as a reformed cinniter the thing that really gets me about people refusing to see the nuance in cdream (and cdiscduo) is that cdream not being fundamentally evil is literally the point of the story. the finale did an excellent job of forcing ctommy and by extension the audience who was actually paying attention to reconsider their opinions on cdream, and the ultimate takeaway from the disc arc is a really relevant commentary on refusing to see people who have hurt you as people with feelings and complicated perspectives of their own, and that choosing to respond by escalating and trying to hurt them worse than they hurt you is a completely ineffective way of solving problems. and in ignoring this you end up doing exactly the thing the story is critiquing!!
203 notes
·
View notes
I need like. A Don't Make Me Tap The Sign about Alfonse Fire Emblem specifically about his character and how he's perceived sometimes. Like Book 7 Chapter 12 he's just like that. He's always been like that.
I feel like I've def said it more eloquently before probably in Book 5 (regarding Reginn and Fáfnir), where like. He Will try for and favor a peaceful solution, but if it's clear there's no way out without violence and killing the threat/adversary. He won't hesitate. He won't falter. Crit line literally references this actually, "Above all, the mission".
Like I feel like the difference between Alfonse just doing Alfonse things (most recent chapter Seidr having to kill Kvasir, no way out of it -- plus also even considering killing Seidr herself, if that were to end Gullveig) and the Letizia moment was like. The Letizia moment was a BOLD gambit he played, which is WHY it was so shocking in the story and as an audience member, and why I think it left such a deep impression. Still very in character for him and the way he thinks/problem solves on the fly, carefully evaluating the situation and what would be the best move with the highest rate of success. (THAT LAST BIT ACTUALLY........ he'll do this even with low rates of success, out of sheer stubbornness as well. Which is why I still stand by him being rash at times, a LOT of his rashness is disguised as "calculated risks" and he just has the willpower to pull it off. The worst-best type of guy to me LMFAO)
Going back a bit though, the Letizia moment also stands out as an example of how far Alfonse is willing to go to win, especially if his back is pushed against the wall. It gives you a FASCINATING glimpse into his character and into his mind. A lot of times Lif would be an enigma to me, beyond the basics, character wise. Like yeah I guess that would fuck up a guy. But his methods (working and making contracts with gods when especially as Alfonse he knows better than that??) would be inscrutable to me. But everything absolutely finally clicked when Alfonse made that gambit, playing to Letizia's personality and whatever preconceived notions she may have, that maybe Alfonse could find a weak spot in and take advantage of. Lif is doing the exact same thing. His judgement is maybe a little worse for wear on account of, well *gestures vaguely to all of him* but he's still very much doing The Same Thing.
LIKE. I'm def straying from my point which is. Alfonse isn't shy about having to resort to violence. It Is a resort. But if it has to be done, it will be done. Any damage control (such as Sharena's feelings -- she has CLEARLY been extremely upset these past chapters) can be resolved later. (This.... is also fascinating to me..... bc it's always been clear to me his loved ones are the people who ground him, who stop him from losing himself, from becoming cruel in his practicality and tendency for detachment. There Is his morality as well -- but his loved ones are a huge part in what keeps him kind.)
I guess what I'm really trying to say is. Hit me up next time Alfonse is playing 4D chess with the enemy or throwing himself in a ditch on purpose just to indulge his baby sister's current pet project. THOSE feel like standout examples of Alfonse Off The Shits (but still completely in character for him tbh), while like. The rest is just par for the course for him. Just another (especially traumatizing) Tuesday.
20 notes
·
View notes
There truly isn't a universal answer to what a man and woman "is" and that's where the whole "well, tell me what a man is if you say you are one" spiel falls apart for me. In trying to answer it, you fail to see that gender is not something to be understood empirically - it isnt something you can analyze like you might a hard scientific phenomenon, but gender something that is a tool. Gender is (one) of the languages we use to communicate to others, so like language, there is nuance.
My version of manhood* is one which differs from another man's. We use similar language to describe our malehood, perhaps, but much like language, we will have different dialects which we use. If I were to try to answer what a man "is," I will be informed by my own manhood* and the manhood my culture deems desirable. This is inherently exclusionary because it relies on myself and my culture to be the only "right" ones. I refuse to play this social game because it relies on this exclusionary mindset. Gender is what we humans make of it, and there simply cannot be an "answer" to the question as to what men and women "are." It varies culture to culture, by religion, by race, by a history of colonialism, even, and all of this is ignored, downplayed, and erased, essentially, when one acts like there is a universally-applicable answer to what a gender "is".
843 notes
·
View notes