#basically it’s were analysis and nuance go to die

[rotating-hyperfixations]

I believe that if you have been active on the Glee subreddit in the last 5-10 years, particularly in the pandemic era, you deserve financial compensation, a Medal of Honor, literally anything for being in the trenches on that thread. Every time I log on to check and see what’s up, they are literally posting the most rancid takes and excusing homophobia or racism or both. It was truly were nuance and analysis would go to die, especially for characters like Santana and Quinn who didn’t fit into the nice near boxes of the show.

If your a fellow deserter/former member, you have my upmost respect

[secretmellowblog]

I hope tumblr doesn’t die because No other social media site is as good for long, thoughtful, nuanced analyses of media. Yeah tumblr is also full of dumb shallow hot takes and shitposts, but you can make dumb shallow hot takes and shitposts anywhere —-there are no other popular social media sites that let you easily format and share long essays on the media you enjoy, and then have conversations around those long essays.

Fandom on all the other big social websites just seems so utterly …shallow. And it’s not because people on other websites aren’t thoughtful or don’t have deep things to say, but because these sites’ formats do not allow for any kind of long nuanced conversations.

Tiktok? Things have to be crammed into a super short video with an attention grabbing headline, and you can’t hyperlink sources. Instagram? Everything has to be in an image format with strict limits on length, and nothing will be shown to your followers anyway because of how Instagram’s algorithm works, and also no hyperlinks. Twitter? Strict character limits, and if you split it into threads it means someone can retweet a part of your essay completely out of context, and also very little freedom with formatting.

It frustrates me so much. If I go into the Tumblr Les Mis fandom I’ll find really compelling long essays on the original novel (including essays being written for the ongoing book club) on the story’s historical context, or the parallels between different characters and their narrative foils, or the way the politics were defanged for certain adaptations, or the way Victor Hugo’s personal life and failings affected the novel. But on tiktok I’ll get the same five shallow stale jokes from 2013 over and over, or maybe the same “DID U KNO THAT IN THE MUSICAL JAVERT AND VALJEAN SING THE SAME LEITMOTIF” style of basic Intro To Les Mis 101 For Babies media analysis (which is what Tiktok considers deep media analysis), or stale “LOL JAVERT ACTS GAY” style jokes as if we’re living in the early 2000s and calling a character gay is still a funny punchline. And it’s impossible to have any kind of deeper thoughtful discussions than “DID U KNOW <x Kool Fact>” or “lol <shallow observational joke>” on tiktok because the platform just isn’t built for building niche communities around in depth conversations. it’s built to churn out bland generic content for as wide an audience as possible, which means pointing out a small detail like an Easter egg and calling it “cool” is deep media analysis, because you cant have longer more in depth conversations without alienating people. And I hate it. Bc like, it’s not because there aren’t smart clever thoughtful people on Tiktok— there are—it’s because Tiktok isn’t built for these conversations, and anyone who wants to have them has to really fight against the things the website encourages or prioritizes!

Or like, if I go into the LOTR fandom on Tumblr, I’ll find tons of extremely long analysis and fanfic, and analysis of queer readings of the story. On Instagram people will still shriek in terror if you suggest the characters are gay, and most of the popular lotr posts are stale memes recycled from like 2007. There’s really no room for thoughtful media analysis, and even if you did create it, instagram’s algorithm would make sure no one saw your post anyway.

And everyone’s going to say “the algorithm shows you what you’ve seen before so maybe it’s your fault ~” or whatever but i do look for things I want! I do! “The algorithm” doesn’t know me or what I want or value or care about beyond this meaningless surface level.

The only thing that was worthwhile about these sites was the great visual art people were creating, but now the websites are overwhelmed with meaningless soulless machine-generated AI glurge, and it sucks. It just really, really sucks.

I’m honestly confused about why people don’t use tumblr….There’s no character limits! You have freedom with post formatting, and can insert images throughout textposts to illustrate specific points you’re making beneath the paragraphs where they’re necessary! You can add hyperlinks, linking to your sources! People can reblog your entire essay and share it, and then add on with commentary that then becomes part of a larger conversation! People can find your stuff through the tagging system! Reblogging means posts stay in circulation for years instead of being dead 30 minutes after they’re uploaded! If you want to have genuinely interesting text conversations about a piece of media, there really isn’t a better social media website for it anywhere.

To be clear, I’m definitely not saying Tumblr media analysis is *always* clever and thoughtful or etc etc. there are shitposts and nonsense here too (plenty of which I’ve created lol.) I’m saying that Tumblr gives people the tools for in-depth insightful analysis to happen. Whether people choose to do it or not is their own decision XD. But the reason lengthy in-depth conversations and book clubs are even possible here is because Tumblr is built for allowing these conversations to happen, in a way other sites simply aren’t.

It’d really suck if it died, because it’d be a huge blow to…being able to easily find long insightful in-depth media analysis written by fans. I currently don’t think there’s anything that could replace it.

[projectmoonlightproductions]

I saw ur post/ask about epic-legend privilege and common-rare hate and let me tell you the pain is REAL. ESPECIALLY with the ancients specifically getting away with so much bullshit over the years. Some of the kingdom fandom is super dope and some of it is more toxic than Chernobyl

my specific gripe with *that* part of the community around kingdom is just… how much of the nuance of the stories are erased and ignored when you give someone who failed English class an iPad. I don’t like being one of those “I’m smarter than you and ur headcanons are stupid” ppl (from first hand experience they are horrible to deal with good god I’m never logging in to fandom.com again), but the lack of media literacy has produced some dog water takes about the stories of the legends + ancients especially. And I’m emphasizing legends too, cuz OvenBreak community is much less guilty of this in my experience but we gave Sea Fairy’s flaws a pass for YEARS and I’ve only ever seen it called into question when I got back into cookie run late 2023. And the post was from April this year we were tripping for a long time 💀

but yeah anyways! The god cookies have pulled some dodgy shit since launch and I’ve rarely seen it explored within fan works or as part of a character analysis.

Take what you were saying about Pure Vanilla and his involvement of Gingerbrave in the BeastYeast plot line for example. How fucked up is that? Pure vanilla is 1. A grown ass man, 2. Fully recovered from the injuries from whatever story mode shit he was in at this point, and 3. A LITERAL GOD? And guess who he brings to solve his problems. 3 RANDOM ASS KIDS

dude wizard and strawberry didn’t 100% have to go (but let’s be real they’ve been so conditioned to do this quest crap that they’d probably choose to go anyway) but brave? They’re a HEAVILY disordered kid who has endured such fundamental developmental trauma (Almost no one talks about the oven and witch when relating to brave btw and it’s insane but that’s for another day) that it’s morphed into him basing their whole identity on 1. Being brave, and 2. Helping people. Even if pure vanilla didn’t sense anything off with the kid’s debilitating dependency on being brave and Not Being Alone and eagerness to fight and kill and die for people she’s known for barely a minute, you’d think the *adult* man could at LEAST say “hm. This is a dangerous god mission. I shouldn’t bring these kids with me.” There is much more I can say but I think u get the general jist.

PV is not a saint. Him, along with every other ancient, is a cookie with both immense power and important flaws who makes mistakes. While everyone has flaws and everyone makes mistakes, these guys have had more time to grow and power over their lives than almost all other characters in this setting ever will, and the sheer weight of some of these, dare I say, juvenile mistakes have had devastating consequences on families, friends, kingdoms, and even the cookie species as a whole. With great power comes great responsibility, but the ancients have been living life as if no one paid the electric bill, when in reality, they’re running the city’s generators.

YES THANK YOU

Especially the part with Sea Fairy because her obsession with Moonlight literally keeps putting the world at risk

Also if an epic cookie has too simple of a design or a basic story they’re forgotten immediately. Like Lime, Sandwich, Macaron, or Salt.

[klysanderelias]

I think the thing I hate about this fucking show is that it was basically tailor-made for 13 year old me, and I mean that perjoratively against the show and not myself.

It was made for a kid who could encyclopedically recite trivia that no one else remembers (such as the name of the star destroyer thrawn used a flagship, and the name of his noghri slave [which both come up in this episode]) and who read every book and wrote fanfic in his head and for whom the good guys looked like agent kallus and the bad guys looked like saw guerrera.

And that's really the problem, right? Because that's what I saw, on every TV show and every movie and the cover of every book. The good guys were white, attractive, generally male, people of my culture. And the bad guys were often aliens, depicted with sloping foreheads and big noses or enormous rotund forms like bloated slugs (literally in the case of jabba the hutt).

And I'm watching this show made for 13 year olds like me, and I'm seeing the way they treat every non-white or alien character. I'm seeing the way that Azmorigan is a slobbering fat man who buys slaves and is willing to kill and die for treasure. I'm seeing the way that Hondo Ohnaka is a backstabbing untrustworthy man with a heavy accent that COULD be some version of caribbean but DEFINITELY has a distinctly japanese name. I'm seeing the way that Sabine Wren's family is vaguely japanese and obsessed with family honor to the point of siding with the evil fascists until the brave white man(dalorian) arrives to help change their mind. I'm seeing the way that the man who lost his entire species to genocide actually DIDN'T and he even forgives the guy who did it because actually the guy who did it actually DIDN'T and even if he did he felt bad about it and besides he once saw another guy of that species do something bad once so it all evens out.

I'm seeing the way the first black character on screen is lando calrissian up to his old tricks, scamming and double-crossing the team while flirting tremendously with the women. I'm seeing the way that the SECOND black character on screen gets killed immediately in order to prove that the stakes are real. I'm seeing the way that the THIRD black character on screen is Saw Guerrera, positioned as an recalcitrant terrorist prone to violence and willing to commit genocide in order to get what he wants, until the good (white) guys talk him down and they part on uneasy terms.

And I'm like, yeah.

No wonder I was like that. No wonder so many other kids were, ARE, like that.

Because some dumb motherfucker who was that kid too is highly placed in a writing room going 'damn this agent kallus guy feels like such a cool dude. No idea why. We should make him the good guy. That just feels right, right everyone?'

'Damn this kylo ren guy feels like such a cool dude. No idea why...'

'Damn this finn guy just isn't working for me. He's too nice. He's too much of a mary sue. What if we made him a complicated, nuanced character by making him a side character with a minor plot arc, so we can bring in this kylo ren guy...'

I'm just so tired. I don't think there's a world where I get to escape this. I wish I could take a pill to turn off all my higher level brain functions to get through the fucking week.

And really the problem is I just need to balance it out. I need to watch tv that isn't made by white fanboys who've never had to interrogate their deeply-held biases. I need to read books and watch movies that are actually good.

But the problem I'm having is that it's nearly impossible for me to keep up with something that I can't talk to anyone else about. I can watch rebels because there's a podcast dissecting it in minutiae the same way I do. There's no one I can do that with for gundam (there IS a podcast but it's one of those '1 hour analysis - look inside - summary' deals).

[ceilidhtransing]

I see a lot of very well-meaning people warning others off various ideas because “that's how fascism starts” and while they're generally coming from a sensible and sympathetic place, when it comes to an analysis and understanding of fascism, it's sadly just incorrect.

“Taking away people's free speech is how fascism starts!” “Deciding your enemies aren't human is the first step of fascism!” “Removing the ability to protest against the government is how fascism begins!”

I want to be very specific here because all of these things - clamping down on people's expression, dehumanising your enemies, restricting the freedom to protest - are all bad. It's good to point out that they are bad! And they are indeed all things that are frequently seen in fascist regimes. But in terms of being “how fascism starts”? Sorry, no.

Fascism is important to understand because of how much of a threat it poses, and one of the things that's so vital to get about it is that it is an actual ideology. It has an underpinning of beliefs. Horrible beliefs; patently irrational beliefs; shifting, amorphous, internally contradictory beliefs; but beliefs nonetheless. And a lot of the things that people call “the first step of fascism” or whatever follow from those beliefs, not the other way around. Fascism is not just the sum of all the horrible consequences of fascism; fascism is the starting point from which those consequences flow. You're not a fascist because you, I don't know, send thugs to beat up anti-racist organisers or something; you send thugs to beat up anti-racist organisers because you're a fascist.

That's the thing I think people don't grasp sometimes: a lot of the things that are really horrible about fascist regimes proceed as the fairly “logical” (within a fascist mindset) conclusions from existing fascist beliefs. You don't start with “taking away people's freedom of speech” or whatever and then somehow reverse-engineer a complex ideology of racial superiority, eugenics, extreme conservatism and hardcore totalitarianism; you take away people's freedom of speech because, well, if you were someone who believed all that stuff, you obviously feel totally justified in using the violence of the state to clamp down on “unpatriotic defeatists” and “race traitors” and the like.

[There is some element of nuance here in that there are people who gladly throw their weight behind fascism not because they're committed to the ideology but because, on a far more basic level, they just want their enemies to shut up, they just want to be able to feel superior, they just want to enact cruelty against minorities they hate - they basically are just in it for the authoritarianism. On the level of the individual, especially when it comes to such a hate-filled and hate-fuelled ideology, it can be very difficult to distinguish between “hate that springs from an ideology” and “an ideology that you use to justify and channel pre-existing hate”, and often it's a bit of both. It's also true, though this is less related to the precise point I'm making in this post, that once a fascist state has established itself, a fair chunk of the people who enact atrocities will be people who could honestly kinda take or leave the ideology but who, for any of a huge variety of reasons, conform to the expectations of the totalitarian state. But I find that analysis of these two groups - people who gleefully support fascism as an outlet for a far less ideological desire to feel “on top” and enact cruelty against those they feel deserve it, and people who aren't all that ideologically motivated but who go along with the crimes anyway - becomes a lot more relevant when we're talking about already entrenched fascist regimes. With some exceptions, they're largely the result of a fascist movement already having gained a fair amount of power and prominence. These aren't your day-one, committed-to-the-cause, ride-or-die fascists who are the movement's early momentum and driving force; they're your year-one, great-now-i-can-be-violent-with-impunity fascists, your year-two, i-guess-there's-something-in-it-for-me fascists and your year-three, it's-not-worth-resisting-so-i-may-as-well-go-along fascists.]

A lot of well-meaning and politically reasonable people often seem to fail to grasp that fascism isn't just a generic Evil Force that wants to do generic Bad Authoritarian Things for the sake of it. It's not a means that you can take and apply in the interests of any cause; it has very distinct ends in mind. You don't hit level 5 in “restricting free speech”, level 7 in “suppressing dissent”, and level 10 in “hating your enemies” and boom now you've gained the Fascist achievement. Fascists have an ideology and they have things they want to achieve and the things they do are geared towards achieving those things. I feel like there's a reluctance a lot of the time to acknowledge that they have an ideology, and instead a desire to call it “just hate” or whatever, because yeah, it is a deeply hateful ideology and I think some people feel that to call it an ideology gives it a respect it doesn't deserve; it makes it seem like an idea we should take seriously. And obviously we shouldn't - it's a totally nuts and extremely dangerous ideology - but understanding it is nowhere near sympathising with it or promoting it.

Saying that xyz bad thing “is exactly how fascism starts” not only gets fascism completely backwards, it also dilutes antifascism more generally by being way too broad in how we define fascism. Restricting free speech, taking away the right to protest, dehumanising your enemies etc are all things that can and do exist outside a fascist context - not every authoritarian government is fascist; not every person who sees their enemies as less than human is or will become a fascist. (And this isn't to say this is any better; it's just that there are ways of being total dogshit that aren't specifically fascism.)

On top of that, it makes it harder for people to recognise fascist beliefs when they don't, on the surface at least, seem to come along with those Bad Authoritarian Things. Fascists don't initially advertise themselves to non-fascists as “we're going to initiate a totalitarian police state in which dissent is crushed and our enemies are in either mass graves or torture prisons!” I mean, one of the most popular dogwhistles of the current far-right is “protect free speech”, by which they mean “protect our ability to spread fascist propaganda and by the way as soon as we have any power we do not intend to protect anyone else's speech”, but obviously they don't say that out loud. Being so focused on Bad Authoritarian Things as “step one of fascism” can mean you miss fascism when it's dressed up in a more presentable way.

And while I don't think I don't have to go into this one in much depth, it's worth pointing out that it also tends to lead to a lot of very dumb “both-sides”ism and false equivalencies, a lot of “but isn't saying you want to crush fascism just as bad as fascism”-type takes. I have seen people reply to social justice posts about dignity and equality for marginalised groups with stuff like “but refusing to listen to people you disagree with is just how fascism starts!” I don't think this requires much explanation. No the hell it isn't. “I don't know how it happened; one day I was telling racist Uncle Jerry to shut up and now three years later I'm an officer in the secret police swearing allegiance to our Supreme Leader!” Yeah, no.

Specificity is valuable and necessary in antifascism. Vague scattergunning about how any statement or action that seems a bit authoritarian or hardline or intolerant is “how fascism starts” betrays an ignorance of fascism and really doesn't help us.

[balillee]

tommy's character gets far too much shit.

hi tumblr. i'm gonna need a few bitches to spread this post everywhere, essentially because i want someone, or just tommy really, to see it. so if you really want, you can screenshot it and post it on twitter, reddit, link it everywhere - go absolutely buck wild. i know he reads the VODS comments a lot, but they're chock full of people just insulting him, his character, his writing and everything about his story in the dream smp simply because they don't understand it and because they refuse to acknowledge his character's perspective (mainly because they only care about the pig). reading that many critical comments on something you've created can only make you feel worse about it eventually, and in light of all the awful techno apologist takes on his character, i wanted to basically just word vomit about how wonderfully crafted c!tommy is, as well as compile some other tumblr posts about his character.

there is a massive fuckin community of people who enjoy the character of tommy, because the character is incredible. i myself have made post after post after post commenting on and analysing tommy's character because i find that there's so much to pick apart. but that enthusiasm for his character only seems to be found on tumblr. reddit and twitter seem to hate his character, the VODS seem to be filled with comments from people who only care about techno's perspective (and treat techno as a reliable narrator, which, is the furthest thing from the truth - that guy lies through his teeth all the time), and the smp wiki is a hellscape of godawful takes and mistruths, not even on just tommy's character.

c!tommy is brilliantly acted and brilliantly written, and almost everything he does is either justifiable or has been rectified or admitted as a mistake. you can clearly make connections as to where he got his conclusions from. you feel what his character experiences, as a member of the audience, vividly.

if you look in the more objective sense, c!tommy, and this is especially in the context of him being the youngest character, is a scapegoat. people claim he's awful and destructive when in reality he's a lot less destructive than most characters on the server. a moment that comes to mind is where he diverts schlatt and quackity's attention from pogtopia by breaking part of the flag in manberg, and then replacing it so as to buy tubbo some time - he literally monologues after it about how he doesn't want to destroy but instead rebuild, and how he feels as if nobody else seems to understand that.

his arc in season two was incredible. it was very character driven, and it gave a spotlight to his motivations. at the start we see him in new l'manberg, and he's enjoying his time there, he's skeptical of his friend's presidency, but his main goal is to get back the discs so that he can stop dream and eliminate that threat. he made one screw up that didn't even matter to george, and he paid for it tenfold, even after dream had spent a while with puffy griefing the server and framing it on tommy - what tommy and ranboo did was convinient. then, in exile, we see c!tommy straight up get abused. he's gaslit and conditioned into being c!dream's friend, and in his brain he teaches himself that those acts of abuse are moments of bonding, and it eventually brings him to the point of wanting to end his own life - he's been torn away from his friends and his support system, and nobody will visit him consistently anymore because they only showed him pity, and all he had left was dream, who had hurt him.

but he doesn't die there, because while he didn't understand the full gravity of it back then like he does now, he recognises that dying isn't an escape, and he can beat dream, even if he doesn't know how. so this is where he goes to techno's place, and here's where the fandom starts to misinterpret the situation wildly.

it's the problem similar to when your parents tell you that they're owed something back because you put a roof over their head, despite that being Not How It Works. techno took tommy in and severely mistreated him emotionally. sure, and i understand this, c!techno is a bad communicator who isn't really that empathetic to anyone who isn't phil or wilbur, but that doesn't excuse the blatant lying to c!tommy's face, the guilt tripping, the friendship buying and the degrading. the day before the festival, tommy finally does something violent in his interrogation of fundy, and only then does techno tell him,,,,

that tommy's not equal to him, that techno doesn't respect him all that much, and that they're not friends.

from techno's perspective, and at the time, this was viewed as a positive development in their relationship. oh, he's starting to warm up to tommy! this friendship could really blossom!

no. from a more objective standpoint, what techno has just said to tommy is : 'i respect you only a little bit more now, because while you're starting to act more like me, you're still annoying and a burden.'

and i haven't even touched on the whole 'erasing the words 'Destroy L'manberg' from techno's to-do list' thing, because that instantly refutes the point of 'techno was upfront with his intentions the whole time' - because he wasn't! he may have said it the first time, but you also know what else he did? he repeatedly told tommy that they'd 'air the details out later' whenever the discs were brought up, and from a tommy viewer's perspective at the time, it was framed as if techno was no longer going to do that.

and i also haven't dared touch the 'i would have fought them all for you', because that's major guilt tripping if ever i've seen it.

so, the day of the festival comes, and here's where c!techno and his apologists completely misread c!tommy's thought process, and why he makes the decision he does.

tommy instantly regrets valuing the discs over tubbo, and it's framed as the culmination of tommy having become all the people he said he would never want to be like. and what does he immediately do? he tells tubbo to give up the disc, and he sides with tubbo. he puts his value in his friends, and, by proxy, l'manberg. and when he betrays techno, he tells him 'i'm sorry'.

from a more objective standpoint, tommy's time with techno is him valuing the discs over almost anything else. so, in leaving techno to be with tubbo again, he is valuing people above the discs. so when, on doomsday, techno says his 'discs aren't people' line, what he doesn't realise is that he himself fueled tommy's valuing of discs above people when attempting to fuel tommy's vengeance against tubbo and l'manberg. techno doesn't realise that he was an unhealthy presence for tommy, and an even worse influence.

what techno also doesn't seem to understand is that tommy never hated tubbo or l'manberg - tommy recognises, now at least, that his exile wasn't a product of tubbo, but a product of dream's manipulation, likely in part because at the time, especially with dream lying about tommy blowing up the community house, tommy was the only one who could see it because he had experienced it firsthand. so when techno sides with dream, it's like kicking tommy in the teeth.

and i want to mention that betraying someone doesn't necessarily make the person who was betrayed good, or in the right, or even justified, because tommy was entirely justified to leave techno. you know who else was betrayed? schlatt. but i don't see many schlatt apologists around angry at quackity for joining the rebellion.

tommy stole the axe of peace? good. it was a moment of tommy defining his self-worth, instead of having it defined by others. gone is the age of c!techno belittling him and deciding how much c!tommy should be respected. NEXT!

here's a moment i wanted to talk about that will forever be funny to me.

'i am a person.'

techno's very famous line from doomsday. techno says to tommy that discs aren't people, and that tommy should value people, despite not understanding that by leaving techno, he did just that. and what does tommy say in return, which has been omitted from every c!tommy-critical analysis, and every animatic?

'yes you are, but so are we.'

an acknowledgement of techno's hurt, to which tommy has already apologised for. a statement that says 'your hurt does not excuse, nor justify, the hurt you have inflicted onto us.' an acknowledgement that tommy has already learnt the lesson techno seems to be trying to 'teach' him. but you can't teach him anything by destroying.

c!tommy has had almost everything he has ever owned or built either taken from him or destroyed. ranboo even points out that the only two things of tommy's left standing are his house and his hotel, and if i'm honest, his house is dissheveled. it's a labyrinth of terror due only to how many times it's been torn apart. l'manberg being blown up didn't teach anyone anything about anarchy, or about valuing people over possessions. logstedshire being blown up didn't teach tommy to be obedient.

i could honestly ramble for ages about how nuanced tommy's character is and how much depth and complexity there is to his character's process and his relationship with others, but more than that, c!tommy is forgiving. he invites almost everyone who hates him to the grand opening of his hotel - if that isn't an indicator that he just wants friends, and not to be treated like the embodiment of evil, then i don't know what is. he holds grudges, but he doesn't really actively hate anyone, other than c!dream. but, we'll let him. c!dream deserves nothing but to be pummeled into the floor.

tommy doesn't spoonfeed his character nuance, and he doesn't really spell it out for his audience. he'll mention things like trauma and triggers in passing, but a lot of analysis on his motivations has to be picked up from what is said in passing or from what can be seen in between the lines.

i'd be here for hours if i were to talk about everything i love about c!tommy, because honestly he's one of my favourite characters, and there are so many angles you can look at his character from in terms of his age, his relationships with others, his motivations, his personality, his character arcs etc etc. so instead of doing that, i'm going to compile some much more specific analysis posts below to skim through because they highlight so many good aspects of his character.

^^ A thread about the 'yes you are, but so are we' line.

^^ About how shit the VODS comments are.

^^ A comment on how c!Tommy is actually pretty peaceful, and is actually less destructive than most characters on the server.

^^ Possibly the best c!Tommy analysis thread I've ever seen in relation to his trauma, which gives multiple perspectives.

^^ About how c!Tommy is treated as a scapegoat, and how, from an objective standpoint, he is no more violent than any other character, it's just that the little violence that is committed is blown far out of proportion.

^^ Tumblr user flypaw being a bad bitch, as per usual.

^^ c!Tommy being incredibly intelligent, and talking about wanting to rebuild and not destroy. A very underrated monologue of his.

^^ Something short about c!Tommy and c!Wilbur's relationship in Pogtopia.

^^ Less about c!Tommy, more a meta on L'Manberg. Really interesting to think about.

^^ A take on Doomsday.

I'll add some more posts in a reblog in the notes, but if anyone's post(s) is on this and they want me to take it off, let me know and I'll do that for you! Feel free to add your own banger c!Tommy takes or ones that you've found.

[psychewritesbs]

Is Megumi done dying to win?

Is Gojo the strongest?

This question came up on Instagram earlier today, and I mentioned that I was starting to feel like Gojo is not as infallible as we might have been led to believe. I added that in a battle between Gojo and a Megumi who has stepped into his potential, my money is on Megumi.

The way I see it, the only CT that can rival a limitless CT, is a CT of endless darkness--like Megumi’s shadow realm. 

Of course, I’m just speculating about Megumi’s shadow realm being one of endless darkness. 

But we do know that Gojo shared with Megumi that the 10 shadows CT has rivaled limitless in the past in chapter 117. Thus implying Megumi has the same potential.

But what struck me were the responses I got from others who still see Megumi as not having grown at all:

“Honestly same but Megumi doesn't even hesitate to throw his life away. It'll probably take him a lot of time to surpass Gojo (that is, if he doesn't kill himself).”

This type of comment about Megumi is not uncommon even though in chapter 109 Megumi literally tells us “even if I risk my life, I don’t plan on throwing it away”.

So all I can think is that people who think Megumi is still throwing his life away have either not read the Shibuya Arc or missed the nuances.

Meaning... during the Yasohachi bridge ordeal, when Megumi snapped, I wonder if he also realized that if he dies, he’s basically abandoning not just Tsumiki, but also Yuji and Nobara. It’s like the whole experience made him realize he’s more valuable alive than dead.

Gege shows us this new attitude and growth further when Megumi summons Mahoraga to kill Shigemo.

Ironically, Megumi is infamous for trying to summon Mahoraga every time he finds himself in a pinch. Megumi does it one too many times prior to the Shibuya Arc but is always somehow stopped before he goes through with the ritual.

Gojo even tells him that relying on Mahoraga as his trump card is what’s holding him back from getting stronger. Rightfully so.

But Megumi unleashing Mahoraga on Shigemo was actually not an act of desperation like in previous chapters, but rather a deliberate “F*CK YOU, even if I die, I’m going to win”.

Excuse my French.

Let me explain...

Megumi's overkill win over Shigemo

In other words, Megumi, just like he did when he manifested his DE back during the Yasohachi Bridge Arc, risked his life to win instead of dying to win.

By the time Shigemo gets to Megumi and injures him fatally, Megumi had already fought other enemies, he had exhausted his CE by using his DE while battling Dagon (an impressive feat as it is, and we already know it takes a huge toll on his body), AND he was also injured from his battle with Toji.

He was basically at his limit. This time, he really was at a point where he couldn’t run, he couldn’t fight, and he could probably barely defend himself. 

The interesting part is that he hesitates to summon Mahoraga with Toji, who compared to Shigemo is a real beast.

And yet, at the same time, you can tell he’s probably still coming up with ideas of what else he could do instead of summoning Mahoraga.

With Shigemo, on the other hand, he probably realized that his only choice if he wanted to win was to summon Mahoraga.

Because that's just it. In summoning Mahoraga against Shigemo, Megumi was making a statement. Not only was Megumi punishing Shigemo (he doesn’t like bullies, remember?), he was also fighting to win, even if it meant risking his life.

And nothing says “there was no way I would have let you win and now you get to pay the consequences” more than Megumi’s smug smile in the panel below.

To be honest, I’ve always found Megumi unleashing Mahoraga on Shigemo very overkill. He clearly had enough left in him to summon Mahoraga, so I am assuming he could have summoned Kon, or Nue, or Rabbit Escape.

But no. Megumi went for the cruelest, most overkill, most sadistic form of punishing and getting back at Shigemo. 

Mahoraga.

Had Sukuna not intervened, Mahoraga would have had Shigemo with his toast for breakfast.

It would take Megumi a LONG TIME to catch up to Gojo

Or would it?

With the Culling Games around the corner, and with the possible foreshadowing that Sukuna’s plans will make Megumi suffer, I shared how I believe Gege has beat Yuji’s ego to a pulp, but so far Megumi has been spared Gege’s cruelty.

As it’s been stated before, the learning curve of a Jujutsu Sorcerer is not a kind one. It usually takes for a JJS to have their backs against a wall for them to grow exponentially.

Above all, having read chapter 158, I am wondering just how willing Megumi would be to kill others for Tsumiki’s sake, and what that means for his mental health.

Would he come to enjoy it as much as he enjoyed punishing Shigemo?

I guess we’ll find out.

The Jujutsu Kaisen Project

Anyways, thanks so much for nerding out with me. I LOVE reading your comments and chatting about JJK theory, so don’t hesitate to leave a comment!

That being said, in order to write this analysis I just went through 26 JJK manga chapters to find these particular panels of Megumi highlighting his subtle change in perspective regarding relying on his “trump card”. The good news is that this allowed me to start cataloguing the manga chapters like the total organizational nerd that I am.

If, like me, it would help to read a quick synopsis of the chapter so that you can find what you’re looking for more efficiently, then the Jujutsu Kaisen Project might help you. It is a work in progress so just bear with me as I work my way through the manga in search for more juicy foreshadowing and details.

[scarfdyedshadow]

The Unveiling of Ibaraki-Douji’s Character Across FGO (1/2)

I should start with the disclaimer that this isn’t specifically intended to be an analysis of Ibaraki as character, or so to speak an analysis of her narrative arc, character development, and growth over the course of Grand Order. For that, I extremely recommend reading the meta posts of @xenodile​. They are very thoughtful, insightful, and nuanced analyses of her.

This is more or less a consolidation of my thoughts on the reveals made about her character over time, the slow meting out of tidbits about what lies under her surface and what her true basis is. In short, the deciphering of her puzzle. In that regard, this post won’t go into Ibaraki content irrelevant to that, such as the relative low points of her treatment over time.

Ibaraki: “Kuha, kuhahahaha! Woman, woman, woman! Is this the first time you’ve seen something like me? Then engrave it within that body. Cram it in in place of the organs that’ll be devoured by insects after death. Violent like a rampaging beast, terrifying as a god, miserable as an insect! Knowing neither human weakness nor a warriors’ pride, lowly so as to wield one’s rotting arm as a weapon! That is an Oni. One who terrifies humans with all they have, a man-eating demon!”

When we’re first introduced to her in Rashoumon, Ibaraki is an intimidating presence, speaking of the depravity of the oni and how she is the embodiment of it. Right off the bat, there’s something to be said about her being fixated on what an oni is and how she fits the bill, rather than her own individuality.

Ibaraki: “Kuha, kuhahahaha! How nice, how nice!”

Kintoki: “This isn’t nice at all! Your eyes aren’t laughing at all, damn you!”

Ibaraki: “….mu, don’t insult me. I’m not used to laughing. Laughter from the bottom of my heart, huh… I can’t do it like Shuten.”

And only just a bit later, it already becomes clear she’s forcing herself a bit. She’s not used to laughing, to be able to do it fully and genuinely. And again, shortly thereafter, her weakness is called out.

Kintoki: “Can’t you tell? Bah, whatever. Hey General, can you tell her?”

Protagonist: “It’s because you haven’t eaten Shuten.”

Ibaraki: “Y-you human! Don’t say such a cruel thing! Eating Shuten was just a manner of speech! That... like hell I can eat her! I would never injure the Shuten that I respect so much, you fool!”

Kintoki: “See? She’s like that.”

Protagonist: “…a chicken.”

Quite contrary to her initial impression, Ibaraki’s fundamental nature is that of a coward. Certainly she has some capacity for fierceness and fighting, but she doesn’t truly live up to the violent, miserable, and terrifying image she projected at the beginning. And as for why she did that?

IbarakI: [Blushing] “C-can’t help it, this is an Oni’s custom! An Oni must always put on airs! That’s what Mother taught me!”

At this point we learn that the airs she puts on are an ideal she tries to live up to in order to be a proper oni, as taught by her mother. That’s someone that will come up later, but for now we learn from her debut event that Ibaraki feels compelled to hold herself to a particular impression, to appear as a fierce inhuman oni, due to her mother’s teachings.

There’s nothing in particular I want to highlight in her profile and lines, wherein she mostly presents as she does at the beginning of the event, as an imperious and deadly leader of oni. It certainly can be gleaned from her lines though that she puts a particular emphasis on her being an oni as opposed to a human. Throughout her various appearances in this interim period, she continues to insist on being a true and vicious oni while generally in practice being a big dork, though she never truly acknowledges this.

And indeed, throughout all this, her esteemed mother she seems to hold in veneration, perhaps even fear, continues to come up. It’s evident that even if she isn’t physically present, her influence is felt every time Ibaraki pushes herself to be a proper oni, to hold herself to that standard.

And then we get to her mats profile.

Ibaraki isn’t just upholding that image with words and to a mild extent actions, she’s literally pushing her own body to adhere to that particular image. It makes what we’ve known about how she forces herself pale in comparison.

Her personality section, as much as it understates what she went through because this game isn’t the ideal of taking things as seriously as they should be, explicates why she is how she is quite clearly. Her mother of noble birth, devoid of love, literally beat her into the mold of a proper oni. The reason she acts the way she does is because she was forced to every single day act as a proper scion to the oni, assume responsibility as a leader of oni. She was left with no choice but to mutilate her own heart and strive to act as a prideful monster, and she is constantly self-conscious of maintaining that image.

This then would seem to be the final word on how Ibaraki’s character came to be, but there are some additional wrinkles, first alluded to here as well.

Watanabe no Tsuna is a hunter of oni, the man who put an end to her grief stricken rampage and humiliated her by cutting off her arm. It’s only natural that she should hate him and want to kill him. But why then does she feel the conflicting impulse of wanting to talk to him? Why does she feel strong curiosity about him? What is there to be curious about, when he did what any human would do if possible and put a stop to her destructive rampage? Shuten only offers a cryptic answer, and Ibaraki is left with the lingering question.

Dialogue 9 I am an oni from Hell, but from the looks of it, that one's an oni of the present world. I can sense the blood of a high-class god from Shuten Douji, but Ibaraki Douji has a smell similar to mine. ...She must have been a human, originally. (If you have Shuten Douji and Ibaraki Douji)

The sparrow Beni-enma, soon to release in FGO NA, has a line for Ibaraki Douji, and it is a truly absurd place to receive such a major revelation. Ibaraki was not born as an oni, but as a human. It’s a detail that contextualizes why her mother of noble oni stock was so unrelentingly harsh on her, why she was so particular and forceful about making her into a proper oni. Such is doubly necessary to make up for the deficit of having once been human, of being so impure. It contextualizes as well why she didn’t take to that traumatic teaching easily, why she still lapses into a sweets loving coward. Her fundamental nature isn’t quite that of an oni, and that’s why she has to push herself so hard.

But then, how has this not especially come up before? Ibaraki’s basically never alluded to having formerly been a human, something which you would think impossible, even if she has an image she works hard to maintain. Likewise, she seems a certain degree too casual, too unaware, when it comes to what her mother put her through, even if she bears fear and awe.

Of all the places to do it once again, the tail end of Beni-enma’s interlude answers the matter, and once again contextualizes all of Ibaraki as a character prior. She was so thoroughly traumatized, so thoroughly indoctrinated, so thoroughly broken, that she repressed the memories of what she endured. She only remembers it as a distant emotional impression of having to crawl towards an impossible goal, of having to smile even as if she was in agony.

And Shuten maintains that illusion. Ibaraki has always been how she is. She’s never been through anything like that. She’s always been an oni’s oni, the ideal oni everyone wanted, and there’s no need to dwell on anything else.

Ibaraki is able to maintain her current self by burying her trauma deep inside of her, clinging to a reality of a stern but teaching mother that never existed. Of course she’s full of pride. She’s an oni, so she should act like an oni. There’s no need to think about difficult things, or be moved by uncomfortable sentiments.

Of course she doesn’t remember being a human. She had her past torn away from her by what she was forced to become, her memories ripped to shreds by the unsentimental abuse of her so called mother. To acknowledge what came before what she is now would be to undo her entire self.

And Shuten reveals she maintains this lie so that Ibaraki can remain happy. She fears Ibaraki will fall apart if the delusions she clings to are torn away. To simply allow Ibaraki to be carefree and pursue her desires is all she feels she can do.

But why does Tsuna come up? What bearing does he have on Ibaraki’s trauma? He’s nothing more than a sworn enemy that put a stop to her rampage and disgraced her by cutting off her arm. Certainly his presence stirs up some feeling, but it should have no bearing on her past, her pain, what she was and what she forces herself to be. Why does Shuten believe that if Ibaraki were to meet Tsuna, she might break down?

Tale of the Beginning and the End

― And just like that, it was all over. Grisly claw marks, destroyed houses, shattered household belongings. And a single woman nearby, close to the brink of death. I may or may not make it in time. It seems like I was wrong from the start.

I never expected us to come in contact with one another. The last thing I wanted to do was to even look at you. However, as long as you were alive. As long as you were happy. I thought that would be enough. But look, this is the reality.

she's dead / it's your fault she was killed / it's your fault that oni escaped / you must kill her don't avert your gaze / look away i'll carve out those golden locks of hers / you're not done yet decapitate her / kill yourself who should I blame? / no one is to blame

― And just like that, the man ceases his delusional thoughts. Oni are meant to be killed. I will slay her...that's all, nothing else to it. No, think. I have to keep thinking. Even if I die, until I die, even if I become corrupted.

I remember that look in her eyes, like bubbles that floated away and vanished.

Quietly, without a hint of any intense emotion, I stared back at the girl who had fixed her gaze on me. Everyone is a sinner. Oni are sinners, people are sinners, the girl is a sinner, I am a sinner. They are not just sins, but responsibilities as well.

I tightly grasp the hilt of my sword. I have no intention of giving it up to anyone. Having it even be stolen would be absurd. "Slaying that oni, is my duty."

― Tsuna, Tsuna, TSUNAA!

......the oni's claws approach. Something, whatever it is, swells within my trembling heart. I rotate my body, turn my arms, and swing my sword.

The truth of this fight, along with its conclusion, will soon disappear to the passage of time.

No one else can understand, will be able to understand this fight to the death between the two of us.

Watanabe no Tsuna’s profile paints the picture of a man unmoved as he slew countless oni. He is without hatred and without joy. He is akin to a robot.

And yet In his Bond CE this man who is even uncertain he has emotions to begin with, when it comes to Ibaraki, is left questioning everything he is. He is wracked with self loathing, desires even his own death, and condemns himself as a sinner. He berates himself and rages at himself.

He never expected to come into contact with her. The last thing he wanted was to ever see her again. It was enough that she was happy and alive. And yet it had come to this. No one but him can understand the truth of this fight.

The picture is perhaps of having come home to ruination. A doll lays discarded. Why is it that Ibaraki-Douji wishes to talk with a human she has only known as a sworn enemy in a single encounter? Why is that she has such a sheer curiosity about him? Why is it that to meet him again might break down the illusion of what she is? Why is it that the machine of a demon slayer breaks when it comes to encountering her and her alone?

Ibaraki-Douji, despite everything she pushes herself to be, was once human. She had a human family, and a human past. And perhaps that past is not quite as dead as her heart makes it out to be.

[a-shakespearean-in-paris]

I'd love to see your take on Cullen's recovery arc as an alternative analysis! I feel like we're only ever presented with the two options of: "he needs to atone!" Or "he was a victim that needs protection!", neither of which I've ever fully agreed with. I think it's a result of the lack of attention given to his arc in DAI, which leaves a ton of room for interpretation, and results in people swaying towards either camp depending on how sympathetic they are towards him and his history.

I totally agree with this. 

The problem with the way Cullen is presented in DAI is that he’s presented in an unambiguously positive light, and as @tokutenshi pointed out in this post (which I do agree with) if your Hawke was hostile to him you don’t get some of his dialogue about questioning Meredith. Additionally if you side with the mages rather than the templars Cullen has some realizations about the Order that you’re not going to hear. It’s too little too late for a lot of people, though I would also argue with what tokutenshi said, he was severely traumatized after the Blight (if you take a female mage Warden in the tower during the Witch Hunt DLC you will get lines that indicate he is suffering from PTSD, notice the lines about him being “twitchy” and “jumpy”) Personally I think we can find a middle ground between Cullen being a victim of manipulation and indoctrination, someone who suffered after experiencing trauma, and someone who works hard in the moment to do some good, whether we can or should call it “atonement” or not. That being said, he does acknowledge in Inquisition that the war against Corypheus is his chance to atone, and he works overtime to the point where it’s commented upon by several characters including the Inquisitor how hard he works.  

By the time we meet Cullen in Inquisition a couple of years have passed since the chantry’s explosion. This is where I will be critical of the writing because I do think the game should have better established what exactly Cullen was doing in the time in between, though we get bits and clues from dialogue if you pay attention: He served as Kirkwall’s knight Commander after Meredith died, and he and presumably Aveline’s guard worked to basically repair the city, as Rylen says in Griffon Wing Keep that there was a lot of rubble, a lot of people without homes. Cassandra noticed Cullen’s work and recruited him to the Inquisition. (Also, keep in mind that the Inquisition was originally going to help quell the worst excess of the mage and templar fighting, restore order because the chantry lost control. Then the conclave happened, it went boom, and suddenly the Inquisition’s purpose became far greater than anyone would have expected. So Cullen as Cassandra’s choice of Commander makes total sense to me, considering he was a former templar and bringing him in basically acted as a symbol to any wayward templar, letting them know that there could be another way. But I digress on that part, haha.) 

I *think* some people are dissatisfied with Cullen’s “redemption” arc in DAI because we don’t really see him fall on the sword or beat himself up for his past. There’s also no moment where he like, faces a mage he maybe knew in Kirkwall or has to deal with the mages not trusting him. Obviously of course there is nuance there as well as Toku and I mentioned--he wasn’t allowed to heal as much as he should have before being shipped to Meredith. However, here’s an interesting bit of dialogue you can get if you pick the right options after Perseverance if you tell him he doesn’t need lyrium:

Quiz: The man you were. You can’t pretend like he never existed.

Cullen: Not even if I wanted to. But I’m here now. I can make that mean something.

Cullen knows he screwed up. What’s more, he doesn’t want to forget he screwed up. But he lives in the moment to make things right. Blackwall’s arc actually shows him falling on the sword and wanting to atone, versus with Cullen it’s implied he has come to terms with his screw ups off screen. He doesn’t continuously beat himself up, he does what he can for the Inquisition to the point where if the Quiz tells him to go back on lyrium for the better of his soldiers, he does, knowing it just may kill him. There is also limited dialogue that challenges his views which turns some people off, but I know for my Inquisitor she’s very much about the now and what they both can do in the now. I won’t blame anyone who wants to be able to challenge him more, but frankly I find the fact he doesn’t continuously fall on the sword or beat himself up interesting. 

All that being said, I do think of his arc as more of one of recovery versus redemption. And to be frank I’m kind of critical of the term “redemption” and what makes good redemption arcs or not. Someone having a “redemption arc” seems to imply that there’s only one road to the top of the mountain when maybe redemption is something you should always strive for? But as for the “recovery” arc: the chantry, IMO, purposely devoids both mages and templars of a personhood or life outside the order and Circle and treats them as objects. Many templar recruits are children and are basically indoctrinated to believe they serve the Maker and they are needed and that they do the Maker’s will. There’s an interesting bit of dialogue you can get if your character is a warrior and talks to Cullen about the templar spec, basically if the Quiz says “templars serve the Maker, I’d do the same.” Cullen basically replies, “uh, yeah, that’s not going to make you righteous, believe me,” implying this was the way he once indoctrinated to think, but he no longer believes it so. Templars are given lyrium for their abilities, but also to placate them, something Alistair says in DAO. 

After Kirkwall Cullen sees where the Order is going, gets an offer from Cassandra and decides that if he removes the “part that kept [him] chained,” he would find his own purpose again. (He says this is your Quiz makes him take lyrium.) In Inquisition we learn he always wanted to protect people. (Our local mind reader Cole says “some templars want to only protect, like Cullen” if you ask him about templars.) And as a kid living in rural nowhere Ferelden, he saw the templars as protectors. Why I interpret his arc as more about recovery than redemption all has to do with Perseverance and the way you as the player can handle it: You can either let him know he can start over, he can endure and one day find a life of his own away from duty and battle, or you can make him take it and thus let him remain indoctrinated to what the chantry taught him, that there is nothing outside of duty and battle. It comes down between a choice of “you are leashed to what the chantry made you till you die” to “you are more and you can recover and make your own life,” which he does do by Tresspasser, romance or not. At the end of the game if you keep him off lyrium he basically thanks the Inquisitor for giving him a chance, letting him know he could be more. Additionally, a lyrium free Cullen in Tresspasser speaks of meeting his siblings again, developing a relationship. If you make him take it forever he refuses to see them. 

I could also see the arc as one of faith, and finding it again. If you keep him off lyrium the prayer in the chantry he speaks is one of quiet reassurance and finding strength through his faith, but if you make him take it the prayer is “blessed are the peacekeepers” and it’s uttered desperately as if he is trying to believe it. He also mourns how far he fell. All this to say that I find it very interesting his writer focused his personal quest around the lyrium and what lyrium represents rather than say, him meeting a mage who lived in Kirkwall or something and him trying to atone to them.  

When I wrote my post about why Cullen gets so much fandom related wank I got a lot of different responses that echoed the same thing about Cullen’s arc not getting a lot of attention. I think there is a lot of good writing there with his personal quest,  but his writing doesn’t fill in every single gap---not to mention people are going to have vastly different experiences on how they played the games till Inquisition. And my examples of dialogue are things you may not get if you don’t pick the right options. And heck, some people only have played Inquisition. 

So, I think me calling his arc in Inquisition a recovery arc has partially been not me trying to justify why I like him, but analyze a differing way a character who has screwed up in the past is written. Blackwall’s arc is a true redemption arc IMO. Cullen’s isn’t so clear cut as a redemption arc, but at the end of the day it is truly about him finding his own purpose again, which leads me to lean more toward calling it a “recovery arc.”

[davidmann95]

How about those JL storyboards?

In case you haven’t heard, Zack Snyder is putting on display the ‘storyboards’ - i.e. a rough plot summary accompanied by some Jim Lee sketches - for what would have been Justice League 2 and 3, or as this puts it 2 and ‘2A’. You can see them here (I imagine better-quality versions will soon be released), and read a transcript here. This is evidently a very early version: this was apparently pitched prior to the release of BvS and Justice League being rewritten in the wake of it, with numerous plot details that now don’t line up with what we know about the Snyder Cut, plus it outright mentions it builds on the originally planned versions of the Batman and Flash movies. But it’s a broad outline of what was gonna go down, and while I initially thought it was Snyder throwing in the towel, the timing - paired with the ambiguity left by the necessity for changes, including that this doesn’t factor whatever that “massive cliffhanger” at the end of the Cut is - says to me he’s hoping this’ll be a force multiplier behind efforts to will sequel/s into existence. He’s probably right.

I’ll be discussing spoilers below, but in short: with this Zack Snyder has finally lived up to Alan Moore, in that like Twilight of the Superheroes I wouldn’t believe this was real as opposed to a shockingly on-point parody if not for direct, irrefutable evidence.

Doing some rapid-fire bullet points for this baby to kick us off:

* Folks who know the subject say a lot of this is a yet further continuation of Snyder doing Arthuriana fanfic with the League reskinned over those major players, and I’ll take their word for it.

* I don’t know whether I love or hate that in Justice League 2 the Justice League are only an extant thing for the first scene, and then it’s Snyder giving everybody their own mini-movies. It’s compressing the entire MCU “loosely interconnected solo stories leading to a single big movie later” strategy into a single movie!

*  Funniest line in the whole thing: "Even Lantern has heard of the Kryptonian, worried that he's under the control of Darkseid. He heard his spirit was unbreakable." Hal what fuckin' Superman movie did YOU watch? Second funniest being “IT WILL GIVE HIM POWER OVER ALL LIVING LIFE”

* 90% of the plot I have nothing to say about, it’s generic stage-setting crap. That to be clear is the ‘shocked it’s Snyder’ element, it feels so crassly commercial in a way I can’t believe is coming from the BvS guy.

* Most of what I have to say is unsurprisingly gonna be about a handful of characters but Cyborg’s happy ending being “he isn’t visibly disabled anymore!” is not great!

* The Goddess of War battle with Superman...never pays off? No clue why it’s there.

* What I’d originally heard was that the Codex in Superman’s blood was the last key to the Anti-Life Equation and that’s why Darkseid was coming to Earth. It’s not like all of this wouldn’t have already been averted by Kal-El’s pod smacking into an asteroid on the way to Earth so it’s not as if this makes it any more Superman’s fault, and it would have at least tied all this back to the beginning of the movies, but I suppose that was either fake or from a later draft.

* I have NO idea how this was reimagined without the ‘love triangle’, it’s the central character thing and the entire climax flows directly out of it!

* Darkseid’s kinda a chump in this, huh

Anonymous said: So: Does Zack Snyder hate Superman?

Look: the hilarity of this when Cuck Kent has been a go-to Snyder cult insult towards ‘inferior’ takes on Superman for years cannot be understated, yet at the same time I can almost wrap my brain around where Snyder’s coming from with that as the end for his take on the character. He talked in that Variety piece on how his interest in Superman is informed by having adopted children himself, and Deborah Snyder is the stepmother to his kids by previous relationships, so I can see where he’d be coming from, and I can even imagine how he’d see this as ‘rhyming’ in the sense of “the series begins with Kal-El being adopted by Earth, it ends with him adopting a child of Earth!” In the same way as MARTHA, I can envision how he would put these pieces together in his head thematically without registering or caring what the end result would actually look like. In this case, Superman raising the kid of the man who beat the shit out of him who Batman had with Clark’s wife, who earlier told Bruce she was staying with Clark because he ‘needed her’, suggesting if inadvertently that this really honest to god was a “she’s only staying with Superman out of pity, she really loved Batman more” thing.

But Clark is nothing in this. He’s sad and existential because of coming back from the dead I guess, then he’s corrupted, then time’s undone and he woo-rah rallies the collective armies of the world (interesting angle for the ‘anti-military/anti-establishment’ Superman he’s talked up as) as his big heroic moment in the finale, and then he stops being sad because he’s adopting a kid. So his big much-ballyhooed, extremely necessary five-movie character arc towards truly becoming Superman was:

Sad weird kid -> sad weird kid learns he’s an alien, is still weird and sad, maybe he shouldn’t save people because things could go really wrong? -> his dad is so convinced it could go wrong he lets himself die -> ????? -> Clark is saving people anyway -> learns his origin, gets an inspiring speech about being a bridge between worlds and a costume -> becomes superman (not Superman, that’s later) to save the world, albeit a very property-damagey version, rejects his heritage he just learned about and space dad’s bridge idea -> folks hate him being superman and that sucks though at least he’s got a girlfriend now -> things go so wrong he considers not being superman but his ghost dad reminds him shit always goes wrong so he should be good anyway, which sorta feels like it contradicts his previous advice -> immediate renewed goodness is out the window as he’s blackmailed into having to try and kill a dude but the dude happens to coincidentally have some things in common so they don’t kill each other after all -> big monster now but superman keeps supermaning at it because he loves his girlfriend and he dies -> he’s brought back, wears black which apparently means now he likes Krypton again? -> he has work friends now but he’s still sad because he was dead -> evil now! -> wait nevermind time travel -> rallies the troops -> his wife’s having a kid so he’s not sad anymore -> Superman! Who gives way to more Batman.

Do I think Zack Snyder is lying when he says he likes Superman? No. I think he sincerely finds much of the basic conceits and imagery engaging. But I don’t think he meaningfully gives shit about Clark as a character, just a vessel for Big Iconic Beats he wants to hit. Whereas while for instance he’s critical of Batman as an idea (at least up to a point), he’s much more passionately, directly enamored with him as a presence and personality. So while Superman may be the character whose ostensible myth cycle or arc or however it’s spun might be propelling a lot of events here, it’s a distant appreciation - of course the other guy takes over and subsumes him into his own narrative. Of course Batman is the savior, the past and the future (though if he’s supposed to be Batman’s kid raised by Superman there’s no excuse for him not to be Nightwing), the tragic martyr to our potential. Admittedly the implication here is also that Batman can apparently only REALLY with his whole heart be willing to sacrifice his life to save an innocent, for that matter apparently his great love, once said innocent is a receptacle for his Bat-brood, but he and Clark are both already irredeemable pieces of shit by the end of BvS so it’s not like this even registers by comparison.

Anonymous said: That “plan” Snyder had was utter dogshit. Picture proof that DC & WB hate Superman. Also I love how you’re like Jor-El: Every single idealistic take you had about Snyder, his fandom, and BvS was wrong. Snyder’s an edgy hack, his fanbase just wants to jerk off to their edgy self-insert Batgod as he screams FUCK while mowing people down with machine guns, and the idea that BvS said Superman was better than Bats was completely wrong. You know what comes next SuperMann: Either you die or I do.

In the final analysis, beyond that mother of god is there sure no conceivable excuse for the treatment of Lois in this? The temptation is to join that anon and say as I originally tweeted that these were “built entirely to disabuse every single redemptive reading of the previous work and any notion of these movies as nuanced, artistic, self-reflective, or meaningful”.

...

...

...yeah, okay, that’s mostly right. Zack Snyder’s vision really was the vision of an edgelord idiot with bad ideas who was never going to build up to anything that would reframe it all as a sensible whole. He’s a sincere edgelord genuinely trying really hard with his bad ideas who put some of them together quite cleverly! But they’re fucking bad and the endgame was never anything more than ramping up into smashing the action figures together as big as he could, the political overtones and moral sketchiness of BvS while trying to say something in that movie reverberated through the grand scheme of his pentalogy in no way beyond giving his boys a big sad pit to rise out of so when they kicked ass later it’d rule harder, and all the gods among men questions and horror and trappings were only that: trappings. Apparently he’s really pleasant and well-meaning in person, but at his core his art as embodied in a couple weeks in his 4-hour R-rated Justice League movie meant to be seen in black-and-white all comes down to that time he yelled at someone on Twitter that he couldn’t appreciate Snyder’s work because it’s for grown-ups. He made half-clever, occasionally exciting shit cape movies for a bunch of corny pseudo-intellectual douchebags, folks latching onto and justifying blockbusters that at least acknowledge how horrifying the world is right now even if the superheroes are basically useless in the face of it if not outright part of the problem until a convenient alien invasion shows up to justify them, and a handful of non-asshole smart people who vibe with it but...well. ‘Suckered’ is a harsh word, and definitely doesn’t apply to all of them re: what they’ve gotten out of it up to this point and would (somehow) get out of this. But it doesn’t apply to none of them, either.

[mejomonster]

Watching jade palace lock heart is like the polar opposite experience to me of watching eternal love (if y love eternal love just know it’s only my personal taste so like please feel free to ignore)

Just in that. This is the first show I’ve watched including an inner palace of wives (that’s Actually historical esque and not just a random “fantasy past” costume drama setup like Go Princess Go or Oh My General) and my first qing dynasty set drama ever (though Story of Yanxi palace is eventually on my to watch?). And Eternal Love was my first romance xianxia (so my first taste of the general genre outside of bl The Untamed which also had a lot of mystery solving/horror elements).

With Eternal Love? I was let down by the costumes in the sense that after it I’ve seen much nicer hair styling in xianxia (and worse like I love Love and Destiny but the hair designer is so mean ToT). Mostly though I was not a fan of the simplistic approach of: heavenly clan is always right even if they do awful things they must be sided with in the end, demon clan is meant to suffer and die even the ones who try to do good. I was also not a fan of some of the slower paced arcs, and how I felt Bai Qians character sometimes got her own characterization steamrolled for what felt like plot/romance development (a man forces a kiss on her, and it’s painted as romantic, she’s set up to BE the endgame heroine who saves the world after lifetimes of training and instead is kept out of the final fight while her lover fights it etc). Incidentally I felt side characters suffered less from their characterization occasionally getting steamrolled for some forced scene, maybe because they had less focus. And it truly felt like no matter what any demon clan did, they only had one outcome - to suffer. Just for me those story elements are major things that make me like or hate stories, so it was hard for me to like the show overall (I liked fengjius/dijuns part and some of Bai Qians parts when she felt in character). Anyway my point is it did Not leave me with a good impression of romance Xianxia. Then I tried Ashes of Love and Hated how sexist/other ways intolerant the writing quickly became despite a good premise and great actors doing their best and had to give it up fast. So it wasn’t until Love and Destiny that I felt I could watch any romance xianxia - that one has a slow pace, but characters are nuanced and consistent, and even if ultimately I suspect the demon clan will just “be default evil” the writing still goes out of its way to depict their lives and motivations and that they may not all be pure evil or constantly suffer. Likewise, while heavenly clan is favored, there’s some nuance on the part of the protagonist where not everyone in heavenly clan is default assumed correct. So the whole writing overall felt more nuanced which I liked. Then that let me try out Love and Redemption, which is AMAZING and everything I love and VERY mold breaking compared to Eternal Loves simplistic set up. So like. Basically it took a while for me to find romance xianxia I could click with.

This is the opposite?

I am sure if I watched a palace drama with really petty concubines “painted simplistically as evil” like how they are in xianxia mortal lives like the ones fighting Fengjiu in Eternal Love, I’d have auto hated the genre at first glance! I’m sure if I saw one where so many princes were just default evil simplistically, I’d hate the genre! My closest comparison is Goodbye my Princess - where I got my first taste of palace politics and trying to kill each other. And Because the main lead prince is so deeply connected to so many in the palace, and the main lead princess befriends some of tjem, the show managed to make the struggle for power much more nuanced and even if I didn’t like some people I understood why their actions made sense to them. Not pure evil/spite with no character analysis, but the writing showed why the fucked up people made their choices. Which I prefer.

So Jade Palace Lock Heart? The wives do scheme, but we also get little side stories to understand them. For that matter we even get to understand the emperor! We even get to understand some of the maids and servants. The princes all generally were depicted initially as AWFUL. And yet at this point all of them have also showed more compassionate colors at times, so no matter who dies (because some will die) it will impact the watcher. And it means the writing isn’t trying to rely on “making audience hate someone” to justify why they should be killed in the plot (which Eternal Love did a lot). It leaves those questions up to the audience - Crown Prince is cruel but also capable of working hard and repenting, 4th prince is level headed and not necessarily cruel but will Kill anyone if it benefits, Su Yan killed a kid on accident while trying to kill a prince but also doesn’t want to kill again for her lover, the concubine Xi is brutal but she has no family and wants to ensure she’s secure in her life, the head wife doesn’t have all her lovers attention but she knows which kids are cruel or not and has her preferences and I think her and the emperor connect the most emotionally as spouses who relate to each other. The writing is GREAT. In that nothing is told to you like “hate them just because they aren’t the prince we decided the story will have win!” Instead it’s up to the watcher how to feel about these people and why, which I love. I also love that even if I do hate some of them, I’m curious and entertained, and I’m not sure who will win at any time - because since the story isn’t heavy handed showing clear favoritism it is hard to truly predict what happens next (except that Qing Chuan our lead probably survives).

[ad1thi]

as someone who loves listening people talk about feminism, could you expand on your desi feminism has become like white woman feminism?

absolutely!! first i’d just like to preface this by saying these are my personal opinions, and i am by no means an expert on the topic.

white liberal feminism is a lot of im a woman so i can do whatever i want which, while i don’t disagree with that fundamentally, a lot of how white feminism is acted upon is essentially in effect of turning white women into white men. i think the best way to explain it is probably through the growth and evolution of the concept of a ‘girl boss’ which went from women taking entrepreneurial strides and chasing after their dreams to if a man can be a capitalistic shithead and rip off his employees and exploit his workers, so can i!! and i should be praised for it because im a woman

you see a lot of this concept of “because men can do it, so can i” ideology in white feminism, which doesn’t consider the nuance of ‘maybe nobody should be doing this’. and that ideology has bled into desi feminism in an extremely dangerous way, in my opinion. because when we view our feminism from a white lens; we start erasing more important cultural markers.

i remember seeing this video a couple weeks back which started this conversation about the equation between long hair and beauty in bollywood; and it was an extremely interesting video and i won’t deny that it made some points: it basically talked about how all love interests and heroines typically had long hair, and it was rare for them to have short hair and essentially ended up at the conclusion that hair length was another way for indian society to control women’s looks and women who’re going bald/cutting their hair short were taking back control.

this, in my opinion, is a very white feminist view -- because while i’m not one to tell anyone how to style their hair; this video (made by indian women btw) neglected one very important aspect of desi culture in it’s analysis: which is that historically, women who were bald, were widows. my mom will never let me shave my hair, but it’s not because she wants to control my hair - it’s because in our culture, the only women who shave their hair, are widows. shaving my head, especially at the age im at, is seen as a bad omen, because it’s considered to be foreshadowing that my husband will die young and i’ll be a widow.

there’s a lot of reasons for why widows shaved their hair but one of them was that widows in olden days were more “vulnerable” and seen as easier targets, because they didn’t have a husband to protect them. If they had no hair, nobody could grab them by their hair. 

it was for that same reason that widows were asked to wear white, or other similarly “dull” colours, in an attempt to avoid any undue attention. it was for the same reason that some parts of the country would sequester their widowed women away, while others would enforce the idea that widowed women shouldn’t leave the house. Now, is the idea that women need to change their look to avoid the gaze of pervy men a good idea? o. neither is it by any means commendable that widowed women were essentially hidden away from society. i’m not defending these decisions. however, the link between hair length and desi women has historically never been about controlling women, but, in some twisted, roundabout way, about protecting them.

i am in no way denying that desi society has been hard on women and that there’s things we need to fix. but i think it’s important that we critically analyse and evaluate them from a desi perspective than we do a white perspective, because things that might be empowering for white women aren’t necessarily empowering for desi women. 

[ill-be-istj-if-no-one-else-is]

Peace! It's nice to meet you, fellow mbti person! I'm so glad to have stumbled upon an ISTJ who is into typology! I have a request. I typed Elsa from Frozen in a post (I'll tag you) and I argued that she is not an ISTJ. I wanted to know what you thought, particularly if I made any mistakes in understanding the ISTJ personality type. Thank you so much in advance! I hope it's not too much of a bother. I'm an INTP btw.

Hi,

I want to start out with the following: for anyone reading, do not make a habit of having me analyze your posts about fictional characters. I am happy to help you type yourself, or answer questions about MBTI. However, in case it was not clear from the fact that I have only typed fictional characters in response to direct questions, that my answers have typically been very brief, and that I’ve repeatedly directed people to blogs that specifically focus on character typing, I’m not really interested. I should note: I had fun because I love picking up my metaphorical red pen and writing “wrong” over every other sentence, but it did also take me like an hour and a half and it’s over 3 pages long, and I don’t have time to do that regularly.

With all that said, the post had sufficient issues with both basic logical argument structure (I would very strongly recommend you revisit that INTP typing of yourself and look at something with high Fe instead) as well as understanding of MBTI that, because you asked directly, I will go through said issues. I want to make it very clear: this is going to be harsh. For both that and for the length I’m putting it below a read-more such that if you were looking for a brief thumbs up or down and not for extensive criticism, you are welcome to ignore it, block me, or whatever is best for you.

Basic argument structure: you open repeatedly with the most subjective arguments - that she gives off Fi and Ni vibes and you don’t see the Si in her. This will convince no one but yourself.

This argument is also mostly focused on “other people think this, but I don’t” which I find is only useful in a process of elimination argument. We’ll get to the final typing eventually but it is generally stronger to argue in favor of what you believe and then address potential disagreement rather than the reverse; by the time you get to ISFP I’ve read so many incorrect assumptions and subjective asides that I’ve long since stopped valuing the analysis of the work.

Issues with the ISTJ argument

(note: I have, and continue to type Elsa as an ISTJ so this will be the longest section in that I’m both pointing out flaws and arguing in favor of ISTJ; the rest will be solely focused on MBTI misconceptions or logical fallacy).

While it’s true people often mistake trauma for Si, this argument seems to equate trauma with being stuck in the past (people can just be stuck in the past without trauma for whatever other reason - it’s not healthy but it does not necessarily indicate literal trauma). There is also a false opposition here: It’s absolutely valid to argue that Elsa is traumatized, but that does not preclude her having Si, merely removes one argument in favor of Si.

You define Si (gathering concrete details to understand what to expect) but don’t actually argue why Elsa doesn’t do this. I’d argue, in opposition to the statement later in this paragraph, that she does. She is aware from the past that her abilities can harm her sister. She is aware from her past that when she avoided Anna, Anna was safe. She hasn’t been happy with the “conceal don’t feel” line, but it has achieved her goals and her expectation is that she’ll hurt someone if she stops following it.

If you’re referring to an Si-Fi loop (wallowing in self-pity), it doesn’t use Te since that’s how loops work. You don’t explicitly say this is in the context of looping although you introduce looping in the second sentence, but if you are referring to a loop this is incorrect. It’s true that ISTJs are often likely to use Si (preference for familiar/existing structures) and an Fi understanding of morality to direct their energies when they wish to change something (ie, they will change things through existing channels) but the focus on speaking out about injustice here is much more in line with enneagram 1 - a very common enneatype for ISTJs and an enneatype that’s rare for any non-TJ types, but not the enneatype I’d give Elsa nor an inherent ISTJ trait itself.

The part about self-discipline is mixed - a lot of ISTJs are very disciplined in certain areas (particularly professional/familial) but can neglect the self (not getting enough exercise/not eating well, not addressing burnout or more emotional issues) and I’d argue again, Elsa shows this: she’s not addressing the fact that she’s lonely and miserable, but she’s highly disciplined with regards to concealing her abilities and avoiding Anna even though it’s the very thing making her lonely and miserable.

I don’t necessarily think Let It Go is indicative of an Ne grip, but one can make changes outside of a grip, so this isn’t a useful argument, as it argues why an Ne grip is wrong, not why ISTJ is wrong - I would merely argue she’s not gripping at that time. Which is a general issue here: the argument you provide in this paragraph isn’t arguing against ISTJ, it’s arguing against other people’s arguments for ISTJ, which is an important distinction.

The final paragraph of the ISTJ section has numerous issues: ISTJs are not rebellious. They are not as resistant to change as stereotypes indicate, but even a healthier version of ISTJ Elsa would be unlikely to rebel and rather try to understand her parents’ argument, research other options, or look for a way to gain control over her powers while still working within the normal hierarchy. I addressed self-discipline (I should add: I don’t think a child/young woman having difficulty controlling magical powers with no training is an argument against self-discipline; my argument for self-discipline is that she stays in her room and away from her sister despite clearly hating it). It is also, to be blunt, mind-boggling that you (correctly) argue that trauma responses are not inherently Si but then refer to obsessive-compulsive behaviors as Si when that’s also a medical disorder completely divorced from the MBTI framework. Finally, her continuing to follow an order from her parents after they die is first, quite literally the definition of self-discipline (she’s the queen; no one else is going to discipline her for it, after all) and second, entirely in line with Si (this is what she has always done and it’s not great but it works) and is, arguably, if not medically obsessive-compulsive, an obsessive need to follow a compulsion. To be clear: this isn’t healthy ISTJ behavior, but since you’ve acknowledged grips and loops here I think an unhealthy interpretation of the type is very much on the table. You say her behavior is more in line with F types; it’s not and you don’t explain why.

If I may it seems as though, much in line with the argument here being against other arguments but ultimately not debunking the typing, your arguments against MBTI stereotypes focus on what’s incorrect but they tend to merely swing the pendulum to the opposite side (eg, that ISTJs are likely to rebel, in opposition to the stereotype that they’d mindlessly follow orders) rather than find the more nuanced middle ground of how people of a type or with a certain function behave.

Issues with the INFJ and INFP sections:

Ne users can and frequently do go out into the world; simply because Ne can be engaged without external physical stimulation doesn’t mean it never is. I’m also not really a fan of reading being classified as a strictly introverted pursuit; that’s falling into a pretty significant stereotype trap. Going out and exploring is a thing anyone can do but if anything I’d either associate that more strongly with high sensing (either Si or Se) or with extroversion. 

My biggest issue here is the implication that searching for a meaning for existence or a purpose is in itself an indicator of Ni. This is just the human condition. If you’re going to argue that Si users are driven to rebel against injustice I don’t see how you can miss that that might in turn be driven by a belief that this is their purpose. Perhaps Si-Ne users aren’t as invested in having a single purpose, but wondering why you are on this earth and what it is you are here to do is just being a person, and to be blunter than I have been, I am struggling to understand how there has been so much effort made earlier to push away from stereotypes to the point of overcompensation in the opposite direction and then when it comes to the idea that only Ni users have a desire for meaning in life you just accept it without question.

Issues with the ISFP section:

At this point I’ve probably covered most of them though I’d like to point out that I don’t think there was an argument ever made explicitly for introversion; while the structure of the earlier arguments and focus on debunking was, as stated, flawed, I would at least round it out by eliminating ESFP as an option.

The argument here rests heavily on Let it Go, which is interesting because most of the terrible arguments for Elsa being an intuitive also rested squarely on that same brief if admittedly pivotal section of a full movie; in attempting to differentiate itself from those arguments it has in fact replicated the most significant flaws. Anyway, I’ve addressed that I don’t personally think Let it Go being indicative of a grip is how I’d argue for ISTJ, so that becomes invalid; I’ve tried to focus more on issues with logic MBTI than the contents of the movie but I’d add that “she was happy” is open to interpretation and her emotional state was probably fairly complicated. Relieved, sure, but she’s still ultimately isolated. (Also while mentally singing Let it Go, I realized that here’s that rebellion you were asking for in the ISTJ section).

You also outright say that when Elsa tries to reassert control it’s through Te. Yeah. That’s what a high Te user does. An ISTJ in a grip would indeed use Ne, but in quite literally any other circumstance (looping or just existing as an ISTJ not in a grip or loop) would reassert control via Te, so again, your argument does not sufficiently eliminate that Elsa is an ISTJ, just that she’s not a gripping ISTJ, which I’d agree with. 

“She acts out when she is stressed and makes bad decisions” is also the human condition (and why I’ve frequently on my blog argued very strongly against typing via stress behaviors, because in the end most people...act out and make bad decisions when stressed), so this isn’t useful as an argument for anything.

In conclusion: multiple misconceptions about Ni and Si; no argument that I could find presented for high Fi, just Fi in general; inconsistency regarding whether or not Elsa rebels, and an overall reliance not on making a new argument but on arguing why other arguments were wrong. Given the title of the post you asked me to analyze I have to (admittedly this is extremely cynical of me) wonder if there was an underlying goal to come up with a typing that was different from commonly accepted arguments, rather than to simply type for its own sake. 

[brynwrites]

How to Write Non-binary Characters: Part III.

Visit PART ONE: the basics.

Visit PART TWO: the nitty gritty.

PART THREE: common pitfalls and easy fixes.

Here we'll cover some common situations where writing respectful non-binary characters can be trickier.

Writing Non-human Non-binary characters.

Non-human non-binary characters aren’t inherently disrespectful to non-binary people, but it can easily become negative representation when there are no non-binary humans present, because it implies that those with non-binary genders are less human (and usually more monstrous or more alien) than people with binary genders. You can read more about why this is a problem in this full analysis by Christine Prevas.

There's a very simple solution to this though: Write some non-binary humans. (Or, in the least, make it explicitly clear that non-binary humans exist, and are just as valid in their identity as anyone else.)

Writing Non-binary Villains.

This situation is very similar to the non-binary non-humans, but instead of implying that non-binary people are less human, it implies they are less moral, abnormal, depraved, or insane. Villainous figures in history have often have their villainy connected to or blamed on their non-gender conforming traits. We don't want to add to that clinging transphobic and homophobic belief with modern fiction.

As with non-binary non-humans, having non-villainous non-binary characters can go a long way in offsetting this, as well as not connecting (or letting characters within the world connnect) the villain's non-binary aspects with their perceived villainy. Instead of writing a non-binary villain, write a villain who also happens to be non-binary.

(On this note, I would be very cautious about writing villains who are being villainous because they've suffered from transphobia.)

Killing (your only) Non-binary Character.

This falls into the same category as the previous two sections, but it has just one solution: don't kill your story’s only non-binary or trans character. Just don't do it. If that character has to die to make the plot continue, let there be another primary non-binary or trans character in the story somewhere.

Writing “Coming Out” Scenes for Non-binary Characters.

Let's break this into two different types of coming out:

The casual, everyday coming out. This is the kind of coming out a non-binary person has to do every time they need to let new people in their lives know about their gender. If you're writing non-binary characters, you'll probably have to write some version of this at some point. It can be as simple as a character introducing themselves with their pronouns, wearing clothing or pins that say their pronouns, mentioning their identity casually, correcting someone's misuse of their pronouns, making a (respectful) joke involving gendered terminology (e.g. "I'm the king of monopoly today and the queen of monopoly tomorrow, but either way you're all going to lose!"), or a multitude of other ways.

While writing any setting that you create yourself (whether that's fantasy, science fiction, alternate history, etc), you can always do yourself a favor and work a method of identity presentation into the world building. Maybe in your fictional culture everyone wears a certain color accessory for certain gender identities or in your fictional boarding school the students all decided to introduce themselves with their pronouns no matter what gender they identity as.

The major, terrifying coming out. Often, this is the traditional coming out scene where the person sits down with family and tells their truth, even though they know things might turn out poorly. It might be the first time they've come out to anyone, or it might be that they've held off with certain important people in their life because they're afraid of those people's response. Be wary of writing out these scenes if you haven't lived through them yourself, because it's a very emotional and complex situation which, if represented poorly, can harm non-binary and trans people in real life. Sometimes though, you might want to allude to what happened during this scene because of its effect on the character!

Keep in mind that while there is much prejudice against non-binary (and trans) people in our world, that you don't have to include that in your stories. It is always the writer's decision to include transphobia and transphobic characters in what they write, as well as their responsibility to make sure that any transphobic inclusions are framed as the terrible, incorrect biases they are, and do not harm the trans and non-binary community.

Writing Non-binary Characters Discovering They’re Non-binary.

Realizing you're non-binary is often a long, emotional, and extremely personal experience. Unless you have a non-binary (or trans) co-writer or you've done an academic level of research, its best to leave these experiences to be written by the people you lived them, because there are many living people who have lived them, who will be effected by these stories on a very real, very personal level.

So, go write non-binary characters, but write them having adventures and falling in love instead.

Writing Societies Without Gender Binaries.

Because this is a huge topic where new pitfalls might appear at any moment do to the endless ways it can be used, the best thing to do if you're interested in writing it is to read speculative fiction from trans and non-binary authors and study the nuances of how they portray these societies, and, of course, always avoid the societal version of all the previous no-nos, like having only villainous or non-human non-binary societies.

Remember: when in doubt, get non-binary people to beta read your work.

Finally, here are two insanely easy ways to include non-binary representation in all your stories:

1. Give a character (or multiple characters!) they/them pronouns. 

You don’t have to explain this. The character never needs to come out as non-binary. There doesn’t have to be a focus on whether they’re androgynous or not. You can keep it so simple that their description is just “Parker had brown hair and a hooked nose and when they smiled their eyes lit up,” and there you have a non-binary-coded character without having to do any work or research at all.

2. Have a character refer to their family member with gender neutral terms. 

“Those are my sisters, my big brother, and my little sibling. We were on a skiing trip, but our step-parent came down with the flu so our father stayed back at the lodge and let our auntcle take us up the mountain.” Will any of these non-binary characters ever by in the story itself? Perhaps not. But it still shows that the author accepts the existence of non-binary people in their story’s world, and that the character speaking loves and respects the non-binary people in their family enough to refer to them in the ways those family members prefer.

Closing Words.

Non-binary people have had a long history of being ignored in Western stories. Having writers attempt to include respectful non-binary representation in their books is more important to us than having all that representation be perfect. So, write non-binary characters, find a few non-binary or trans readers to double check your work, and most importantly, and have fun.

While you’re at it, consider supporting non-binary writers writing ownvoices stories. If you don’t know of any, here’s the wikipedia list of the more famous authors and a little twitter thread with some lesser known voices. You can also purchase my debut novel, Our Bloody Pearl, a fun romp about a disabled, non-binary siren and a freckly pirate captain.

Stick around for a preview of Our Bloody Pearl....

SWELL BEGINNINGS

There is one thing I know for certain: We were right to hate the humans.

HUNGER HAUNTS ME like a bull shark. With every roll of the ship, the gunk inside my stagnant tub sloshes against my waist, stinging anew. The tight wooden room's stale air burns my lungs.

Steam whistles in the pipes that run along the walls, their copper gleaming in the dim ceiling light. My wrists throb where the metal cuffs locking me to the tub dig into my silver scales. The gill slits along my neck are clamped shut after a year without seawater and my head fins stick to my scalp like barnacles to rock.

I try to anchor myself with the memory of home, of fine sands and vibrant reefs, but I can barely recall the rush of the warm current or the thrill of the hunt. Even a single wrasse sounds like a feast now. Or a few human fingers.

At least I can still smell the sharp brine of the ocean. When the ship rocks, the small, circular window to my left reveals the sea rolling in an endless stretch of deep blue, begging me to return. The silhouette of an approaching vessel forms a blur on its horizon.

I squint at the hazy shape, but Captain Kian’s roar of irritation from an upper deck makes me recoil. My captor’s harsh voice is so loud it seems to shudder its way down my spine.

The new vessel leaves my sight as the ship I’m captive on—the Oyster—turns toward it. The steam stacks clatter to life somewhere beneath me. Fabric and metal wings stretch out from the sides of the Oyster, and the ship bursts forward, riding just above the crests of the waves.

The sudden change in speed shoves me backward, tossing up my putrid water. As the liquid recoils, it grazes my largest tail fin, lying limp over the far edge of the tub. For all the pain I suffer, I nearly forget my tail exists, its iridescent gleam washed away by the filth and grime of the tub. It must still be impaired from the massive, anchor-like weight my captor crushed it beneath when she first locked me here. I can’t bring myself to focus on its lifeless form for long. I wasn’t meant for this.

I need the sea.

Purchase the full novel on amazon, bookdepository, or kobo, or request it from your local library!

[aplusblogging]

An Analysis on the History of Gender in the Horror Genre

This is one of my classmates’ final projects for Sociology. I loved it so much I asked for her permission to share it here. Hope you enjoy it too!

Transcript under the cut, since the auto-generated captions are mostly accurate but punctuation is good for comprehension.

TRANSCRIPT:

“My name is Davis Barelli, and in this video essay I'm going to look at the portrayal of gender through the lens of the horror genre.

Women in particular may have a reason to keep coming back to the genre, outside of a cheap thrill. In a study done by the Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media, and Google, using the Geena Davis Inclusion Quotient—or the GDIQ—it was determined that women are featured on screen and in speaking roles more than men only in the horror genre. With the advent of the MPAA rating system in the '30s, the kind of horror we know today didn't re-emerge until the '60s.

Making female characters who would later become known as "Final Girls" the vessel for traumatic experiences allowed viewers—especially men and boys coming home from war—to see someone reacting to trauma in the way that they wanted to, but wasn't socially acceptable. Instead, the model for men to see themselves in was the macho, womanizing jock who goes outside to find the big bad, typically resulting in him being the first to die. While there was a lot of good in the survivors of these horror movies very commonly being female, a specific archetype of the female survivor made it clear what kind of girl it took to be the hero.

The Final Girl being portrayed in '60s, '70s, and '80s slasher horror as an innocent virgin stereotype was no accident, what with America experiencing the breakdown of the nuclear family and Christian morals thanks to the free-love movement of the '60s. This led to frequent themes of occultism, homosexuality, and hypersexuality in horror at the time. Characters who gave in to these evils were given a death sentence, as opposed to the Final Girls, who were rewarded for their abstinence with survival.

When films did stray from the norm by casting male leads in sequels in place of the Final Girl, a double standard emerged. Male protagonists were branded as "homosexual" for acting like the Final Girls before them, and the actors who portrayed them had their careers effectively ruined. Where the '70s gave rise to exploitation horror centered on violence against women, '80s niche horror had different scapegoats.

Cannibal Holocaust, released at the beginning of the decade and directed by Ruggero Deodato, tells the story of a group going to the Amazon in search of a missing film crew. They discover footage detailing the gruesome things the crew did to the tribe they encountered before they were killed. Not only is the portrayal of hostile tribes in the Amazon harmful to the actual tribes in the Amazon, but framing the main character of the film as a kind of white savior for not wanting the footage of the tribe distributed is basically rewarding him for the absolute bare minimum.

The other standout film of the '80s notorious for its subject matter is that of Sleepaway Camp. Sleepaway Camp tells the story of a young girl who experiences the death of her family during a boating accident and is sent to live with her aunt and cousin. She and her cousin go to the summer camp and it quickly becomes a bloodbath. The reveal at the end is that the young girl was the culprit, because she wasn't a girl at all, but her twin brother who was forced by the aunt to live as a girl. The narrative of trans people as dangerous, deranged villains pretending to be a different gender due to mental illness or against their will is deeply harmful to the LGBTQ people who were battling misconceptions at the time similar to this, and still are.

This energy evolved with the '90s, which shifted its focus to supernatural teenage hormones, with the likes of The Craft and many others. Looking at the villains of these movies, though, is a clear pointer to the ostracization of the "weird kid" in the '90s. This is most prominently seen in The Craft, where a girl with supernatural powers befriends a group of girls pretending to be witches. She bestows them with real powers and hijinks ensue. The film culminates in the ringleader—who, out of the group, is the least conventionally attractive—being put in an insane asylum for her misdeeds, while the rest of the group gets off relatively scot-free. This served as an unfortunate continuation of the narrative that girls who were weird were to be punished, but if you were pretty, you could get away with it.

With the 2000s filled with American-made J-horror and classic horror remakes, I'd like to skip forward, save for one movie.

In the 2000s a movie came out that caused a huge ruckus over how bad it was, but I think deserves a spot here for its portrayal of teenage girls in horror. Jennifer's Body, directed by* Diablo Cody, starring Megan Fox and Amanda Seyfried, tells the story of Jennifer getting possessed after a botched human sacrifice because she lies about being a virgin. It was almost universally panned by critics, who called it a "sexploitation film lacking the all-important ballast of sincerity." Both Cody and Fox—who were gaining fame for Juno and the Transformers franchise, respectively—were already written off by critics, most of whom were men, before the movie had even been released. In reality, Jennifer's character was unique for being the mean girl who gets killed off, the big bad, and a revenge film-esque survivor, all in one. And her best friend, "Needy," was the sarcastic, dorky, sexually active Final Girl we never would have seen in classic horror.

The last decade has given rise to a genre dubbed "intelligent horror," ushering in an age with less mindless bloodlust and more nuanced characters and themes. Directors Jordan Peele and Ari Aster are arguably at the forefront of the intelligent horror genre; Peele's Get Out and Us giving people of color representation in a severely whitewashed genre. Get Out, especially, has received praise not just for the representation of people of color, but the very real, very prevalent issues of race and police brutality. One of the most important aspects is the depiction of the white savior character in the form of the protagonist's girlfriend, who is revealed to actually be a villain, showcasing the dramatization of the danger of performative activism and how that affects people of color.

Ari Aster, on the other hand, deals with themes of mental illness and family trauma, something unfortunately somewhat universal. While mommy issues and cults are nothing new in horror, Ari Aster's work frames both subjects very differently, especially in regards to the women in his films. Midsommar heavily focuses on Dani, the protagonist's, mental health and manipulation by others throughout the film, as she navigates grief unapologetically and realistically. This portrayal of grief in Midsommar from a woman's point of view is so important, because Dani is clingy, she's anxious, she's emotional, and she's human. As opposed to the polished, over-dramatic depiction of women and their emotions that are so commonly seen in horror.

Over the decades, horror and its portrayals of the human experience have shifted to continue being a compelling mirror for the issues of the time. But something that will always be current is that we can be scared.”

End of transcript.

*Jennifer’s Body was written by Diablo Cody and directed by Karyn Kusama

[scarfdyedshadow]

On the Decline of Mage Characterization in Ancillary Type-Moon Works (or On Magi Getting Flanderized Into One-Dimensional Evil Arrogant Sods) Part 1: The Matter of Magi Themselves

Yes, I am dumb enough and obsessed enough to basically write an entire essay on this. Yes, the title is pretentious as all hell.

A disclaimer before we start though, this is not directed at or meant to condemn or call out or mock or invalidate the many a Tumblr shitpost on evil arrogant magi getting owned by Guda or various other characters. It may not be humor personally up my alley, but I understand the appeal, and it’s not like there isn’t some grain of truth to them. Likewise this isn’t meant to in any way condone anything Nasuverse magi. A fair amount of them are evil regardless of mitigating circumstances, a lot of the ones that aren’t outright evil have capacity to be evil because of ethos and mindset, and the acts they commit are certainly evil. I am not condoning them, or dismissing them as not evil. I simply urge a more nuanced rather than simplistic analysis of that evil. This also unfortunately omits Mahoyo, which probably has quite a bit of insight, because I haven’t gotten around to reading it yet, thus rendering me a fake fan you should not listen to. Thank you for your consideration. Also, spoilers.

This first part is primarily concerned with the inhumanity of magi and misconceptions about magi and their ethos as a whole, while the next part will actually go into the history of magus villains in Type-Moon works and what I feel is their decline, and build upon and further points of this part. There may be a potential third part on the Crypters, Gordolf, and Olga, the modern faces of Nasuverse magi and the greatest illustration that magi are far more nuanced, complex, pitiful and yet admirable, than they aren’t, and Nasu’s thesis statement on the power of love and life.

(Note: Okay my theme is actually pretty eyesearing to the point I recommend you read this on dash, I’ll go get it fixed)

"Do you know what it is that magi are aiming for?"

After a moment of blankness, Gray replied with a difficult expression.

"Umm...I heard about it in class. What was it...the Spiral of Origin?"

"Right. The Spiral of Origin, or more simply the Root. Sometimes it's referred to as「 」, the thing for which there can be no reference. It is the source of everything, the 'zero' from which all matter and phenomena flow. Ah, but now that I'm trying to put it into words, I'm realizing that's not a good idea. After all, even the idea of 'zero' has baggage that makes it unsuitable as a comparison."

"Regardless, the goal of magi is to eventually reach that place. Of course, there are also those who simply derive pleasure from touching the supernatural, or from being superhuman. Because we are weak, we fall to that diversion. But in the end, that's not our ultimate goal."

For modern magi, most understood that reaching the root was something that just wasn't possible for them. After all, even though magecraft itself had been in a state of continuing decline since the Age of Gods, there were no reports of anyone facing that past and trying to return to it. Likely, the appearance in the Far East of the fifth - and often called the last - Magician was the same as the gate to the Root being all but closed to everyone else.

Even so, we didn't give up.

Anyone who would give up in a situation like this would never have become a magus to begin with.

Ironically enough, despite opening up with a quote from Lord El-Melloi II Case Files, which I’ll have some critique for, the crux of my thesis is this. As originally presented in Kara no Kyoukai, and generally only kept up to a meaningful degree in other Nasu written works like Stay Night, Clock Tower 2015, and Grand Order, magi were the piteous, tragic, inhuman not as in inhumane but as in a broken machine product of an impossible ideal and a broken system. They were the villains, yes, unambiguously so, but at the same time they were sympathetic and nuanced to an extent that would decline down the road.

You see, Araya. A mage always lives hurriedly. What for? If it was for themselves alone they wouldn't bother with the outside world. So why do they intrude upon the rest of the world? Why do they rely upon it? What will they achieve with that power? What will they save with the Ars Magna (Ars Magna: Meaning 'great secret technique', it stands not for a technique that is not learnt through study but for a mystery that is secretly passed down)? If that was the case it would have been better for them to become a king instead of a mage.

You think people live foully, but you yourself would not be able to live like that. You would not be able to live while accepting the fact that you know that everything is worthless and base. You would not be able to live without the pride of knowing that you alone are special, and that you alone can save this crumbling world. Of course, I was like that too. But that sort of thing has no meaning. --- Accept it, Araya. We chose the path of transcendence called magecraft because we are weaker than everybody else.

Magi were presented as absurd, as farcical, as maddeningly helpless and hopeless compared to those living normal lives. This will come up in Part 2, especially as pertains to Touko and Gordolf and the like, but normal everyday life, not superior thematic superpowers or an army of Servants, is what is truly far more powerful than any magi.

"... I'll just ask one thing. What do you mean when you say that secrets are kept even within that Association?"

Unexpectedly, I hear something from the sofa.

Over there is Shiki, who has been sitting there since before without a word. She's the type of person who doesn't get involved in a conversation that she's not interested in, so until now she had been staring at the scenery outside the window.

"--- There is that. A mage won't reveal the results of his experiments even within the Association. What the person next to them is researching, what their goals are, and what they have obtained are all a mystery. The only time a mage will reveal the results of their work is when they are passing it on to their descendants just before they die."

"Studying for their benefit alone, yet not using that power for their own sake? What purpose is there in a life like that, Touko? Is it that the goal is to learn, and the process is to learn too? If the only things you have are the beginning and the end, that's the same as having a zero."

Their pursuit for the truth is maddening. It is greedy yet at once devoid of greed. It is selfish yet at once devoid of selfishness. Their ethos and methodology are not fundamentally inhumane, but inhuman. Magi are an odd sort of creature indeed, and it isn’t the case that they’re all evil in their absurd quest. Indeed, virtually all early Nasuverse ancillary material, and this is still said today despite the opposite being true in practice, is that the vast majority of magi are shut ins who stay inside researching as opposed to eating babies.

The everyday life of a magus is mostly spent conducting research. Magi who use magic outside of a research capacity, such as those who use magi to work and profit for themselves, are few in number. People who treat magic as a tool, such as assassins, are called “spellcasters”, and are looked down upon with disdain by the magical establishment.

Furthermore, it is precisely because they are magi that few magi use magic in their daily lives.

Practically speaking, for every mage you see committing mass murder or fighting the mass murdering mage with superpowers, there are ten who we certainly can’t call conventionally moral, who we certainly can’t call normal humans, obsessively striving towards a seemingly impossible goal inhumanly but not inhumanely. Because Type-Moon does action series this has never been tenable to properly depict besides the minority, but it is the truth regardless. This is from a later work I actually have some measure of criticism for, but Strange Fake actually illustrates that point perfectly.

"A mage's mage," he muttered disgustedly to himself, eyes narrowed, "is no different from a hard-working corrupt politician." What about me? He wondered as soon as the words were out of his mouth. As long as corruption stayed hidden, it was difficult for the public to tell the difference between a corrupt politician and an honest one. In which case, mages, who never entered the public eye to begin with, probably ought to be lumped in with them. There were exceptions, but from the standpoint of the general public, mages were generally evil.

Other Nasu written works like Stay Night and Clock Tower 2015 also touch upon it.

Magic is just what it sounds like… magic. I don't care if you get ideas like abracadabra or whatever. You can just think of us as people who do strange things by casting spells. Oh, though it's not like we fly around on brooms or make stars appear with a wave of a wand. …Well, we could do that, but we don't bother as it's kind of meaningless. We're basically heretics who hide ourselves from the world. We're prohibited from standing out and even if we weren't, we would rather be at home studying magic.

Clock Tower 2015 especially hits it up by depicting what might be called the ideal magus, the point of being a magus that is often distorted by human concerns but that all of them are to some extent, not an inhumane monster but an inhuman man who has dedicated his life to magecraft.

"Ahhh, the life of a magus is so brief. It would have been great if I were born with just the brain and nothing else." Like what you just saw, Leiv was a pure academic magus. All his efforts were poured solely into his theory and magecraft. He cared naught of any other responsibilities, the application of his magecraft, his lineage, or building his faction. From Leiv's perspective, those magi were the same as the plebians that were "normal people". If one were to decipher the mystical, then he must sacrifice his humanity. A magus was a creature with nothing but magecraft on his mind. There was no room for burdens such as "life".

So to begin with, what we call magi are far from all arrogant murderous sods, and if anything arrogant murderous sods are the minority. They come in all manner of varieties, united simply by the pursuit of the impossible, by the desire to reach the truth, by the desire to transcend. Even more so than just that, they do have their values and ethics. They are often cruelly distorted, to the extent “magi parents” is a phrase that might as well be an oxymoron, but I would opine that as a product more of recent years than anything.

"Keep those for me. They are some awful cigarettes from Taiwan but I only have those now. Of course there isn't any company that made them, it's a famous item that some eccentric master made only one box of. Yeah, out of all my possessions that is the second most valuable thing I have." Leaving behind some strange words, she turned around and walked out. ... Perhaps her most valuable possession is herself, that kind of thought popped into my mind so I asked her, but she only turned back her head and answered. "That's rather rude. I know it's me but even I don't treat people like possessions." Like herself when she has her glasses on, she pouts as if she's sulking. And then, returning to her usual cool expression Touko-san continued talking. "Kokuto. Those people called mages, with an apprentice or other people they are close to they feel like parents. Since they are something like their offspring, they often fight desperately to protect them as well. ... Well, it's like that so relax and wait here. I'll bring Shiki back tonight." Thock thock, the sound of her walking away. Unable to say anything to her back, I let the brown-coated magician go.

That magi value their children, their apprentices, their legacies, even if only as a next step on the path to the Root, is also a truth echoed at the same time that it’s often contradicted. But then, magi are in of themselves contradictory creatures. After all, despite pursuing an inhuman ideal, despite throwing away their humanity, they themselves are still human. That contradiction between reality and ideals, best exemplified by Fate/Stay Night, is one of the themes at the heart of Nasu’s work.

So, to repeat it once more, magi as a whole, magi society as a whole, is not fundamentally inhumane but inhuman. That inhumanity often lends itself to the inhumane, but not necessarily, and indeed I opine that should be considered on a deeper level. That inhuman society is by no means a good thing, but to simply call it evil and magi evil and call it a day is to do a disservice to its nuance. There are arrogant murderous magi as well, sure, but they too are products of a tenacious ideal, they are the long shadow cast by lineages stretching for thousands of years.

In reality, what really forged the magus of the modern day was not a supernatural power or transcendent conscience, but a tenacity built and reinforced over generations. Clinging to a shadowed, intense ideology for hundreds, or in some cases even thousands of years, developed its own sort of extreme power. Even if science were to exceed magecraft in all other respects, as long as that ideal survived, magecraft itself would be ineradicable.

But what then of Souren Araya? What of that bastard Zouken and worst dad of the year Tokiomi and that arrogant asshole Kayneth? Rest well assured that I will cover them in exacting detail in the next part of whatever the hell this is, and everything I say about them will build upon this. That may seem contradictory, since this part is mostly devoted to showing that magi are far more than just evil sods, but believe it or not Kayneth is going to be mightily relevant to how pitifully weak magi in truth are, and Tokiomi is going to be relevant to how magi value their children in ways that don’t have to be inhumane, but can be inhuman. Until next time, all I can ask is to consider that while magi are indeed monsters, monsters really can be quite interesting creatures.

Things in this world were all like that.

It wasn’t limited to magecraft. It wasn’t limited to those beyond humans (monsters). In a world of common sense (the obvious), it was something everyone understood.

If you said that misunderstandings, miscommunications, disagreements, and false understandings are what connected them, then...

“We are misrecognition. Our world itself is misunderstanding. We can experience a multitude of truths, not just one single reality. No matter how wise you are, or how much time you are given, you will never reach something like a single truth. Magi may just be those who continually reject that fact.”

Speaking as if in self-deprecation, my master had pursed his lips at that.

He had finally realized that his words and the objective that all Magi pursued, known as the “Spiral of Origin,” were in contradiction.

Sources: Lord El-Melloi Case Files (TL by TwilightsCall), Kara no Kyoukai (TL on baka-tsuki), Fate/Stay Night (TL Mirror Moon), Clock Tower 2015 (TL by food), Fate/Strange Fake (TL by OtherSideOfSky)