that when it comes down to a 2v1, the worse side isn’t Gem. They don’t have to love her or even want her to win, they just have to want the other person to lose more. To do this, Gem butters up every player -- she only truly denounces the G's, everyone else receives kindness and civility. She also constantly calls out the enormous target on her back, both for sympathy, but also making every attempt on her life impersonal. If everyone’s targeting her, she has no reason to be enemies with you even if you do kill her. She's friendly, if blunt, and competent enough to deserve the win, if only everyone would leave her alone! Boldly, to an almost insane degree, Gem is trying to circumvent her reputation as "Biggest Threat" into "Enemy Of Your Enemy."

Why team with Joel? As she's building bridges with all players, she also covers her tracks with the other greatest threats. Among Grian, Scar, Martyn, and arguably Etho, (all of which she also dedicates extra time to befriending,) Joel is the best fit for her mission. Loyal to the grave, there's no risk of a surprise betrayal. He doesn’t put much effort into peace talks or reputation, so he’s a perfect contrast against the smiling, hands up, ‘peaceful’ Gem. Although aggressively lore-phobic: often off-setting the tone of her story moments (most glaringly trying to kill Pearl in the finale while they’re talking,) even that demonstrates her being a storyteller instead of a sweat. He’s also competent and the perfect Champion: their team does win as a group effort. She directs him towards targets, quietly takes heat off him, and they keep each other alive to the finale. Gem more or less succeeds with Joel, and establishes her position as unfairly targeted, mostly harmless, maybe there's someone better to go after...

But Gem can't befriend everyone. …Unless (and they never got off that camel.)

Singling out the G’s fits perfectly into her “enemy of your enemy” plan, since EVERYONE can get behind stopping GGG. The G’s are the only other team that faced constant sweat allegations, despite their clear intent to infight and do lore -- something Gem clocks as she's experiencing the same thing. Also, the G's have an arsenal of messy dynamics with everyone from past series and many would target them before Gem. Beyond that, it's implausible to befriend everyone, nevermind the stigma when you're called out on being a floater (BDubs, Impulse.) But more than any convenience or necessity: Gem loves a nemesis. To say nothing of entertaining content: if her attention seems focused on someone else, she's not aiming for you, and they're both getting weaker in the process. Though, that only actually hurts Gem if her and her enemy are properly fighting.

Pearl sees through exactly what Gem is doing. If anyone's an expert on being trapped by the popular narrative, it's Pearl. As such, Pearl doesn't want to win, and only really cares about uplifting her loved ones -- and having chaotic fun while she's at it. She's the only player (except maybe Grian) who doesn't want to kill Gem, for reputation or for a safe victory. Sure, she's pressured into it by Gem's promise of a 1v1 on red, but that’s all in service of murder camel reuniting. Her attempts are half-hearted, and Gem only fights back when a third party gets involved (poor Impulse), maintaining the enemies illusion while functionally just having fun/RP. (Not that I think Pearl ever wants to be bloodthirsty 5 AM again anyway, although Gem sure does.) Pearl also takes a “yes, and” attitude to everything Gem does ever, and willingly slides into the role she needs Pearl to be: pulling more attention than Gem, and (depending on what the players/you're looking for) villainous and/or heroic while she’s at it. As long as Impulse is off the radar (and he is compared to the dramatic GGG), Pearl is fine with whatever. And Gem serves her in return: an undeniable threat to target despite Pearl’s allies’ objections. There's enormous flexibility in the storyline too: since neither of them really care about the 2v1, or trying to win this time for that matter, they can spend as much time as they want taking it in any direction. In a quiet, twisted way, being Gem’s nemesis is the best way Pearl can help her.

(Eternal dynamic of Pearl, willing to jump headfirst into whatever Gem's up to, not caring about what'll happen to her own reputation, or even fate, so long as it helps Gem and makes her happy. That unconditional safety allowing Gem to reach higher, unleash her full potential, and having a safe place to land if she falls. And she uses that power to take care of Pearl in return ohghghhh. For the shippy interpretation, I direct you to my ao3 :)

Of course there are consequences to this playstyle. The G’s are very scary on their own to be enemies of, although Gem has unusually strong relationships with all four, so they probably won’t hold a long lasting grudge. Maybe. Moreover, Gem is publicly called out for her unreasonable beef with Pearl, the consequences of which may create an actual enemy in the future if Pearl ever lets herself properly hold her exes accountable. Most of all, it makes Gem look cruel or — worse — sloppy, both of which discourage others from working with her / being on her side. But even with all these downsides, Gem vs. the G’s succeeded in balancing her reputation. And it’s undeniably a highlight of WL.

Yet a villain needs her thematic demise :/ or “what is a victory but other people?”

The best Gem moments and stories are when she gets to have fun doing what she wants. The Boogey Army, lore with Pearl, even the moments of peace at her base where she talks to the camera about her process. But the most disappointing is when she’s forced physically and narratively into a box. Gem is constantly pushed into passivity because it’d be ‘unfair’ — also punished by the rules, unable to instigate until the gimmick (inconsistently) or other players send her to yellow/red. But in WL, Gem had organized things so that when she finally went Red, the most compelling and coherent option was murdering those who wronged her, finding long awaited closure with Pearl, and a satisfying final death that laid groundwork for next season. Unfortunately, by nature of the game/rules, they didn’t have the time or space to execute that throughout the season let alone the finale, resulting in her hard work falling flat.

And isn’t that frustrating? Her playstyle is dictated by the rules and, despite appearances, puts control of her actions/storyline in other players hands. SL worked because Gem could satisfyingly get herself on Yellow and interact with/terrorize other players within the rules. But WL left no time or room for either. She’s a villainous character — decided for her and embraced for maximum effect — and so it’s agonizing to take all the heat with none of the payoff. Gem always finds ways to work with it: building relationships, supporting Joel and Scar and others in getting kills, salvages a rushed makeup with Pearl, but it’s not her lore, her joy, her victory. It's dying to a mob, alone at her base, with only a sardonic outro as closure. And yet she keeps on trying anyway.

The stakes are too high for Gem. She wants to win so badly, in spite of the target on her back preventing her honest victory. So she weaves her own story into the villain narrative: an underdog, or at least a lesser enemy, that treats you kindly and deserves the win. Gem creates a rival in Pearl to showcase her innocence and a weakness so others let their guard down. All of this to promise that, when she goes Red, she can finally get some murder -- some control back. Yet Gem falls, unsatisfied and unfulfilled, before she can take her moment to have fun and thrive. Traffic Gem is constantly fighting for control, and we yearn and fear for when she finally realizes her hunt.

E1 Anon thank you for the ask !! I've been preparing a major Traffic Gem analysis for a while, and your prompt was the perfect jumping off point. There's still so much to talk about, but I think I've covered the major points here, at least until the next ask. So excited to see what develops next in Life Series that’ll add even more depth :) Thank you for reading!

Bonus Thoughts: Real Stakes cc!Gem, Meta Worldhopper Gem, and Taking Her At Face Value c!Gem

No Gem character is complete without intense interconnectivity between her worlds. Everything above is the Traffic Gem intent/action analysis, as seen and interpreted by other players. But here are some other more Gem centric ideas that I'd be remiss if I didn't discuss.

Traffic Gem is intense because the stakes are real.

Life Series is a microscope for mcyts. It's a Situation with just enough guidelines to build a cohesive story, a finite time limit incentivizing risks, a sandbox of character dynamics and with players they already have history with to utilize and alter. Part of the lightning-in-a-bottle value is seeing the mcyts at 100%: using their full arsenal of improv, relationships, production, and lore, on the most elite stage they have right now. One's content, brand, fandom, their very legacy, is indisputably shaped by Life Series. It’s an insane level of pressure even by mcyt standards. And Gem enters that as a newbie four seasons in, with all eyes on her.

If Wizard Gem is a collection of her themes into one masterpiece, Traffic Gem is the refined core of GeminiTay: who she is without any structure to fall back on, how she operates in the middle of chaos, and what she fights for when she can't have everything. It’s an ornate quilt versus a knight’s sword: you admire the comfort and handicraft of the quilt, but the sword challenges anyone to wield it — with varying levels of mastery. That's why Traffic!Gem is such a beautiful challenge compared to all her other characters: she is overpowering and raw, and her very presence challenges you to investigate deeper.

CC's often say their characters are exaggerations of themselves, but Gem's Traffic character is directly interwoven with her general CC struggle. Sorted into a box of "scary, competent, cottagecore," it's interesting that much of her battle is breaking out of her reputation. Gem loves playing around with perception, it's "how she gets away with things," and Life Series demonstrates both the strengths and weaknesses of her openly deceptive brand/playstyle. (I also consider False and Keralis this subtype, and can rant about this endlessly.) While she's soooo careful to not overextend, Gem is constantly beating back the "too good at PVP/minigames/etc." accusations, often to the point of handicapping herself. The more actions she takes, the closer she gets to winning, the louder the outcry to stop her -- even in the name of "fairness." And she subverts expectations by embracing that role for her own ends. I think that's beautiful.

Worldhopping! Yippie!

I could go on about the delicious c!Gem lore around an eldritch creature originally delighting in the death game, until struck with the horribly real betrayal woven into every single player, having a nihilistic and desperate attitude in every game afterwards. But this post by rainecreatesstuff already covered that beautifully. I think this is 100% intentional on Gem’s part: she keeps a lot of her machinations behind the curtain but loooves character building and consistency. Her "its fine" mantra fits perfectly in anyway. Similarly, much to appreciate from the Watchers specifically choosing her to join the games and cull the herd. Gem carrying on the eye-lost-to-portal plot is a fun nod to that interpretation. Imagine if she gets to boogeyman again in the future. Personally, I love a Worldhopper Gem who actively seeks to change events -- as opposed to simply enjoying the chaos and/or getting her feelings sent through a woodchipper by the Watchers -- but both interpretations are great.

An important aspect of Worldhopper Gem for me is how she actually cares way too much about every world. You’d think remembering tons of them and knowing it’s all roleplay would make her detached and here to have fun, and oh how she tries, but she can’t stop loving everyone too much and is always punished for it. Her fondness for Impulse, Scott, and Pearl, is thrown in her face in SL. Despite calling in dragons and fighting tooth and nail, Empires 1 gets raptured. Everything always ends. and Gem knows it from the start, and still she cries for every fallen world. Something to be said for loving her friends in every universe too!

Grumpy, impatient, and hurt Gem - what does she actually want to happen?

While I subscribe to a very tactical and intentional Gem — targeted actions influenced by her emotional priorities — the spiteful pure emotions Gem is worth discussing, especially regarding Pearl. Things like laughing as the barn burns, SACRIFICES, "did you even look me in the eye during our murder camel... happenings?" Gem is CONSTANTLY using whatever's being done to her and trying to manipulate it into something she can accept. She desperately wants to go on a murder spree with Pearl again, camel included, but doubled down on playing hard to get so now they're circling each other like (pathetic, wet) cats. It annoys her to no end that she keeps getting interrupted by murder attempts and base visitors, so she hides her irritation and pretends she's already given up on a safe, intact, quiet base, all the while grumpily snarking and retreating to the woods. Part of the fun on SL was being a yellow name and too scary to approach, getting to menace others just by standing next to them, so why is it taking so long to get there this time? Surely somebody should be able to kill her on their own. Gem is perpetually unsatisfied, and not even hiding it all that well, yet players seemingly refuse to see past her evil cottagecore facade. Much to be gained and appreciated in a grumpy, pretending to be detached Gem, who cares a lot, actually, and would appreciate if somebody would take the hint and let her murder already!

Thank you again for reading!! Stay tuned for the companion fic going up on my ao3 sooner or later :)

EDIT: now posted!! take a look!!

[shouldprobablybereading]

It is actually funny how with both kaladin and dalinar their brothers deaths are such major parts of their respective arcs that they would likely be different people if not for it. Meanwhile shallan just kinda goes “huh my brother is dead? Whoops turns out it was my close friend Kaladin that killed him” and then moves on like nothing

[batcavescolony]

Julie (Bruce's ex Fiancée from the 40s): Dick Grayson is that you?

Dick: JULIE! How have you been? *hugs her*

Julie: oh great, have you seen my new movie? I think it's gonna be big!

Dick: I'll have to see it!

*they talk for a bit*

Julie: well I better get going, it great to see you Dick, you've grown so much. Bye

Dick: bye

Jason: who was that?

Dick: oh, Bruce's ex Fiancée.

Jason: WHAT! Why am I just hearing about this? Who is she?

Dick: you know Portia Storme?

Jason: the actress in 'Dial M for Murder'!

Dick: yeah that's her!

Jason: BRUCE WAS ALMOST MARRIED TO PORTIA STORME?! AND I'M JUST FINDING OUT!

[funishment-time]

thinking about Miu's DRS line where she states that, quote, "galaxies of loads have been blown to fantasies of me"

[calebs-hangout-corner]

Brooke with chronic pain my beloved

[moldy-flowers]

Sakura and her comically oversized axes

[shadelorde]

I'm thinking about how the Red Lotus had the goal of freeing Vaatu and enacting a more chaotic goal of overthrowing oppressive governments and institutions, and I'm wondering if the White Lotus (and its flaws) similarly parallels the most extreme of Raava's intentions.

One of Raava's major flaws (that I believe anyways, and I think would have massive potential for exploration) is her belief that she can bring balance to the world alone, without her other half. Even before Wan got involved, she had already been suppressing Vaatu or "keeping him under control" (her words directly) for at least ten thousand years. And even though it's framed as wrong of him to ask, Wan is right when he does - "What gives you the right?"

Because peace and chaos are both essential to the balance of the world. Complete homogeneity is deeply oppressive, and complete chaos can cause massive destruction. Vaatu is essential to the balance of the world as much as Raava is, and while the show leans more into the extreme side of Vaatu's personality, Raava is not perfectly flawless either (ie. her hotheadedness, her disdain towards Wan, her insistence on maintaining control.) And instead of accepting Vaatu's chaos as essential to balance, she uses Wan's aid to imprison him and takes on the mantle of Avatar Spirit alone.*

While I believe that Raava does not consciously want complete homogeneity nor does she want the status quo upheld, I think it is possible for the most starkly extreme parts of her to become externalized into an organization - the White Lotus.

Whether or not it initially started out to be a following of Raava (which could make sense, given that it's clearly an ancient organization and was founded to maintain peace among the Four Nations, and the tile it's named after is over ten thousand years old, with Iroh himself claiming that the spirits invented Pai Sho in Legend of Korra) and lost that part of its roots, it does parallel some of Raava's most extreme tendencies in a fascinating way, especially if Raava became far more brutal than she is. The White Lotus works independently of any Nation's government, instead serving its own internal goals as being completely neutral. But it's not! For most of its history it's worked in secret to maintain its idea of the status quo, from the Platinum Affair (I believe it was involved in) to secretly watching Yangchen's upbringing to isolating Korra for her childhood so they could train her. Similar to the way Raava quietly guards the Avatar, the White Lotus does as well, but sometimes in a far more controlling manner so they can raise them to be what they believe the world needs most.

Much like Raava's suppression of Vaatu that was eventually lost to history, the White Lotus has covertly had its tendrils in many, many political dealings over the Era of the Avatar, and has more than occasionally forced aside those that stood in its way to maintaining its idea of peace. The most direct parallel is when its members imprisoned the members of the Red Lotus (which was more directly affiliated with Vaatu) in deeply inhumane conditions for thirteen years. While they may have had "reasons" for doing so, with the Red Lotus attempting to kidnap Korra, the White Lotus was not opposed to feeding Korra propaganda and isolating her themselves, because that's exactly what they did.**

In conclusion, it's very possible that the White Lotus could have originally been formed as a following of Raava and what they believed to be her will, and often parallels what could be some of her worst tendencies or the most extreme outcomes of her unbalanced influence over the world.

*(note that obviously part of this comes from the show's extremely flattened writing, but for the purposes of speculation, I'm taking Raava's actions within the context of her universe. I also am not absolving Vaatu of responsibility, he did claim to want to destroy Raava for good. However, after being held essentially immobile for ten thousand years and then another ten thousand years, I'm sure that is a contributing factor.)

**(Because Zaheer didn't immediately attempt to kill Korra in the spirit world and seemed genuinely interested in telling her about his ideology, and continued to help Korra in season 4, I do not believe the Red Lotus would have killed four-year-old Korra if they had been successful in their kidnapping attempt. It seems much more as if the White Lotus feared Korra being turned 'against them' by the Red Lotus's ideology. I'm also not stating that Raava isolated or brainwashed any of her avatars, because she didn't, but again, the most extreme length of the principles she represents.)

[finelythreadedsky]

so funny how perfectly greek tragedy follows that musical theater maxim about how when a character is too emotional to speak they sing, and when they're too emotional to sing they dance

[cosmicrhetoric]

the continuous focus on birds and birdsong in monstrous regiment is one of my fave bits just because we know the only reason polly has all that background knowledge is bc of paul. and even when she has that moment of not wanting to admit that she wants to get paul back partially for selfish reasons she was still the person in his life that paid attention enough to remember everything he loved/knew about birds lol. he's not really haunting the narrative he's just kind of chilling back there but ANYWAY lol polly perks could do antigone

[shouldprobablybereading]

I didn’t notice this sentence when reading the draft. But now I’m thinking of the parallel to how important Navani and Jasnah are to Dalinar’s journey with that same book and visions.

He trusts Navani to write down the visions for him, and she’s the one who figures out that they’re real. It’s part of what makes them spend time with each other again and eventually get married. He asked her to teach him how to read.

Jasnah is of course the one who read the way of kings to him originally. And they are among the first people who he lets go into a vision with him.

[all-pacas]

remember the hardware store kittens. she was just purring away making biscuits in the bathroom section