#and when I say morally questionable I mean absolutely making the wrong decisions all of the time without fail

[thechibilitwick]

As an honorary Shidou apologist, I am breaking my silence. I’ve finally decided to go on a rant on why I don't think Kirisaki Shidou is an organ harvester.

(fair warning I like absolutely suck ass at organizing my thoughts, so if some of this is incoherent or if it seems like i'm repeating myself my bad 😭 I mainly wrote this for fun)

So, I'm aware that this theory is the most popular consensus when it comes to Shidou (and tbh, I think part of it is because a lot of people kinda look over him? Like at least a tiny bit more than the others, considering a lot of people also don’t realize how his main victim was probably his son and not his wife, but I digress) (plus I think all milgram characters are looked over to a certain extent). While I do think parts of it are probably accurate in some way, I don't think he was a full-on organ harvester (as in he actively stole from patients through illegal means. emphasis on actively) and that the theory in and of itself is flimsy at best. He's morally questionable, yes, but it’s more in the sense that he’s a somewhat apathetic guy who lacked understanding on how his own set of morals and values (i.e. pushing for organ donation) could be seen as wrong. So if he were an organ harvester, wouldn’t he be aware that it’s illegal? That’s what confuses me whenever people bring it up. I don't actually doubt that he may have done something illegal for his family's sake, it’s just that I still highly doubt it was something he actively did. And that seems to be what a lot of people think when they refer to the theory. (if i’m wrong please forgive me, i just assume organ harvester shidou = people think he did it as a job)

Anyways, more under the cut for those interested (it's a bit lengthy my apologies)

It then kinda trickles down to how his guilt stems more from the consequences of his actions rather than the actual action of taking organs. The root of his guilt comes from the realization that basically asking families to pull the plug and use their loved ones' organs for donation is a very, very hard decision; one that he kept pressuring for. If he was an illegal organ harvester, and was aware that his actions were in fact illegal, why the hell would he feel so guilty to the point that he’d start having suicidal ideations? That’s the key difference between his profession and his possible criminal activities; one is a burden both emotionally and morally, the other is more or less a literal burden. And based off of Shidou's character, he seems to be much more emotionally affected. That's also why I think a lot of people jump to the conclusion that his guilt stems from his actual actions rather than their effects. (does that make sense oh lord i am going ☝️🤓 so hard rn)

I get that some parts of his MV or lyrics seem to be suggesting that, but also it’s important to note that Shidou has a very strong bias against himself and definitely painted himself in a negative light. I mean, that's why he thinks every single preceding patient before the final incident is a victim to him, why he shows himself staying professional in a professional setting as apathetic (minus the pressuring part), and why he literally equates his job to STEALING. Not only that but, imo, it's also a little too unrealistic and might not actually fit the criteria of Milgram. Milgram is for crimes that are in a morally grey area. So if it really was organ harvesting, is it really in a grey area? (though I guess you could say that doing it for family's sake would be, but that's only for his family. He'd have no reason to do it otherwise). Plus, it'd make more sense and fit the theme of touching upon social issues (i.e. abortion, bullying, societal standards, mental health, etc.) if shidou’s entire dilemma was in regards to (albeit questionably done) organ donation, a complicated ethical topic in Japan.

Throw Down actually gives a pretty good rough idea of Shidou's thoughts towards his crime and his feelings in regards to it. He felt like he was blinded by his own values, and that inadvertently caused him to be unaware of the suffering he caused through his job. It really does shock me that he somehow was able to pull-off getting a forgiven verdict in T1 because he certainly comes off as cold and uncaring in regards to his work.

I think the final bridge in Throw Down kinda summarizes his entire mindset, actually.

​​Now slowly close your eye, put your regret on display Wishing you for someone else's sake With the same expression no matter who comes I don’t feel scared because I don’t know

Shidou doesn't quite understand the feelings of his patient's families, and therefore he acts remorseful and sympathetic more than he actually feels. Why? Well, because he didn't know. Up until that point, he never understood the weight of his actions, and focused on his role as a doctor. "This is an upsetting subject, yes, but it's for the greater good, right?” A braindead person has little to no chances of living, so why not use this as an opportunity to donate their organs? Moreover, as a doctor I believe it’s typical to be "emotionally detached” (for lack of a better word) since I’d assume becoming emotionally connected with a patient would make things at least a bit messy.

His mindset comes crumbling down though, presumably because he experienced the same or a similar situation. This part remains muddy for me, since we don't know much about what the actual cause for Shidou's guilt is. There are several possibilities, with the most plausible ones being:

he lost his own family member and had to go through with the same decision,

he tried to save a family member using donated organs, but failed, making it seem like everything he has done as a doctor was in vain

(a secret third option would be him making someone he cares about make that decision but it's very unlikely and also requires too much mental gymnastics)

But no matter what exactly he did, it all trickles down to the validity of his morals. After realizing the pain of losing a loved one, the struggle of trying to save them, and the unfortunate failure which left all efforts practically pointless, Shidou would understand the actual weight of his actions and why all those families were so reluctant to let go of their own.

This is even more evident in his T2 voice drama, Asclepius.

"In order to save the life of someone you don't know, please let me kill your family," I told them. It doesn't even take much thinking to realize how cruel that is, but… I didn't realize it until the very end.

This is the gist of Shidou's crime, or at least part of it (considering he says "Well, about halfway" when Es asks if their judgment was right). Again, this tells us that Shidou's guilt comes from the act of the effects of organ donation rather than the literal action. And this also implies that his "murders" did in fact have to do with being in a medical situation, it's just the way he went about it was at the very least morally questionable.

I will also acknowledge that he says he killed for selfish reasons, which most likely relates to trying to save his own family member. Here he could possibly have actually done something illegal such as tampering with patients or illegally taking their organs (latter is a stretch imo). Plus, his distorted T2 voice trailer line is literally "You're in the way, hurry up and die" which would only make sense in the context of waiting for a patient to die. But it could also just be him continuing to pressure for organ donation, but now with his own selfish motives.

Going back to the "halfway" comment, while I personally believe it might have to do with how Shidou views his crime as more than just taking organs, it more likely implies that something else happened that Shidou would consider murder. That being the actual death of his family member. It's implied through Throw Down that he was trying to save someone but failed, which he was responsible for. Then from there it'd make sense to assume that he would feel some form of guilt for the rest of his patients, either for the reason of failing to actually utilize donated organs even with the opportunity of being able to save them, or for just realizing the what it actually feels like to have to give up on your loved one. (does. does that make any sense.)

So yeah, I don’t think he’s an organ harvester due to what’s known regarding his crime, the reasoning for his guilt, and with the way he is as a character. The most I’d personally believe is that he decided to harvest organs for the sake of his loved one, but even that seems like a stretch to me. Thus, that is why I believe Kirisaki Shidou is not an organ harvester.

Anyways I’ve rambled on long enough, thank you for reading if you did and remember to drink water and vote shidou innocent in trial 3 because i will shit my pants if he doesn't get inno

[moreespressoformydepresso]

What are your honest thoughts on all Descendants boys? From both books and movies?

Oehh that’s a good question! I’ll base most of this off of the movies because I remember them more clearly. Sorry this is so late, I needed some time to sort out my thoughts. Let’s see:

Ben: cutie, golden retriever energy, needs to grow a bit more of a spine but as a recovering doormat I vibe with him.

He’s got a good heart, and he’s definitely going places, but I have no idea who decided a 16-year-old should be king. Hilariously, he’s a better king than his dad because he cares about all of his people, not just the “heroes”. But still, he’s 16, let him have his dumbass teenage years. He’s still in his phase of wanting to please everyone and that isn’t gonna lead to the best decision making. You’re king, Ben, you can overrule your girlfriend’s selfish idiotic plan of closing the barrier. Just tell her “the barrier was opened for you to come through too. If those kids aren’t worth the risk, does that mean you aren’t either? Should we throw you back?!” And she’s change her tune real fast. You gotta give some tough love sometimes.

Jay: cool, I wanna know his gym routine, pretty funny but rash, needs Carlos to temper his brand of crazy (love their bromance).

I love the narrative parallels to the movie Aladdin. Jafar thought himself so far above a street rat and now he’s raised his son to be one so he can continue being a con-man. In the movies, Jay is actually a very accurate representation of your upbringing shaping you into who you are. All Jay knows is stealing, he’s never been taught to pay if he doesn’t have to, so to him stealing’s perfectly fine. It’s normal. It’s a lot more subtle than the whole “who doesn’t like being evil” bit, but the core idea is the same: when all you’ve ever known is one perspective, that’s gonna feel like the objective truth because you’ve never had a chance to try a different one.

Carlos De Vil: Best (movie) Boy, my baby, I love him. What a little nerd (affectionate).

He’s a big part of why I willfully ignore the absolute stupidity that is the third movie’s ending. I’m sorry Mal, wtf is wrong with you??? You set your supposed friend’s abuser free for nothing but some empty platitudes and dare suggest you’ve become an empathetic person?!?! In the books, we get a lot more insight into just how horrible of a mother Cruella is, but even in the movies we see he’s had it bad because of how jumpy and nervous he is. Disney is still Disney so we don’t get much of the healing process, but we see how he calms down and adjusts to a normal life over the course of the movies when he’s out of the bad situation, which is pretty good by Disney standards. Cameron Boyce did an amazing job playing him (R.I.P Cameron) and seeing an abuse victim get comfortable within their own skin and getting the happy ending they deserve is always fun.

Harry Hook: Insane (affectionate), most fashionable drama queen ever, absolutely crazy, more than a few screws loose but in the best way possible, he’s hilarious.

So on the surface, Harry’s pretty simple. A dude who’s lost his marbles and flirts with everyone. He probably has some kind of moral compass, since he didn’t rip Mal’s throat out with his hook when she revealed her little stunt in D3, but it fell overboard at some point and couldn’t be found so nobody knows what it is except Harry himself. Also, he has his sane moments, like during that same confrontation in D3 I mentioned before where he says “And you, King Benny... you're probably gonna throw us all back inside.” It’s the first time I’ve heard him sound… not like Harry. It’s sombre and defeated, a little disappointed maybe? Either way it’s really good acting and it implies he can act completely “normal” but he just chooses not to, which makes me like him even more. He’s just a dude living his best life despite the circumstances he was born into.

Gil: adorable, hilarious, kinda clueless but in a good way.

I love characters that have no idea what’s going on half the time but are absolute sweethearts trying their best. He’s like- the opposite of his dad in every way and I’m living for it!

Gaston Jr and Gaston the third: I don’t have much to say on them, let alone separately, so they get a section together.

Honestly? I don’t remember having an opinion of them. They made Evie happy by wresting, which is cool so they get points for that. Seem like they’re trying to out-gentleman each other to win Evie’s heart and since they’re not being creepy assholes about it they are objectively better than their dad. Very much brawl over brains, the two of them, with their constant wrestling reminding me of Carlos and Jay except they’re both the muscle. Kinda cute sibling relationship, even if it’s in a VK-typical villain-flavored way.

Anthony Tremaine: squeeeee, my type is pretty boys who sigh in annoyance at everything, I guess? We only get scraps but I happily cradle them to my chest.

Uhmmm so Anthony’s personality is mostly up for imagination? The only canon information we have is that he’s most likely Anastasia’s only kid (someone on Tumblr pointed out that, in the scene with the wicked step-daughters, he’s referred to only as their cousin, not their brother) and he’s very bored with his cousins’ antics. Given A Twist In Time the potential drama is endless. Every time Anthony’s mentioned we’re reminded he’s pretty and has good style, and I love that for him. Dude lives on an isle of junk and still looks like a supermodel. Lots of room for my own ideas while still remaining within the realm of “could be canon” with just enough base in there that I’m not just creating an OC, and as a writer and artist that’s all I need tbh.

Hadie: cute, deserves better, I need more of him and Mal bonding

Mal’s half-brother, son of Hades, very cool. I like that he’s trying to turn good and having a hard time, because that’s very realistic for someone who grew up not knowing anything other than evil. Descendants 2 tried to tackle it with Mal, but failed miserably. We know Hades sucks as a parent in descendants (neglect is abuse) so that’s not gonna help him.

Dough: Awww he’s so cute with Evie 🥺

No really that’s it. He’s a nerd that gets the girl, has some very funny moments, but honestly most of his character is centered around Evie? And they’re cute together it’s not a bad thing but there isn’t much to analyze. He’s understandably pissed about someone like Chad getting all the girls while using them, but that’s also only ever seen in relation to Evie.

Chad Charming: what a bitch (derogatory), total coward, I hate him but he’s funny.

So I have no issue with characters who conduct themselves terribly (I love Audrey, (fanon) Anthony, Uma, and many others from many fandoms) if, and that’s a massive IF, they have a good reason for it. And I’ll count “because I can and I want to” as a good reason, because by that point you have someone who’s mean and owns it. I can appreciate the self-awareness and usually those characters are very extra so it’s entertaining. If not that, there needs to be a reason they are the way they are. Audrey has the pressure from her grandmother (and the borderline verbal abuse), Uma has the very real grievance of living in squalor on a run-down island full of the worst of humanity because she was born, what does Chad have? He’s spoiled. A spoiled brat. And he goes from that to an overtly whimpering coward with none of the pretense of superiority in any field. His one saving grace is that he’s a massive joke.

Diego De Vil, Clay Clayton, Gonzo, Jace and Harry Badun, Herkie, Aziz, Jonas, Lefou Deux, Li Shang Jr, everyone else I missed: no opinion, because they’re not relevant enough for the writers to give them a personality.

I have nothing I’m sorry. I barely remember reading their names and I don’t remember anything from the scenes they’re (mentioned) in to get an idea of what to talk about here.

That was… a lot lmao

[theredhairedmonkey]

ain't no way you just said "murder is bad, killing in self defense is not. lying is bad, lying to protect someone is not." killing will always be a bad thing. lying, too. but that can't make someone a bad person. one of the greatest parts about tdp--callum's character in particular--is the nuance and grey area and "not everything is black and white" messages, and you could not have made it more obvious how you don't understand that.

callum is not a murderer and he is not "a liar." yet, you are so determined to make him absolutely perfect that you dumbed down a fact of life and literally justified murder so long as it's "self defense," full stop. black and white, huh?

Callum is not perfect. He's reckless, impatient, and at least a bit naive about the challenges of doing the "right thing."

Which is a perfect segway to here - if you want to say that "killing will always be a bad thing," go right ahead. Like, you're wrong, but at least this is cogent stance you can take. But you can't believe that AND also say "not everything is black and white." Either killing is always a bad thing (i.e. black and white) or context matters (i.e. the nuance and grey area).

you dumbed down a fact of life and literally justified murder so long as it's "self defense."

Lol, yes I am the one dumbing down a fact of life that self-defense is a justification for causing someone's death. It's totally not a literal fact of life that self-defense is widely recognized as a justification for killing. It's still a weighty and serious and tragic thing to do, but it is by no means immoral to defend yourself.

By the way noticed how in the original post I said murder was wrong but killing in self-defense is not? I'm not justifying murder - which is by definition an "unjustified killing" - but to say that "killing is always bad fullstop" is a pretty tenuous and not-nuanced position to take.

I do agree with you, though, that the moral greyness is one of the best parts of the show. The moralizing and cherry-picking of Callum's actions (and exclusively Callum's actions), however, is one of the worst. As I've pointed out before, it's only Callum who is held to an impossibly high (and occasionally incoherent) moral standard. Not Ezran (who gave the throne to Viren), and not Rayla (where do I even start).

If Callum is going to be held to an unforgiving standard and relentlessly criticized for any misstep, it's reasonable to ask why other characters seem exempt from comparable scrutiny. Ezran and Rayla have also made momentous decisions with serious consequences that warrant moral analysis or at least moral reflection. I love moral discussions about the show as the next person, but when it's clear it's just a cudgel to go after one particular character, I'm going to call it out.

And keep in mind, all of this is misplaced moralizing is happening while Word of God confirms that, yes, Callum was motivated by doing the "right thing" in 5x08. That should prompt fascinating questions about what it means to act rightly in impossible situations, how to weigh competing moral priorities, and whether commitment to principle can justify terrible costs (i.e. is it worth it for Callum to keep his hands clean if it directly leads to someone dying).

Questions which are routinely ignored because it does not fit the "morally dubious Callum" mold who is not motivated by principle, only by the lives of an extremely tiny group of people at the exclusion of everything else. God forbid Callum gets to have morals that he tries to stick to.

[fawnhoards]

a collection of dialogue from season one of netflix’s dragon age: absolution. to be used as sentence starters. as per usual, feel free to change pronouns or whatever you see fit. mentions / implications of death, murder, violence.

❝   now you know i hate to question your decisions, but—   ❞ ❝   just couldn’t stick to the plan, could ya?   ❞ ❝   always so sure you know better.   ❞ ❝   i don’t care about your apologies.   ❞ ❝   please, not here.   ❞ ❝   so nice to finally meet you in person.   ❞ ❝   next time, aim a little more to the right.   ❞ ❝   seems like a good time for a new venture.   ❞ ❝   you were magnificent, you know that?   ❞ ❝   people like us don’t change the world.   ❞ ❝   people pay you more to blow stuff up if it’s for something they believe in.   ❞ ❝   we have a very small window of time.   ❞ ❝   you’re our only hope of pulling this off.   ❞ ❝   will you help us, please?   ❞ ❝   i should have told you everything, and for that, i’m sorry.   ❞ ❝   i’ve left it at that. i suggest you do the same.   ❞ ❝   you can’t be serious.   ❞ ❝   i’ve survived things that make the deep roads look like a pleasant stroll.   ❞ ❝   i assure you, you’ll lose your nerve long before i will.   ❞ ❝   lengthen your stride and shut the fuck up!   ❞ ❝   hold. state your business.   ❞ ❝   light of the maker shine upon you.   ❞ ❝   we won’t be here for long, okay?   ❞ ❝   i don’t like the sound of ‘could’.   ❞ ❝   ain’t it obvious? we’re the muscle.   ❞ ❝   if you’re trying to distract me, it won’t work.   ❞ ❝   fair play on that one.   ❞ ❝   i don’t like your implication there, friend.   ❞ ❝   what happened here?   ❞ ❝   i just can’t stay out of trouble.   ❞ ❝   you think that did anything except risk our mission?   ❞ ❝   do you want to talk about it?   ❞ ❝   if you don’t come back, i’ll kill you myself.   ❞ ❝   that’s more your problem than mine, ain’t it?   ❞ ❝   tevinter is home to the most powerful magic in the world.   ❞ ❝   careful, you might offend the chantry.   ❞ ❝   spirits, demons, they’re all dangerous.   ❞ ❝   i, for one, cannot recall any good coming from something powered by murder.   ❞ ❝   maker’s breath, don’t you think that’s worth investigating?   ❞ ❝   i am not letting you face one of those things alone.   ❞ ❝   many before you have sought to bring back the dead, and failed.   ❞ ❝   by name and by nature, mortals are doomed to die.   ❞ ❝   nothing goes against nature without consequence.   ❞ ❝   just because something hasn’t been done doesn’t mean it can't be done.   ❞ ❝   i won’t risk losing you.   ❞ ❝   please don’t make me protect you from yourself.   ❞ ❝   one way or another, this will all be over soon.   ❞ ❝   i mean, he’s cute, but yikes.   ❞ ❝   you think i’m scared of you?   ❞ ❝   no one ever saves people like us.   ❞ ❝   i have always wanted my own song.   ❞ ❝   well, there goes my last vain hope that this was an accident.   ❞ ❝   i don’t need your protection.   ❞ ❝   it’s pronounced ‘thank you’.   ❞ ❝   i’m here to help, for some reason!   ❞ ❝   but i just got you back.   ❞ ❝   aw, maker’s titties.   ❞ ❝   less talk, more run.   ❞ ❝   no one’s going to hurt you. you’re with me now.   ❞ ❝   i’d prefer not to kill you, but i will.   ❞ ❝   blood magic is not the answer.   ❞ ❝   now is not the time for great moral stances.   ❞ ❝   you can’t tell me this doesn’t feel weird.   ❞ ❝   well, of course it doesn’t make sense when you say it like that.   ❞ ❝   i have nothing to say to you.   ❞ ❝   that isn’t fair and you know it.   ❞ ❝   i’ve made mistakes. but they were mine.   ❞ ❝   you live because i will it.   ❞ ❝   are you really trying to claim the high ground?   ❞ ❝   are you really the last one to figure out that you’re the villain?   ❞ ❝   hey, look at you, making good choices.   ❞ ❝   you’re holding it wrong.   ❞ ❝   no one ever saves us. so we save us.   ❞ ❝   hey, that is a completely unfair assumption.   ❞ ❝   i just need you to say that i’m more important than this.   ❞ ❝   holy crap, we’re alive!   ❞ ❝   i am, uh, usually not this lucky.   ❞ ❝   you don’t have to come. i won’t hold it against you.   ❞ ❝   i will have my war.   ❞ ❝   and after this, we can go to the hinterlands and make cheese for all i care, so long as we’re together.   ❞ ❝   that’s the thing everyone forgets about dragons. they aren’t monsters, or gods. they’re just alive, like us.   ❞ ❝   as much as i love hearing about my failings in the eyes of the maker, i thought a walk might be a bit more pleasant.   ❞ ❝   i won’t say i’m not scared, 'cause i am... extremely scared, but i know this is the right thing to do, so i’m definitely gonna help you anyway.   ❞

[thrawns-backrest]

Listen, what do you think about how the fandom perceives Ronan? This may be a strange question, but I saw post here about how Thrawn is an ambiguous character, he does both good and bad things, he is not an innocent kitten, etc. And I completely agree with this. But it seems to me that in relation to Ronan, the opposite situation very often manifests itself. If Thrawn is sometimes too idealized by the fandom, although he is a more complex person, then Ronan often appears as some kind of universal evil in posts and fanfiction. And…I don't know, it just doesn't seem right to me. He has a adverse nature, that's true, and his loyalty to Krennic sometimes pushes him to do not the best things, but there are enough moments in the canon that show his good traits too. At least he is really loyal man and not as stupid as he might seem. I just saw your post recently where you talked about him, so I was interested to ask your opinion!

Thank you for your attention and sorry if I disturbed you :c

please don't apologize, I love asks like this!!! If anything I should probably apologize because this is about to become ridiculously long :D I really like Ronan as a character, he's one of my favorites from Treason. He's entertaining, competent, somewhat churlish and has that posh attitude where you really want to ruffle his feathers to see what he'll do.

Those last two are part of the reason why it's fun to make him the butt of the joke and why the fandom does it so often. But having said that... you're absolutely right. I've also noticed that the fandom tends to be excessively antagonistic towards him (as it is with some other similar characters but more on that later).

And you're right to bring up Thrawn because he's the golden child here, him and Eli, and any character that disagrees with or doesn't like him automatically gets blacklisted. Which is odd to me since Thrawn is supposed to be controversial and Zahn does a good job of portraying that by giving us different characters' perspectives and reasons for liking/disliking him.

Sadly for Ronan he's very unfriendly towards Thrawn and Eli and ends up making a decision that goes against Thrawn's goals which now garners him a lot of hate. An interesting development given that Thrawn himself doesn't begrudge him for it in the books and even trusts him enough to send him to the Chiss. Which honestly means so much coming from Thrawn? It's as close to a stamp of approval as you can get from him, be it of Ronan's trustworthiness or simply his skills.

So if people really hold Thrawn in such high esteem, they shouldn't forget that his own assessment of Ronan was ultimately positive. No matter what role he plans for Ronan to play in the Ascendancy (even if that role is for Ronan to come to specific conclusions he can then take back to the Empire, ie feeding him some kind of information) Thrawn trusts him enough to, again, send him to his own people. People with lost of secrets that make them vulnerable.

And it's honestly a shame because as you say, Ronan has so much going for him as a character. The very idea of someone who's loyal to the Empire while being critical of Palpatine is so cool. It's literally something that can get him killed yet he's ready to face that danger if it means adhering to his principles.

Of course loyalty to the wrong party makes him pretty culpable but regardless, there is a good basis for him to grow as a character. As already mentioned he's loyal, he's competent, he disapproves of Palpatine and all the petty political games that dominate the Empire's higher echelons. He feels guilty for tricking Eli despite believing that he's a traitor. He even comes to respect Thrawn's skills by the end and modifies his answer when reporting to Tarkin so as to ensure Thrawn isn't accused of treason.

So very good foundation to build from. There's still his loyalty to Krennic (who is a pretty damn morally corrupt guy from what I've read) but an overzealous attitude like Ronan's understandably makes him liable to blind idolization so we can't really say for sure that he has a nasty motif for admiring Krennic.

From what Zahn tells us, Ronan seems to admire Krennic for his, quote, leadership, competence and brilliance and he does so to an excessive degree. He sounds pretty starry eyed is what I'm trying to say. Enough to cloud his better judgement perhaps.

Moral or immoral though, he's still a pretty cool character. Which is the same thing you can say about Thrawn. Funnily enough they're almost parallels of each other - Thrawn has honorable end goals that he pursues through corrupt means and Ronan (unwittingly or not) works toward a corrupt end goal but is pretty morally upright in the way he does it.

And come on you can't tell me he doesn't have one of the coolest descriptions (like Savit noting his eyes look older than he does) or some of the coolest inner monologue (like the "half a victory is still half a defeat" line). I also love how he hates politics yet ironically those political mental gymnastics are exactly what he's good at.

But I digress. My point is that you hit the nail on the head when you said the fandom idolizes Thrawn to the point of having a skewed perception.

Another character that I personally like a lot and whose standing in the fandom is very similar is Thurfian. Thurfian doesn't do anything overtly evil in the books and yet he's very often demonized as some kind of villain. Which I bet you is because he's in opposition to Thrawn and other fan favorites like Thalias (something that annoys me because people tend to victimize Thalias so much in their dynamic when she's actually a very brave and resourceful character. Who once held Thurfian at gunpoint might I add).

The thing is, people need to stop the whole pigeonholing characters into 'good' and 'bad' categories. Because especially with Zahn, things are rarely so black and white. Our prejudices as readers can be influenced by both limited and omniscient povs.

In Ronan's case, seeing him from the pov of beloved characters who he opposes is what paints him in an overly negative light. In Thurfian's we forget that these characters don't have the same insight into Thrawn's motives and logic as we do and that Thurfian is perfectly justified in thinking that Thrawn will one day overthink and overplan to the detriment of many. And if those words sound familiar it's because that's what Ar'alani herself says to Thrawn at the end of the book.

But to cut a long story short, I don't think Ronan deserves the hate he's getting. He's a very interesting guy - he's got a good foundation of principles, a quick mind and an amusing personality. Sure, he's prone to extreme bias, both positive (Krennic) and negative (Thrawn, Eli) that can cloud his judgement but barring that he's displayed an impressive amount of competence. Impressive enough to catch Thrawn's eye and we know Thrawn has a good sense for these things.

So basically love Ronan y'all, he's really neat. Even if he's not some paragon for moral goodness which honestly few of Zahn's characters really are.

(Thank you for this ask, I had a lot of fun answering it! If I get my act together, I'll hopefully finish my fic about Ronan where I plan to explore more of his motivations and how he could potentially find a place for himself in the Ascendancy. So fingers crossed for that!)

[alargehunkofdebris]

Aziraphale’s Want Vs Need

Hello I must once more dive into Aziraphale’s character, because he’s such a complex case and I love it. I feel him on such a deep level, and I don’t want his character summed up as “an idiot, currently, for doing a dumb thing.” Crowley can absolutely feel that right now, but we’ve got the benefit of watching from a little farther away.

It is want, verses need, okay? Oldest story arc in the book.

And what Aziraphale wants (not knowing what he needs yet) is for things to finally be easy.

From the beginning, Aziraphale has not had things go easy. Neither has Crowley, but in a different way. For Aziraphale, he has been trained for his whole life to view God and Heaven as good, above all. And until he met Crowley, he’s never really had to challenge that belief. Even if he might’ve had some thoughts himself, he’s never said or heard anyone say them out loud.

And then here’s Crowley, a fellow angel, unashamedly pointing out the flaws in God and Heaven’s logic. From the moment Crowley first started asking questions, Aziraphale was there with a worried expression, pumping the breaks, trying to shave the edges off of Crowley’s defiance for fear of someone overhearing. Crowley has had it rough on the outside—no question, much rougher than Aziraphale—but he’s never been the person to censor himself, or to deny how he feels. That’s what lead to his fall, but it’s also what made him much surer of himself, much stabler, much less stressed about his own morality. He’s got it down pat. Even as a demon, he’s not bothered about breaking the “evil” rules—he’s worried about consequences, and doesn’t like being called nice, but he’s never battling with himself. He knows who he is. And he never has to feel guilt about rejecting his side, because his side is (mostly) awful. It’s Hell. No one is supposed to like Hell, that’s it’s primary function, to be hated. If he breaks a rule, he’s met with punishment, but he’s never punished inwardly.

On the other hand, Aziraphale has been trained to view any defiance of Heaven’s methods as sinful and wrong. There’s no wiggle room – you either agree, or you’re not an angel. And yet, he is faced, again and again, with examples of Heaven’s decisions being cruel, unjust, contradictory, uninformed, and just plain hypocritical. And every time, he’s forced to make that justification—it’s all ineffable, and he’s just not at the level at which he can understand. And any time he makes a decision that contradicts Heaven—the sword, the children of Job—another stone of guilt is added to his load, because even if he instinctually feels it’s the right thing, he’ll have that lifetime of training screaming in his ear, “No, you idiot, you traitor, there was a reason this was done, and you’ve ruined it.” Nothing is easy. No matter what he does, it’s never easy. His guilt comes from so many sides, but it’s all cumulative. All he feels is that ever-present weight, and he’s felt it from the moment Crowley introduced him to the concept of doubt.

So, when he’s offered the job in Heaven—to be the one making the rules, the one who can decide what is good—it’s the first time, ever, that things simplify in his head. With him at the helm, “good” can actually mean “good.” No more uncomfortable contradictions, where killing children is somehow both evil and God’s will. His logic will be sound; it will withstand scrutiny. He will allow questions because he’ll have answers, and if he doesn’t, he’ll learn the best answers. Finally, things are making sense. Things are becoming easy.

And Crowley…ah, Crowley. The biggest contradiction. A demon who is simultaneously sin embodied and the purest source of good in Aziraphale’s life. A person he should hate, but instead loves. That, too, can be made easy. He can make Crowley an angel again—he can restore Crowley to his true form. And there’s nothing complicated about working with, but most importantly loving another angel. It is, finally, how it should be. It will be so, so easy. No more guilt. No more weight.

And so, what Aziraphale thinks he wants is for things to be “easy.” But that’s not what he needs. Because in his vision, “easy” simply means “being myself while still pacifying Heaven.” And unfortunately for Aziraphale, this is just not possible. He’s chronically attaching his own morals to a corporation that lacks any scrap of it, but who simply has a God-level PR firm. It’s as oil and water as you can get, but Aziraphale keeps stirring. And unfortunately, he’s idealistic enough to fall for one more lie, because he craves the easy existence he never got—not one free of work, but free of mental burden as an angel of God.

This is still possible. This easing of the mental burden. But it won’t come from an easy solution. He doesn’t need things to be easy in the life he’s always known—he needs to unhitch himself from the life that’s made things hard. He needs to let go of any lingering hope that Heaven and God have something up their sleeve. He needs to fall.

Perhaps he won’t fall completely, or technically—there will probably be some lost paperwork that means he can keep the keycard into Heaven—but he will absolutely have to “fall” from his mental title of “Angel of Heaven, as it currently is, and of God, as She currently paints herself.” He tried being both himself and this impossible paradox of “Angel Who Does Evil That Is Somehow Good(?)”, and he’s failed. He will always fail.

Consequently, he also needs to do the one thing he’s both very good and very bad at doing. He needs to trust Crowley.

And he finds it oh so easy to trust Crowley when the decisions are simply regarding his own life. He trusts that Crowley will come to his rescue seconds before death. He trusts Crowley, a person who’s not held a gun in his life, to shoot him in the face. But the moment it comes to Heaven, Aziraphale shuts down. Because Heaven has done a very good job at selling itself as the most important thing in the universe. Of course Aziraphale would see his own life unimportant compared to Heaven. It’s what he’s learned.

But now, after 6000 years of proof that Heaven is not some all-knowing place that “does the right thing, in a way you just can’t understand,” Aziraphale needs to trust the person who’d clocked it from the start. Even if Crowley isn’t always right—he’ll always need that pull from Aziraphale to land on the best patch of middle ground—Crowley is still forever pointing in the right direction.

The final step to Crowley won’t be an easy one. It’s a mental step much bigger, much tougher than Crowley ever had to make. His fall was due to a simple question. A slip of paper in a suggestion box. There wasn’t this threat of losing angel status, of being cast into flame; he never even thought the punishment existed. It wasn’t a question of renouncing Heaven and their corrupted concept of “good” entirely. And Aziraphale has had many more years of brainwashing, gaslighting, and fear making this final step as hard as possible. But once there, Aziraphale’s mind will clear. For the first time in 6000 years, the shouting will disappear, the stones will lift, and the tension will slacken. Things will be easy.

[cleromancy]

an underexplored aspect of red robin 26 (the one where he sets up a weeks-long rubes goldberg scheme to kill captain boomerang only to choke at the last minute) to me is the impact tim thought this would have on his place among the bats. like what he thought would happen *next.* because he absolutely did consider it and wasn't at all surprised by dick and bruce showing up afterwards to talk to him about the choices he made that day.

to start with. why now? there was no particular event that made him decide to do it. tim does say he heard harkness was trying to regain lost power, but in context its not reasoning behind his decision, it was an opportunity to kick his plan off.

and i think its fair to say tim was never gonna be able to go through with it. that was never gonna happen. but he *thought* he could, and he decided he was going to, despite repeatedly questioning what the hell he was doing. he explicitly makes the points that he thinks its wrong, he knows his dad wouldn't want him to, and he doesn't believe itll even be more emotionally satisfying than bringing harkness to justice. and yet thats still the plan! for weeks!

and he does set up an emotional failsafe for himself which he calls plausible deniability, where all he did was manipulate events so that he expects harkness to be killed by victor fries by the end of it.

except ofc when it comes down to it tim cant let fries kill a guy, which he takes to mean he wants to do it himself. any interesting moral questions here about who would potentially be at fault are very tidily sidestepped as irrelevant. bc i mean to tim they kind of are. his veneer of plausible deniability was always an excuse. the interesting thing here for the character is that this means he's willing to do away with that plausible deniability, and intends to follow through regardless. (i went back to delete some images bc i ran out, but he does explicitly say theres a change of plan and he's gonna kill harkness himself.)

this is the point he dispatches dr fries, which he calls in to 911, and follows harkness. bla bla confrontation bla, and harkness fuckin trips off the edge of the roof.

the implication here to me, with the way tims flashback is framed as an interruption and the way harkness goes from saying he has no idea who the hell tim is to saying tim doesn't have the stones, is that harkness was babbling this whole time, and that's just what actually makes it through to tims ears. and i also think the implication here is tim being like ".......heartbreaking: the worst person you know just made a great point." hes like shit! hes fucking right! i *dont* have the stones to do this!

anyway. the next page we have dickie and damian show up. hi boys!!

so to recap. tim decided he was going to murder harkness himself rather than using a proxy, *called 911 knowing the other bats would hear it,* and went off to do the deed.

(side note its always dickie loving hours in this house and. you just know dicks thinking of blockbuster here. oughe.) .....i also get the impression that dicks "timmy down the questionable-choices-well" senses were tingling somehow from the 911 call (which, i cannot stress this enough, only even mentioned fries), and i think him and damian most likely fucking hauled ass to get there, which is also fun to think about hehe

i have a lot of thoughts about whats going through dicks and tims heads here lol. but i want to get back to the point. this is the segue into the reveal that bruce was also there the whole time, he knows what tim had been planning to do, and now hes yelling at him for thinking about killing harkness at all.

AND THE COWL COMES OFF WHEEEEEEE :elmofire:

(ok actually i am going to derail here for a minute i gotta spell it out. tim kept it on when he was talking to dick bc he was lying to dick by omission. he wanted dick to think well of him, and he doesn't believe he earned the praise--most likely thinks dick would think less of him if he knew the extent to which tim had planned the whole thing. the end result--not killing harkness--does not, in tims mind, count. what dick was saying was "I understand how hard it was to not let him die, and i love you," and what tim heard was "i know you were always going to make the right choice, because you care about doing the right thing." and when you interpret it the way i do--that the deciding factor for tim was actually that he *couldn't* do it, not because he changed his mind? yeah, tims not gonna be looking dick in the eye anytime soon.)

but anyway. buce:

and the thing is that if you don't look at it from the *batshit* bruce-and-tim-mutual-god-complex perspective... tims actual non-thoughtcrime actions began and ended with a series of misdemeanors, no matter how successfully he arbitrated the end results. again any actual moral questions around hand crafting a bespoke scenario tailored to end in a mans murder by inciting another to kill him are completely sidestepped, bc to both tim and bruce its cut and dry; its just murder using another person as the weapon. tim never once actually believed the plausible deniability thing and there was no tangible difference to him btwn manipulating an intermediary, doing it himself, or even *just letting harkness go splat.* it was all fucking talking points for the sake of argument, he was preparing to play devils advocate against bruce to defend his own choice bc. this was always the endgame.

and

which like. i cant help but think of batman 424 bc, well, im the jason todd think-abouter:

and im officially out of images for this post but what happens next for tim is bruce flying away vs in jasons he tells bruce "i guess i spooked him. he slipped." and flies off in the back of a big silent panel of Angst Buce. i love how completely fucking opposite these scenarios were for the both of them but ykw actually thats its own fucking post.

all this just to say tim planned to murder a man in cold blood *fully knowing* dick and bruce would find out. tim can't even face dick when dick tells him he did good, and the confrontation with bruce feels almost like tim did the whole damn thing just to prove a point to bruce which is. hilarious bc it WORKED to that end even though tim did not actually kill anybody at all. like that was a pretty significant thing that happened. tim very much did not kill digger harkness.

(i also think its significant that this issue is like immediately after tim tries to give cass her batgirl outfit back and shes like "...No." and hes like "please i miss you so much 😭 just come back to gothammmm i dont care what name you go by you could even be black robin if you want that would be fun right cass we could be red robin and black robin together? no? what if we put your name first? ....no? .....okay just promise youll think about it... bye............" [paraphrased])

anyway. *holds tim drake up under the arms like simba* Perceive him

[cosmicjoke]

I feel like, when people talk about Levi’s choices, particularly in regard to his choice to let Erwin die and to give Armin the serum, they always frame their arguments in this sort of black and white, all or nothing perspective that completely ignores Levi’s nuanced thinking as a character.  They’ll say shit like “Levi chose Erwin over humanity” or “Levi cares more about humanity than any, single life”, and it’s not either. 

Levi always chooses to do, in any given situation, whatever his heart tells him is right.  He isn’t weighing ideologies when he makes a choice, or moral questions, or thinking of abstract concepts like “the greater good” or worrying over impossible to know ramifications or consequences or questions of ‘what if’.  He bases his decisions off of what his instinct tells him, whatever choice will sit most right in his heart.  He never approaches any situation with a black and white view, but rather adapts to and acknowledges that each situation will present different circumstances that call for a unique approach and thinking.  He knows that you can’t treat everything with the same solution, or with the idea of any kind of uncompromising moral certainty, and that not every situation is as simple as “the greater good” vs “the individual good” .  What Levi shows us through this sort of approach is that he’s actually an incredibly intelligent and sensitive person, capable of nuanced and critical thinking, and that when you go at every situation with a rigid, unmovable view of how things should be, or what you should do, morally or otherwise, you fail to acknowledge the complexity of the world and of people, you fail to acknowledge the ever shifting realities of questions of what’s right and wrong, how at any given time, one thing can take priority over another, and it can even be an individual life over multiple lives and still be right, and how, when you end up going at things with such a rigid uncompromising view, though your intentions might be well meaning,  you end up doing more harm than good.  We see this happen with, for example, Jean, when he refuses to kill, and ends up nearly getting the entire Special Operations Squad killed in the process, and saddling Armin with a burden that should have been his own.  And on a bigger scale, Eren, who is unable to approach his need for freedom with anything but a wholesale, all or nothing solution. 

This is why Levi tells people all the time to make the choice they’ll least regret, not the choice they think will gain them success, or victory.  This is why he never tries to impose any moral view or certainty on anyone, or tries to convince them to his side.  Why he lets everyone choose for themselves.  He doesn’t deign to present himself as the authority on anything.  Every choice Levi makes is a personal choice, guided by his own feeling and heart, and he lets everyone else do the same in turn. 

So when Levi made the choice to let Erwin die and to give Armin the serum, it wasn’t some basic question of Levi choosing Erwin over humanity, or handing the future over to Armin.  Levi made the choice he did, like he does with every choice, based off of what he knew in his heart was the right thing to do.  It’s why Levi doesn’t give in to his desire to kill Zeke right away, or why he follows Erwin so loyally, even when he at times disagrees with his approach to things, or why he saves Eren as many times as he does, etc, etc...  In that way, poetically, Levi is actually the character who most retains his moral center, and doesn’t compromise or betray his own morals, precisely because he understands that not every problem can be approached with moralistic, black and white thinking, or questions of absolutes.  He maintains his moral center better than anyone in the series because he never betrays his own heart. 

[richkidcityfriends]

your opinion on 2022 winter Olympics

okay so im assuming this is only about figure skating and i mean oml there was so much going on. below the cut bc i think this is gonna be long.

okay so FIRST OF ALL the kamila valieva situation. where to begin. (as a note: none of this is a statement on her except in relation to the 2022 olys)

the positive test being from rusnats and only being found out in february is weird. idk if we ever found out exactly why that happened? but i can only assume it was meddling from the russian end.

i think the media response was cruel, and i think part of that was a lot of people were trying to talk about it without knowing the full situation, but the amount of vicious hate and blame kamila received was unjustified. she was fifteen years old and in an abusive situation, to what extent she knew about the doping is irrelevant in my mind, the blame falls on the adults in power (mainly her coaches). eteri tutberidze is notoriously controlling and abusive, and there is no way any of that was happening without her being responsible. she controls the amount of WATER her skaters can drink. skating at that level, especially in russia, your coach is practically your primary guardian; if eteri told her to dope then there was pretty much nothing she could do. only eteri girls were ever going to go to the olympics, if she switched coaches that would have ended her life's goal (and the way they train is so all-consuming that to not get to the olympics at all would have felt life shattering).

should she have been been allowed to skate? i dont think so. at least partially bc it essentially proves to coaches that you can "get away with" doping as long as the people you are drugging are children. obviously having an athlete who has taken performance enhancing drugs is unfair to everyone else, but that goes without saying. HOWEVER i do understand the worry that the test could have been wrong or she might not have known, either way it would have been unfair to her. (the "irreparable harm" quote is always taken out of context - they meant that if she skated and was found guilty they could strip her of the medal, but if she was banned and found innocent there was no fixing it). ultimately though i think letting her skate was the wrong decision (especially since the case STILL hasnt been settled).

i dont think eteri told her to throw the free to make sure the others got their medals, because she looked so traumatised afterwards and eteri reacted so badly (ive never understood this theory tbh)

that was the first scandal from the olys but oml it was definitely not the last. there was so much going on. olympics from hell. lets talk about the womens podium.

(but first a note on ultra c elements: do i think the sport is suffering because of the increased value placed on jumps? yes. do i think artistry is important? absolutely. do i think there is a conversation to be had about the morals of training young children (especially girls) to do dangerous jumps that cause permanent damage to their bodies? one hundred fucking percent. things need to change in this sport. however. i will make repeated references to whether or not someone is jumping ultra c when discussing the podium, because that is how its scored atm, and i do think that they aren’t irrelevant (it is a sport, athletic feats are also important) just please please know that i am also taking artistry into account its just harder to objectively phrase in a short paragraph and this is already long enough). okay caveat over. please no one attack me. lets go.

look i KNOW the most pressing question is do i think anna deserved gold HOWEVER. have you considered. did anna deserve to be sent to the olympics at all. and this makes me insane because like?? skating like she did at the olys?? yeah she probably deserved to be there!! so it kinda seems mean to talk about this but ALSO i feel like we definitely have to not forget it so. the russian olympic team was pretty much based off of the podium for rusnats, which that year was kamila, sasha, anna. but anna in third place was veryyy controversial bc like. she had no ultra c elements at all (and her tech is DODGY so without them it gets even harder to justify her high scores) but elizaveta had a triple axel (and better tech) so a LOT of people thought that she should have come third, but rusfed just wanted to send anna to the olys instead (which i pretty much agree with).

but okay whether you like it or not she DID make the olympic team so. womens olympic podium. a grenade of a question. everyone is allowed their own opinions on it im not saying anyone is wrong if they think differently!!!!! also im only going to talk about the top five bc this is already wayyy too long.

i know on tiktok a while back the popular opinion was that wakaba should’ve been gold, which i don’t really agree with, however she absolutely should not have been fifth. no doubt in my mind she should have been at LEAST fourth, if not third. kamila should have been behind her i don’t care how many quads she was attempting, she fell like five times. she got through on reputation and the eteri bonus alone. kaori did skate cleanly, but with no triple c, and her tech isn’t great on some of her jumps, so wakaba (who fell on a jump, but had a triple axel, and generally better tech and artistry imo) could have come third and i would have been happy. anna i go back and forth on, because her artistry is alright, and technically she does jump quads, but her tech skills are SO questionable (her quad lutz is neither a quad nor a lutz). the tech bar for quads is lower than for triples, and i do kinda think that makes sense, but her quad tech is worse than most of the other quad jumping girls so it’s a fair comparison. i don’t think she deserved gold, but im never fully sure about silver either. honestly her, wakaba, and kaori can fight it out for second/third/fourth. in terms of actual skaters i like wakaba best, in terms of who performed best on the day i think you could make a compelling argument for any order.

that of course leaves sasha in first place. i know she fell on her triple axel in the short, but the only people who didn’t fall at all were anna (i’ll talk about her last) and kaori, and while triple c elements aren’t the only important thing, the skater who fell on one and landed five kind of has to be above the skater who attempted none at all, imo, so that puts kaori out of the running. wakaba fell once as well, and she definitely has the edge on artistry, but i don’t think sashas artistry was as bad as a lot of people say, especially in her short, so i don’t think thats quite enough to put wakaba ahead of sasha overall. sasha’s tech skills were so much higher than the rest of the skaters that i think it would be almost impossible to bridge that gap with artistry alone. lastly theres anna, who ofc actually won the ogm. two clean skates, slightly better artistry, much worse tech (i know sasha’s tech isn’t perfect either, but she’s definitely better – id say thanks to plushenko). annas tech should have been called, if not her edges then at least for prerotation. sasha fell on a triple axel and anna landed a double in the short, sasha landed five quads and anna landed two in the free. taking into account how poor her quad tech is, i don’t think that her artisty is enough to pass sasha.

however!!!! again i want to reiterate!!!!! everyone is allowed their own opinions on this!!! i do not give a damn if you think that anastasiia shabotova should have come first!!!! go you!!! to each their own <3

now for something that i do think you can wrong about. the reaction to sashas reaction to the scores was appalling. she was seventeen years old (a CHILD) in an extremely high stress situation and had been told by her (abusive, manipulative) coaches that if she landed all five quads she would win, and when this turned out to be untrue she got upset and had what was clearly a panic attack, asked not to be filmed and was ignored by every cameraman in the area, had to immediately go in front of millions of people while still being a mess, and was then attacked from all angles for being “ungrateful” and “showing bad sportsmanship.” show some empathy. (especially ppl who are still giving out about it now “on behalf of anna” when they seemed to be at least friendly again as soon as the very next day)

OKAY WE’RE ALMOST DONE i mostly only follow women’s so the rest of this is going to be brief

sui/han deserved ogm, my sister and i were rooting for miura/kihara to do well but we knew there was no chance for a medal. loving seeing them do so well rn.

nathan chen’s costume was ridiculous. last time i said my nathan chen take i got eaten alive on tiktok so im not gonna say much about him. he did deserve gold tho.

scoring felt harsh on yuzuru. wish he’d gotten another ogm but it wasn’t meant to be. im glad he got to attempt the quadruple axel at the olympics at least.

papadakis/cizeron ogm deserved.

oh MY god i forgot about the team event. pls someone save me. im so sorry i know no one wants this much. this isn’t even the worst i can do. i have talked at my friends for hours straight before about figure skating. i cant help it i have no control. we are going to ignore the team event okay. Just give them their medals. pls. i beg. they still don’t have their medals. i know it sucks for the rest of the russian team if they lose the gold bc kamila was stripped but you have to give the rest of them their medals.

anyway if you made it until the end here is a gold star ⭐ i don’t know how you did it.

[twinclownsoflotuspiers]

On Jiang Cheng and whether what he did was “redeemable” (why is this even an argument?)

DISCLAIMER: While I am cross-posting this from Twitter from when I wrote this in the wake of a discourse there a while back, small note that I DO NOT APPRECIATE MY META TO BE USED FOR FANWARS be it for speculations re “who is better between jc and wwx” OR “jc stan vs wwx stan”. Let’s just have fun conversations like mature people please.

Regarding whether Jiang Cheng is sensitive and an asshole sometimes, yes he is (and I love him for it) but is he only just that and not a compelling character of his own with layers? I’d argue there by saying as “questionable” as a lot of his decisions feel, he actually never went the wrong way or took wrong decisions despite everything. Controversial take? Hardly if you judge it according to the setting and the circumstances.

Was his part in the siege "problematic" and difficult to reconcile with? Yes. Is it difficult to love him for his grudge against the Wens? Maybe so. Did he hurt Wei Wuxian, whether willingly or impulsively? Also yes. Did he hate Wei Wuxian? It's more complex than hate but let's say he did. But did he also love and mourn Wei Wuxian in his own way? Absolutely. There have been several meta in the past on how Jiang Cheng’s hatred of Wei Wuxian is directly proportional to the amount of love he holds for the man so I shall not go into more detail on just how much Jiang Cheng actually loves Wei Wuxian. You guys should get it already.

Not taking into account the "morality" arguments of his actions because that's a discussion for another day, I'd say he had his reasons for what he did. Don’t know why people forget the fact that Yunmeng Jiang was the only sect to have its root clan completely annihilated AND their sect entirely plundered in the Wen attack. He LITERALLY BUILT THE ENTIRE SECT FROM SCRATCH and I'm not talking about the structure alone. I'm talking people, reputation, fighting power, making cultivators out of non cultivators, financial alternatives blah blah. A reminder that Jiang Cheng also mostly did it all alone. 

Jiang Yanli while a Jiang is ultimately a woman (always read a book according to the period it's set in). She will be married into the Jin household and will be called “Jin Furen”. Wei Wuxian during the bulk of that time was stuck in the Mounds & unable to assist in the rebuilding. Jiang Cheng had to rebuild both recruits, gather enough funds to rebuild the sect structure or merely only for enough food for all perhaps, teach them the Jiang martial arts because he is literally the last Jiang standing AND somehow convince the rest of the great sects to allow Yunmeng Jiang into the war. If we look at it from the war perspective, the Sunshot Alliance also had no reason to necessarily trust a recently destroyed sect so easily when Yunmeng Jiang literally had nothing to offer apart from one battered Jiang heir who was determined to fight, one Jiang daughter who wasn't a cultivator and a missing head disciple (more on war politics some other day because I personally love the Sunshot Era and want to discuss it in detail). 

And you'd think Yunmeng Jiang would miraculously suddenly become rich overnight right after the war? No. The Sunshot campaign continued for an approx. 3 years. That means much more resources and manpower used up. More deaths. Which also means the death of even some of the new Jiang recruits because Yunmeng Jiang was the weakest during that time, the only sect with an uneven motley of new recruits - possibly more non cultivators than cultivators because how many people even take up cultivation. Jiang Cheng would have to continue rebuilding and garnering support even after the war for the sake of his people. And Yunmeng Jiang wouldn't be credited majorly for the Campaign either - the main credit went to Gusu Lan, Qinghe Nie and Lanling Jin who ALSO formed an alliance along with the Venerated Triad (there is also geography factors in play here). Yunmeng Jiang was literally left alone and fighting to even exist.

We can have morality based arguments regarding Jiang Cheng’s participation in the Siege, but politically it was the best decision he could have taken because it was either that or waiting for a second annihilation of Yunmeng Jiang. Had he decided to stand by Wei Wuxian and Wei Wuxian chosen not to defect? They would've branded Yunmeng Jiang the next "Wens" and in want for power and crushed them. Jiang Cheng had to make a choice between saving one person and saving the people he looks over and he made his choice as a GOOD leader. And Wei Wuxian understood that, which is why HE also decided to defect on his own accord.

Jiang Cheng spoke, “Wei Wuxian, have you still not realized what the situation at hand is like? Do you really need me to say it out loud? If you insist on protecting them, then I won’t be able to protect you.”

Wei Wuxian, “There’s no need to protect me. Just let go.”

Jiang Cheng’s face twisted.

Wei Wuxian, “Just let go. Tell the world that I defected. From now on, no matter what Wei Wuxian does, it’d have nothing to do with the Yunmeng Jiang Sect.” [GDC Chapter 73: Recklessness. Cr. ExR]

There is also a bit in the lower paragraphs in the same chapter where Jiang Cheng demands if Wei Wuxian has a savior complex and Wei Wuxian doesn’t answer instead insists on cutting ties so whatever he does wouldn’t affect the Sect which is followed by an inner monologue where Wei Wuxian can’t even guarantee what he himself do. (Very cool foreshadow). TL;DR: Wei Wuxian defected by his own choice because he wanted to PROTECT THE SECT TOO.

Wei Wuxian stayed quiet. A while later, he answered, “So that’s why we should cut ties right now, in case anything I do affects the Yunmeng Jiang Sect in the future.”

Or else, he really couldn’t make any guarantees on what he’d do in the future.

DESPITE it all, let me remind you, Jiang Cheng did in fact try to defend at least the Wen siblings.  He didn't have to because that could actually put Yunmeng Jiang into an awkward position yet he did. Jiang Cheng wasn't privy to the core exchange so he didn't know what they'd done and hence had no reason to be grateful to them. The most he knew was, the siblings helped shelter them and got back his parents’ bodies and he does show gratitude for it or at least tries to explain why they owe them a debt but he is cut off before he could even complete saying how and why they owe gratitude. Quoting once again:

“.....I apologize to all of the Sect Leaders. Everyone, I’m afraid you don’t know that the Wen cultivator whom Wei Wuxian wanted to save was called Wen Ning. We owe him and his sister Wen Qing gratitude for what happened during the Sunshot Campaign.”

Nie Mingjue, “You owe them gratitude? Isn’t the Qishan Wen Sect the ones who caused the Yunmeng Jiang Sect’s annihilation?” [GDC Chapter 73]

(Small addendum, but I personally believe Jiang Cheng doesn’t have to be grateful for the golden core sacrifice either but that’s a discussion I shall not touch here because MDZS fandom is not capable of nuance regarding this subject at all, and I’d just spark either Wei Wuxian hate or Jiang Cheng hate, neither of which is my goal and both of which I think is absolutely stupid. On to the rest with no more tangents.)

As for the "Jiang Cheng went around killing demonic cultivators", literally the only source is from an INN KEEPER. And MDZS at its core is a novel that talks about how the truth is so often distorted to fit the popular narrative. Did he go around killing demonic cultivators? Who the fuck knows, we headcanon as we like. But the fact remains that IT WAS NEVER CONFIRMED. I have also seen people use in argument the lines from the first Jiang Cheng appearance (I forgot the scene exactly) where there is a small POV shift and Jiang Cheng is thinking to himself “It’s alright, I have done things like this before.” which, okay, valid point and argument but it can also easily allude to atrocities done during the war. I personally find it interesting that Jiang Cheng has to personally soothe and convince himself before capturing a demonic cultivator like this at all. But anyway, my first argument still stands - it was never CONFIRMED. (I’d love to meta, albeit GOOD FAITH, on this subject just saying.)

Whether Jiang Cheng hunted demonic cultivators to find Wei Wuxian in order to "kill" him again, I don't think that's it. Or at least, I don’t think it’s so simple. Grief is multifaceted and different people deal with it differently. Lan Wangji indulged in self-destructive behavior (Branding himself with the Wen brand) in grief before gradually beginning to accept. Jiang Cheng did it in other destructive ways like being in denial of Wei Wuxian's death and masking his grief with hatred when in fact he was mourning too. The reason why he gives Chenqing in the end and the fact that Chenqing is sleek and new and obviously well cared for is symbolic to Jiang Cheng's underlying care and grief that continued to stay despite how much he tried to pretend he absolutely despises Wei Wuxian. And his "giving away" of Chenqing is symbolic to his final acceptance of things as they are. If Jiang Cheng truly hated Wei Wuxian, he would've done everything to expose his identity to the world and get him killed or killed him himself in that inn instead of questioning him about things and telling him to apologize to his parents. Quoting because I think this bit is actually pretty significant:

Jiang Cheng interrupted, “It’s just what? You can’t say it? Don’t worry, you can go back to Lotus Pier and say your excuses while kneeling in front of my parents’ graves.” [GDC Chapter 24. Cr. ExR]

THIS BITCH, FOR ALL HIS DRAMATIC INSISTENCE ON HATING WEI WUXIAN, TELLS THE VERY MAN HE CLAIMS HE HATES THAT HE WANTS EXPLANATIONS FOR WHATEVER HE DID IN THE PAST AND THAT WEI WUXIAN CAN “GO BACK TO LOTUS PIER AND KNEEL” AT THE ANCESTRAL HALL. If that isn’t just the Jiang Cheng way of saying “this is me giving you a chance. Just tell me why you did all that you did” then I don’t fucking know what else is. (He is so pathetic and has such an ironically huge heart I love him)

Jiang Cheng is bad at feelings. He’s bad at being honest with his feelings. I made another meta long back on how Jiang Cheng always addresses the hurt of people close to him but never his own hurt because he is second to even his own self but that’s for another day. It even actually took him until nearly the last chapter (102) to admit verbally he was hurt, so goddamn HURT that Wei Wuxian left him so the above quote IS in fact Jiang Cheng genuinely wanting explanations from Wei Wuxian. Quoting once again on the chapter 102 bit:

He choked, “....You said I’d be the sect leader and you’d be my subordinate, you said you’d help me your whole life, you said you’d never betray the Yunmeng Jiang Sect....you said so yourself.” [GDC Chapter 102. Cr. ExR]

A small tangent because I just think it’s interesting again but in the reveal scene in Jin Guangyao’s basement/secret room, Jiang Cheng was actually given an opportunity to directly expose Wei Wuxian yet again where he is directly addressed but he just teethered and debated with himself because “yes I already knew Wei Wuxian is back” and “I can’t agree with Jin Guangyao or else I will expose my idiot shixiong” AND “I can’t oppose him either because MY IDIOT SHIXIONG JUST PULLED OUT SUIBIAN IN FRONT OF EVERYONE”. See, that particular bit could have just easily stuck to “Jiang Cheng decided to stay silent and hence agree without agreeing outright” or any other vaguer wordings for that matter but the narrative makes it a point to show that he is in fact fucking conflicted because he still wants to protect Wei Wuxian. Quoting:

Jin Ling suddenly shouted, “Wait! Uncle, wait! D-didn’t my uncle hit him with Zidian back at Dafan Mountain? His soul didn’t get whipped out, so it must mean that he didn’t possess this body, right? And so he can’t be Wei Wuxian right?!”

Jiang Cheng’s face looked very dark. He didn’t speak as his hand pressed onto the hilt of his sword, as though he was thinking about what to do. [GDC Chapter 50. Cr. ExR]

This is turning out too long, pardon the tangents. But regarding Shuangjie’s bond, breaking and tale in its entirety, it's way more complex than deciding who is the true villain between them or who is more redeemable between them. Heck their temple talk ENDS at the fact that who should truly apologize when they both hurt & got hurt.

Suddenly, he said, “I’m sorry.”

Wei Wuxian hesitated, “....You don’t need to say sorry.”

At this point, it was impossible to figure out who should apologize to whom. [GDC Chapter 103. Cr. ExR]

To end on whether Jiang Cheng was right or is he “irredeemable” for all he did; Jiang Cheng is as much a victim as is Wei Wuxian. He was hurt as much as Wei Wuxian was. He has as much valid reasons for his actions as Wei Wuxian does. Whether or not Jiang Cheng is a good or bad guy depends on perspectives and your tastes. But I can say with confidence that he isn't irredeemable, nor is he unreasonable. And more importantly he is very deeply human in a very raw and poignant way. And humans are flawed and that's the beauty of them. Besides what is the concept of “redemption” anyway if not an extremely personal one?

Jiang Cheng was right to grieve. He was right to choose to save Yunmeng Jiang. He was right to be hurt and not pretend otherwise. Jiang Cheng is complicated and morally grey but ultimately very much relatable and understandable as a character but if only you choose to look at him without the bias that comes with the narrative perspective.

End meta/rant, OMFG THIS WAS TOO LONG.

[celestemagnoliathewriter]

Meta: Did Harry do anything wrong?

This meta was inspired by a conversation in @thethreebroomsticksficfest server. Tl;dr at the end.

It depends on how you define wrong vs. right. This is essentially a question for ethics – according to the main theories of ethics, utilitarianism, deontology, and virtue ethics – I want to do a little exploration of Harry’s moral decision-making. The ethical theories I present to you are told in very broad strokes – contemporary moral philosophical thought is a lot more nuanced. If you want me to go in depth with any of these, drop an ask in my ask box. 

Utilitarianism: greatest good for greatest number of people, and/or consequences outweigh the method. E.g. ends justify the means. Was Harry’s use of the Cruciatus Curse against Carrow in Deathly Hallows justified? Could go one of a few ways: yes, because it was in defense of McGonagall; no, because torturing Carrow was not an appropriate defense of McG; maybe, it’s possible Carrow wouldn’t have responded to any other kind of deterrent. Utilitarianism falls short when we start justifying things to the extreme – it’s how Truman justified the dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan. His greatest good was ending the war soon, but the cost of so many innocent human lives (in this philosopher’s opinion) was unjustified. This leads us to deontological ethics. 

Deontology: duty-based ethics, and/or there’s a set of rights and wrongs, and it’s never OK to commit a wrong even if the outcome is good. E.g. there are certain rules, whether written in law or not, that shouldn’t be broken. Let’s use the example of Harry using the Cruciatus Curse again. In his world, it’s considered an Unforgivable. That doesn’t necessarily imply that’s a just or right framework – law and moral goodness don’t always overlap. Does Harry think it’s always unforgivable? This is where deontological ethics gets tricky – our sense of what is universally right or wrong may not be universal, or may be biased because of the society we come from. As most people would say that torturing someone is morally wrong, even if that someone is guilty of committing all sorts of atrocities, then Harry would not be justified in using the Cruciatus Curse. Deontology has its limits when we start squabbling about moral absolutes and moral relativism, or when we start seeing poor outcomes for supposedly good actions. 

Virtue ethics: we cultivate morally good behavior by developing virtuous traits. The more virtuous we become, the better our moral actions will be. An action is morally good if completed by a virtuous person. We judge an action based on the person who is taking it. While this may seem counterintuitive in some ways, think about it as a way of understanding intentions. Is Harry justified in his use of the Cruciatus Curse? It depends. Is he a morally good actor? Does a morally good actor use the Cruciatus Curse? Most of us would say no to this – intentionally hurting another person is not a sign of virtue. While virtue ethics may seem murky (it can be), a good way of thinking about it is to ask yourself “would a morally good person, or an [insert virtuous trait here] person do X?” If the answer is yes, then it’s morally good. If no, then don’t do it. 

As for what I think Harry did wrong in the series, in terms of moral failures, there are a few caveats before I list these things. First, Harry is a FICTIONAL character. FICTIONAL characters are not accountable to the same morality as we are; they are vehicles to tell a story, reveal something about humanity, or entertainment. FICTIONAL Harry didn’t do anything wrong because FIGMENTS OF IMAGINATION cannot do anything wrong. If Harry were real, however, these are a few of the things that I would consider morally bad or questionable: 

Use of Sectumsempra in HBP. He didn’t know what the spell did, only that it was used for enemies. He may not have known what it did, but ‘enemies’ should’ve been context enough to know that it wasn’t friendly.

Snape’s worst memory: gives us, the reader, and Harry, a ton of information about James. However, there was no moral reason to violate Snape’s privacy. 

Spying on Draco in HBP: when Harry takes the Invisibility Cloak and spies on Malfoy, or when he asks Kreacher to spy on Draco. Good cause, perhaps (utilitarianism) but not necessarily right (deontology). Keeping an eye out for your neighbor and being vigilant can be good, but in this case it was not Harry’s responsibility to do so. (But remember, Harry is fictional, and in his world, adults aren’t fully competent or forthright.) 

Brewing/taking Polyjuice Potion in second year. For plot = good. For deception, spying, and agreeing to Hermione stealing = bad. 

Sneaking out to Hogsmeade, third year. For plot = good. For rule breaking and recklessly endangering his life (even if he didn’t know that wasn’t true) = bad. 

Torturing Carrow = bad. Torture isn’t ok, Harry.

Mostly, Harry makes a lot of morally good or morally neutral decisions throughout the series. Like most people, fictional or real, Harry is not wholly morally good, and the theories above, broadly speaking, can only take us so far. Let me bring in an example of Harry leading Dumbledore’s Army in terms of its moral goodness (or badness).

Utilitarianism: Was the D.A. the greatest good for the greatest number of people? You can argue it was, because the students learned and practiced lifesaving spells that would help them in their later years. They broke school rules, but they learned to defend themselves, and others. Thus, the D.A. was a moral good.

Deontology: Was the D.A. the right thing to do? In a strict sense, no, because Harry broke the school rules. He intentionally put himself and others in detention. However, is there a greater duty to his classmates that supersedes the rules? You can argue yes, Harry had a duty, an explicit moral imperative to help his classmates. Did it have to be through the D.A.? Maybe not. In this case, the D.A. is morally questionable or perhaps morally neutral. 

Virtue ethics: Is the D.A. something that a virtuous person would do? This depends a lot on your definition of virtue, and which virtue you’re referring to! Let’s take courage as a virtue. Is it courageous of Harry to lead the D.A.? I think so! Is it prudent? Maybe. This is why virtue ethics can be murky – which virtue is most important? How do virtues compare across communities? In the world of HP, I’d say the D.A. was virtuous and morally good because of the values they placed on courage, excellence, and developing skills. 

Tl;dr: Harry does make morally questionable or morally bad decisions, but as he’s a fictional character, we need to be careful in judging his behavior with real-world moral theories. 

[jackoshadows]

Don’t know if someone already asked that question so here it goes: what’s your opinion on Ned Stark? I think the fandom is too harsh on him

He's fine. I like him as the character who starts off and sets up the story for our actual protagonists. I like that he's flawed and has his own kind of morality and ideas of right and wrong, as fitting the fictional fantasy world he lives in.

I do think the fandom is too harsh in the sense of how he's reduced to this honorable fool. This interpretation of him (wrong, IMO) is so popular in fandom that it made it's way to the garbage show through D&D/Bryan Cogman adapting popular tumblr metas rather than actually reading the books and translating that to the screen. They wrote actual dialogue for Sansa 'Smart' where she warns Jon to not be stupid like Ned and Robb!!

This is one of the many reasons for why the show and the books are so canonically different. Benioff and Weiss think the likes of Littlefinger should rule the world and hence why they wrote dialogue for Littlefinger 2.0 aka Sansa stark where she disparages Ned Stark as stupid. In the books on the other hand, Ned inspires loyalty and brotherhood, with his bannerman rising up for Arya and Rickon Stark, while all the Lannisters can inspire is fear and hatred.

As GRRM himself explains:

It’s not enough to be a good man to be an effective ruler. It’s complicated and it’s hard and I wanted to show that with repeated examples in my books with my kings and hand of the kings - the prime minister if you would - trying to rule. And whether it be Ned Stark or Tyrion Lannister or Tywin Lannister or Daenerys Targaryen or Cersei Lannister trying to deal with the real challenges that affect anyone trying to rule the 7K or even a city like Meereen and it’s hard. You know, we can all read the books or read history and say oh, so and so was stupid and made a lot of mistakes and look at all these stupid mistakes they make. But these kind of mistakes are always much more apparent in hind sight than when you are actually faced with the decision about, oh my God, what would I do in this situation. How do I resolve this thing? Do I do the moral thing? But what about  the political consequences of the moral thing? Do I do the pragmatic, cynical thing and kind of screw the people who are screwed by it? I mean, it is HARD. And I want to get to all of that - GRRM

Ned had very few allies and people he could trust in KL. It was a viper's nest and as I mentioned in one of my earlier posts Jon Arryn leaves behind an absolute mess with the likes of the Lannisters, Littlefinger and Slynt holding too much power. There was not much maneuvering that Ned could do in the situation he found himself.

I like that he is flawed with his blindspots for Robert Baratheon that clashes with his morality. I like that children are his weakness - that he was ready to resign when Robert wanted to send assassins to murder Dany, that he tried to save Jaime's children while Jaime tried to kill his.

All in all, I think it's harder to be a 'good' man in Westeros than it is to be a bad one. I have read opinions on how the likes of Ned and Jon are boring because they are 'good' while everyone loves the hot bad boys like Jaime Lannister because he's just so 'complex'. I couldn't disagree more. Jaime attempts to murder the likes of Bran and Arya for Cersei and it's a simple enough decision for the likes of him in a Westeros that lets him get away doing this with no consequences. Ned Stark warns Cersei because he does not want to see her children suffer the same fate as Elia's children - and dooms his family and house.

When Westeros exemplifies the idea of 'No good deed goes unpunished', it's harder to do the morally right thing and I am doubly appreciative of characters who still do it. Daenerys trying to help the oppressed of Meereen simply because it's the right thing to do, Arya helping the prisoners in the cage or Weasel or sticking up for Mycah, Jon fighting against the centuries of hatred and xenophobia at the wall in his reform of the Wall.

So yeah, I like Ned Stark. He's an interesting, complex character and I can't wait to know more about him with Howland Reed's revelations of Robert's Rebellion and the Tower of Joy and what actually happened and how Jon Snow deals with the truth and reexamines his relationship with his 'father' and Arya holding on so strongly to her father's ideals, leadership and this image she has of him and how she is going to use his words, adapt and change that to lead the North.

[burr-ell]

Man, if I had a nickel for everytime a godly/divine group was called colonizers that deserves to die primarily by a niche of people trying to justify the morally questionable/lacking decisions of a fan fave character, I'd have two nickels. Which isn't much, but it's weird it's happened twice right?

That's been playing on a loop in my head ever since all this kicked up. (Especially relevant given the lunatic who's been running around claiming the Nabatean genocide was good and that all white people should die and then pulling Schrödinger's Joke when called out.) Fortunately, Imogen is a genuinely compelling character played by a real human woman rather than a cobbled-together mess written by a group of conservative corporate men who desperately want her to appeal to adolescent boys—but the "I support women's wrongs <3 unless I actually have to deal with their implications in the narrative" fan crowd functions the same for both.

And I know you didn't really ask about my thoughts on Imogen (TLDR: I enjoy her in canon a million times more than in fanon), but I had some:

To be clear, I like Imogen a lot! She's kind-hearted and irritable; caring and withdrawn; moral and cynical; clever and impatient; protective and ruthless. She does everything in her power to keep her friends safe, but she still looks at their murderers and wonders (in front of her friends!) if they have a point. She wants to keep innocents out of harm's way, but she doesn't seem to clock that the people of Gelvaan might be wary of her because she almost killed some of them. She never asked for her powers and is sometimes afraid of herself because of them, but she's also intrigued by what they can do and won't hesitate to use them for what are sometimes, in the scheme of things, rather petty reasons.

All of that is good—not because her unpleasant actions are excusable, but because they say something interesting about her as a person. And in order for unpleasant actions to actually say anything, they have to have actually been unpleasant, rather than handwaved away under mountains of blorbofied excuses.

It's the same with Percy, where in order to engage with him fully as a character I have to actually acknowledge that he's both a deeply flawed and deeply virtuous person who helped resurrect a child he'd never met and knowingly gave a cursed sword to his friend. Or, to bring it back to FE3H for a second, I wrote this meta a few months ago about why I find Claude to be more compelling than Dimitri, and the summary of it is that I actually enjoy the moments where Claude acts like kind of a dick because they're very grounded and it fleshes out his character—but I have to actually acknowledge that Claude was acting like kind of a dick before I can really appreciate that facet of him.

Plenty of criticism aimed at Imogen is just thinly-veiled misogyny, but some of it is also criticism that's been leveled at Percy, Vax, Caleb, and Fjord, so that's clearly not the only reason behind it. A fair bit of the complaints we're hearing (Main Character Syndrome, why is it all about them, [player] is hogging the spotlight, etc) are, at the end of the day, usually more rooted in "well why isn't it about my blorbo/escapism experience!". Ultimately though, the difference between the good- and bad-faith criticism is that every single person I've seen actually engaging with realistic implications of Imogen's flaws absolutely loves her and isn't at all shy about saying so.

I mean, y'know, people can engage with fandom however they want—but if you're only willing to grapple with negative emotions as far as "oh i made myself sad :(", you're going to have a very difficult time when someone else's choices make you a lot more than sad.

[carewyncromwell]

Hey. Hey, Jam City. I have a bone to pick with you, about this new Pumpkin Johnny quest and your so-called “lesson” we’re supposed to learn from it.

Namely -- that it’s absolute rubbish.

Look -- I truly, truly do see what Jam City is trying to say here: two wrongs don’t make a right, blah blah blah, treat your enemies better than they’d treat you, sure. But here’s the thing -- the story of Pumpkin Johnny? No way in Hell is that its moral. Hagrid tells the story thusly --

This isn’t a story about the wrongness of hurting people, regardless of who they are -- it’s a cautionary tale against bullying! It’s a tale reminding people that having a laugh at someone’s expense can have real consequences! Hell, the ending warning involves Johnny coming back to “take revenge” on whomever calls him with that insulting nickname that so upset him. This ghost is trying to teach me a lesson about letting bygones be bygones?? This ghost is trying to teach me that I should forgive the people bullying me because hey, somebody’s gotta be the better person??

Hell, even Hagrid HIMSELF admits that the reason he told his story was to make a point about the wrongness of bullying and making fun of people. He told the story all because Merula was picking on Ben!

So the “lesson” we should take away from Pumpkin Johnny is to not make fun of people. To not bully people. A lesson that Merula clearly did not take to heart, since she immediately pulled this crap.

Right. She takes this story that is supposed to be about the wrongness of bullying...and uses it to terrorize her fellow classmates, just for a laugh. And yet at the end of the story, we’re supposed to feel guilty when we give that no-good bully a taste of her own medicine by giving her and Ismelda a fright? (By just standing in front of them, by the way -- MC prevented Tonks from truly taking revenge by hexing Merula and Ismelda’s heads into pumpkins.) Even if Ismelda twisted her ankle, which is objectively not good, that’s easy enough to fix with magic...and considering that Penny fainted and Barnaby hit his head pretty bad when Ismelda/Merula attacked them with infinitely more mean-spirited intentions, they’re really in no place to give us grief for that. And yet at the end of the quest, who is the one who is supposed to have learned a lesson here?

The person who tried to stop the bully terrorizing the school by dressing up as a ghost who literally came about because of bullying. The person who -- if you look at the story Hagrid told objectively -- took a leaf out of Pumpkin Johnny’s own playbook, by scaring the bullies who had made his school career so miserable. 

Excuse me?! I damn well hope you’re asking Merula this same question, Pumpkin Johnny -- oh -- oh, wait, though, you don’t have to -- because if you actually dare to hold Merula accountable for her actions and tell Dumbledore what she did regardless of what punishment you might get assigned yourself, this is how she reacts!!

Once again, Jam City refuses to let Merula learn a bloody lesson or accept some bloody consequences for her actions, ADS;FHIUGWISG;GNUQGVIQ

I will at least give credit that Merula didn’t shatter Hagrid’s pumpkins (which definitely influenced Carewyn’s decision to turn her in -- you do NOT destroy other people’s property, especially property belonging to Carewyn’s friends, did you learn nothing from last time, Ismelda?), but she still basically took advantage of other people’s misfortune and fear just to try to “get one over” on people who had done absolutely nothing to deserve it. And her actions ended up scaring not just the original targets of her bullying, but the rest of the students and even the teachers. So yeah -- again -- I don’t feel any regret whatsoever for Carewyn not “cutting a deal” with someone who objectively did something mean-spirited and wrong and didn’t even feel the least bit sorry for it.

The only way to stop bullying is to stand up to it. If Merula decides to take vengeance out on us, then she’ll meet even more consequences, which will be just as much her own fault as this is. And then, yeah, it’ll be crystal clear she didn’t learn the true lesson of Pumpkin Johnny -- that bullying is wrong, and the memory of the people you hurt can come back to haunt you for the wrongs you’ve committed against them.

[thesherrinfordfacility]

im so sorry for the unrelated ramble, but it's actually so helpful for me to type this out, it helps with understanding what my own theories even are when i write other stuff... so thank you!!! please do keep rambling unrelatedly; it's really enjoyable to read. (i say while simultaneously being worried my own rambles are too unrelated/ramble-y or that i'm somehow violating tumblr etiquette by sending such long anon asks. *sighs*)

inspiration did not vibe with me for it BUT another is in the works and is actually shaping up to be a Slap so stay tuned!!! it is a slap :)

personally, i don't believe that that would remove any agency from metatron (same as aziraphale who, for all of his questionable decisions, to my mind hasn't lacked agency) the thing with aziraphale is that he makes decisions - their questionableness aside - based on what he personally believes is right. that's influenced by how he interprets the great/ineffable plan but in the end his own morals win through regardless of how much he might later worry. whereas the metatron is acting fully in accordance with what he thinks the plan is so to allow a bit more room for free will i think he needs to have the end goal set by the plan but use his own judgement how that should be accomplished rather than having a full list of instructions in his head, even if it's imagined. and then his own desires play into that by him using said own judgement to determine that clearly the best way to carry out the plan is by him having absolute power in heaven. like, i'd prefer him to decide that what he did must have been good since he's a) the metatron b) doing it in order to stabilise heaven/bring about armageddon/launch the second coming/etc? not sure i'm articulating this terribly well. and anyway i may just be nitpicking. but that's where i see the difference between him and aziraphale.

would be javert from les misérables. the law is created, in his eyes, to uphold justice (good); when that law is broken, he is compelled to mete out that justice (also good). it's not a perfect analogy perfect maybe not but pretty good. i'd say the metatron's a bit more self serving but since he works for actual god he can also be more deluded about what he's doing. after all. he's a divine instrument. the voice of god. how can anything he does be wrong? if he takes power in the course of carrying out god's plan then that must be part of the plan even if it's not been explicitly written anywhere.

i did some writing around shax a couple of days ago, so in hand with that I'll think on your points a little more, they're excellent ones!!! thanks! meanwhile i'll think about your excellent points about shax and approach connecting the two from the other side. hopefully we might actually meet in the middle and be able to scrap together half a whole clue lol.

i did a little bit of speculation around the BOL and saraqael, especially in relation to the trial scene, a while ago - it's probably in my #book of life and #saraqael meta tags, if you wanted a peruse!!! but the batshit thought essentially was: what saraqael has access to, in that scene, was the BOL, and she operates it on behalf of metatron... and did during the fall, too. i did read it but i'm kinda forgetting the details now so i'll have another look. saraqael is very intriguing and i can't decide whether they're secretly working directly for the metatron or have their own personal secret agenda that's not aligned with heaven - or both. especially if the former were true i don't think it's actually such a batshit thought that they might be the one to operate the book of life? also if we look at the stuff that's happened in canon i'm not sure any of our theories have yet been near unhinged enough. would that mean though that gabriel would have fallen if his punishment had been carried out and that heaven doesn't know how the book works, that the book is multipurpose or that the book was used in conjunction with whatever was done to make the fallen fall? tbh i still haven't even figured out whether gabriel lost his memory because he removed it into the fly or whether the fly was just backup and he lost it because saraqael carried out the wipe. *head in hands* i hate the book of life.

i just find them way more interesting and compelling in a character than the good ones!!! very true that. there's a lot more to say about the 'mostly' than the 'good person' part of 'well he's mostly a good person' isn't there? also phew glad that didn't come across wrong.

and just to clarify - it wasn't my mum, unfortunately!!! ack! my bad. oh well then i guess i just hijacked someone else's mum's theory.

hope that's okay!!! it's great! long winded 'scribble pad' rambles make for excellent reading imo.

however, i think that removes, as we've batted back and forth already and in the bit above, a little bit of agency on AWCW's part. i don't think AWCW chose to fall, of course, but i do think that he asked questions/made decisions, and followed through on them/stood by them, that resulted in his becoming a demon, regardless of whether he fell or was pushed yeah you might be right. takes away too much accountability perhaps? i don't think he was precisely at fault, at least not much, but he was responsible in a way he seems to struggle to face. i've discussed why i think he does and i do greatly empathise with him for that but it's still an issue so taking that away might get a bit too. hmm. characterisation retconny?

so i think that's where, personally, i simply do think that he just didn't get any answers at all this. however writing out that bit in my 'what if he fought for heaven' speculation has made me wonder if that might not also apply for the questions. if they felt so threatened by the questioning that he had to fall for it would he really be allowed to remember what it was he asked? seems like leaving a loose end lying around to me and i don't see heaven doing that. he might not have gotten any answers but if they let him keep the questions there's no guarantee he won't eventually deduce the approximate shape of the answer - looking where the furniture isn't - from whatever knowledge he does have, whatever knowledge he doesn't plus the metatron's/archangels' reaction(s) back when he first started asking. i think the questions alone without any answers could still be more than risky enough to warrant wiping them from his mind. just in case.

because the idea that he could have been scapegoated by his own 'friends' still stands, imo yeah that's pretty much compatible with any theory. also an extremely painful thought. (*points again at that one liked by neil post about what happened to make crowley stop being friends with the other fallen to make it even worse*) as i've said before i feel like something like this could very well be why crowley feels the need to externalise all blame and responsibility for his own fall. because if he's being blamed for inciting the rebellion - it'd hurt more if his supposed friends did it but the concept still applies if it was heaven doing the scapegoating, in my mind - he's not just responsible for everyone else's fall too but for the very concept and existence of hell. yowch.

well, what if that was what was meant to happen to crowley??? same as muriel (we speculate), and same as gabriel, he was initially intended to fall but to a lower rank, with no memories, and instead he legged it? like gabriel did? immediately i can think of multiple reasons as to why i don't think this was the case, but... still interesting to think about. agreed that i don't think this happened: for one why would legging it lead to crowley becoming a demon? that being said also agreed that it's very interesting indeed. if we assume that this was always something heaven could do and not a new development then they would have had that option available to them for dealing with crowley and for some reason decided against it. why?

but let me begin with, pure hypothesis, a rough sequence of events re: the fall: my personal hypothesis would include that i don't think awcw fought - which makes me wonder whether he might have been doing something else relevant during the time - and that somewhere in the questions that led to him getting swept along by lucifer's gang were one or two that would have led to problems had they been answered that caused the metatron to single him out. beyond those expansions i wholeheartedly agree with what you've laid out. exact events of course subject to change depending on the practical aspects of falling but that doesn't really affect things much.

lucifer implicates AWCW for leading him astray, that he was the one asking questions, and now lucifer has been corrupted or something, idk, but metatron decides all of them need to go - and yet perhaps a particularly harsh punishment is in fact due for AWCW hmmm. so my first thought when i started going through your scapgoat tag was that it was heaven blaming crowley/making him blame himself. then you came and said it was the other rebels who were doing the blaming. so now i'm wondering whether it might not have been a joint effort? heaven and (not quite yet) hell collaborating to (attempt to) ruin someone's life would be very in keeping with the show after all. the rebels try to exonerate themselves by pinning the blame on awcw. the metatron needed to do something about him and his 'damn fool questions' with which he was endangering heaven anyway. this is not just the perfect excuse to eliminate him as a threat and the perfect way to ensure he won't realise what really happened. making him bear the weight of all of this is also an excellent way to punish him for going looking for answers the metatron doesn't want him to have. so when the rebels start trying to exonerate themselves the metatron jumps on the opportunity and it becomes an unoffical collaboration to assign to him and make him believe this narrative. maybe his questioning did kickstart it - but having now thought about it longer i'm not so sure it did. from what he says it sounds to me more like lucifer and co approached him when they had already gotten started likely because they knew about his questioning and so he'd go along with their cause - but i'm not sure it really matters anyway. even if he had been the first to question the war still wouldn't really be his doing and i don't think that's the primary motivation behind the metatron's or lucifer and co's behaviour towards him (if all this is actually what happened) and besides. what actually happened is, i would say, less important than what he believes to have happened. hence 'assigning' the narrative. it's not actually all his fault but between the memory wipe and what everyone else is suddenly claiming he ends up thinking that - due to a joint effort to blame/incriminate him from both of the sides.

so yeah, actually, perhaps it is only crowley that doesnt fully remember heaven? that was his own personal punishment, to not remember parts of his time in heaven/the fall? well i think it's pretty obvious by now that i favour this theory lol. i get major 'this is personal' vibes from the metatron towards crowley in the final fifteen which leads me to believe awcw was somehow for some reason singled out by him. so it would make sense to me if he was also singled out in terms of having his memory wiped especially since we don't seem to get any indicators that other demons can't remember. i think it might be as much a security measure as a punishment. both in terms of erasing whatever he was asking that was coming too close to some secret or other and in terms of hopefully he'll be burned so badly he won't question things ever again and heaven's/metatron's secrets are safe. (aside: and as a punishment it's truly horrifying if you think about it. especially since - going from the whole 'i know' conversation with gabriel - he knows that stuff was taken from him and he's hurt himself in the process of remembering and he knows he's still missing things but he doesn't know how much he's missing or how significant those things might be.) hang on. the line that just keeps on giving: if it happens twice it's an institutional problem. there can only be one demon who warranted extra punishment and/or extra precautions because otherwise there's a deeper issue which there isn't? (you know after all this there better be some kind of twist or backstory to the fall. can you imagine if we'd spent all this time theorising only for it to turn out that there was in fact nothing more to it? i'd be so frustrated lol.)

the thing is... in leviticus, there were two goats - sacrificial goat, and the scapegoat. so this is where, i - in equal conviction which is, to say, shaky at best - also personally hold the thought that AWCW might never have been the scapegoat, and instead aziraphale* potentially was - leaving AWCW to be the sacrificial. on the one hand yes on the other hand not really sure how that would work. like i can follow the allegory but i'm not sure how that would map onto the story? i am very fond of the idea of juxtaposing aziraphale and crowley - wait a moment. absolutely wild thought bear with me. so if we go with awcw fought for heaven for a moment again, what if aziraphale fought for hell but then he doesn't fall and instead awcw does? do i think this has any chance of having been what happened? no. do i know where i'm going with this? certainly not. did i need to have said it regardless? yes.

and the fact he wears his on his opposite hand to the others, and constantly covers it, feels very indicative of some unseen backstory sign me up for mysterious unseen backstories! but archangel aziraphale really doesn't sit right with me. i'm sure i could go looking for proper points to make if you want but it just feels wrong to me somehow.

it also feels that him being on earth is an ostracism, a roundabout punishment by way of being cast out but not falling... possible. the higher-ranked angels, the ones who'd be assigning posts, don't seem to think much of earth. (neither do the demons for that matter. although that's neither here nor there for this particular point it might be of interest to be examined separately on a different occasion.) i'd probably have said it was the other way around though: the ostracism came as a consequence of his time on earth and the morals and behaviours he developed there - the former causing him to withdraw from the other angels and the latter leading to the other angels shunning/looking down on him - as well as the inherent isolation of the post in a system that seems to be geared towards isolating its angel from each other already anyway.

so what other reason could it have been? well, the only plausible reason i can think of is that it's because he didn't smite crawley when given the opportunity on the wall hmm. maybe the whole not smiting bit orrrrrr he did say he was 'technically on apple tree duty'. maybe we just need to bend scripture a bit so that he was meant to be guarding the tree after all? if he gave away his sword immediately upon arrival how would crowley have seen it? but now that you mention it that's actually a very good question because it wasn't the sword.

others have debated whether or not it was aziraphale telling AWCW about the stars that led to AWCW's fall, and perhaps in point of fact it was... this to me is a character note and not a plot one. no one else would have known and awcw would have ended up asking questions eventually anyway so it has next to no bearing on the sequence of events. characterisation though. how likely is it that aziraphale still feels guilty for the role he sees himself as having played in crowley's fall? because that could inform quite strongly indeed on what we see in modern times.

i realise how ridiculous it all sounds i don't think it does though? the allegorical/metaphorical principles of the idea seem solid if you ask me. just need to find a way to translate it into the narrative.

a final remark: i saw a gifset this morning pointing out all the times crowley addresses or calls on god. it seems an unusual thing for a demon to do and i thought it was just a characterisation thing. but being reminded of it while i was working on fall theories has got me thinking: what if this does somehow connect to the circumstances of his fall? i don't know how and it didn't really fit into any of the rest of this analysis but it's a thought and one that wasn't really letting me go so here it is. maybe you'll be able to do more with it. 🦭

🦭 anon my darling, hello again!!!💕 not at all bothered by long asks, me - i do sometimes however have to find the right mood to be able to respond to them, so once again im sorry for how long it's taken me to get to this!!!✨

i think aziraphale makes decisions does sometimes come down to more than morality - on occasion, it seems to also come down to pragmatism, logic, and a little bit of 'all other options have failed' mentality. case in point for me is the antichrist; he is obviously against killing the child, doesn't want to do it, and tries to exhaust all other avenues before attempting to go through with it. crowley pressures him at the airfield, and because aziraphale's tried every other option he can think of, including trying to reach the almighty directly, i think this is where he succumbs to this being the last resort as he sees it. madame tracy comes in with her moral absolute - you can't just shoot children - and that's what stops the deed dead in its tracks... not aziraphale's sense of right and wrong. he eve initially n hesitates, "perhaps we should wait?", but crowley pushes, and his hand is essentially forced - he, at this point, doesn't see another option. nonetheless, it was his choice to do so, a choice he still will have had a moral stance on, and the potential consequences of which he has/would have had to sit with. yes, he was obviously under extraordinary pressure, but that doesn't necessarily absolve him of accountability.

this is where i wonder where the metatron's rationale will differ; does he have a developed moral identity, so to speak? or, because he is the voice of god (believing as the source of all good), and presumably knows no different, does he think that everything he does is good? he says he's ingested things in his time - suggesting he's been on earth - but has he been on earth long enough to have the same moral comprehension that aziraphale and crowley do? arguably, i think not. that being said, it doesn't mean that he doesnt have free will; more that his free will is to carry out what he considers to be the good, right thing - even if from crowley and aziraphale's, as well as the audience's, perspective, his deeds are considered morally wrong. he doesn't lack agency, but his agency - and moral identity - is, to my mind, woefully misinformed.

a key aspect of the metatron's personality, for me, is summed up in how he addresses muriel, calling them "dim". how far does he actually realise that this is - in fact - a horrible thing to say? how much are angels actually meant to feel - and therefore is there any concept that hurting someone's feelings is wrong? does he think that he's just being factual, because muriel presents as ingenuous and naive, and metatron considers that synonymous with a lack of intelligence? let me be clear - im not condoning this at all, but merely entertaining the possibility that being sequestered in heaven, with no exposure to humanity or moral complexity, leads you to believe that whatever variables you've been exposed to forms your entire sense of self, of thinking, and thereby forms an unconsciously biased moral code. you still act according to that code - exhibiting your agency (ie. metatron is not being controlled or heavily manipulated by someone else) - but who has been around to teach him a different way? god, by all accounts, certainly hasnt.

(this makes me sound like a metatron apologist which... yikes. but also - if the above is the 'correct' way to think about it... maybe? idk)

moving onto the BOL, and saraqael. so, i think the concept of falling might have been... reimagined since The fall. if we follow the theory i laid out in that post, and the ones that followed (here and here) (for anyone else that wants to read them!), saraqael has been operating it, and was set to make gabriel 'fall' by wiping his memory and demoting him to - what we could surmise - is a bottom-of-the-barrel rank. saraqael seems to have a fondness, or at least a more meaningful connection than we're led to believe - with muriel, which makes me think that saraqael might have been following the metatron's orders, but protecting those that 'fall' within her chain of command. maybe they even suggested it to the metatron, citing that losing more angels to hell is strategically ill-advised (especially if they're powerful or influential ones like gabriel). and they seem to have kept an eye on crowley, which makes me wonder how much they may have come to regret their part in the fall; again, development of moral complexity/identity. im fairly certain though that gabriel thwarted the process by transferring his memory into the fly; saraqael couldn't find him in 'the system', which makes me think that he essentially erased himself from the BOL, and therefore saraqael/metatron couldnt erase him themselves. so, not quite falling, and certainly not to hell, but inadvertently exploiting the loophole. BOL is one of my favourite mysteries in s2, i love it!!!💕

re: crowley, asking questions, and memory. now that i think on it more... idk if its about the question. if we follow that he was asking questions in the pre-fall scene about collaboration and "if i were the one running things", it sounds like AWCW was about to stage a coup, which... hm. i don't think that's the case. but take into consideration his cited associations with lucifer and the guys - that might be where they ended up going wrong. but for AWCW? i think it's the fact that his fall may have been in part because he was, simply put, asking questions. not the question itself, but that his conscience, his psyche, was questioning things generally. that he was developing free will, and essentially may have led others to do the same. he may have asked things like "what is the point?", or "why are we doing this?", but i think it's the fact that he's questioning anything in the first place that is the threat.

and the memory wipe of this makes sense, given how he presents on the wall - still very innocent, naive - because it would prevent him from upsetting the status quo... and yet, on the wall, he's still asking questions. his first thought at "go up there and make some trouble" is to tempt eve to knowledge, to free will. he's so intrinsically representative of free will, of choice (for good or bad), that the two things cannot be separated. so yeah, im now a bit hesitant as to whether it's to do with any specific knowledge crowley acquired, but more that he thought to ask for it in the first place - and got blamed for the whole sorry mess because of this. as for aziraphale prompting it all, with telling AWCW about the stars, completely agree - regardless, it is unlikely to have any major bearing on the plot as it currently stands, but still interesting to think that he may have been the one to directly influence AWCW towards free will - that what he told him, somewhat accidentally, literally birthed a major tenet of crowley's character and purpose in the narrative.

aziraphale and scapegoating: yeah, im with you on this - on reflection, im not convinced that he was scapegoated for anything during the fall. i do think he was involved (insert the ever evolving idea that aziraphale may have been an archangel (which i realise youve noted as not being one you jam with, fair!!!) and was the one to declare the war), but i think where aziraphale is going to come into play re: mirroring AWCW is with the second coming. there was a brilliant ask, from @crowleykinning, that i totally forgot about until recently - and this is where i think aziraphale might be posed as a scapegoat himself. im not sure on how i feel about aziraphale fighting for hell - but i do wonder, and spitballing Once Again here, that he may have tried to smuggle AWCW out of heaven... couldnt bring himself to cut AWCW down, and instead, like, smuggled him down the back stairwell to hell ("sauntered vaguely downwards"). idk - an errant thought, and possibly just one for fanfic. as for your point on the ostracism and punished by being sent to earth - yeah, possibly!!! idk, i guess i just like the poetry of aziraphale making his own vague, downwards saunter himself.

re "apple tree duty": bloody good point, forgot about that line!!!✨ and plus crowley knowing he had a sword to give away - absolutely spot on, another very good point. hmm... further thinking required, but yeah - think im arriving at the same conclusion of scripture not being followed as verbatim. but yeah, still don't think the demotion could have had anything to do with the sword - more likely to do with allowing the serpent in/allowing humanity to fall, and/or not smiting said serpent at first opportunity.

re crowley beseeching to god: i wrote a little silly thing on crowley and faith in god, which to me kind of sums it up, and i think it's one of the main clues that god may not have had anything to do with the fall. why would you pray to a god that did that to you? id personally think that crowley would be more bitter and resentful, but it seems like he still looks to god in moments of struggle, still incites her name when faced with losing aziraphale to heaven. i don't think he ever lost faith in her, despite how he comes across in the job minisode when he was much 'younger', and instead just wants to understand why she let it happen... possibly not realising that he may have been the first to follow her ineffable plan, not realising it at the time (or since)?✨

[tealfruit]

maybe that's what it is...like. there's a lot of different ways to think of "weird". the most general possible interpretation is "not normal" but there's about a million different norms we could be talking about breaking.

one way to think of weirdness is "not conforming or fitting in to societal norms". as in, a gay person in a heteronormative society. a trans person in a cisnormative society. a black person in a white supremacist society. an "other". a freak. that's weird! but it's not hurting anyone, is it? it's not morally wrong to be different from what people think is "normal". a gay person being gay can be Weird, but it hurts nobody. it's nobody else's business.

another way to think of weirdness is "not honoring societally accepted ('normal') social boundaries." as in, asking super invasive personal questions. trying to make decisions for others. being obviously disrespectful, attacking peoples' identities. not every social norm Needs to be upheld all the time, but some absolutely should. yknow the idea of "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all"? or "treat others as you'd want to be treated"? or even just "mind your business"? violating these unofficial but often supported social rules is Weird, and it can hurt people or at least make them uncomfortable.

I'm not a scholar, this is just an idea, but...I think it's possible that the reason conservatives hate being called weird is that they've equated all Weirdness with that second one. if you're not Normal, you are inherently harmful to society. because Normal is Good. I mean, it's Normal for a reason, right? (ignore the fact that Normalcy has been invented and enforced by oppressor classes since time immemorial.) so if you're Weird, it doesn't matter that you're just living your life—your very trans existence is harming children! your blackness is polluting our nice Normal (white) neighborhood! if you so much as hold hands with your gay boyfriend in front of me, you are Shoving Your Weird Homosexual Lifestyle Down My Throat On Purpose, To Harm Me. you're WEIRD and that's BAD.

but now we turn around on them. yeah, we're weird. that's fine. I mean, we're just chilling in a society that isn't built for us. there's nothing we could do to Not be "weird", it's baked into our identity, so we embrace it. but the conservatives? they won't stop yelling about us Weird people, who are just living their lives. they're like, OBSESSED with us. it's weird!! they're being invasive and disrespectful and hurting people who haven't done anything to them—thats WEIRD!! THEY ARE WEIRD FOR THAT!!!

it's much like the idea of eliminating Nazis—marginalized people can't change their identities, we just are that all the time. but the Nazi can stop being a Nazi anytime. these people could choose to stop being weird about this stuff whenever they want. but they persist, and then get mad when we call them on it. there's no other way to put it—it's really weird!