#because she sees herself as the underdog in all this. and in a way? she kind of is

[sepublic]

Thinking of how the Titan showed Luz the first glyph, Light, because she was kind to his son and listened to him, made him feel like his interests mattered when so many others overlooked the little guy and didn’t care about people like him. He didn’t force Luz to painstakingly find it on her own, as Philip did; The Titan freely gave this to her.

Then the second glyph, Ice, comes when Luz takes the moment to listen to the Titan; To say that she’ll learn on his terms, she’ll respect his body and work with him. Luz paid attention to the unheard son, and now the parent, speaking with and not for him as Philip did.

She gets the Plant glyph afterwards by continuing to follow that principle and give his son fun and company...

And the final glyph, Fire? Wing it like Witches is a major epiphany for Luz’s development, where it really hits her that she can’t drag her friends around in her attempts to play out certain beloved tropes and story beats she grew up on; In particular, this episode was about her desire to be the underdog hero, dragging Willow into relatively high-stakes consequences for a Grudgby match she did not ask for.

Sound familiar? I wonder if the Titan was low key afraid of Luz following in Philip’s steps, recognized that similar hero complex... Even if Luz was nowhere near as evil as Belos, well. Philip started off from somewhere, he didn’t begin as a genocidal dictator with countless sins to his name, he built his way up. Maybe the Titan is just being paranoid, Luz is so young after all! But in the end, he hid one final glyph from Philip because of his need for control, and it was admittedly Luz who jeopardized this precaution by giving Philip the Light spell.

Yet in Wing it like Witches, Luz really matures when she steps up and takes responsibility for her recklessness, for subsuming Willow’s problem and low key making it about herself, and what she decides for the group. Luz takes the full consequences of the stakes she set up so neither Willow nor Gus have to, and it’s this mature gesture of self-awareness that prompts them to reciprocate and forgive Luz.

So I wonder if THAT moment was what solidified to the Titan that yes, I really can trust this child. This human, the first after centuries of another who has been desecrating my corpse, bastardizing my name; She truly didn’t know any better, and meant well, teaching Philip the Titan’s last glyph. The first few glyphs were like little gifts, but giving Luz the last one meant she had full access to all of the Titan’s magic, so long as she experimented with glyph combos. And the Titan felt safe to entrust her with something he barred from Philip, because why?

Because Luz got over that fatal flaw of Philip’s; The desire to be the hero at any cost. That proved she wouldn’t follow in his footsteps, she diverged at a crucial point, and it meant she’d never become another Belos. They both worked and studied for the glyphs, but what mattered was the compassion that Luz had, and it was her kindness that began her discovery of glyphs. The Titan could trust his final glyph to her, Fire... But as he’d find out, it wasn’t even his final gift to Luz, either.

There really is this recurring arc of hesitancy from the Titan; Someone who was used, betrayed, and taken advantage of. And knew how easy it was for the same to happen to his son. So to see the little ways in which he opens up, recognizes Luz’s kindness and maturity and responds to each step in her growth... It’s like someone learning to trust again, realizing they’ve really found a friend after all. It’s no wonder Luz is treated like an old friend by the Titan, because she is one, and it makes his final gift and farewell to her all the more impactful.

On a lighter note! I’m just imagining the Titan figuring out how to show Luz the Fire glyph, after deciding he’ll do just that. I keep thinking of him watching Luz in the Grudgby game, cheering her on and giving Luz support by illuminating his last glyph in Boscha’s fire; “Here kid, take this!” It’s such a relatively casual and silly moment too, because the Titan isn’t obsessed with the theatrics and drama of godhood.

[artbyblastweave]

ask game; Victoria Dallon, aka Glory Girl aka Antares

I've always thought that Victoria's first appearance is quite the bit of deft needle-threading.

The thing about Interlude 2 is that Vicky is our first example of one of this setting's established heroes actively fighting crime- not just swooping in to vulture up the accomplishments of an up-and-comer- and a therefore a major goal of the sequence is to ensure that the audience comes away structurally unnerved by what counts as business as usual for the heroes, set the stage for the hurricane of ass-covering to come. So we have a sequence where she lords her power over a baseline criminal who has no realistic chance to fight back or get away, where she cripples and nearly kills him in a display of excessive force, where she uses her connections to other capes to duck out on the consequences of her excess once she realizes that she's crossed certain moral and optical Rubicons. All of this is gross, all of this speaks to an alarmingly cavalier attitude amongst even the most ostensibly accountable heroes. And from a protagonistic perspective, all of this serves to soften the blow of Taylor's actions at the bank in act three, because we're predisposed to see Vicky as an arrogant, overprivileged loose cannon who'd actually have a significantly higher body count than all of the Undersiders put together if not for the cushion afforded to her by her status as a superhero. A golden child up against the already put-upon underdog.

But. She also does all of that to a Neo-Nazi, who was fresh off committing a hate crime. I mean, if this was violence against a purse-snatcher, a drug-dealer- It would be very, very easy to block this sequence in a way that would set her up as a villain and nothing else for the rest of the work. In The Boys, for example, Homelander debuts by incinerating one bank robber's hand and throwing another a thousand feet into the air to land hard on a parked car, and the dissonance between that casual brutality and his chumminess with the onlookers is the thematic backbone for... basically the entire show, because he was in such total control of the situation that the only reason to do it that way is that he fundamentally doesn't care. In Super Crooks, it's made abundantly clear that the superheroes trying to arrest the titular supervillains are significantly more destructive to the city than the villains are, because their institutional backing removes any incentive to do anything but pursue the flashiest arrests possible for the sake of ratings. But Glory Girl? She's a sixteen year old putting her money where her mouth is on the unconsidered-dilettante suburban-left-ish tumblrite rallying cry of punching a Nazi. She's living out a near-boilerplate superheroic fantasy of righteous violence against an uncomplicatedly righteous target- likely a fantasy entertained at least once by the median cape fan, if we're being honest- and then, in the aftermath, blood on her hands and on the pavement, staring down the full weight of the prospect of actually having killed a person in an unconsidered spate of rage, is very much a panicked teenager about it, scrambling for a way to walk it back.

Which, independent of the specifics of whether this particular asshole had it coming, is the problematic element of this that generalizes- that superheroism in this world is a system that puts the social license to use concrete-shattering power in the hands of a kid with the judgement and attitude of someone scheming up ways to dodge curfew. She's done this before, she's gonna keep doing this, she's gonna keep being two-faced about it with her public-facing golden-girl image. But she wasn't wrong to be angry. And the fact that this is the kind of thing she gets angry about is hard to separate from later beats where she tries to do right by people, hard to separate from her willingness to put herself on the line against Endbringers and the Slaughterhouse 9. It's a bad situation, a horrible system that's guaranteed to incentivize bad behavior, they shouldn't be assigning any of this shit to a 17-year-old. But later on, when things go south for her, the seeds are planted so that she can retain audience sympathy in a way that she likely wouldn't be able to if this story was a banal hatswap, with unfairly maligned "villains" who do no real wrong against supervillains who happen to call themselves superheroes.

[bethanydelleman]

Writing Villains (Advice from Jane Austen)

One of the reasons that I find Jane Austen's novels so wonderful is that they have amazingly realistic villains, some that are fully fleshed out characters. Austen's biggest strength is that she gives her villains clear, logical motives. In fact, for many of her villainous characters you can turn the entire story around and see a rational story from the other side.

For example, Lucy Steele. She doesn't attack Elinor out of mindless evil, but because Edward Ferrars is her golden ticket to wealth and she knows that Edward loves Elinor. Lucy might twist the knife a little on Elinor out of sadism, but generally she attacks Elinor in an attempt to secure Edward. When it comes to other characters, Lucy is overly sweet if she wants something from them, otherwise she acts normally. As an example, she leaves Marianne alone because Marianne is not competing for Edward and also can't do anything for Lucy. Anne, Lucy's sister, likes her. Lucy has friends and family she stays with, she's a fairly well-rounded person.

You can put yourself in Lucy's shoes, you can turn the entire narrative on it's head and play it out from her perspective and it would make complete sense. You could even make Lucy sympathetic! She probably sees herself as a hardworking underdog, trying to wrest her one chance at prosperity away from the conniving Elinor Dashwood. I'm sure she thinks the pain she causes Elinor is justified.

If you can't do that with your villains, then there is a good chance they are just evil for evil's sake. I picked Lucy Steele on purpose because I hate when the entire motivation for a antagonist female character is "bitches be crazy". Bitches may be mean, but almost always for a good reason.

Even Mrs. Norris, who is probably the most cruel of Austen's female villains, can be perspective switched. Her life is about being useful to the Bertram family so she can feel important because her married status/wealth is lower than she wished. As she must always be deferential towards the Bertrams, she takes out her negative emotions on those below her, the servants and Fanny, while also showing off how good she is at "managing" those people. (And yes, she is your childhood bully)

We often hear her perspective and she clearly sees herself as a useful part of the family and a defender of Sir Thomas's wealth. She thinks she's a good person! Which is also an important point: most people doing wrong do not believe that they are doing wrong. That is what really makes a villain scary. Mrs. Norris thinks she's helping Fanny in a very twisted way by teaching Fanny her station in life. If you asked her, she'd give you a self-justified answer and she'd probably actually believe it.

Another way to do a good villain is to just make a person very selfish. Henry Crawford doesn't sit around all day laughing about how much pain he causes women, he doesn't think about it. He only thinks about the fun of flirting for himself, not the harm to others. The glimpses we get into his perspective are not cruel at all. It's the same with Willougby, he thinks only of his own pleasure and tries very hard to ignore that he has crushed Marianne and destroyed Eliza Williams. When he is forced to accept that people were hurt, he blames everyone but himself.

Wickham thinks that he's a victim, Caroline Bingley is ambitious and doesn't care who she steps on to get to the top, Mr. Elton is insulted that Emma could even dream he's a match with Harriet but he can't touch Emma so he punches down at Harriet. They all make sense, they all probably believe that their actions are justified.

Also, imagine taking the heroine/hero right out of the story, would the villain still act the same way? If Anne didn't exist, Mr. Elliot would still try to bring himself into the Elliot family because he was afraid of losing the title. If Elizabeth didn't exist, Wickham would have had another favourite in Meryton. If Fanny didn't exist, Mrs. Norris would have found some other puppy to kick. The villains don't just appear for the plot of the main characters, they have their own reasons for moving around and messing shit up.

Lastly, explaining but not excusing (though unfortunately some people will excuse anyway but that's not your fault). Mary Crawford is mercenary and doesn't seem to believe that love is even a real thing. It's pointed out several times in the novel that her defects have to do with being raised in an immoral environment and a broken home. She was taught by her aunt to marry for wealth and disregard love. Austen doesn't excuse Mary, she doesn't give her a happy ending, but she does explain how she came to be. She's not just greedy, she has been taught that wealth is the best recipe for happiness. As an adult now, it is her responsibility to question that maxim or remain a villain.

Austen wrote amazing morally grey characters and "villains" (a term I used a little liberally here, some of them probably only count as antagonists, not full blown villains). I love how real and human she made her characters, it's something I aspire to myself!

Linking my Caroline rant because it's related, people remove her motives so often and flatten her into a "bitches be crazy".

[bonefall]

Stormclan is pretty cool, I’m glad they are a direct result of the clans and not Rouge Group 255674385 that pops up like Minecraft mobs at night

Didn’t ivypool kill beetlewhisker? Will they remember it

The mental image of playing minecraft and Darktail spawns on your roof like a spider, refusing to leave in the daylight and making annoying chittering noises, is magical thank you.

Anyway nah, that was Brokenstar. Ivypool killed Antpelt, not Beetlewhisker. I have doubts they're going to remember that though, and if they do, it'll be one of those "don't worry guys we TOTALLY remember the events in our series!" throwaway lines we've been getting recently. The type that's thought in her head or thrown out in passing, but doesn't significantly contribute to Ivypool's emotional struggle.

I think Ivypool's actually the part of this SE that I'm most apprehensive about, funny enough. StormClan's got me pretty excited, but my hopes kinda started falling when I found out Dovewing was going on the road trip. I do not like the story that the Erins tell between the sisters, and I feel like they keep getting forced together to "reconcile their differences" when it would make a MUCH more effective story for the two of them to not do that.

See, what I like about Ivypool is that she's grudge-holding and spiteful. I LIKE that she tried to leverage her sisterhood with Dovewing in ASC to try and make her manipulate her husband. I find the fact she tried to sabotage SkyClan's chances at the lake back in AVoS to halt Dovewing and Tigerheart's relationship, slighting her apprentice in the process, to be COMPELLING.

I ENJOY reading about Ivypool being nasty. Both a victim of the Dark Forest who was targeted because she felt alienated, and yet, someone who has found a way to use Clan culture's most unfair aspects to her advantage. She'll NEVER see herself as the bully she actually is, because in her eyes, she's permanently the underdog.

so... I just have absolutely no desire to see Dovewing and Ivypool be "close."

Every time it happens on the page, it feels like it's Dovewing desperately wanting her sister to not treat her poorly, or believe in her, or just stop actively sabotaging her life. Then, Ivypool realizes this after a while and displays emotional intelligence that feels unfitting for her character, and apologizes.

It feels forced.

Like it's just happening because the authors know the fans want it, and not actually what these two characters would do. You get me?

I don't want to see them reconnect. I want more bittersweet examples in WC where family members have irreconcilable differences, but now and then, there's that little twinge of love, that old spark that you pray, THIS time, could become a fire... but it doesn't. There's just nothing left to burn.

TL;DR I'm feeling overall meh about Ivypool's Heart but looking forward to seeing what StormClan's all about.

[commsroom]

cutter was born in the 20s, and he'd become "arthur keller" by the early 70s, so obviously pryce's story at the beginning of brave new world can't be taken literally - that's not even an old man, much less "older than anyone she had ever met." it's also inarguable she was an adult already working on her... ideas for the human body when cutter sought her out; "i want you to make a doll for me" and "i found people who had some very bold ideas about how to... tune up the human body [...] i funded their work, and provided them with a willing test subject" are pretty definitely referring to the same events. so, it's fairy tale language, but the question is: why? why frame it this way?

one part of it is the "fountain of youth" in connection to immortality, strength, and health. the implication isn't literally that cutter is very old and pryce is very young; it's that she represents this power, and that he wants her to bestow it upon him: "then you and i will fix the world. i will be young and you will be whole." cutter and pryce choose to look eternally 28, while referring to and conducting themselves as if they're very old: it's not just vanity, it's part of their self-mythology. simultaneously young and old, having overcome the natural order.

that mythology of "overcoming" natural limitations is especially significant for pryce: characterizing herself as a "little girl" within her own story is both self-victimizing and self-aggrandizing. pryce does not see herself as disabled so much as temporarily inconvenienced; even the usual limitations of the human body are something she hopes to transcend. "instead of being wretched or afraid, the little girl decided to be clever." she was put at a disadvantage, but overcame it all by herself because she was smarter and better than other people. by extension, anyone who can't do what she did just isn't good enough, even as she's closing doors behind her and making it harder for others like her. and at the same time: it's an underdog story that requires her to have been an underdog. she hasn't been in a very, very long time, but the power she holds over others remains justified in her self-perception by this image of a sick little girl who was hurt by the world. there's an implication of inherent worthiness, and even a sort of expected assumed innocence in characterizing it that way. the first thing people notice about pryce is her eyes, and... sure, maybe it's the technology, but if cutter can catch bullets without any visible signs, it seems likely to me that, like her age, this is at least in part an aesthetic choice. it intimidates people. she's turned this point of hurt and vulnerability into a power play, and remains attached to it.

and that's the other part of the mythologizing that's going on: presumably, pryce was not the only person who worked on all of this. cutter funded others. but the story retroactively simplifies it, in a childish fairy tale way, and paints an image of them as exceptional, uniquely capable and so uniquely deserving, people.

i think there's something interesting to consider here about pryce in contrast to hera: that pryce is a woman who self-justifies her cruelty via a mythologized girlhood, while hera is a woman who was never a girl, who was never considered innocent or even allowed the same recognition of the ways she's been a victim. pryce resents humanity and all it represents, resents her body and its limitations, feels that being human has only caused her suffering, but still clearly believes that she has more of a claim to humanity than hera does by nature of her biology and upbringing. pryce's "bootstraps" attitude re: disability and her own self-victimization are the crucial things here, but i think that is also particularly interesting if you read hera as a trans woman.

(incidentally, this is part of why i have a particular love for hera designs where she's just a regular woman, more angular, and maybe even older looking - a natural 30-something in contrast to an unnaturally maintained 28 - than pryce. they're both women who have chosen how they want to look, and it highlights something.)

[sgiandubh]

Dinna fash, Sassenach

Ashley Hearn's arrival aboard the HMS Sassenach...

... has immediately been met with an expert smirk across the street:

I was not really surprised. The blogger could not help herself (she rarely does). She had to weigh in, with that insinuating tone that seems to be part of her personal brand. And, in line with what she consistently posted, the idea is that S, a highly functioning alcoholic in her book, thoughtlessly hired another highly functioning alcoholic, with NO credentials to boot. Plus a profiteer of sorts, right?

Perhaps that blogger wanted to be their new marketing manager and there she is, instead, somewhere farfarfar away from Walhalla. An unsung, compliment deprived and undiscovered hero without a cape? For I have no other elegant & merciful explanation for what could be logically construed as an outburst of hurt ego (we KNOW she has PROPER CREDENTIALS, she shouted it REPEATEDLY across the UNIVERSE), coupled with the usual pettiness, every single time things seem to challenge her view of reality.

Let's unpack:

Ashley has decent education credentials. I am writing this because I bet the farm many casual readers of that legit calumny ended up thinking that she had NO education at all:

A BA in Mathematics, at a good public university in Maryland. And a Master's Degree in Teacher Education and Professional Development at Walden University, a for-profit education institution based in Minnesota, most likely online.

A word about Walden University, though, simply because of the recent controversy related to it. While it is true that Walden has been forced to settle a class action outside of court ( it cost them 28.5 million dollars to do so), that lawsuit was strictly related to African-American students denouncing the lack of transparency related to the university's DBA (Doctor of Business Administration) program.

[More on the lawsuit: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/quick-takes/2024/03/29/walden-agrees-285-million-settlement-class-action-suit]

Anyways, here are her real professional credentials, carefully hidden by the blogger:

Eight years and a half consistent work experience for the US subsidiary of Mast-Jägermeister, one of the most prestigious German liquor companies, founded in 1878 (https://www.mast-jaegermeister.de/). Would anyone be such a fool as to think she'd be constantly promoted by those people just for her eyes only, especially as a complete outsider to the very closed world of spirits business?

I see a hard-working woman, with good professional skills and obvious qualities (brand loyalty, for example), given a new career opportunity she clearly thought interesting enough to make her jump onboard. And I very much prefer an honest underdog, ballsy enough to take her passion and make it happen (thanks, Flashdance!) in a cutthroat, male dominated business environment, to the many lukewarm and half-hearted executives still lingering around in so many companies around the world just for the sake of commodity, predictability and mortgage.

And I honestly wish her every success. She does not deserve this. Nobody does. Luckily for her, she couldn't care less that a Nobody with a blog tried to rain on her parade.

Interestingly enough, Norouzi was the only SS bigwig NOT to congratulate her on Insta. He didn't relay the news, he didn't even like the post, even if they mutually follow eachother (their interaction always seemed to be minimal, though). But that is another story and it is way too early to speculate.

[max-nolastname]

types of story that different black sails characters think they're in:

jack: typical underdog overcoming unbeatable odds story; he is the main character and the show is 100% about him and his joseph campbell hero's journey. he is like achilles seeking eternal glory. he is also like gilgamesh, seeking immortality because he's afraid of death

flint: one of those fairytale retelling stories from the villain's pov; he is the fire-breathing dragon/big bad wolf/wicked witch that his village has ostracized, chased out of his home with pitchforks and torches because they feared him and what he is and what he stands for. he knows that in another show, a more popular show, the story would be told from the pov of the villagers about the dangers that lie beyond the village walls and into the forest...but this is HIS show and in HIS show HE is the one that survived the villagers not the other way around and HE is the one that has been wronged and he WILL see them pay for it

miranda: at first she thinks she is the witty and cunning heroine of a regency period romance novel. she is critical of high society and it's archaic and sexist traditions, turns her nose up at the institution of marriage and yet against all odds finds a true partner in thomas. she thinks herself happier and smarter than her peers, for finding a way to explore her sexuality freely and still keep her high status. she is caught in a whirlwind romance with a handsome naval officer and well....then her story turns into a tragedy and a decade caught in lifeless loveless joyless limbo where she is sidelined into the background of someone else's story

max: overly aware that she is in A Story and that she is Not The Main Character; the spotlight is never on her, she will never take centre stage. in fact, she is in the wings, or perhaps watching the show from the back of the theatre as the stage manager, setting the scene and directing others to pull ropes, shine lights, open and close the curtains so that other actors can strut and fret their way around the stage

billy: revenge quest story! thinks he is the good guy, there to protect his friends and get revenge on the tyrant who killed his father. gains some genre awareness and realizes that he is not, in fact, the main character, but rather a side character caught in a romance between his captain and quartermaster and if he really wants to survive he's really gotta break them up

madi: a story of hope told around a campfire, passed on from generation to generation so people don't forget about the time that an island of maroons stood up to a seemingly eternal and unbeatable empire. some days, it's a cautionary tale, on how volatile solidarity can be with divisions like class, race and gender .... or how revolution necessitates violence that people who are comfortable in their oppression rather not pay... but no empire lasts forever and nothing is inevitable. the story sticks in the hearts and minds of future revolutionaries and someday someone somewhere will pick up the torch and continue the fight

season 1 walrus crew: workplace comedy

silver: [redacted]

[almacambiondaughterofsaleos]

Bad Writing Can Make A Underprivileged Character Unintentionally Unlikable Or Likable

Sequel to my other earlier post.

Like I said in my earlier post, there can be a way to make a privileged character sympathetic or unsympathetic. The same can be said for characters that are underprivileged as well. This can be shown with Velma from 2023's Velma and Striker from Helluva Boss. With Velma she is race and sexuality swapped into a bisexual Indian girl who we are supposed to root for because of her minority status. On the other hand, Striker we are supposed to hate because of supposedly being an imp supremacist who misjudges royals.

Like the thing with Fred and Stolas, we get the opposite reaction because Velma goes out of her way to be a narcissist, sociopathic asshole who uses and hurts other people who gets in her way. Also despite trying to set herself up as this righteous social justice warrior she doesn't practice what she preaches and is as sexist and racist as the people she crusades against. Not to mention she treats her family and friends like total garbage while wanting to have all attention on her. This is in contrast with Striker who although a villain is made out to be a so-called supramcist because he hates the nobles of hell for belittling and taking advantage of the lower classes like imps. And again we are supposed to see him as a extremist, but in a series that is made of all sorts of killers and the fact that many nobles are shown to be crappy people have come to be sympathetic to him. He might try to kill Stolas because it's because of how terribly written he is we side with Striker due to how he has abused his privilege and is an example of that system despite the narrative saying otherwise.

Despite showing herself to get so much wrong, Velma is often still treated as if she is smart and capable while also trying hard to make it work in a bigoted world. However, a lot of stuff contradicts that with Velma always shown to be a lazy moocher who leeches off other people work and claim it as her own. She only claims to say she has to work for everything so she can make herself look like the underdog when in reality she doesn't put effort into anything. She also claims to be smart in reality her ego gets the better of her and prevents her from seeing errors. Meanwhile, the narrative tries to tell us Striker is only doing it out for selfish reasons and wanting to blame all nobles even so-called innocent ones for his tragedies. The problem is Stolas ain't innocent and he has the right to bite the bullet in Striker's bath. Also again we are told by Vivziepop he does have a tragic story but never shown in order to keep Stolas more sympathetic. They try to force him into being seen as toxic by giving him traits like seeming like he's LGBTphobic or has machismo so we shouldn't root for him but all of that comes out as forced instead of natural. Also his distaste for sexual comments comes off as contra dicing when he didn't mind doing that talk with Blitzo and again the penis statue of himself. He also mentions hurting Octavia even though that doesn't make sense since he works for Stella and she should be off the table since Stella wouldn't want her daughter involved but again it's more on trying to make him unlikable rather than logically make sense. Again a case of trying too hard to make unlikable it makes no sense.

And again how the hypocrisy is shown with both characters is that with Velma the writers are so unselfaware how hypocritical and nasty she is they often underestimate how much she doesn't practice what she preaches. As said before, she says she fights against bigotry but shows herself to be a white man basher and is sadistic in enjoying their pain even when they don't deserve it. She even can be shown to be racist against other minorities if she's really being intensively obnoxious. And when it comes to sexism girl just straight up loves slut shaming other girls. Also when it comes to rich people she might say he hates them but when she gets a taste of that privileges she changes her tune and it shows it's more about envy than actual injustice because she really is thinking how about she thinks the world is unfair for her and not anyone else's needs. It's the thing they try to do the same with Striker but you really can side with him because of the hierarchy that is often ignored but sometimes is present in the series. While in theory don't judge all rich people can be a good thing, but with this series it's in hell where bad structures are enforced and that the hell nobles are shown to be shitty towards the lower class. Striker is thus is depicted by a hypocrite by working for Stella but it doesn't work because you get more of an enemy of my enemy situation rather than him actually would act like the nobles if he was offered to be one.

So just like with how one series has a unintentionally sympathetic rich characters and the other has an unintentionally unsympathetic ones, the former has a unintentionally unsympathetic underprivileged character while the other is a unintentionally sympathetic one. It reflects the biases of the creators and also how they think they are viewing the character's blight. Ones like Velma come off as assholes who pretend to be the victim of a cruel world when in reality they want to blame everyone for their own mistakes. Meanwhile, Striker is bashed in series for daring to think that imps have it hard and that nobles shouldn't be unfairly judged when the series in general shows how shitty the higher ups are. Bad writing can make us either think underprivileged characters are sympathetic or unsympathetic.

[lunarflux]

I know you've already answered something similar, but do you consider Aemond evil? Like, we know he's the villain figure for team black, but do you think he's evil?

Because, despite the bad writing of the show, I can't see it. All I see is someone trying to survive and trying to keep his family alive, especially by the end, he's completely desperate.

Possibly controversial answer(?)... If this is the definition of "evil"

profoundly immoral and wicked

Then no.

I think of Aemond as an embodiment of the phrase, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions," because as much as people hate it, he makes a damn good point with everything he does (with the exception of Luke's death because you can even see on his face that he didn't mean it).

Killing Rhaenys - "This is war, and I was sent to kill the enemy. She's the enemy."

Hurting Aegon - "He got in the way of my job to protect his claim to the throne."

Hurting Helaena - "I can't be the only one trying to protect this family. If she can't prove that she can defend herself or even wants to defend herself, then my efforts are wasted."

(Lesser point) Dismissing Alicent from Small Council - "She served because she had to. My father is dead. My brother is injured. I'm the natural best option as someone who's seen war and is willing to fight to keep the throne for our family."

If I were to give an alternative to calling him "evil," I might say "misled." When it comes to stories where there is an obvious main character, someone is ultimately made out to be the antagonist. The best example I can think of is the public perception of Slytherin house in Harry Potter which one TikTok creator explained perfectly. As readers, we follow Harry, not Hogwarts. Because Harry is the protagonist and we are meant to sympathize with him, of course we naturally think Slytherin house is as bad as he thinks it is. Even early on, the line "there's no witch or wizard who went bad who wasn't in Slytherin" sets an immediate negative connotation on the house as a whole. Had the story been from someone else's point of view, it would be different.

It's a similar situation for House of the Dragon (separate from ASOIAF). If we were to follow Aemond's point of view all the way until adulthood, we'd see his development and would view him as the underdog whose surroundings shaped him into being something that is naturally against all others. Rhaenyra never connected with him. Luke and Jace never apologized. His brother bullied him into adulthood. His mother loved him, but it was conditional. He was overlooked and ignored by his father when he was hurt. He could only find emotional and physical comfort from the madame. Because of his childish anger, he killed someone. He was sent to kill the enemy, so he did. He sits the throne now, so he must protect his family, but he feels like he's the only one fighting for it. He fights for his family, but his mother resents him. He wants to know that his sister wants to protect their family as much as he does, but she won't.

I could say the same for Aegon because he didn't ask for the throne. It was suddenly sprung upon him because of his mother and grandfather. In theory, had Aemond actually let him escape to do what he wanted in another land, he might've been happier (until he got arrested for... one of the many awful things he did).

It all hinges on how the story is told. So, no, I don't think he's evil. I think the show does a very interesting job of trying to make people think he is.

I love the "are they actually evil" debates.

I think of "evil" as the bad version of "ignorant positivity" as in the people who think they're doing everything for the sake of others but it's done blindly and without any reason other than "because I'm a good person."

Aemond never claims to be a good person. In fact, he probably acknowledges that he needs to be seen as the villain in order to do what needs to be done.

Shimohara Kazumasa from OUT is my other example because that character does some heinous shit. He sells drugs and turns people into junkies. Pretty sure he's killed people. I was ready to think he was just an insanely hot villain, and then he drops this dialogue:

"Don't act all cocky. You guys are all scum. No matter how much you show off, you've done horrible things and caused trouble for others, right? So don't act like you're the good guy. Me and you, we're all scum. That's why I'm just trying to create a world that's easier for scum to live." x

And immediately my brain went to well SHIT he got a fuckin' point, don't he.

And then I fell in love with him. But that's a really niche example lol

[clarabowmp3]

hate brigade? I'm sorry but joe alwyn is directly responsible for a lot of the mental hurt that taylor will have to deal with for the rest of her life. I don't understand how people can hear sll, half the songs on midnights not to mention the anxiety ridden lover album and not see the emotional gaslighting joe was putting taylor through! Like that takes a toll and fans qnd the general public alike has a right to call that out. Now he's saying ish about tayvis when none of this concerns him?? Like if that's not manipulative, my name is Bennett cuz he's literally re inserting himself into the ex he resented' life. Unhinged if you ask me. So I don't think it's fair to characterize people as doing the most in this case. Alwyn could have just kept quiet and ate and ate food but now he deserves the dragging. Peace.

wowww wow okay so a couple of things:

we don't know much about their relationship. all we have is speculation based on taylor's lyrics, but we have to remember she is an unreliable narrator, so at best we can take them with a grain of salt. that is excluding how she might have modified certain things to present herself in a favourable light. I'm not saying she did or didn't, but it's a possibility. I say this because of how she's written music about her cheating. She very obviously focuses on how she was feeling and what led her to cheat, rather than her considerations of how it would affect her partner, which I think is yet another manifestation of how she perpetuates her victim narrative. I'm not saying all cheaters are villains, there's definitely some complex emotions involved, but she writes in such a way so as to encourage the reader to root for her by default.

This plays into her desire to be seen as the underdog or hero that everyone wants to support. She did this with Miss Americana too where she spun this whole standing up for women and other marginalised groups narrative, which I think contributed to being a swiftie becoming a trend, along with her whole 'relatable' schtick, fostering personal relationships etc.

There is nothing wrong with liking her music (I'm not gatekeeping), my issue is with people who treat becoming a swiftie as some girl scouts patch to earn by ripping into her 'enemies,' most popularly her exes. Naturally, he has been put through hell on social media since the break-up, up till ttpd dropped and the attention shifted to matty instead.

I agree that many of her love songs from as early as lover are anxiety-ridden, but I think that speaks more to her personality rather than his actions. Certain events may have transpired and he might have acted in a certain way which made her feel insecure etc but we have no reason to think he did it maliciously. What we do have is reason to think this is extremely unlikely. 2016 was rough man, no one knew if she would ever recover from #taylorswiftisoverparty, and yet he still stuck around. To me I think that shows he genuinely cared about her, something taylor has also thought.

Could you elaborate on the emotional gaslighting he has done, (and hence the "mental hurt" he has caused her) keeping in mind all those other reasons why her music is not an accurate source of info ^^?

getting more specific with sll, I don't see how he did anything wrong? I don't want to get too much into it but I know what it feels like to be burdened by someone else's mental health issues, and I do feel irritated by it at times, even though at the end of the day I know it's something they can't control. There's nothing wrong with creating art about difficult emotions, but I think she did not need to release it for the whole world to hear, knowing that they know who she is talking about. The song itself isn't too egregious, she just expresses her frustration with the whole situation ("you'll find someone," "I'm not the one" -> even she doesn't blame him for anything let alone the emotional gaslighting you're accusing him of anon what are you on 😭) the main problem is when people like you use it to villainise joe. like explain to me what part of it shows his gaslighting

For context here is what the whole deuxmoi thing is about, taken from this post:

You can clearly see that he was expressing an opinion on what he thought was a private enough setting. How could he have known he was going to be overheard and it was going to leak to the internet and eventually reach taylor (if any of this ie even true)? She is his ex of 6 years and it's only been a year since their breakup, I think it's fine that he's still somewhat emotionally occupied with her. We don't know if he obsesses about her every day and since the London travis thing is pretty recent, maybe it was just on his mind that day? Also why does he have to keep quiet? taylor can write whatever she wants in her songs, I think he is more than justified to have a conversation in public. We have no reason to think he meant for this to get out or to "[re-insert] himself into the ex he resented' life," as you put it.

to end off, anon I really think you should touch grass (and I'm not trying to be condescending here) because it feels like you're blowing up select details out of proportion to fit the narrative taylor has created through her music. We don't know how accurate that narrative is.

[madara-fate]

I know you're against the notion of sexist writing in Naruto, but I ought to disagree. The problem isn't that female characters have love interests or are driven by those feelings but that leading roles have that theme way too often and especially how little female characters have to do in the story. They don't drive the story but rather get shoved around, when they do something "major" (seemingly) it's to highlight Naruto - see Hinata vs Pain or Sakura "vs" Sasuke, getting saved by Kakashi, then Naruto as if it wouldn't be absurdly repetitive at that point. This is where the annoyance with the female characters stem from, it's almost comical how little room to develop and individuality they get. Ironically, as much as Sakura is hated on for these things (and quite frankly, many asspulls like mischaracterization of her personality), she's the character that at least has a saving point, which is her aspiration to become stronger and actually doing it. What was missing were more major fights to highlight that. Sure, we have in-verse explanations for why she doesn't fight in the front, she's a medical ninja but those decisions are made by a writer, after all and those rules don't have to exist or can be broken in favor of her having agency in the story.

This is the central part of any good character: agency. We want to see characters make decisions and act upon it. Basically precisely what Sakura did when she decided to lie to Naruto and kill Sasuke herself, I love the idea but the execution is terrible because it ended up circling back to Kakashi and Naruto.

A lack of agency is usually part of a characters struggles, you can see it in villain oirgins and underdog stories, "zero to hero", all that. Sounds familiar? This is the premise of Sakura's character but by not showing how she overcame that through involving her more, it flies over peoples heads that yes, Sakura was a character who didn't have agency and she wanted to change that (except, during important scenes, Kishimoto didn't pull through). I think Sakura is actually the best female character in Naruto due to that premise, however due to Kishimoto sidelining that and not doing the same for any other female character - aside from Tsunade in her introduction (she's the 2nd best female character in my opinion, btw) - his female characters are pale in comaprison to the male counterpoints and people are 100% justified for being frustrated about it. Because revolving the female characters around their love interests is one thing, stripping them of agency to change anything in the plot is another.

I don't hate the characters for it however, I dislike Kishimoto's writing in this aspect and I as an aspired writer take his female characters execution as an example on how not to do it.

This is a great video on Arcane's female characters that I think explains pretty well how agency is integral for good character writing:

https://youtu.be/hML-FGHGEN4

I recommend watching it if you're interested :)

I hope I could explain where the "sexism" claims stem from and why people are frustrated about Kishimoto's writing of female characters. Have a great day!

The problem isn't that female characters have love interests or are driven by those feelings but that leading roles have that theme way too often and especially how little female characters have to do in the story.

Sakura is literally the only leading female character in the story, so to say that the problem is how often this is the case, when there is only one leading female, doesn't really make sense. As for how little female characters have to do in the story, that is a numbers issue, not a female importance issue, which I'll elaborate on later. Because by this logic, I can very easily levy the same criticism towards every male character in the series not named Naruto or Sasuke.

They don't drive the story but rather get shoved around, when they do something "major" (seemingly) it's to highlight Naruto - see Hinata vs Pain or Sakura "vs" Sasuke, getting saved by Kakashi, then Naruto as if it wouldn't be absurdly repetitive at that point.

Only Naruto and Sasuke drive the story. That's why I've always stated that this is not a female character issue, its not an issue of the female characters not having enough panel time, it's that Naruto and Sasuke simply have too much of it. The vast majority of the male characters suffer from exactly the same thing.

The fact that you felt the need to put major in quotation marks, and then add (seemingly) already shows me that you're really trying to downplay everything significant that the female characters have done in the series in order to serve your argument, but why though? Why actively try to downplay the accomplishments and feats of the female characters? To me, that alone is far more sexist or misogynist than anything Kishi has done or shown in the series.

Sakura had major feats which had nothing to do with Naruto, such as saving multiple characters' lives, defeating Sasori alongside Chiyo, unlocking the Byakugou Seal etc. Tsunade had feats which had nothing to do with Naruto, such as her performances against Orochimaru, becoming Hokage, her role in the War etc. Temari's significant involvements, such as saving Shikamaru from Tayuya and then subsequently defeating the latter with ease, had nothing to do with Naruto etc. I can continue listing when female characters have done significant things, which had nothing to do with Naruto, so I do not get this point.

This is where the annoyance with the female characters stem from, it's almost comical how little room to develop and individuality they get.

Again, if you are unable to acknowledge the growth and development that the important female characters experienced, then that is on you, not Kishi. Sakura went from being an ordinary fangirl who cowered in the face of adversity, to being a compassionate person who is the strongest kunoichi in the world on paper. Hinata went from being a shy, stuttering bundle of nerves, to a confident kunoichi who's will can move mountains. Tsunade went from being a pessimistic gambler to a hugely respected leader, mentor and role model etc.

Sure, there are some female characters who experienced little development, but there are just as many, if not more male characters whom that criticism also applies to. I mean, what great development did Kiba receive? Or Shino? Or Kankuro? Even someone as beloved as Rock Lee, is essentially the same person at the end of the series that he was at the beginning.

Ironically, as much as Sakura is hated on for these things (and quite frankly, many asspulls like mischaracterization of her personality), she's the character that at least has a saving point, which is her aspiration to become stronger and actually doing it. What was missing were more major fights to highlight that.

On that, we definitely agree.

This is the central part of any good character: agency. We want to see characters make decisions and act upon it. Basically precisely what Sakura did when she decided to lie to Naruto and kill Sasuke herself, I love the idea but the execution is terrible because it ended up circling back to Kakashi and Naruto.

Okay, so because you don't like the execution of one instance in which Sakura demonstrated her agency, does it mean that the execution of her agency in general is poor? What about all of the other examples?

A lack of agency is usually part of a characters struggles, you can see it in villain oirgins and underdog stories, "zero to hero", all that. Sounds familiar? This is the premise of Sakura's character but by not showing how she overcame that through involving her more, it flies over peoples heads that yes, Sakura was a character who didn't have agency and she wanted to change that (except, during important scenes, Kishimoto didn't pull through).

I'm going to reiterate this point - If people honestly cannot see how Sakura experienced her own "zero to hero" like development (something that I went into a lot of detail on during this post for example), then that is on them, not Kishi. As far as I'm concerned, her development in a multitude of ways, was exceedingly clear. Because contrary to popular belief, Sakura had more focus and development than 99% of the male cast, surpassed only by Naruto and Sasuke themselves, and rivalled by Kakashi.

I think Sakura is actually the best female character in Naruto due to that premise, however due to Kishimoto sidelining that and not doing the same for any other female character - aside from Tsunade in her introduction (she's the 2nd best female character in my opinion, btw) - his female characters are pale in comaprison to the male counterpoints and people are 100% justified for being frustrated about it.

So let's exclude Naruto and Sasuke for a moment, because I've made my criticisms of their general over importance in the story very clear. Tell me, in the context of development and importance to the story, how exactly do the female characters pale in comparison to their male counterparts? Because relative to the number of female characters in comparison to the males, their importance in the story is near indistinguishable.

A quick overview of several of the teams to illustrate my point.

In Team Gai, Neji had the most development and significance, Lee was in the middle, and Tenten was last, fair enough.

In Team 10, Shikamaru had the most development, Ino was in the middle, and Chouji was last.

In Team 8, Hinata had far more significance than Kiba and Shino combined.

For the Sand siblings, Gaara had the most development, Temari was in the middle, and Kankuro was last.

For the Rain orphans, Nagato had the most development, Konan was in the middle, and Yahiko was last.

For Team Taka (excluding Sasuke), Karin had far more development and significance than Suigetsu and Jugo.

So you see, generally speaking, the female characters were given roughly the same amount of focus and development, but because there are noticeably more male characters, it gives the false impression that more focus was given to them. But when you consider the numbers, it's evident that this is not the case.

Because revolving the female characters around their love interests is one thing, stripping them of agency to change anything in the plot is another.

The lives of the female characters did not revolve around their love interests, and they were not stripped of their agency either. Plenty of them had several instances when they changed things in the plot or did something major, so that's just you downplaying what they accomplished, and they were not any less likely to do something major than their male counterparts outside of Naruto and Sasuke.

Sorry but my stance is rather firm on this. I hope you have a great day too, but we'll have to agree to disagree on this.

[catofoldstones]

Why do antis act as if Alayne is a completely different character from Sansa??? Like... that is Sansa, just under a different disguise. It's still her. It's no different than Arya currently with different identities. But the way they talk its as if Sansa suddenly morphed into a different girl and everything about her old identity is now dead and now Sansa Stark doesn't exist.

I really don't know how to describe this but I've seen posts saying things like Sansa is 'too deep' into the Alayne persona and can't go back to her old name. Thats not how this works???

Because it pushes their agenda that Sansa is not a member of House Stark and therefore not important to the story. Sansa forever being Alayne eliminates the threat she poses to Arya becoming the queen in the north and/or Jon, Dany, Arya becoming this ragtag group of ya teenage underdogs who save the world from the Others. It’s the same idea as behind the theory that Sansa is going to die or is no longer a Stark because Lady died.

They also don’t want to see Sansa in a position of power because they still blame her for lying about Arya hitting Joffrey (never mind realising who the real villains here are), and later getting Ned killed by ratting him out to Cersei (which has been debunked time and again). Furthermore, if she is Alayne and not Sansa, then she clearly does not have the Starks’ best interests at heart considering that she is Baelish’s protégé and holds similar motivations as him - which actualises her as a villain. And if she’s a villain, then she obviously can’t be the Lady/Queen of Winterfell, or just someone who deserves a happy ending in the least. Are you looking at the mental gymnastics?

As for Sansa being too deep into Alayne, I can only say that she constantly thinks of herself as Sansa during the Alayne chapters. In fact, she thinks like she is Sansa, not Alayne, no matter how hard she tries.

The Freys had broken all laws of hospitality when they’d murdered her lady mother and her brother at the twins…

Alayne I, AFFC

Before this she’s just reminding Baelish who she actually is saying Bronze Yohn will know who she really is as soon as he looks at her. She blurts out Jon Snow’s name and thinks of him fondly. None of which she would do if she were “in too deep” Alayne. Her pre-released TWOW chapter is littered with her still thinking as Sansa.

She felt alive again, for the first since her father… since Lord Eddard Stark had died.

For just a little while, as she ran, she forget who she was, and where, and found herself remembering bright cold days at Winterfell, when she would race through Winterfell with her friend Jeyne Poole, with Arya running after them trying to keep up.

Alayne I, TWOW

She others Alayne a lot too, as if Alayne is a friend she knows and not her own disguise.

“No, my lady. I am from Gulltown.” And I am not, though Alayne was born there.

Alayne I, TWOW

And these are just some of the examples. Moreover, the recently leaked outline, even in its scarce information, has bashed the final nail in the coffin of this argument and that has obviously caused much anxiety amongst the antis. Never mind it not working like that because these arguments are clearly bad faith and hold no water next to the deluge of evidence saying otherwise.

[dvsconocvdo]

closed / not accepting replies

A. after the canoeing event (blood, fainting tw)

Amrita couldn't remember a time she felt so tired, so hot, and so sweaty. After losing in the archery event, she was more than willing to sit out the other events, but when Jonah had mentioned how he wanted to win the canoe race her mindset suddenly changed. After throwing rocks, and duplicating herself she was feeling light headed. Deciding to use shadow magic to fight back against Aiyla's tactics had definitely drained her of any remaining energy. She was thankful things were slowing down a bit. But her nose continued to bleed, and she was sure she might faint soon. Bumping into someone as she attempted to keep her head raised up high, she mumbled a quick apology. "I'm so sorry. I'll get out of your way." A pause. "Actually, do you know where one might finds snacks? I'm a bit turned around."

B. during horse riding (injury tw)

"So, like did you fucking know we had a whole equestrian set up in town? This has to be a rich person thing, yeah? Like. I can't believe there were this many horses in town." Noel was holding some blue pom poms to cheer for her team as she was definitely sitting this one out. She had never ridden a horse, and today wasn't going to be the first time. "Also, I gotta say. What are the odds of someone sabotaging the other team and causing someone else to just eat shit?"

C. during the wolf bbq (time soup; alcohol & camera shaking in gif tw)

"All I'm saying is they love to see the underdog win. We just gave the people the performance they wanted." She bragged with ease before taking a sip of her cup. "And just because our team ate it up, I say we do shots then feast like the victors that we are." Noel patted the shoulders of her teammate in comradery.

[mikelogan]

ttpd thoughts

for the record, i'm not trying to be like. purposely hateful or anything, i'm just so deeply disappointed with her. this last year has been a mess and she's repeatedly acted in ways that, at the very least, rub me in the wrong way and at their worst have disgusted me and made me lose so much respect for/faith in her. miss americana has become a piece of performance art rather than any sort of meaningful activism.

she made a very public display of dating/hooking up with a bigot and basically said "fuck you, i do what i want" in response to valid criticism and then tried to smooth it over by working with one of the women he'd called slurs. almost every time she spoke this year, whether in an interview or through tree, she reinforced my worry that she views herself as untouchable and that any sort of negativity or criticism directed toward her should be discounted because she's an "underdog" and a woman, despite the fact that there are very real issues with her words and actions. and don't get me started on everything with football guy and his trump-loving ass.

she is absolutely allowed to do, say, date, fuck, etc. anyone and anything she wants. she can write songs about all of it. she can do damage control and pr and control the narrative however she chooses. she can run smear campaigns and drag names through the mud while maintaining she's the perpetual victim when she's arguably the one with the most power in any given situation. i can appreciate that fame presents a set of challenges that i will never experience or fully comprehend.

but i'm also allowed to have my opinions on it, especially when so much of it is so heavily publicized. there is so much we will never know and there is also so much we do know that we never should have. pretty much since eras was announced, she's become so deeply oversaturated and it went from being cool to see so much hype and getting a new album and new re-recordings to feeling like everything is about money and breaking records. it's become a machine, a content factory, and so many decisions feel rushed, incomplete, and incongruent. it doesn't feel like there's been real thought about the material itself and instead it's become about aesthetics and sensationalism.

i think that's why i'm so frustrated right now and it's highly likely that these albums will grow on me or at least some of the songs. i've been listening to the 12 songs i liked on repeat since i finished my initial run through each album and i already like them even more. but i wish that it could truly just be about the music for me. that's what's always been most meaningful to me about taylor is her lyricism and the stories she tells through her songs. but knowing everything i know and having seen everything i've seen over the past year, it's tainted my perception of the albums and the songs on them.

i think that taylor has a lot of growing to do as a person. i've heard people say that sometimes celebrities are frozen at the age they became famous and i think that really shows in taylor's case. the irony of a song being titled "so high school" was certainly not lost on me. a lot of her phrasing feels very juvenile, just as her treatment of joe and everything surrounding the end of their relationship has been. i never really had feelings about him one way or another, and as i mentioned above, there's a lot we'll never know about what happened between them. but she's been pushing her victim narrative so hard and the only thing i've seen from joe is his support of palestine. actions speak a lot louder than words. it changed so drastically from the initial news of their breakup being amicable to turning him into yet another villain. i have no doubt in my mind that taylor has been treated very poorly by a lot of the men in her life, and joe is likely not an exception. but i'm to the point where i have to take everything she says with a heaping tablespoon of salt.

at the end of the day, taylor's music is her own and i understand why she's said that she wants her work to be about the music and not about the men. i can see how it would feel invalidating to have her songs picked apart and attributed to the men they're written about. and i'm not even trying to do that here. but i can't recall a time when she's been so public about her relationships? in the past, it's felt a lot more like speculation, but jesus, between ratty and tk this past year, we've just been inundated with so much that unless i was an extremely casual fan that managed to escape her face on every news show, billboard, and social media website, i can't fathom not knowing what she's singing about on these albums. she can't have it both ways.

i still have all the music that came before ttpd, and like i said, with subsequent listens, ttpd will probably grow on me a bit, but idk man, i'm over it. and i think it's important to be willing and able to criticize or at the very least analyze your favorite media, whether it's music or tv or film or literature or whatever else. your favorite thing probably sucks in one way or another and pretending it doesn't doesn't make you a better person than someone who acknowledges it. these are complex, extremely nuanced things i take issue with and when it comes down to it, i will never know taylor personally and be able to talk to her about these things and get her point of view and her thoughts. that leaves me to say my piece, which is what this post is.

as a recovering swiftie, i'm just so very tired.

[reikunrei]

It's Always the Dad

Yes, we have another installment of comparing Stranger Things and Doctor Who! Today we'll be going through:

Season 1, Episode 8: Father's Day

The general premise of this episode is Rose and the Doctor going back in time to the day her dad, Pete, was killed in a hit-and-run accident. Initially, she just wanted to be there for him during his passing, since he died alone with no one around. However, in a split-second decision, Rose runs out and pushes him out of the way, thus saving him. This causes a "wound" in time, as the Doctor puts it, which summons creatures called Reapers that start killing and "consuming" everything in the vicinity. It even makes the Tardis unusable, leaving them stranded with no way out and no clear method to fix things.

Immediately getting hit with the name Peter is soooo... even getting an Alan in there?? Anyway.

We open on a flashback of Rose as a young child talking to her mother, Jackie, about Pete. Jackie mentions that how, when he died, "I only wish there'd been someone there for him." Now Rose, in the present day, talks to the Doctor about how she wishes she could be that someone, and asks if he could take her to him. He agrees, but when the moment comes, Rose freezes up and Pete dies before she can go comfort him.

She asks if she can try again, but the Doctor warns her that they have to be very careful this time. He says it's dangerous having two sets of them there at the same time, though he doesn't elaborate further than that, instead simply warning her that, while she doesn't "have to do anything [she] [doesn't] want to," this is the last chance they'll have, as they won't be able to come back a third time without it getting risky.

However, overcome with the sudden understanding that she could save her dad, Rose runs out before Pete's been hit by the car, exposing herself to the past versions of Rose and the Doctor, and shoves him out of the way as the car peels off around the corner. The past Rose and Doctor disappear and Rose introduces herself to Pete, who notes how it's a "coincidence," seeing as she shares a name with his baby daughter.

Blurting out that she knows of the wedding Pete was on his way to, she goes with the Doctor and Pete back to his apartment to finish getting ready. We then get an overhead shot, shrouded in red, of the city from the eyes of an unseen creature.

Obviously, what Rose did was bad. Really bad. But we have yet to see the full damage, and first get this exchange between her and the Doctor at Pete's apartment.

Rose protests, saying that now her dad is alive, that what she did was a good thing, but the Doctor counters with the fact that his entire race of people is dead and "Do you think it never occurred to me to go back and save them?" Rose further argues, saying that it's not like she "changed history" in a meaningful way.

Obviously this jumps out in conjunction with Vecna's "he was an ordinary, mediocre man" comment about Brenner. The idea of Pete being important because he's ordinary will come up again later in this episode, and it's something I've spoken of before in some of my prior DW posts.

This concept is present in Stranger Things, and, notably, for the most part, it is presented as a very good thing. It's often highlighted that our protagonists are underdogs and outcasts, specifically people who, while on the fringes, are still very ordinary. They're messy, they're imperfect, and characters like El, who are extraordinary, have a desire to become ordinary, or at the very least to just fit in and live as normal a life they can lead. Characters like El and Henry and the other lab kids are put on pedestals for their abilities, but we're shown time and again that it's really not all it's cracked up to be, especially if they want to be able to exist out in the world and be loved for who they are, not for what they can offer.

This does then, however, quite neatly lead me back around to Brenner. Our protagonists are shown to be ordinary, but so are our antagonists. Everyone in Stranger Things is just someone, and that means everyone. No one character is any more "special" than another, and that's a core facet of the entire show. And again, I mean everyone. Even the bad guys. Even Vecna. They are all ordinary.

Thus, our "good guys" and our "bad guys" are put in the same camp. They're equated to one another. Therefore, one can't simply be cast aside, because doing so entirely undermines the other and strips the story of one of its load-bearing columns.

When it comes to Brenner, as I spoke about in this post analyzing another episode, this idea leads me to believe that we're meant to deeply humanize Brenner. Brenner is said to be seeking out greatness in others in order to uplift himself, in order to make himself extraordinary, and while Vecna makes his "...ordinary, mediocre..." statement as a means to knock Brenner out at the knees, I believe it's also meant as a way to ground him in with all the other characters in the show. If our "big bad," the guy who created the Child Torture Basement, is "ordinary," then what does that make the rest of us? Certainly not worse than him, but not better either.

Moving back to the DW episode, the spat between the Doctor and Rose continues, and we get this gem of a back-and-forth that (combined with the last screenshot in the previous collage) reads very much like the byler rain fight scene and thus also the brennry argument in TFS (which you can see side-by-side comparisons of here from @henrysglock).

Even with the pseudo-"you'll come crawling back" line? Please.

So, the Doctor storms off, leaving Rose with Pete, who tries to comfort her about her "boyfriend" walking out on her.

Tell me I don't need to get into detail with this. Even the stuff with the loony bin? Come on, now... Even the little comment about the Bermuda Triangle, which is something @aemiron-main has cooking up in a post somewhere/has spoken about it personally with me in the past... wrow.

Then we cut to the church where the aforementioned wedding is taking place, where multiple people comment that so many guests are "missing." In a prior scene, we got more of those red overhead shots followed by people in the city being snatched up by our unseen danger. The groom's father jokes with the groom about how it's not too late for him to back out.

Of course we combine time being weird with it getting cold and a “turn back the clock” line… sure.

While driving to the wedding, Pete asks Rose how she knows Jackie, and Rose says that Jackie, when talking about Pete, says she "picked the most wonderful man in the world." Pete scoffs at this, saying, "Must be a different Jackie, then. She'd never say that." This is something Rose finds odd, but I'll talk about it more in-depth and my thoughts on it later.

They're interrupted by the radio suddenly changing channels, which begins playing a rap song that Rose recognizes as having not been released yet in 1987. She pulls out her cell phone to check her messages and presumably call the Doctor, but all she gets is a repeated voice saying, "Watson, come here. I need you." Then, the car that almost ran Pete over earlier appears in the rear view mirror before disappearing.

Pete and Rose pull up at the chapel, and, again, the car appears out of nowhere and nearly runs into them.

Then Jackie comes over and immediately begins a row with Pete while Rose just gawks. The following screenshots are a collection rather than the shot-for-shot, line-by-line progression because... boy she has words.

Jackie has always been fiery and hot-headed, so this isn't exactly out of character for her, but Rose is shocked by the fact that they're fighting so terribly when all Jackie ever told her growing up was that Pete was wonderful and they were happy. Briefly after this, Rose does see them sort of "make up" and have a firm but more civil conversation about Jackie being upset about their instability and Pete promising things will get better, but even after that, she's still very short with him and insults him repeatedly.

While, obviously, it's not the same situation, it made me think of what 001 partially monologues about in 4.07, wherein he complains that while his family put on this happy, perfect image, it was all a veneer to hide how dysfunctional they really were. In DW, Jackie, after his death, spoke highly of Pete, possibly so Rose wouldn't think poorly of him (though, knowing Jackie, I'd say it was also partially to soothe herself lol). When Rose was at their apartment, she saw all of his awards and accolades on display while, in the modern day, they're all boxed up and tucked away. Rose commented on all of Pete's entrepreneurial goods scattered around the house, and though Jackie spoke exasperatedly of it all, it's framed very much as a fond exasperation. Meanwhile, in this chapel scene, it's clear that Jackie vehemently hates it.

I still need to do some exploring through more episodes of DW, but I have a little hunch that aspects of Rose's character and arcs may have been at least partial inspiration for the Creels and Henry specifically, so seeing this family dysfunction crop up had my radar beeping a little faster.

We then get a brief scene of several children at a nearby playground being snatched up one at a time by our red-tinted villains, and one boy races around to the church shouting about monsters "going to eat us!" and one of the other wedding guests asks, "What sort of monsters, sweetheart? Is it aliens?" and several of the adults laugh. Okay.

At this point, we've also been made aware that the Tardis is out of service. The Doctor, after having left Rose at the apartment, finds that the Tardis is empty, just looking like a normal police call box on the inside. He races back to where Rose is (he goes crawling back!), finding her at the church and yelling for her to get inside as we get a first look at our monsters.

They're giant bat-like creatures, of course, because what else would they be, that swoop down and consume several guests (including the pastor) on the outer steps of the church while everyone else races inside to safety.

Rose, babygirl, quit saying Henry words.

The Doctor is also given the groom's father's cell phone, which is also receiving that "Watson, come here. I need you" interference. The Doctor excitedly says that that's "the very first phone call" from Alexander Graham Bell. I'm sure you picked up on it when I mentioned it before, but evidently with this "wound" in time, we're getting a "bleeding" effect where time is sort of overlapping. The area is now unstable because of the way Rose interfered, so we're getting snippets from long before and after 1987.

This makes me think of all the stuff with anachronisms in ST, which has been spoken about heavily by Em and others, specifically in posts like this one irt TFS. This "bleeding" phenomenon is even present on-screen, specifically with the newspapers that Nancy and Robin read at the library, given that they see a newspaper with the name Edward Creel in it, yet they come to only verbally mention Henry. While we're not sure why this is happening in ST yet, as it's used here in DW, it's meant to be a hint toward an overlap/collapse in time and space. Therefore, who's to say it's not something similar, or at least some hint at general instability, in ST?

I also want to briefly highlight the religious undertones we get within this episode, due to the fact that the majority of it takes place inside the church. We already had that one shot I posted earlier of the groom and his father talking, in which we get a prolonged moment on the stained glass window depicting the crucifixion of Jesus followed by the comment of it being "cold." Here, now with everyone hiding inside, we get this shot of the shadow of one of the Reapers through the same window.

This happens several times through the episode across all the windows of the church, but this one is especially pointed and instantly makes me think of all of the TFS promo that heavily favored religious imagery, as well as the recent ST5 leaks showing that a church will definitely be involved, even with UD vines covering it (Creel exorcism, anyone?). To bring it even closer to the MF, these shots of the Reapers remind me of the MF looking through the gate as El closes it in ST2.

We even get a moment later where the Doctor stands behind the pulpit in order to explain their plan to get the Tardis back. That paired with Brenner's Time Lord imagery, and even Mr. Newby in TFS originally being listed as Father Newby, sure had me raising my eyebrows.

Pete and the Doctor have a brief moment while they're going around making sure all the windows and doors are locked, wherein the Doctor spots the disappearing-reappearing car that almost hit Pete going around the corner. Pete catches a glimpse, but when he asks the Doctor what it was, the Doctor says it was nothing to worry about and moves on.

Then we get one of my favorite moments.

This had me jumping for joy because of the Fringe of it all. Spoilers ahead, but, in Fringe, after Peter Bishop was wiped from the universe, he was returned only for the universe around him to not shift to accommodate his presence again. While he still had all of his past memories, even ones that he shared with Walter and Olivia, nobody else had any of those shared memories. He wasn't inserted back into their world retroactively, he was just placed in the present as-is. In the original universe, Olivia and Peter were in a romantic relationship, but that ceased to exist when he was wiped, yet she begins acting like they're in a relationship and being affectionate. When Peter asks why she's doing that, she says she doesn't really know why, just that she knows she loves him even if she has none of the memories to go with it.

Earlier in this DW episode, in the screenshots I posted above shortly after the Doctor leaves, Pete admits he feels he knows Rose from somewhere. Deep down, he knows he's her dad, but he just had to see it.

Given that Fringe is a huge inspiration for ST, I was so pleased to see this concept crop up here too. It reminds me a lot of what we see in the NINA arc in ST4, wherein El is dropped in front of 001 and seems to almost instantly trust him with her life. She doesn't remember what happened, but she seems to know that she loves him and he loves her, which feels further aided by her lashing out at him when he appears "off" to her. Hell, even her still trying to break through to Vecna points to the idea that she knows she loves the man (allegedly) in there, and perhaps even knows more about the truth of the situation than she remembers/than what Brenner has led her to believe. She's being presented with the worst possible image of this person, but part of her still hesitates in condemning him.

Now let's return again to our lovely idea of ordinary being best. The Doctor is approached by the bride and groom of the wedding, and the bride asks if he'll save them.

While these people are deemed "ordinary" and they think themselves "unimportant," the Doctor protests. They have their own individual, unique lives and experiences, ones that he, by virtue of who and what he is, will never get to experience. This is a big reason why the Doctor, across the entire history of the DW series, always comes back to Earth. He's fascinated by humans, which is something I've spoken about before. It's very reminiscent of Gandalf being smitten by Hobbits in LotR.

I've already spoken about how our main characters in ST are deemed "outcasts" and "freaks," and while those monikers feel inherently at odds with the "ordinary" label I slapped on them earlier, the whole point of our main cast is that they're representative of “the everyman,” and they’re meant to be generally sympathetic to everyone in the audience. We're even shown the "ordinary" characters being anything but that (specifically thinking of Karen and how Nancy talks about her in ST1 compared to their conversation in ST3; and Jason being the "perfect boy" before he snaps and loses his head entirely; and, of course, the Creel family seeming picture-perfect before revealing in TFS that Virginia really was Like That with Henry). Point is, there's the "ordinary" we're told, and then the true "ordinary" we're shown.

The "ordinary", or "normal" as it's often dubbed in ST, we're told about it always a facade of some kind, and in fact almost everyone in ST is un-ordinary beneath the surface or due to varying circumstances. In short, this is an extremely long-winded way of, again, saying that there isn't really any "ordinary vs freaks," because everyone is on the same playing field.

So for just one second I want to be That Bitch and talk about how this made me think of the comparisons between Henry and Will, and the common fanon idea of bringing Will "up" to "Henry"'s "level" of supposed greatness by giving him world-altering powers. While I don't doubt that Will has some kind of ability that will aid them, especially given that he can still sense the Shadow when he's back in proximity of it, I find it quite a stretch to believe that he'll be given powers akin or adjacent to what El or Henry have.

While El often falls back on her powers to help/defend herself and others, we also see her crave a "normal" life and claim she "doesn't belong" because she's different (read: has/had powers and lived a wholly different life from her peers because of it). It's something that's heavily emphasized with Henry in TFS as well, with him claiming he's not "normal" and that something is wrong with him because of his affliction with the Shadow and his newfound powers he has yet to understand or control. His entire life has been turned upside down (ha ha), and flashes of medical reports in the play outline that he was a "normal" boy before his flaying in the (alleged) Nevada cave. Overall, the powers are framed as something undesirable that makes life harder than it already is for them.

Obviously everyone knows that Will's homosexuality and El's powers are meant to sort of parallel each other in this sense. And thus, I can kind of see the argument that, if he had powers of his own, this could be a way to tie it together. If he had powers of some kind, they could be another literal representation of his queerness or otherness that needs to be "accepted." However, I find that, to put it bluntly, completely pointless. Him being gay already represents him being gay. It feels demeaning to his arc to give him a proxy to accept himself through rather than just accepting himself... for himself.

Besides, we already have El grappling with the powers aspect on her own in her "am I the monster or the superhero?" struggle. She already has that whole idea covered, so why does Will need to take it from her? Why does he have to accept it first before she does?

Rather, as I've been discussing, I believe it's because Will is "ordinary" (read: doesn't have powers) that he'll be of greater help toward fixing things. He, along with El, very closely parallel Henry's life experiences, with El paralleling his time in the lab and Will paralleling his time outside of it/prior to it (which is something James has spoken of in the past, though I cannot find a post about it !!). However, it's less about them being the same and more about highlighting how they're different.

- Will's family stuck by his side and tried to help him while Henry's tossed him to the dogs. - Will had his life saved and the Shadow removed while Henry was left to fester with it for months, at the very least. - Will had a group of friends willing to give him the benefit of the doubt/help him when he was flayed while Henry never had someone listen to his side of the story, instead choosing to believe he really did everything of his own volition.

Therefore, it feels extremely logical to me to assume that Will would be left without profound powers like the ones Henry gained (which, for the record, we still don't know how he got). They're not meant to match each other beat for beat, but, as people, they're meant to highlight a disparity within society and what circumstances can do to a person. They share experiences, but they don't share outcomes.

I can't say all of this with complete confidence, obviously, as the Duffers haven't given us all the answers yet, but i feel very confident in my agreement with James, as I stated before, that El is meant to closely parallel Henry as a lab-kid and someone with powers, while Will is meant to closely parallel Henry pre-flaying and who he is without powers.

In short: having nothing "special" going on (aka not being a Time Lord or having psychic abilities) is not a detraction and, in fact, just being who you are is what makes someone exceptionally important.

Back to the episode!

The Doctor, in a moment of reprieve while he's trying to think of how to get everyone out of there, is tasked with keeping an eye on baby!Rose. Adult!Rose approaches, but the Doctor physically prevents her from touching her infant self. Doing so would cause a paradox, since they're the same person, and any further disturbance in time might make the Reapers strong enough to break into the church.

At this point, the Doctor is still miffed at Rose for having unintentionally caused all of this, and we get a fun moment where she snaps at him that she's "not stupid" and he responds with "could've fooled me." Hey, Russell T. Davies called, he wants his ST2 El and Hopper arguments back.

Ultimately, Rose apologizes, because she does feel guilty for causing this, and then the Doctor holds her face and hugs her... in the same way Pete just did not long ago but hey we don't need to unpack her love interest acting like her dad right now that's fine-

At this point, Pete still doesn't know he's supposed to have died, so he asks Rose if he and Jackie are still together in the future and if he's a good dad. Rose spins a tale that he read her a bedtime story every night and they all went out for a picnic every Saturday; that he was always someone she could really rely on. All Pete responds with is "That's not me."

I discussed this earlier, but while this does remind me of the whole "facade" thing we have going on in ST, it reminds me too of the idea of alternate selves and different timelines. Which, in the case of DW, I swear is not a stretch because later in season 2, Rose and the Doctor go to a parallel universe where they meet the Pete from that world, who didn't die, and ultimately becomes a great father figure to Rose.

Eventually, Pete figures out that he's meant to be dead. He sees the disappearing-reappearing car going in its loop around the corner, recognizing it as the one that almost ran him over, and on top of the weird way Rose has been acting with his questions and the cryptic way the Doctor keeps talking about how "the thing [Rose] changed will stay changed" (wow, cool TFS word), he finally puts the pieces together.

At this point, Jackie finally overhears Pete call himself Rose's dad, which they'd since been keeping a secret, and we get... uh

Sorry, this one really just made me laugh. Don't mention the lab child breeding program, it's fine.

She even balks at him calling her Rose, asking if he "calls them all Rose," because she assumes Rose is an affair partner and is disgusted that he'd give his own daughter a "second-hand name" from his mistress. I can't even get into this, I just have to move on.

Pete, in his attempt to get her to understand that they're the same Rose, makes to hand baby!Rose to adult!Rose. Too late for Rose or the Doctor to stop it, they touch, and the paradox gives one of the Reapers enough strength to make its way into the church. The Doctor puts himself between the Reaper and the rest of the people, saying that he's "the oldest thing in here" and thus just what the Reaper would want most. It consumes him and disappears, and Rose cries that he's dead and the whole world is over because of her.

Pete, however, realizes what he's meant to do. He tells Rose that he's going to sacrifice himself and complete what was meant to be completed. He even convinces Jackie that Rose is their daughter, and the three of them have an incredibly somber moment.

My leaking tear ducts aside, the "extra hours" reminded me of some weird language that comes up in TFS, specifically something Brenner says to Henry about his "missing hours." Pete gets extra hours outside of "real hours," hours that were never meant to happen, like how Henry may have “lost hours” without actually losing time, if that makes sense. It even makes me think about NINA and how 001 very well be sentient in there, at least to some degree, and therefore would he feel like interacting with El in there was like getting "extra hours" with his daughter?

James has also spoken to me about how time moves strangely in TFS, and not even in the sense that "it's a play and that's just sort of how the transitions within that medium work." Specifically, he's pointed out how the days and scenes bleed into each other in ways like Henry's skipping around hours (which, coincidentally, is similar to a phenomenon that occurs in another DW episode I've spoken about). A really obvious example is Henry in the attic scene in which "he" kills Prancer, wherein it should be at night/before bed. However, when he comes out of it, Virginia is knocking on the attic door telling him it's 9:45 and they need to go to church. Henry even squeaks "in the morning!?", just as shocked as we are to learn an entire night has passed in such a brief sequence of events.

Also I don't have any real commentary on the rest of it other than I would Die if we get a similar exchange between Victor and Henry, or Henry and El, or something. Pretty please. Something something you have to be your dad, but for good. Something something doing everything they can to save their children.

With no other feasible plan, Pete leaves the church and rushes to the street corner, where he steps out in front of the car and allows himself to be hit. This time, Rose does go to him, and holds his hand as he passes. As soon as he dies, the Reapers vanish, time stops going wonky, and everyone who'd been consumed is returned, Doctor included.

Now, we get another flashback like the start of the episode, with Jackie talking to kid Rose, but this time the story of Pete has slightly changed. Jackie says that the guy who hit him was just a kid, it wasn't his fault, because Pete just stepped out into the road. Jackie even mentions a "girl" who stayed with Pete until he died, and then she just... was gone, and they never found out who she was.

Oh yeah btw peep that date lol lmao.

This I thought was really interesting. Sometimes the trope of “history has to say the same” can become boring and predictable when there’s no way around a specific outcome. However, when it’s done well, it’s done well. I don’t think this is one of the best ever examples of this, but I did find it very intriguing that, while the same outcome occurred (Pete was killed), the situation surrounding it has been slightly recontextualized.

Where Jackie once lied (strong word, but you get the point) that Pete was the most wonderful man in the world, now he really was the most wonderful man in the world because he decided to correct the error that was made and save the world by sacrificing himself. It should be noted that, iirc, no one remembers what actually happened because Pete essentially just reset the timeline to where it’s supposed to be.

It’s something I could very easily see occurring, at least in a symbolic sense, in ST, especially what with the truth of Henry’s situation being so murky. Even if it’s without an attempt to “change” things, simply the act of looking at what happened through a different lens can make everything click into place.

Now I just want to wrap this up with some final odds and ends of what various parts of this episode reminded me of irt ST that I haven’t touched on yet.

At the start of the episode, we learn that Rose’s motive for visiting her dad on the day of his death is so she can simply be someone who’s there for him when he passes; she doesn’t want him to be alone. The concept of loneliness is not unfamiliar to ST, and it’s especially on the nose with Henry and Patty in TFS, and comes up fairly frequently with characters like Will, Mike, and El on-screen. We see it in scripts for ST4 with Brenner, and we get it in ST1 with Joyce berating Jonathan for doing things alone. It all comes back to community and support. Being with someone to curb their loneliness can make all the difference, especially when it’s genuine. Especially especially when someone is going through something scary and otherworldly.

And that’s the whole point, isn’t it? Being there for each other, even in our worst moments?

This isn’t a form of compassion that’s exclusive to “the good guys” either. As I said above, the plague of loneliness even affects Brenner, and even a character like Vecna, who’s been trapped alone in the UD for years, probably just needs a good shoulder to lean on for once.

Henry, as per TFS, didn’t really have anyone. We’re told about a boy (or two) in Nevada who very likely was close to him, but he’s otherwise very reclusive from his family (at least post-flaying). When he meets Patty, he latches on the moment he finds her compatible and, despite her mistreatment of him, he doesn’t let go. He’s finally not alone anymore, and even if it resulted in disaster, he wanted it to work. There were just too many outside forces at play convoluting things. All he needed was someone to be there for him with genuine intentions, and I believe that’s something he will receive, come ST5.

I also want to touch on Rose having to “try again” at the start of the episode. I don’t have too much to say about this, but it did make me think of James’s theories irt Henward possibly having turned back the clock in order to save himself. Something about going into it with neutral-to-good intentions, only for something to go wrong and bring it all crashing down. Not that we know for certain if that’s what’s going on with Henry, but there’s something in the continuous tragedy of his life and the earnest attempt at making things better, only for it to go much, much worse, and having to return to the un-ideal square one.

It doesn’t even have to just be about Henry doing it to himself. Someone else might be sticking themselves in, toying with timelines, in an attempt to help Henry, only for other, unknown forces to muck it all up. But now we’re getting a bit into James’s territory, so you can just chew on that concept a bit. The last thing I’ll say on it is I did find Rose seeking out her dad reminiscent of TFS Brenner seeking out answers to his father’s experience in Dimension X, but alas, I’m running out of steam.

Exploring this DW episode wasn’t much anything new, but I found it very satisfying to see even more concepts confirmed and expanded upon that I’ve spoken about in my other posts, as well as touching on ideas that my friends have talked about before. Overall, I’ve reached the conclusion that I need to explore more of Rose’s episodes and see what’s up lol. There's even more within this episode I could pull on further, but a lot of it is just pointing at the words that are said and going "that's the words!!! the words from the show!!!" so. Sort of an "iykyk" situation atp. But! Lots to chew on, and likely more to come in the future!

[finisnihil]

I’m OBSESSED with the new animated short oh my GOD. The way that in the beginning Black Swan is leading the dance and she comments about being on the hunt and then the violent tonal shift to Acheron leading the dance and the way the dancing is so brutal with Black Swan being obviously scared and in pain and the way Acheron swings her around like they’re fighting??? The way Black Swan keeps turning into a flock of crows or ravens or swans that try to fly away but are dragged back into a form like Acheron is a black hole and whenever they do try to scatter again they look like a blood splatter??? The part with the predators hunting the very panicked and fleeing smaller prey animal and being completely overwhelmed by the force of their attack like Black Swan is?? Also! The predators shown typically stalk their play or lie in wait to trap their prey somehow like a cheetah, a bear, a shark, a spider, a Venus fly trap, etc and it contrasts with how Black Swan was stalking her prey, Acheron, thinking herself to be the hunter while being ambushed in return. It'a all so good the way there doesn’t need to be any dialogue for the story to be told just the ever increasing intensity of the music. Also Acheron’s memories being in black, white, and red because those are the colors in which she sees the world? And the end when she’s walking away and the bodies are falling from the sky??

Also it was interesting to see Black Swan so visibly vulnerable. As it stands in the story right now we’ve never seen Black Swan out of control of a situation. Not really. Even when something unexpected happens she takes advantage of the chaos to fulfill her a goals further and uses them as weak spots to exploit to take back control. In her and Sparkle’s companion quest she humors Sparkle for a time but it’s obvious that Sparkle isn’t the one in control of the situation because as soon as Black Swan declares the game redundant Sparkle scrambles to keep her invested showing this game can end any time at Black Swan's behest. Seeing her so overwhelmed in such a domineering and brutal way reminds one that Black Swan isn't invulnerable. She unknowingly approached an Emanator and suffered the consequences of challenging a vessel of an Aeon's power and will. Seeing her so violently shaken by the encounter it's no wonder she's helping Aventurine and takes the first opportunity presented to grab the Trailblazer and flee when Acheron is set loose.

Acheron almost seems like a different person when she's in combat and you can see the shreds of humanity she holds onto disappear. Acheron IS dangerous and she's far outside Black Swan's league and Black Swan knows this. She teams with a fellow underdog, Aventurine, and proceeds to distract Acheron with somebody of somewhat equal power, Sam, to escape her gaze and therefore any kind of wrath that could be invoked.

Also I'm noticing a motif of red eyes in characters being associated with an animalistic brutality or loss of control linked to one's humanity. You see it with Blade and Jingliu, who have Mara, and now Acheron, who's an Emanator. Very interesting indeed.