californiastatelibrary

[rist-ix]

https://www.tumblr.com/rist-ix/749015401700229120 not you reblogging this when you ship bloom with the man who murdered her family 😭

Bloom's into ppl who slay! Hope this helps :3

[bookishfeylin]

this was a while ago (a couple months at this point i think) so i might be misremembering, but once in the comment section of an acotar critical video a commenter kept claiming that tamlin was never retconned (which... im not sure what else youd call one of his defining traits in acotar- being observant- suddenly disappearing due to trauma when he was still observant post-amarantha at the end of tar, or some of his values and opinions suddenly also changing in maf, but alright) because throughout the first book he was, according to them, manipulating feyre- specifically lovebombing her. they never specified which events led them to believe this, just that it happened. thoughts?

*sighs*

This argument is one that, unfortunately, I've heard many, many, many times over by now, and have made several posts about in the past. Because, truth be told, it's the best rebuttal they have when you point out direct retcons. The problem is that Tamlin manipulating Feyre, or even lying about his values, is disproven both in the book and in the sequels that follow, and this is because a lot of Tamlin's characterization is based on Feyre's observations of Tamlin, especially at times when he's not aware she's observing him (in contrast to Rhysand telling Feyre what to think about him every other page in ACOMAF).

A very good example of this was with the dying Summer Court faerie. Tamlin and Feyre care for the faerie as it passes away babies, and this scene is viewed by many as a good character moment for Feyre that establishes her kindness under a gruff exterior, but the same is not said for her other half, likely because all the Feysands who reread ACOTAR view all of Tamlin's actions as inherently manipulative. The problem here is that Feyre was never supposed to be present. Feyre was supposed to be asleep in her bedroom on another floor of the manor when Tamlin returned with the fae, and it's only through coincidence--her having a nightmare about killing Andras that wakes her up--that she's present to see Tamlin extend kindness and try to help the faerie in the first place. Ergo, Tamlin's action here can't have been an attempt to manipulate Feyre because Tamlin never expected Feyre to be present, and the kindness shown to lesser fae, and by extension, what that says about how Tamlin views individuals in lower socioeconomic classes than him, is a genuine facet of his character.

There's also a lot of background established about Tamlin that simply can't have been done on purpose by him to manipulate Feyre. What, did he start taking in refugees from other courts like Alis and her nephews because 50 years prior he had a psychic dream about Feyre and he wanted to make himself look really appealing to her? Did he treat them well solely so Alis could make him sound good to Feyre to convince Feyre to go UTM?

I also take issue with people arguing that Tamlin was love-bombing Feyre. It was already discussed before here by someone who's pro-Feysand who also picked up on this (and this ask is already getting longer lol so I'll just link it here and reblog it later) but the TLDR is that Tamlin demonstrably does not want to manipulate Feyre per another conversation she listens in on, and he decidedly chose to abandon the goal of making her love him when he sent her home. Every single "Tamlin never really love Feyre he was just love-bombing her and manipulating her" argument forgets that fact for some reason??? Like he sent her home before she could even do what she was supposed to. He sacrificed himself and his people to eternal damnation for her, without ever expecting to see her ever again. He offered himself to the woman he's known since childhood to shield Feyre from harm. So if you want to argue that, like the beast character he was based on, Tamlin originally brought Feyre to his manor for the purpose off making her fall for him to break his curse, then fine, but it's impossible to argue that throughout their relationship and by the end he was manipulating her and had no genuine love for her.

TLDR: it's a stupid argument that relies on selective reading and I hate it.

[kaptain-pastel]

ok so I don't mind most of the mischaracterization in Gatsby Broadway because I can understand why they did it and how it helps the story that they are trying to tell, even if I don't agree with it. But I really, really don't like what they did to Catherine and the Mckees (and Nick but that's through the whole show) in The Met.

(to clarify, I have only listened to the cast recordings of Gatsby Broadway! I don’t know any of the acting in between songs or anything they are doing on stage because I have only listened)

This ended up being longer than I expected so I put it below the cut :D

The biggest problem for me is that The Met characterizes Catherine and the Mckees like they are evil lustful people set out to corrupt pure and innocent Nick. In the song, Nick sets up a predator-prey relationship with them, even calling Mr. Mckee a vulture. It sets up this divide between Nick, who is our protagonist and Can Do No Wrong, and the people who side with the antagonist that the show makes Tom. It is implied that Nick gets drunk unwillingly, is flirted with by ALL party members unwillingly, and is "on top of" Catherine while being photographed by Mr. Mckee unwillingly. He does not want to be there with these people that his precious pure midwestern morals call "wrong" in any way, shape, or form.

This is not only not supported in the original, but also is a gross way to treat these characters--especially since Mr. Mckee is often read as queer, and his interactions with Nick add to Nick's own queerness. The song itself states that Mr. and Mrs. Mckee have a consensual open relationship in the setting of the show, but it is painted as something that adds to their immoral status. In the year 2024 we are portraying two consenting adults as evil for communicating and agreeing to have an open relationship? Ok yeah sure, if you say so. Mr. Mckee's, and by extension Nick's, queerness is not openly stated in The Met, although some lines can be read as innuendos or implications to this ("[Mr. Mckee, to Nick or Tom] I'd love to do more work on long island, if I could gain entry" "[Mr. Mckee, to Nick] I want to capture your musk" "[Nick, about the party] everyone is flirting now / and they're all coming on too strong"). Again, I haven’t seen what is happening on stage so I can't speak to that or how it effects these lines. Something about turning a character often read as queer into a "vulture" trying to take advantage of Nick (who, according to some reviews, was stripped of most of his queerness) just doesn't sit very well with me.

Changing the nature of the appartment party is not a very new thing, so I wanted to take a moment to discuss what actually happens in the original that contradicts Broadway Gatsby's portrayal. Nick is drinking, and describes getting drunk that evening, before Catherine and the Mckees even arrived to the apartment. When they arrive the conversation is pleasant and not all that harsh, mostly covering Mr. Mckee's photography (which he HAS done on Long Island, though he tells Tom he would've to do more work there who suggests Myrtle sets him up to photograph Wilson) and Mrytle's dress. The only possible implication that Nick is uncomfortable is the fact that he mentions wanting to leave to take a walk but is stopped as he is drawn back into "some wild strident argument" every time. The text does not elaborate much on the nature of this, so I don't know if that was in an effort to trap him there or just Nick getting trapped by social convention as they continued to talk to him. Nick also has no explicitly stated romantic, sexual, or even physical interactions with Catherine--most of their time interacting was Catherine explaining to Nick that Tom and Mrytle both hate who they're married to. Finally, after Tom breaks Mrytle's nose, Nick leaves the party with Mr. Mckee completely of his own (albeit heavily intoxicated) volition.

All in all, I understand why these changes are often made to the appartment party, and specifically the purpose The Met in the show. The Met is what changes Nick's mind about helping Gatsby meet Daisy. The party is used to give a reason to why Nick chooses to help Gatsby because most modern audiences don't want to root for a character who helps his cousin cheat on her husband for no good reason. The audience wants to relate to Nick--which means that they want him to be a fundamentally good person. And therefore we must see that Tom is bad and awful so that we can be ok with Daisy leaving him for Good and Awesome Gatsby. The problem with The Met is that all of that could still happen without villianizing Catherine and the Mckees. Tom is still an asshole apart from their behavior--he still breaks Mrytle's nose for mentioning Daisy and is, you know, cheating on his wife. Nick's decision to organize tea with Daisy in Gatsby Broadway is based mostly on the way Tom treats Mrytle and Nick himself at the party, not particularly on how the other guests behaved. The Met could have come to the exact same conclusion without portraying Catherine and the Mckees as people trying to corrupt Nick's purity and moral standing, and I think that is what makes it so uncomfortable and off-putting for me.

[luckgods]

Why all the white guys in whump?

I got Inspired by a post asking that question, and here we are. Warning: long post ahead.

I think it’s due to a combination of factors, as things frequently are.

The preference for / prevalence of white male characters in fandom is well-known and has been examined pretty thoroughly by people already.

What’s worth noting for discussing this tendency in whump in particular is that the ‘whump fandom’ itself is not a ‘fandom’ in the traditional sense of being made of fans of one single source narrative (or source setting, like a particular comics fandom, or the Star Wars extended universe) with pre-existing characters. Although subsets of traditional fandoms certainly exist within the larger whump fandom, a lot of whump is based on original, ‘fan’-created characters.

So, given the tendency of ‘traditional’ fandoms to create stories disproportionately centered on white male characters due to the source material itself being centered on white male characters (and giving more narrative weight to them, characterizing them better, etc), if we say hypothetically that the whump fandom is split say 50/50 between ‘traditional’ fandom works and original whump works, you’d expect to see a higher number of works focused on white men than the demographics of the ‘traditional’ fandom’s source work would predict, but not as extreme of a divergence between the source material & the fanworks as the one you’d see if whump fandom were 100% based on popular media.

However, that doesn’t quite seem to be the case. Whump stories and art remain focused on overwhelmingly male and frequently white characters, which means that the tendency of the fandom to create stories disproportionately centered on white male characters cannot be ONLY explained by the source material itself being centered on white male characters (and giving more narrative weight to them, characterizing them better, etc).

And, having established the fact that whump writers & artists presumably have MORE control over the design of their characters than writers & artists in ‘traditional’ fandoms, we have to wonder why the proportions remain biased towards men, & white men in particular.

—

The race thing is pretty simple in my opinion. Mostly, it’s just another extension of the fanbase’s tendency to reflect the (predominantly US-American, on tumblr) culture it exists in, which means that, in a white-centric culture, people make artworks featuring white people.

There’s also the issue of artists being hesitant to write works that dwell heavily on violence towards people of color due to the (US-American) history of people of color being violently mistreated. I’ve actually seen a couple of posts arguing that white people SHOULDN’T write whump of nonwhite characters (particularly Black characters) because of the history of actual violence against Black bodies being used as entertainment, which means that fictional violence against Black people, written by white people, for a (presumed) white audience, still feels exploitative and demeaning.

I'm not going to get into all my thoughts on this discussion here but suffice to say that there's probably an impact on the demographics of whump works from authors of color who simply... don't want to see violence against people of color, even non-explicitly-racialized violence, and then another impact from white authors who choose not to write non-white characters either due to the reasons stated above, or simply due to their personal discomfort with how to go about writing non-white characters in a genre that is heavily focused on interpersonal violence.

Interestingly enough, there’s also a decent proportion of Japanese manga & anime being used as source material for whump, and manga-styled original works being created. The particular relationship between US-American and Japanese pop culture could take up a whole essay just by itself so I’ll just say, there’s a long history of US-Japanese cultural exchange which means that this tendency is also not all that surprising.

—

GENDER though. If someone had the time and the energy they could make a fucking CAREER out of examining gender in whump, gender dynamics in whump, and why there seems to be a fandom-wide preference for male whumpees that cannot be fully explained by the emphasis on male characters in the source text.

I have several different theories about factors which impact gender preference in whump, and anyone who has other theories (or disagrees with mine) is free to jump in and add on.

THEORY 1: AUTHOR GENDER AND PERSONAL EXPERIENCE.
 Fandom in general is predominantly female, although these days it might be more accurate to say that fandom is predominantly composed of cis women and trans people of all genders. However, pretty much everyone who isn't a cis man has had to contend with the specter of gendered violence in their real personal life. Thus, if we posit whump (and fandom more generally) as a sort of escapist setup, it's not hard to see why whump authors & artists might willfully eschew writing female whumpees (especially in the case of inflicted whump), because (as in the discussion of people of color in whump above), even violence towards women that is explicitly non-gender-based may still hit too close to home for people whose lives have been saturated with the awareness of gender-based violence.

THEORY 2: SICK OF SEXY SUFFERING.
 Something of an addendum to theory 1, it's worth noting that depictions of female suffering in popular media are extremely gendered (in that they specifically reflect real-life gender-based violence, and that said real-life violence is almost exclusively referenced in relation to female characters) and frequently sexualized as well. There's only so many times you can see female characters having their clothes Strategically Ripped while they're held captive, being sexually menaced (overtly or implicitly) to demonstrate How Evil the villain is, or just getting outright sexually assaulted for the Drama of it all before it gets exhausting, especially when the narratives typically either brush any consequences under the rug, or dwell on them in a way that feels more voyeuristic and gratuitous than realistic and meaningful. All this may result in authors who, given the chance to write their own depictions of suffering, may decide simply to remove the possibility of gendered violence by removing the female gender.

THEORY 3: AUTHOR ATTRACTION. 
I'll admit that this one is more a matter of conjecture, as I haven't seen any good demographic breakdowns of attraction in general fandom or whump fandom. That said, my own experience talking to fellow whump fans does indicate that attraction to the characters (whether whumpers, or whumpees) is part of the draw of whump for some people. This one partially ties into theory 1 as well, in that people who are attracted to multiple genders may not derive the same enjoyment out of seeing a female character in a whumpy situation as they might seeing a male character in that situation, simply because of the experience of gendered violence in their lives.

THEORY 4: ACCEPTABLE TARGETS.
 The female history of fandom means that there's been a lot more discussion of the impacts of depicting pain & suffering (especially female suffering) for personal amusement. Thus, in some ways, you could say that there is a mild taboo on putting female characters through suffering if you can't "justify" it as meaningful to the narrative, not just titillating, which whump fandom rarely tries or requires anyone to do. This fan-cultural 'rule' may impact whump writers' and artists' decisions in choosing the gender of their characters.

THEORY 5: AN ALTERNATIVE TO MAINSTREAM MASCULINITY.
 Whump fandom may like whumping men because by and large, mainstream/pop culture doesn't let men be vulnerable, doesn't let them cry, doesn't let them have long-term health issues due to constantly getting beat up even when they really SHOULD, doesn't let them have mental health issues period. Female characters, as discussed in theory 2, get to ("get to") go through suffering and be affected by it (however poorly written those effects are), but typically, male characters' suffering is treated as a temporary problem, minimized, and sublimated into anger if at all possible. (For an example, see: every scene in a movie where something terrible happens and the male lead character screams instead of crying). So, as nature abhors a vacuum, whump fandom "over-produces" whump of men so as to fill in that gap in content.

THEORY 6: AMPLIFIED BIAS.
 While it's true that whump fandom doesn't have a source text, it's also true that whump fans frequently find their way into the fandom via other 'traditional' fandoms, and continue participating in 'traditional' fandoms as part of their whump fandom activity. Bias begets bias; fandom as a whole has a massive problem with focusing on white male characters, and fans who are used to the bias towards certain types of characters in derivative works absolutely reproduce that bias in their own original whump works.

—

I honestly think that there is greater bias in the whump fandom than anyone would like to admit. Maybe I'm wrong, but it seems as though whump fans avoid introspection and discussion of the issue by bringing up the points I talked about in my previous theories, particularly discomfort with depictions of female suffering for amusement.

However, I think that, as artists, we owe it to ourselves and one another to engage in at least a small amount of self-interrogation over our preferences, and see what unconscious or unacknowledged biases we possess. It's a little absurd to argue that depictions of women as whumpees are universally too distressing to even discuss when a male character in the exact same position would be fine and even gratifying to the person making that argument; while obviously, people have a right to their own boundaries, those boundaries should not be used to shut down discussion of any topics, even sensitive ones.

Furthermore, engaging in personal reflection allows artists to make more deliberate (and meaningful) art. For people whose goal is simply to have fun, that may not seem all that appealing, but having greater understanding of one's own preferences can be very helpful towards deciding what works to create, what to focus on when creating, and what works to seek out.

—

GENDER ADDENDUM: NONBINARY CHARACTERS, NONBINARY AUTHORS. 
Of course, this whole discussion so far has been exclusively based on a male-female binary, which is reductive. (I will note, though, that many binary people do effectively sort all nonbinary people they know of into 'female-aligned' and 'male-aligned' categories and then proceed to treat the nonbinary people and characters they have categorized a 'female-aligned' the same way as they treat people & characters who are actually female, and ditto for 'male-aligned'. That tendency is very frustrating for me, as a nonbinary person whose gender has NOTHING to do with any part of the binary, and reveals that even 'progressive' fandom culture has quite a ways to go in its understanding of gender.)

Anyways, nonbinary characters in whump are still VERY rare and typically written by nonbinary authors. (I have no clue whether nonbinary whump fans have, as a demographic group, different gender preferences than binary fans, but I'd be interested in seeing that data.)

As noted above with female characters, it's similarly difficult to have a discussion about representation and treatment of nonbinary characters in whump fandom, and frankly in fandom in general. Frequently, people regard attempts to open discussions on difficult topics as a call for conflict. This defensive stance once again reveals the distaste for requests of meaningful self-examination that is so frequent in fandom spaces, and online more generally.

—

TL;DR: Whump is not immune to the same gender & racial biases that are prevalent in fandom and (US-American) culture. If you enjoy whump: ask yourself why you dislike the things you dislike— the answer may surprise you. If you create whump: ask yourself whose stories you tell, and what stories you refuse to tell— then ask yourself why.

[ursie]

As an Aspec person I don’t understand how you can be ok and support the constant Aro/Ace erasure of Shatterstar I don’t understand how you justify it

Ok so couple things :

I’m saying this as an Aspec person so no attacking

Star was never actually supposed to be aro/Ace when Liefeild made claims of such he did not mean it in a queer way he said he wasn’t into romance in a macho misogynistic way (but still straight) as in later tweets ect he actively pushes Star as a straight man who simply denounced romance for the sword again liefeild doesn’t mean it in the same way we do so I think that’s the first thing to understand here.

Him not understanding attraction later was not because he was Ace that’s a misreading of the text-it was due to repression due to his extensive childhood trauma. He did not understand any of his emotions as he repressed all of them growing up as a slave and not having ownership of himself-his entire storyline is taking that ownership of self back.

Him being mlm later was not out of nowhere as the same run that had him recognize his attraction for the first time (which is often mistaken for Ace Star) was also the run q coding his relationship with Julio which was coded throughout their appearances in Xforce and later confirmed in xfi.

Main point is if you’re taking liefeilds statement as canon than he’s still not Aro/Ace in the q way like he does not agree with that either-and it you’re using later basis for it then you need to recognize that’s when they were coding him as mlm too

I understand you can be Aspec and otherwise queer (I am) and I do think there’s a fair argument to be made about Star being on the Aro spectrum (Grey/Demi) w Julio being his exception so to speak but you cannot deny he loves men and he feels attraction to them (along w women)-erasure is bad yes and I understand that but arguing against erasure with more erasure of a mlm dude isn’t the way to go about it.

Again feel free to hc him as aspec I do but it is a hc and I think it’s important to recognize that.

What happened to Star wasn’t erasure it was the character evolving and multiple writers writing him there’s kinda a difference my dude.

That said if you do wanna talk about his xfi characterization being ooc and erasing parts of his characterization ect than yeah go ahead and yell about that he was ooc as hell but his relationship with Julio wasn’t one of them

If this doesn’t make sense I apologize I’m tired and this is a nuanced topic if you wanna discuss this more my dms and inbox are always open pls be a lil nicer in the future 💕

[emmys-grimoire]

Further Lesson 44 analysis/theories/spitball

Whereas Season 2 felt like it started slow, Season 3 feels like it’s going really fast. I think 2 really was a transitional season, which means I’ll probably be going back and looking at it more closely for stuff I thought they introduced but glossed over for story expedience that may be more relevant in Season 3.

Anyway, other details/observations I’ve made since marinating in it:

I think they had Raphael chase Asmodeus throughout the lesson as a way to convey just how sociopathic the seraphim are outside of Lucifer/Michael/Simeon. He deems partying “immoral and wicked” and he’s willing to apparently skewer his subordinate for the sin of having fun. They’re the zealots. If Daddy is anything like that himself, hoo boy.

It really feels like they’re prepping up for a Michael reveal with how much secondhand characterization they’re giving him in this. Small details I noticed regarding him:

Asmodeus’s first dream involved talking to him. He remembers Raphael but admits he was actually glad it wasn’t him he ran into because he’s scared of that guy -- this is in contrast to Michael.

He has agents! It seems like he may have his own extensive spy network, which he might have utilized in the Celestial Realm ‘meddling’ Diavolo alluded to in Season 2?

Lucifer is grouchy at him for sticking him with a job he doesn’t want to do (a formal visit to Diavolo/the Devildom) but admits that was his own plan and Michael just “beat him to the punch”. It seems like he and Lucifer are expected to do the important tasks -- perhaps assigned by Father -- and they alternate between foisting the responsibilities they don’t like onto the other. Beyond being amusing, this tells me that there’s potential that Michael also does not enjoy everything Father tries to make him do.

In spite of the bitching, Lucifer entrusts MC to Michael and tells them not to worry. This is after he finds the brothers trying to hide MC because they’re afraid of what the seraphim may do if they found them in their custody. It’s likely due to Michael being the only one with the same amount of authority he has, but it also implies a notable degree of trust, imo... otherwise he’d probably just hide MC himself until he got back.

I’m not sure Lucifer has the capability of hacking dreams and throwing people through time? It seems a little out of his ballpark? This is the second time he’s done this. I think there may be a good argument to be made that Michael > Lucifer in power, and he might be approaching Diavolo’s level (you know, the guy who can create an artificial sun and stop time). That’s not even touching the behavior-controlling bangles. That’s kind of concerning. If it wasn’t for all the clear clues via context I would wonder if this may be Father.

He mentions he has to “consider Simeon” when watching over MC. That could be him alluding to Simeon’s growing interest in MC, or it could be that he’s concerned his relationship with his subordinate may be endangered if we meddle too much in the past. Can’t really blame him: if things go too awry we might get demon Simeon or, if things get really rough, Lucy may win his rebellion and that may end poorly for the both of them.

The above also further implies that Luke probably wasn’t around during that time, otherwise he’d probably be a clear concern as well.

I mentioned earlier that the devs are clearly more comfortable writing for Michael as the Celestial Realm figurehead versus God/Father and this lesson really, really makes that even more obvious.

All the brothers have the same tendencies they do as demons, but to lesser degrees, it appears. Asmo still flirts, Mammon is still a dumb smartass, Levi still has crippling self-esteem issues, and Belphegor still sleeps in and doesn’t attend meetings, etc. Given how the seraphim are described, I think Lucifer -- and alternatively Michael and Simeon -- may have been buffers between them and the brothers, which shielded them from the harsher punishments. Probably didn’t work every time, though: I think outside of Father being a draconian asshole, they’re going to be the ones who amp up the tensions, too. They kind of already are.

We’re totally gonna play the part of the Lilith expy again, aren’t we? Blargh.

Simeon is gonna be the Solomon of Season 3. He’ll out-Solomon Solomon. I’m surprised he doesn’t show up in normal mode in this lesson, though. I hope that changes. The revelation that he fights and writes was interesting, and explains his disciplinarian tendencies (and the fact that he looks pretty fit lol).

Since we can’t have a Satan in the Celestial Realm, I don’t think we’re going to go back there often. But since the devs have hinted that they’re going to explore his birth more in future lessons, I think we’re getting at least one more pre-rebellion dream (to better explain what led to it) and one post-rebellion dream. I love the lore bits, but I can’t say I’m a fan of abusing using time travel again. But don’t worry I’m sure something or someone will appear to make all the bad things not matter.

I wonder if we’re going to eat Solomon’s sludge again lol

[ultravioletqueen]

Nombre completo:jackson cody warren

Alias:jacky,sony,jack-jack, ghost emo

Edad:23(al morir)

Fecha de nacimiento:12 de junio(cancer)

Tipo de sangre:antes B +,ahora ninguna

Ocupación:fantasma musical

Ocupación pasada:compositor de música

Shows/juegos favoritos:accion(fullmetal alchemist, hellboy:dogs of the night)

Comida favorita:helado de mora azul

Instrumento:guitarra,vocales(aunque sabe tocar muchos más instrumentos)

Animal favorito:azulejo

Altura:1,85cm(5,13)

Familia:aliza warrens(madre) stephan warrens (padre)

Arma:ninguna

Habilidades:creación de construcciones, levitación,forma inactiva, posesión de objetos, creación de ilusiones, casi invulnerabilidad, forma humana, creación de hondas de sonido, creación de música hipnotica,electrokinesis, sabotear tecnología.

Personalidad:jackson es un chico reservado, el cual en vida nunca fue muy conversador(rasgo que aún conserva en muerte) debido a que es muy tímido con gente nueva pero cuando se abre es bastante amigable e incluso algo bromista, puede llegar a ser muy sarcástico cuando está en confianza.jackson tiene sus ideas claras y no es nada fácil hacerlo cambiar de opinión,es muy terco y llega a ser obstinado.

Jackson no es muy bueno al entender los sentimientos de la gente que lo rodea, siendo que a veces no es capaz de ver o detectar los sentimientos de los demás además de no tener miedo de ser directo y hasta algo gráfico con sus palabras haciendo que lo lleguen a etiquetar de insensible, pero jackson no tiene malas intenciones y no busca ser de esa manera.

Algo que caracteriza a jackson es su pasión y su creatividad, siendo capaz de crear notas musicales originales y mostrar su amplio conocimiento de los instrumentos que toca, la música formó parte importante de su vida e incluso en su muerte.

Jackson posee una personalidad algo depresiva, pues al no poder vengarse no podría ascender a otra vida, esto causa que de vez en cuando jackson tenga episodios depresivos donde lamenta no poder haber sido más rápido o no poder hablar con sus padres debido a su condición actual. Jackson tenía una buena relación con sus padres y les tiene mucho cariño pese a que ya no puede verlos por el miedo a asustalos.

Un tema que hace enojar a jackson es el de su muerte, siendo que cuando menciona esto llega a tener episodios o flashbacks de ello haciendo que tenga un comportamiento agresivo o que empiece a usar sus poderes a lo loco, cuando éstos episodios terminan jackson se muestra arrepentido y promete que no volverá a pasar.

Apariencia:jackson es un adulto joven palido de pelo negro con una mecha de color índigo/morado, tiene ojos azul oscuro y tiene la piel pálida, normalmente viste una camisa morada con una calavera(cuando estaba vivo tenía una nota musical), una chaqueta azul opaco, pantalones flojos azul oscuro y converse negras, completa su atuendo con su collar que lleva una nota musical.estando muerto sus escleroticas ahora son negras y sus pupilas siguen del mismo color.

Historia:jackson en vida era un aspirante a músico junto a su amigo ryan(el cual fue su amigo de la infancia) y soñaban con ser músicos muy reconocidos e importantes, en una de sus demostraciones conocen a un cazatalentos que les ofreció ser su manager a lo que aceptaron,con el tiempo empezaron a ganar mucha popularidad y ganaban mucho dinero, sin embargo el y ryan antes de uno de sus conciertos tuvieron una discusión muy acalorada,básicamente ryan quería recibir la mayoría de los ingresos y sentía envidia de que jackson fuera más popular, sin que lo notará ryan saboteo la guitarra de jackson y en pleno concierto la guitarra empezó a fallar y jackson sufrió una descarga eléctrica de 500 voltios, matandolo debido a la fuerte descarga y las quemaduras que recibió. Sin embargo no se esperaban que volviera de entre los muertos para buscar a su ex mejor amigo para pagarle con la misma moneda,sin embargo cuando estaba a punto de cumplir su venganza ryan sufrió un accidente letal por conducir ebrio, por lo que jackson perdió su sentido y vago en los bosques durante días, meses, años, hasta que se encontró con la casa de cierto esqueleto.

Trivia

Ryan no tomó responsabilidad de su muerte y siguió siendo músico además de usar las canciones de su difunto amigo para ganar dinero haciéndolas pasar por suyas.

Jackson actualmente vive en la casa de lewis junto con otros fantasmas(mi headcanon es que varios fantasmas se hospedan ahí, como en el fanfic de house of strays) y constantemente toca varias melodías junto a los Deadbeats.

Jackson tiene miedo al agua debido a que cuando era adolescente casi se ahoga al intentar surfear.

Jackson murió en los 2000.

Jackson descubrió su capacidad de hipnotizar cuando tocaba su guitarra y dejó a vivi, Arthur y juliete como zombis embobados, esta habilidad sólo funciona en seres vivos, pero también funciona para calmar a otros espíritus.

Los padres de jackson eran músicos, y estuvieron muy emocionados al saber que su hijo también disfrutará de la música.

Su voz headcanon sería caleb hyles en inglés y bastian cortes en español, ambos youtubers que se dedican a hacer covers.

Jackson padece del síndrome de asperger, una variación del espectro autista.

Su ancla está en su guitarra debido a que murió sosteniendola.

Su canción tema seria killer in the mirror e hypnotize de set it off.

Jackson es de Irlanda.

Full name:jackson cody warrens

Alias:jacky,sony,jack-jack, ghost emo

Age:23(deceased)

D.O.B:june 12(cancer)

Blood type:formely B+, now none

Ocupation:musical ghost

Past ocupation:musical performer

Favorite shows/games:action(fullmetal alchemist, hellboy:dogs of the night)

Favorite food:blueberry ice cream

Instrument:guitar, vocals (although he can play many more instruments)

Favorite animal:bluebird

Height:1,85(5,13)

Family: aliza warrens (mother) stephan warrens (father)

Weapon:none

Skills: Construction Creation, Levitation, Idle Form, Object Possession, Illusion Creation, Near Invulnerability, Human Form, Sound Wave Creation, Hypnotic Music Creation, Electrokinesis, Technology Sabotage.

Personality: Jackson is a reserved boy, who in life was never very talkative (a trait that he still retains in death) because he is very shy with new people but when he opens up he is quite friendly and even somewhat joking, he can be very sarcastic when he is in confidence. Jackson has his ideas clear and it is not at all easy to make him change his mind, he is very stubborn and becomes stubborn.

Jackson is not very good at understanding the feelings of the people around him, being that sometimes he is not able to see or detect the feelings of others in addition to not being afraid to be direct and even something graphic with his words making him They come to be labeled as insensitive, but Jackson has no bad intentions and does not seek to be that way.

Something that characterizes Jackson is his passion and creativity, being able to create original musical notes and show his extensive knowledge of the instruments he plays, music was an important part of his life and even in his death.

Jackson has a somewhat depressive personality, because by not being able to take revenge he could not ascend to another life, this causes that from time to time Jackson has depressive episodes where he regrets not being able to be faster or not being able to talk to his parents due to his current condition . Jackson had a good relationship with his parents and is very fond of them even though he can no longer see them for fear of scaring them.

One issue that makes Jackson angry is his death, being that when he mentions this he has episodes or flashbacks of it causing him to have an aggressive behavior or to start using his powers like crazy, when these episodes end, Jackson shows himself repentant and promises that it will not happen again.

Appearance: Jackson is a pale young adult with black hair with an indigo / purple highlight, has dark blue eyes and has pale skin, usually wears a purple shirt with a skull (when he was alive he had a musical note), a jacket opaque blue, dark blue loose pants and black converse, completes his outfit with his necklace that bears a musical note. being dead his sclera are now black and his pupils remain the same color.

History: Jackson in life was an aspiring musician with his friend Ryan (who was his childhood friend) and they dreamed of being very recognized and important musicians, in one of their demonstrations they meet a talent scout who offered to be their manager to what they accepted, over time they began to gain a lot of popularity and made a lot of money, however he and ryan before one of their concerts had a very heated argument, basically ryan wanted to receive most of the income and was envious that jackson was more popular, without Ryan noticing it sabotaged Jackson's guitar and in full concert the guitar began to fail and Jackson suffered a 500 volt electric shock, killing him due to the strong discharge and burns he received. However, they were not expected to return from the dead to find his former best friend to pay him in the same coin, however when he was about to fulfill his revenge Ryan suffered a fatal accident due to drunk driving, so Jackson lost his felt and wandered in the woods for days, months, years, until he came across the home of a certain skeleton.

Trivia

Ryan did not take responsibility for his death and remained a musician in addition to using his late friend's songs to earn money by passing them off as his own.

Jackson currently lives in Lewis's house along with other ghosts (my headcanon is that various ghosts stay there, as in the house of strays fanfic) and constantly plays various tunes alongside the Deadbeats.

Jackson is afraid of the water because as a teenager he nearly drowned while trying to surf.

Jackson died in the 2000s.

Jackson discovered his ability to hypnotize when he played his guitar and left Vivi, Arthur and Juliete as gawking zombies, this ability only works on living beings, but it also works to calm other spirits.

Jackson's parents were musicians, and they were very excited to learn that their son will enjoy music too.

His headcanon voice would be caleb hyles in English and Bastian Cortes in Spanish, both youtubers who are dedicated to doing covers.

Jackson suffers from Asperger's syndrome, a variation of the autism spectrum.

His anchor is on his guitar because he died holding it.

His theme song would be killer in the mirror and hypnotized from set it off.

Jackson is from Ireland.

[ceterisparibus116]

I sometimes struggle to sympathize with Ray Nadeem. All of the elements are there to show he was supposed to be a sympathetic character... the relative with cancer (which has financially impacted him heavily), the difficulties at work, his family being terrified of the latest developments, and the whole fact that Fisk is manipulating him. But the way they're presented, Nadeem comes off sort of shallow and bland, rendering these just a collection of cliches that have less impact than they would if he seemed a deeper or more thoughtful person; so when he makes arguments to get Fisk things he wants, or goes around hassling Karen and Foggy because Fisk fingered Matt, he comes off as more of a jerk and a pest than a principled FBI agent doing his best in trying circumstances.

Hi, thank you for the ask! This is a really interesting take! The thing is, I’m...not quite sure why you sent it to me. Are you simply sharing a meta because sharing Daredevil metas is super fun? Or...are you asking if I agree?

Because I really don’t. Which is fine - we are allowed to have our own interpretations! But, since you bravely entered my ask box, I’m gonna expound why I, personally, interpret Ray differently.

First, though, I’ll acknowledge what I agree with: namely, that Ray’s collection of sympathetic experiences are not enough, by themselves, to make him sympathetic (to me). A tragic backstory and a susceptibility to manipulation by Fisk aren’t enough to make someone sympathetic. At least, not to you, and not to me - although we should acknowledge that those elements might actually be enough to make him sympathetic to others, and let’s try not to disparage other people’s opinions!

However, to me, Ray is more than just his tragic circumstances, because we saw him turn around at the end and own his mistakes fully, even going so far as to tell Matt to stop advocating for him and let him go to jail - because he knows that’s what he deserves. That, to me, is probably the biggest reason why he’s sympathetic.

I’ll also point out that Ray questioning Foggy and Karen does not make him less sympathetic (to me). After all, we know that Foggy and Karen are good guys, but Ray doesn’t. The fact that the firm put Fisk away is not a good enough reason for the FBI to ignore a credible warning that Matt, at least, worked for Fisk. (And Fisk’s warnings, legally, are credible; legally, even a witness who is a criminal can be deemed credible if they have a history of giving accurate tips, which is exactly what Fisk has done by this point, as we saw with the Albanians and other criminals.)

Wouldn’t you agree, then, that Ray, as a character, would think that questioning Karen and Foggy was a necessary part of his job? Moreover, wouldn’t you agree that there is a lot suspicious about Matt’s life, once someone bothers to look closer? And so wouldn’t you agree that Ray’s suspicions of Matt (and, by extension, Matt’s friends) are doubly well-founded? Therefore, I, personally, don’t see it as “hassling,” as you characterized it, at all.

Your point about Ray’s questioning of Foggy and Karen is also fascinating to me because, when I watched Season 3 with my family, one of my brothers piped up at the end of an episode about how, if we didn’t know more about Ray, we’d hate him for how he’s treating Foggy and Karen. But my brother said that we do know enough about Ray to understand why he’s doing this, to understand that he can’t afford to give anyone the benefit of the doubt, to understand that he’s not actually being a jerk at all but is, in fact, being a “principled FBI agent doing his best in trying circumstances.” In other words, my brother came away with the literal opposite interpretation from yours!

Which is not to say that one of you is right and the other is wrong. Again, I just find the subjective nature of art truly fascinating.

And that, really, is what your message shows me: art is so subjective. When I watched Season 3 with my family, all five (5) of us absolutely loved Ray and found him deeply sympathetic. (My mom teared up at the end, in fact.) To be fair, Ray’s character has a lot in common with one of my brothers, and for my mom (and me, I think), that made him resonate with us even more.

Anyway, my family also connected with Ray because we saw a man who got in over his head, clearly felt conflicted (just watch his face; man, Jay Ali can act), and yet didn’t have enough space to breathe to figure out when or how to safely extricate himself (and his family) from the situation. (After SAC Hattley’s warnings about how she used to have another kid, it’s not like Ray could reasonably expect to try to escape Fisk without risking losing his wife and/or son.)

Another reason Ray resonates with me, personally, is because I think Season 3 was all about analyzing fear and relationships from different perspectives. We have Matt, whose fear of harm coming to the people he loves causes him to make terrible decisions. We have Karen, whose relative lack of close relationships arguably causes her to be reckless. We have Foggy, who so far has seemed so ignorant of the dangers that come with being friends with people who challenge evil, but now suddenly has to face the fact that his family was targeted - because of his choices. (And I desperately wish we’d seen Foggy acknowledge that to Matt, acknowledge that Matt’s fears really are valid.) And, of course, we see Fisk kill Julie to manipulate Dex, and we see Matt use Fisk’s connection to Vanessa to manipulate her. So to me, Ray being manipulated out of his desire to provide for and protect his family is just another way to explore that theme. Which goes a long way towards making him sympathetic to me.

(And another twist: yes, Ray arguably prioritizes the safety of his family over the safety of other people - like Father Lantom and everyone at the church. However, in addition to the fact that he owns this and apologizes for it without making excuses for himself, we should also acknowledge that Foggy does the same thing. All the time. Every time Foggy lectures Matt and Karen about not putting themselves at risk, every time Foggy hesitates to take a risk with the firm (anything from hesitating over defending Karen to hesitating over defending Frank), it’s Foggy choosing to prioritize the things he cares about over other people who need help. So if prioritizing one’s family over other people makes a character unsympathetic, then Foggy should, in my view, also be considered unsympathetic. However, my personal opinion is that this value that Foggy and Ray share doesn’t make them unsympathetic - I think it makes them human, and creates a wonderful contrast with Matt and Karen.)

Anyway. I’m not saying this to prove you wrong. In fact, I don’t think I can prove you wrong, if you’re talking about your subjective interpretation: if you’re saying that you, personally, don’t sympathize with Ray, then that’s your interpretation. (If, however, you’re saying that Ray was objectively poorly written...well, then I’d have to argue with you.) All I’m doing here, though, is discussing this character from another angle, another approach, and another interpretation. Which, imo, is one of the beauties of fandom.

Thank you again for the ask, and the excuse to analyze one of my favorite characters!

[thestupidhelmet]

I always got the impression that during Zen breakups, Donna more sided with Hyde than Jackie. What do you think?

Donna is often seen through an undeserved negative lens by a portion of T7S fans. Contradictions in her characterization do exist, thanks to inconsistent writing. But when her behavior, dialogue, and choices are examined closely, her true character is revealed. I do this in the metas linked below.

In Defense of Donna (an essay in eight parts).

In Defense of Donna: Supplemental

In Defense of Donna (Yet Again) in Her Relationship with Eric

Was Donna Mean to Jackie from Throughout Their Relationship?

Analyzing the facts burns away the foundation on which the biases about and misinterpretations of Donna’s character are built. After the cut, I discuss in detail her reactions to Jackie and Hyde’s breakups. She’s a far better person, and friend to Jackie, than is often recognized.

Jackie and Hyde’s first breakup occurs in “Babe, I’m Gonna Leave You” (5x14), after Jackie shouts, “Get off my boyfriend!” to Annette about Kelso in the previous episode. Below is Donna and Jackie’s first discussion about it.

Donna: So, have you talked to Hyde about the whole, “Get off my boyfriend,” disaster? Jackie: No! And why is everyone making such a big deal about it? It's like every time I walk into a room, people look at me funny. Donna, how do you deal with it? Donna: Jackie, the reason people are making a big deal about it is because it sounds like you still have feelings for Kelso. Jackie: Well, I don't. I think the only reason I said it was because I was having an allergic reaction to the Formans' cheap, generic soda.

Here, Donna is being supportive of both Hyde and Jackie. She cares about them and their relationship. Jackie, however, has a tendency toward denial and self-delusion, which Donna has experienced extensively. She wants Jackie to be honest with herself, face reality, and not put herself or Hyde through the pain she went through with Kelso during seasons 1-4.

The next time in the episode Donna talks about this situation is with Annette at The Hub.

Annette: Guys, I really think there's some unfinished business between Michael and Jackie. When they were together, did she make him happy? Donna: Well, she totally dominated him and made him feel bad about himself. Annette: I guess what I'm really asking is, was she ever fat or anything?

Donna’s assessment isn’t accurate and nowhere near complete. This is not the fault of Donna but the writers, whose take on Jackie and Kelso is made clear in “Everybody Loves Casey” (4x26). Despite the few concessions the writers make during Jackie and Kelso’s exchange that give Jackie some sympathy, the onus for the toxicity of their relationship is put on Jackie. New “facts” that are never mentioned or shown in the series before this episode are introduced so that Kelso can give Jackie the responsibility for his cheating and the audience will agree with him, at least in part.

Donna’s assessment of Jackie and Kelso’s relationship in “Babe, I’m Gonna Leave You” reflects the point of view given in “Everybody Loves Casey”. What actually occurs during seasons 1-4 contradicts this assessment. Jackie encourages Kelso and bolsters his self-esteem (see “The Forgotten Son” [4x09] for one of many examples). She buys him so many presents that he owes her $8,265 in 1977 (see “Baby Fever” [3x07)], which is the equivalent to $35,525 today (due to inflation).

Yes, Jackie also berates him, but she most often does so when he mistreats her by lying, cheating, and generally disrespecting her. She also tries to control him in certain situations, like how many of her stuffed animals she’ll keep in his van or refusing to break up with him when he asks to in “Red’s Last Day” (2x02).

But the so-called total domination Donna claims Jackie had over Kelso is false. If it were true, Kelso never would’ve cheated on her with Pam Macy, Laurie, a girl from Sacred Heart. He wouldn’t have avoided her for a week after the first time they have sex or treat her like a servant once he gets in contact with her again. He wouldn’t have ignored her many nos about having sex until she’s exhausted by his relentlessness and given into what he wants. The list goes on.

The point, though, is that real!Donna would not have said Jackie “totally dominated [Kelso] and made him feel bad about himself.” Real!Donna -- who’d tried to get Jackie to break up with cheating Kelso then stay broken up with him -- would have said that Jackie and Kelso made each other miserable and that it wasn’t a healthy relationship for either of them. This assessment would have given Annette, a virtual stranger, enough information without betraying Jackie’s privacy.

Jackie enters The Hub soon after this conversation.

Jackie: Donna, Steven broke up with me. Donna: Oh, Jackie, I'm sorry.

Donna is sincere in her compassion. She doesn’t say, “You deserved it,” or, “What did you expect?” Her friend is hurting, and Donna feels for her.

This is the last interaction between Donna and Jackie before Jackie and Hyde reconcile in this episode. Donna’s empathy is obviously for Jackie. We get no scenes between Donna and Hyde or dialogue from Donna that shows she believes Hyde is in the right for breaking up with her. She just wants Jackie to recognize why Hyde might feel hurt by Jackie calling Kelso her boyfriend.

Jackie and Hyde’s next breakup happens in “Nobody’s Fault but Mine” (5x23). Kelso tells Donna about Hyde sleeping with the nurse.

Kelso: [Hyde] doesn’t know it but I saw him kissing this lady at the hotel. Donna: Oh, my God, that’s horrible. Kelso: I wanna do the right thing, right? So I’m thinking that I’ll just tell Jackie, and then she’ll feel really bad. Then I’ll console her, and -- presto! -- we’re making out topless! Donna: No, Kelso! The thing to do is to tell Hyde that you know and then give him a chance to tell Jackie.

Again, Donna is concerned for the well-being of both Jackie and Hyde and their relationship. She cares about both of them, but Hyde’s behavior / choice is likely incomprehensible to her at this point.

Once Jackie breaks up with Hyde and the full truth is out, Hyde calls Jackie at Donna’s. Donna wants Jackie to talk to him, but Jackie hangs up the phone, and Donna pleads Hyde’s case

Donna:  I think this whole thing was a misunderstanding. Hyde didn’t know what was going on. Jackie: I know, okay? But after Michael, I promised myself that I would never be with another boy who cheated on me. Donna: But Hyde’s so good for you. Since you started dating him you’ve completely stopped quoting Nancy Drew.

Donna’s point of view, again, reflects the writers’ -- that Hyde’s transgression is a “stupid, one-time thing.” If Hyde had actually been written as real!Hyde during this episode and arc (after sleeping with the nurse), he would’ve put Jackie’s pain and feelings ahead of his own, shown true and lasting contrition along with self-awareness, and not expect forgiveness.

Donna’s argument would be much stronger if Hyde hadn’t displayed similar behavior to Kelso’s in season 2 (e.g., acting entitled to Jackie’s forgiveness and growing hostile toward her when he doesn’t get it in his desired time frame). Hyde’s relationship with Jackie does inspire her to grow and change, but that doesn’t negate his betrayal of her -- or vice versa.

Donna needed to give Jackie empathy in this moment rather than try to fix what Hyde had broken, but she does so right after Jackie rejects Donna’s argument to give Hyde a chance. Jackie cries on her shoulder, and Donna holds her during it.

Before Jackie and Hyde reconcile in “Join Together” (6x02), Donna continues to point out the positive effect Jackie’s relationship with Hyde had on Jackie. She’s neither Team Jackie nor Team Hyde. She’s Team Jackie-and-Hyde. She’s supportive of and compassionate toward Jackie while also maintaining faith in Hyde’s innate goodness.

Donna believes that Hyde, at his core, isn’t a cheater. That he isn’t Kelso, but this doesn’t excuse Hyde’s transgression. What’s missing during this breakup arc is a scene where Donna confronts Hyde about what he did, why he chose to act out instead of talk to Jackie, and where she tells him he has to own his crap. This would have connected nicely story-wise (or grown out of) the lessons she should have learned with Eric in season 5 had the show not rushed into their engagement arc.

Donna could have brought up Hyde’s childhood, the source of his deep fear of abandonment, and how he allowed this fear to seep into his relationship with Jackie. Hyde, then, might have admitted he’d fallen for Jackie when she’d chased him back in season 3 and felt betrayed by her ultimately rejecting him for Kelso.

Hyde: I guess that crap came up again when she became my girlfriend. Part of me always believed she’d always go back to him.

Unfortunately, the writers didn’t make these story and character connections, and the characterization and story suffered because of it.

During Jackie and Hyde’s season 7 breakups, Donna behaves similarly as described above. She’s Team Jackie-and-Hyde. She supports both her friends and believes they’re happiest (and best) when together. She brings Jackie to her martial arts class to get out her rage at Hyde in a healthy way. She consistently teases Hyde about his love for Jackie so he won’t deny it to himself or quit fighting for it. She’s always got a hug for Jackie when she needs it, and she calls Hyde on his B.S. (finally) in season 7.

So, no, Donna doesn’t side more with Hyde over Jackie after their breakups. She an equal friend to both of them, despite the flaws in the writing.

[bestworstcase]

Okay but what is the general consensus on Zhan Tiri eating Ri Ni’n I would like to know

:D

the general consensus is. there is no general consensus ALKSDFJK

in ye olden times, by which i mean ~500 years prior to the consumption and earlier, the dominant belief in the citir region where ri ni’n grew was. ri ni’n in a protector/guardian role and the... entity that would become zhan tiri (known by various names but most commonly gat as’la) as this... slumbering devourer figure kept at bay by ri ni’n the gatekeeper. really early on gat as’la was considered... frightening but not evil. a force of primordial violence and part of the natural creation/destruction cycle that the abralians, who were the dominant culture in the area at the time, believed in. this mythology began to drift more and more towards malevolence as gat as’la began to “wake up” ie take more of an active interest in humankind. 

then! during the last decade or so before the shattered era begins, gat as’la encounters dione, who survives. no one has ever escaped before so gat as’la spends the next nine or ten years chasing her until that enmity sort of evolves into a mutual fascination. in 0 SE they make a bargain, gat as’la renames herself ẓanti’ri, and dione founds a cult in her name (the host of the rotted vulture). HRV’s characterization of ẓanti’ri has a lot in common with late-abralian characterizations of gat as’la—a cruel, violent devourer—but with the key difference of there being no notion of ẓanti’ri being held at bay by ri ni’n. she’s already here. they coexist. 

(early HRV ẓanti’ri is a goddess of war and vengeance, pretty much, with a pinch of apocalypse death cult thrown in for good measure. it is not a nice organization.)

*deep breath* 

to zoom out a little, zhan tiri’s domain is hunger and she is, to a much greater extent than the average sublime entity, sort of malleable in nature. most gods form when a significant amount of magic coagulates around an anchor point, and anchor points come from widespread shared beliefs or doubts or feelings about the cosmos at large. so, like, cathay for example began to form once sentient races started asking questions about what happens to people when they die. zhan tiri, on the other hand, actually predates the cosmos by a wide margin. she’s an abyssal parasite that crawled out of the dark country eons ago, killed jinarche, ate part of her corpse, absorbed and corrupted a big chunk of her power, and became... sort of a cosmic personification of hunger and sort of a cursed reincarnation of jinarche. and that cataclysm created the current cosmos with the separation between the profane and sublime realms etc. 

ANYWAY THE POINT IS, zhan tiri is what she eats. i mean this in the most literal way possible. when she struck that deal with dione, dione’s soul became... hm. tethered to ẓanti’ri’s sphere of power, so while ẓanti’ri didn’t eat it in the literal sense it still became, in a way, part of her. likewise for the other acolytes of the HRV. so an unintended side-effect of ẓanti’ri being worshipped is that it infects her with little bits of humanity. this had already begun to happen a little bit during her pursuit of dione (and was the impetus for her to choose her name) but it accelerates as the cult took off.

around 420 SE, ẓanti’ri has a divine existential crisis and spends a few years wandering and brooding until she ends up in the peatland of what would become saporia and meets sorchā, who is a young poet and philosopher afflicted with her own ennui. they talk a lot, and sorchā starts to crystalize her own philosophical theories and, in particular, the idea of “choimghē” as an ideal combination of the profane and sublime. (ẓanti’ri also adopts the spelling of zhan tiri around this time.) the concept of choimghē fascinates zhan tiri, who goes to ri ni’n to seek advice or help achieving it. 

(she goes to ri ni’n because, as the cosmic bridge, ri ni’n is of both the profane and sublime realms.)

now! zhan tiri and ri ni’n are not and have never been enemies. their relationship is more akin to the relationship between zhan tiri and huma or turul, i.e. they belong to the same, in a manner of speaking, family. there’s no like... biological relationship because sublime entities do not have biological relationships, but the four of them all developed around the same time and their spheres of power all overlap pretty extensively, and they’re all, like, compatible with each other. if turul is your patron it would be reasonable for you to petition zhan tiri for a one-off favor, for example, that kind of thing. 

which is to say zhan tiri does not approach ri ni’n in an antagonistic way or at all with the intention of killing her, but... ri ni’n a) couldn’t help zhan tiri with this even if she wants to and b) doesn’t want to, because zhan tiri has spent the last several centuries being horrible and ri ni’n, who understands things like pain and fear because she exists on the physical plane and has a body, disapproves of that. so she tells zhan tiri that the only way to get what she wants is through more violence, which ri ni’n will not under any circumstances help her with, and that if she does go through with it she’ll bear the consequences forever. and zhan tiri is like #YOLO and eats her. 

so like i said, zhan tiri is what she eats, so... there is a strong theological argument to be made that rather than ‘killing’ ri ni’n, zhan tiri engulfed and became her—this is the standard doctrine of the modern HRV. in any case she absorbed all of ri ni’n’s power, supplanted her as the cosmic bridge, and (this part is important) grew a body. (said body is a vast blobby mass of random things but she can smash bits of it into more... uh, coherent shapes when she wants to appear on the planet.) and part of having an actual physical body was that it came with physical sensations and real emotions rather than just vague impressions left by all the human souls she’d collected over the years so this whole process was a nightmare alksdfk and sorchā got to deal with this trillion-year-old god having a sensory overload meltdown for several months. 

the point being, in the aftermath of eating ri ni’n, zhan tiri mellowed out a lot. became... gentler. experiencing pain for herself and the realizing she had done that to people herself was horrifying for her. and this is also when her sphere began to really branch and grow into the eclectic monstrosity that it is today, because while attempting to process all these new things she was experiencing her only real frame of reference was ‘hunger.’

( zhan tiri: love is when you want to eat someone but have them not, like, die because of it right

sorchā: no )

so ANOTHER perspective on the eating ri ni’n situation is that it was kind of a last time pays for all type of thing. zhan tiri slaughtered one of her own siblings for personal gain and, just as ri ni’n warned her, she’s going to carry the consequences of that and every act of violence that came before for eternity and the nature of those consequences also mean she now has the capacity to be better. one last shattering atrocity in exchange for her becoming, not an entity driven by the compulsion to take and take but one capable of choice even though she does still feel that urge. this is the framework the thorn syconium teaches. 

then you also get myths here and there where zhan tiri and ri ni’n are understood as always having been one and the same, and their mythological enmity and the subsequent consumption of ri ni’n is interpreted as an individual entity having an internal conflict with itself, torn between its cruel and destructive urges (represented in the figure of gat as’la) and its compassionate and creative urges (represented in the figure of ri ni’n). in this conceptualization, ri ni’n is actually the triumphant half and zhan tiri’s ‘consumption’ of her is representative of zhan tiri embracing that side of her nature and bringing herself into balance. this view is especially popular with the sect of the HRV that resides in antares. 

then of course there’s another perspective that is more grounded in scholarship on the abralian faith, where ri ni’n was this gatekeeper who kept this dangerous, malevolent force of destruction at bay and guarded the wellspring of life and so on, and from that perspective this is a matter of zhan tiri having triumphed over ri ni’n and the world now being in an apocalyptic epoch that will ultimately end in the utter destruction of everything. 

and there’s the, like, demanitus framework, which is based on his writings and accounts of his battles with not just zhan tiri but also other gods, which takes things a step further to suggest that all gods are hostile to mortal life and the only way to avert the growing apocalypse is to cut off the sublime realm’s access to the profane realm altogether by removing the cosmic bridge. which is precisely what demanitus did when he banished zhan tiri to the dark country.

and then there’s the entities of the sublime realm themselves, who have myriad personal opinions on zhan tiri slaying and devouring another god because she felt like it and tend to pass those views on to their own cults. one of the reasons it is nigh impossible to kill one of zhan tiri’s scions is you would need the help of another god to do it, and zhan tiri is the largest, oldest, and most powerful god around, notorious for being extremely attached to her scions, and also a proven god-killer. nobody wants to get eaten. even cathay, however willing she might be to antagonize zhan tiri in other ways, wouldn’t do it. 

and then there’s huma and turul, who as i said belong to the same ‘family’ as both zhan tiri and ri ni’n, and who i think were kind of like “zhan tiri what the fuck” about it. but it’s not like—despite the sibling analogy i keep using—it isn’t equivalent to the human horror that this situation, of one sibling killing and eating another, would provoke. everything ri ni’n was—her power, her magic, her essence—still exists. she isn’t dead, in the way that gods can die (by becoming unmoored from their domain, which shreds them and causes their magic to disperse into the sublime realm itself). she’s just. part of zhan tiri now. so for huma and turul it’s more of a “why in the world did you do this to yourself” sort of “zhan tiri what the fuck” than it is a “you murdered our sister?!” thing. 

...so yeah. the general consensus on this depends a lot on where and whom you ask gjksdjkf. i think the thorn syconium framework is the one closest to zhan tiri’s feelings on the matter, unless she’s in a mood. 

[bacchanta]

Just random speculations regarding Narcissa and her son Draco

This came up in a chat I had with a friend (fellow Drarry shipper) the other day: how we can interpret Draco’s relation with Harry by looking at some common traits in personality shared by Draco and Narcissa.

Biases declared: have been rooting for Narcissa for no obvious reasons since the last film and will keep doing so. Mostly talking about the books (but the image will inevitably be influenced by Helen McCrory’s portrayal because she is amazing).

Narcissa has always been this somewhat lofty and marginal figure considering the fact that nearly everyone who she is on talking terms serves Voldemort. It is not hard to infer from the books that she is at best indifferent to Voldemort’s cause (unlike her husband Lucius, who, while no zealous disciple of Voldemort, does seem to at least approve of his ideas and takes active parts in realizing some of them). The closest she’s got to helping Voldemort is probably when she urges Draco to identify the trio in the Malfoy Manor, but her presence is soon overshadowed by Lucius and Bellatrix. The fact that she cares to argue with Bellatrix just because the latter is acting a bit harsh towards Draco seems to suggest that Narcissa is much more concerned with the manners of conduct rather than what’s at stake at that moment.

It won’t be too much of an exaggeration to say that, in most of her appearances in the books, she cares about her son the most, while behaving rather indifferently to everything else, and that has motivated her to take some bold actions more than once. Apart from the argument mentioned above (when she’s upset with a full-working-mode Bellatrix just because she’s rude to Draco), she also actively defied Bellatrix in Book 6, when Bellatrix explicitly tries to persuade her against seeking help from Snape. 

Lucius also gets into argument with Bellatrix at times (Ministry of Magic, Malfoy Manor) as the two seems to have a rather strained relationship as colleagues, but it is obvious that Bellatrix, being the fierce and borderline-crazy, powerful witch, is dismissive of Lucius and does not bother to collaborate with or even listen to him at all, considering him to be unreliable and weak. 

However, Bellatrix seems to be much more amiable towards Narcissa, the two being sisters. When Narcissa insists on going to find Snape to help Draco, Bellatrix can only persuade her but not actually stop her. Indeed, when she sees that she cannot persuade her sister, she takes a step back and goes along with her plan, only to make Snape take the oath to secure Naricssa’s plan. This is almost the only time one sees Bellatrix making a concession to someone who isn’t her master and offering to help on top of that.

It’s fair to argue that it’s because the two are sisters. But there is no other hint to suggest that Bellatrix cares for familial bonds in general. She does not seem to care about her husband, nor does she appear to care about her Black lineage. She is also certainly not on friendly terms with her other sister, Andromeda. So why does she seem to have a soft spot towards Narcissa? Why does Narcissa, and Narcissa only, dares to defy her in an attempt that is seen to be reckless and dangerous anyway?

Here’s where one can make some bold speculations (but that’s what fandoms are for). Is it possible that one actually gets a glimpse into the relationship between the sisters in their early years? Is it possible that, Narcissa, being the youngest daughter in an old, hyper-conservative wizard and witch family that is obssessed with their status, is brought up to become somewhat naive and a little spoiled by everyone around her, Bellatrix included? 

Also think of how the youngest daughter in a family is usually portrayed in literature, as JKR’s characterization is at times drawing from such literary stereotypes. Think of Lydia Bennet in Pride and Prejudice, and other Jane Austen novels. These characters are presented to be naive, at times petulent, a little spoiled by their older siblings. Some of them also share the tendency to yearn for uniqueness, something that belongs to them and them only that has nothing to do with the family, something unique that distinguishes them from their siblings.

Narcissa does behave boldly towards Bellatrix, and her plan to save Draco is naive. What’s more important is that, if one is to believe this stereotype in her characterization, Draco, her son, is exactly what she holds onto, as someone who defines a unique but essential part of her, a part that has nothing to do with her family. It is only for Draco that she changes her usual, passive and indifferent attitude and becomes defiant. Values can be spoon-fed to her, families can influence her, and she may take the same stand as those around her without much of a second thought, but when it comes to Draco, she shows an independent, personal agency.

Now Draco’s upbringing will suggest some similarity with Narcissa’s. Spoiled as the only child, but also extensively indoctrinated by his family. One seldom sees any aspect of Draco Malfoy that is not formed because of some external influence - be that of family, of friends (supposedly selected as family acquaintances), or of the environment he stays in. 

Unlike Harry, whose character-building is mostly him encountering various kinds of situations and making choices based on what he believes in and what kind of a person he wants to become, Draco does not have something he personally believes in to begin with. Harry is able to become a strong and kind person because he has a clear idea of who he is, which is not indoctrinated by those around him. But if you take away what might have been taught to Draco by Lucius, by the Slytherins, it does not seem that he has a clear idea of who he is or who he wants to be.

If Narcissa, being this naive, passive youngest daughter of the Black family, shows an independent motivation because of her son, then is there similar representation of Draco?

Or, in other words, has Draco ever made a decision or took an action that is clearly his own decision, and not what he is taught to do?

Here are several examples:

Book 2: Lucius actually does not approve of Draco making Harry an enemy, as he believes that making friends with Harry Potter will be the more reasonable option.

Book 6: wanting to prove himself and rejecting Snape’s help (but he is coerced to accept the task in the first place, and it is clear that he does not want to carry it on when he goes to Myrtle)

Book 7: not exposing Harry to Bellatrix

Two out of three are because of Harry. The decision to hate Harry in the first place is primarily his own decision (even if his father does not approve), and so is the decision to offer the least bit of help.

In that sense, perhaps without himself being aware of it, Harry means to Draco what Draco means to Narcissa: a reason to reject what they have been taught and start to think of what they truly want and believe. As themselves, not as youngest daughter, only son, pureblood.

[synesindri]

some musings on shipping culture

just to get this out of the way: this post is prompted by things i have seen people say and reblog recently about a variety of ships and fandoms, some of which i have been in, some of which i have not. it is not directed at any individual in particular. 

i am also not upset. how other people like to enjoy fandom is interesting to me but ultimately it’s totally irrelevant to how i like to enjoy fandom. in fact, my apathy about other people’s favorite ships is a major reason i am curious about how some people respond to each other/canon/whatever.

the main question is: why do people care what other people ship and why they ship it?

here’s what i got. this list is not ordered by importance.

1) purity culture 

tbh i am kind of burnt out with thinking about purity culture. probably a lot of reasons are somewhat related to purity culture, but i don’t want to get into whether or not it’s ok for people to ship stuff they wouldn’t condone in reality (although for the record, if you couldn’t tell, my opinion is: ship literally whatever you want). so, moving on.

2) whether or not ships are likely to become canon

a lot of the time, this debate gets avoided either because none of the ships being argued over are likely ever to become canon, or because one of them is almost definitely going to become canon. sometimes it’s an argument about which relationship is more important, whether romantic or not (two examples: 1) most wincest shippers understand that sam and dean were never going to kiss on the mouth on tv, but are very invested in the brothers’ relationship being the central relationship in the show regardless. 2) debates over whether elsa in frozen should have a girlfriend or stay single). 

much of the time, people get passionate about ships going canon because of issues of representation. wanting the queer ship; wanting the ship involving at least one character from an underrepresented group; wanting the ship that resonates with some meaningful experience much of the audience can relate to. that’s all cool. i get all of that. i don’t personally have many feelings about ships i like going canon because that’s not really part of the experience for me, but i understand why it’s appealing to others.

i do not, however, understand why some people whose ships might become canon care about telling people whose ships are never going to become canon that their ships are, uh, never going to become canon. like, in my experience, usually people who ship a never-going-to-be-canon ship know that it’s never going to be canon, and while they might be salty about it, they aren’t claiming that their thing is going to be what happens in canon. i get why never-going-to-be-canon shippers might get pissy at might-be-canon shippers because it sucks to “lose,” or because often (not always) might-be-canon ships are very popular comparatively and it can get tiresome to see your fandom dominated by something you don’t like/care about. but why do fans of popular (might-be-)canon ships get pissy about fans of never-gonna-be-canon ships, within fandom spaces?

a lot of this tension might be because of fandom dominance wars, rather than canon dominance wars. the never-gonna-be-canon shippers might feel that the might-be-canon shippers are dominating fandom spaces, but the might-be-canon shippers might feel that the never-gonna-be-canon shippers are dominating canon spaces. often when this happens both ships take up a lot of fandom space regardless of which takes up more, and might in fact be equally popular. so this might be just misperceptions about relative popularity, and feeling like your ship is being attacked/ignored disproportionately in the fandom when in reality it isn’t. i have definitely seen this sort of attitude from warring flagship supporters many a time.

but ok, to come back to why might-be-canon shippers make arguments against never-gonna-be-canon shippers based on likelihood of canonization: why? i don’t get it. i’ve seen this happen even with people who ship fully realized canon relationships arguing against people who ship fully non-canon relationships. why? 

my instinct is to think that last one is a sore winner thing. like, you won dude. good for you. take your winnings and let everybody else lick their wounds/carry on with their own preferences in peace. i’m even inclined to think that canon shippers as a rule should ignore most baiting by non-canon shippers because losers should be allowed to be little a bitter, as a treat. but at this point, i realize that i have just made a claim about how people should act in fandom, and who am i to say that? no one. so: never mind. and it might not be a gloating thing anyway.

another piece of evidence i see people bring up in these arguments is about basis in canon, rather than likelihood of canonization. that seems like another major point, so let’s move on to that. 

3) basis in canon

whether or not a ship is likely to become canon, there are lots of conversations about which ships make the most sense given evidence from the canon. 

i, being a massive slut for characterization, get this sort of. usually even when i enjoy crack ships i want to make them work with textual evidence somehow. i personally just think it’s more satisfying to figure out how two characters might have met and what would have appealed to them about each other to lead them to connect/date/bang/whatever, even if it never happened and never will happen and nobody would even think about the pairing unless either they were trying to be funny or they were really far down a rabbit hole. that’s my own geeky cross to bear.

i don’t get why “basis in canon” makes any ship better than any other ship though. sometimes a ship is within reach of canon characterization/story, and the work to go from non-canon to canon is suuuper minimal. these ships make sense pretty much as they are. that’s cool! such ships are usually popular for a reason: they appeal to a lot of fans of the canon because not a lot has to be done to the source material to make it work. often, the more you have to modify/do interpretation footwork, the more people’s interesting is going to drop off because you’re getting further from the source, and the source is why everyone is here in the first place. (some fandoms are of course exceptions to this.)

but why is closer-to-canon better? sometimes the work to get from canon to a far-from-canon ship is really clever, and does actually make a lot of sense if you follow the reasoning. sometimes far-from-canon ships are satisfying in a way other closer-to-canon ships aren’t (at least to some people). sometimes far-from-canon ships allow for creativity that closer-to-canon ships don’t. sometimes the appeal of far-from-canon ships is none of that, and it’s purely because the ship is sexy, or it’s controversial, or it’s weird, or people have gotten tired of the fandom flagships and they’re looking for something new. 

i don’t understand why any of that is worse than the reasons for shipping something with “more basis in canon.”

personally, i get tired of fandom flagships in most of the fandoms i’ve been in very quickly. furthermore, i lose interest in ships almost immediately if/when they become canon. that’s not a value judgment; it’s just a pattern in my own preferences that i’ve observed from 15+ years of fandom involvement. i enjoy having to work in the murky waters farther from canon to justify my weird little ships. i find the moment of canonization exciting and satisfying (and sometimes emotional and vindicating), but i do not enjoy watching people actually being in romantic relationships very much (part of this is probably due to the fact that i personally do not enjoy being in romantic relationships very much). i also just tend to enjoy elements of ships that a lot of people find off-putting, but this is going back to purity culture and, again, i don’t want to get into that. these preferences reliably lead me away from close-to-canon ships and fandom flagships. 

(just to be clear: i’m not being attacked. i do not feel attacked. i'm just using myself as a rhetorical example here.)

does this make my taste in ships bad? i don’t know what "bad taste in ships” means, but if you’re going to say that my taste is bad, i’m going to want you to justify it. 

does it make my taste in ships stupid? well, sure, i do like stupid shit sometimes. but i also feel that it would be strange, if not flat-out incorrect, to claim that my taste in off-norm ships is not thoughtful. i think about many of my far-from-canon ships a lot — often, i think about them a lot before i start shipping them/see anyone else ship them, and i decide i like the characters together because i’ve come at it from a character analysis perspective. i have liked ships for some extremely nerdy reasons. a lot of people who like far-from-canon ships get there because they like thinking about characterization and plot and symbolism. to be completely honest, i often end up liking rarepairs in part because the people who end up liking rarepairs often have higher overall intellectual skill and desire to think about things extensively on average than fans of fandom flagships do on average. so, is liking far-from-canon ships stupid? that’s subjective. is it unintelligent? probably not.

is enjoyment of these ships dumber when people don’t get there through a lot of analysis, or when they don’t try to justify their enjoyment once they’ve decided they like a ship? i have seen extremely well-written, clever, extensively researched fic about pairings the author had no interest in justifying, and imo that’s just as intellectually motivated as analysis about why the ship makes sense. so, i would say, no.

is it bad to ship stuff and have no intellectual interest in it all? i mean, everyone can have whatever opinion about this, but in my opinion, no. this is fandom. this is for fun-having. i’m a nerd, but not everybody has to be a nerd. sometimes i like to read stuff that is not nerdy, that just shows me something comforting or new or evocative and doesn’t ask me to care about how we’ve gotten there. i might care anyway, but that’s on me, and it doesn’t make my enjoyment better than the enjoyment of someone who doesn’t want to overthink it.

finally, even if a ship having no basis in canon does make it worse somehow, who cares? what is the point of arguing over ship quality, of all things? is it just elitism? is it defensiveness against criticism of fan work being inferior to original work? is it a desire for everything to make sense, paired with a belief that people prefer things that make the most sense? if anybody has read this far and has insight into this, please tell me. i see this so often, and it baffles me every time. i don’t really want to agree, but i want to understand.

so, i don’t quite get this one. i get parts of it, but overall, i don’t get it. 

4) i don’t have a number 4. i put a number 4 when i started writing this post but i think i covered what i was going to say here in points 1-3. alternatively i forgot my 4th point in which case RIP.

if you read this far, i apologize for the messy organization. i wrote this primarily to sort out my own thoughts. i’m not sure it helped, but it was something to do for an hour XD

[kitsoa]

So, about your Theory ...

So, we talked on Reddit a while ago, Kitsoa, and I have some more thoughts about your theory. It’s more rambling and longer than what I previously intended – my apologies for this.

Kitsoa- Hello again! I’ll reply in brief through quotes though I’m not interested in doing a solid defense of my theory. Mostly it’s a lot of creative stretching using the crumbs of the narrative and I’m not feeling particularly impassioned to bring out the counter citations nor do I think it necessary.

Also: I have written and re-iterated upon this meta theory of mine multiple times so if I am not referencing the correct Original Post in question that’s probably because I never bothered to do a big manifesto and I will take the fall for that confusion.

It’s certainly very interesting but parts of it seem to not only be unsupported but outright contradicted by the games. For instance, take your surmise that Xehanort’s villainy is motivated by his knowledge of the KH world as fictional and his self-knowledge that he has to play the role of the villain to create a conflict and thus sustain the universe. His actual speech in Re:Mind after Dark Road’s world tour points to something else:

“All around the world people live seemingly peaceful lives. They believe themselves to be moral and virtuous, but it’s all an act. Darkness lurks in the pit of everyone’s heart. Their light is a total farce. Those who are weak, and who desire greater power, simply strip the strong of their power, and convince themselves they’ve earned it. That’s how people become tainted by darkness. They believe what they want them to believe, using hollow reasons as justification. They repeat this cycle, and their darkness grows. No, its better they be ruled by darkness. People carry delusions of having power, but it’s a lie. They are but sheep pretending to be wolves. Though I can admit, I can understand why.”

This edgy little diatribe isn’t about the nature of the universe or Xehanort’s own origin … it’s about his view of human (or talking animal, w/e) nature. It’s a similar theme to his final speech in KH3, and ends not with him concluding that he needs to play the role of a villain to create conflict ,,, but that to prevent the KH universe collapsing into chaos, he needs to become its absolute godlike ruler. Which is what sets up the conflict, yes, but his goal isn’t explicitly to create conflict to keep the universe going.

Re: Xehanorts motive aligning with a meta-awareness on his ‘role’ as a villain. This is a theme I was definitely playing with. Xehanort is clearly symbolic of the corrupting pursuit of knowledge and we have a god-like encounter spark stranger behavior yet. It’s a fascinating trope yes? Corrupted by the Truth. Saving the world by sacrificing the world. That was my angle. The World Tour from Re:mind had him summarizing his villainous disdain and I’ll agree that it gives him no direction towards a ‘role’. But I also take note of the fact that this enlightenment comes directly from the actions of the chessmaster MoM who could feasibly manipulate Xehanort towards a conflict-sparking war. If Xehanort isn’t directly and consciously responsible for fulfilling the metacontextual requirements for a ‘story’ then MoM is. And as I’ve stated it probably comes from a more experimental god-mode type motive.

And again, your argument that time doesn’t really exist in the Disney worlds until Sora arrives and this is related to them literally being stories that he’s diving into. I don’t know where you get this from, at all. We go into Disney worlds and experience plots unrelated to the films (KH1 Olympus, Halloween Town); we go into Disney worlds in medias res (too many to count); we go into Disney worlds before the movie’s events take place (BBS Deep Space, Neverland); we even go into Disney worlds in-between or after the movies’ events (KH3 Toy Box, San Fransokyo). Which rather gets in the way of a simplistic “Sora arrives in the Disney world, time starts flowing forward and the movie starts” look at things. You’d previously characterized this as “every world has its unique story” which IMO would be a more reasonable way to look at things rather than the stronger “the worlds literally are the stories and nothing else”.

I’ll defend this a little. The entire concept of the Worlds as Stories demands only that we recognize a higher reality. A reader/audience/ creator relationship with the happenings. When I say ‘time doesn’t exist’ I’m saying it doesn’t matter. The only thing that does matter is the time spent there by Sora (or his subsidiaries). Time is going to move between visits but not at a pace that runs independently of Sora (and co). And all of the events within those worlds are unique to the source material-- on the virtue of having Sora. But when I say the worlds are the stories, I mean it... metaphysically. The relationship between the greater kh multi-verse (and no greater) and these literal planet world island things is that of stories given form. Most all of my KH musings come from the very simple concept that formless metaphysical concepts like love, bonds, imagination, memories etc are literal, tangible things. Tangible. In this, Worlds are not so much another universe equal to other universes. They are a story, fictional and potentially subservient to a greater reality. It’s only from that understanding that I add the extra layer upon KH (and Quadratum by later extension) itself. 

The exact logic behind this reasoning is cyclic. KH is a fictional story to the literal higher reality (us) and seeing how there's a parallel within the narrative, I just applied that logic within the universe and used my understanding of the ‘literal metaphysics’ theme going on with other lore concepts.

Power of Waking ejecting Sora into “real reality”: This analysis is based on the idea that Sora is “waking himself up” out of dream states until he “wakes up” out of KH reality into “real reality”. But YMX tells him (and implicitly us, via the conventions of this kind of villainous exposition) that Sora is repeating the same error he made in 3D and sending himself into the abyss at the bottom of the Realm of Darkness, not doing the opposite thing and “waking himself up” out of KH reality.

I’ll just punt Power of Waking stuff. There is a lot of stuff with the power but I take most of the speculation from the name and the results. There’s a big interweave of darkness that can support or deny my thoughts within the next sentence and I’m electing now to wait and see. Sora abuses the power of waking-- ends up in another reality. Waking--> realities--> dreams--> sleep. Run with the word association. I like to think the ambiguity with sleep and the darkness of abyss has more to say about the nature of reality as a whole ergo: “everything is a dream” concepts that are hard to swallow. What is waking up, if you find yourself deeper in sleep? Nonesense stuff like that.

MoM as Creator of the KH universe/Quadratum as the “higher reality”: Not only is he presented as a clear villain figure; given that the rest of the Foretellers are based on the Seven Deadly Sins, MoM as their leader would clearly represent the sin of pride. We also have him saying in Back Cover that he “might” disappear from the KH world, suggesting that it was beyond his control; and Luxu’s report suggests that the KH3 Keyblade War was engineered to open a means for him to return to the KH universe, presumably via Sora going to where he is in Quadratum/”unreality”.

I believe strongly in this still. MoM can be a villainous figure and at the mercy of universal laws while still being the Creator and denizen of a higher plane. I try not to dig into scenarios too much but follow me here: Creator of the world, literally self-inserts himself into a world of his own creation. He’s a verified Mad Scientist who of course likes to experiment and test his creations and he does so directly, physically, to them. There, he put them on auto-pilot and is watching Characterization carry on. I am not claiming that he is breaking the rules of his own universe and traveling in and out with ease. Nor am I saying if he is exercising any sort of Creator-granted power over their will. He’s there, he’s interacting with them, and he’s watching them. I find it to be an intentional obstaining of power. Self imposed limitations OR an understood sacrifice for this meddling (think, giving up ‘divine’ form to live amongst his ‘mortal’ creations in divine parallel. he is at the will of his universe but not out of control.)

When he says he ‘might’ disappear not only is he being vague on purpose to terrorize his high-strung apprentices but he’s made no indication that it’s something against his intention. And the actions taken by Luxu in formulating his return mean nothing to his plan or his ability or his potential Creator status. I can’t stress how Long Game I perceive MoM’s actions to be. All in the effort to observe, toy, and curate the perfect... something. And since I am talking about the literal nature of stories, I mean the ‘perfect’ story.

Also, we may note that if it was truly a “higher reality”, Quadratum wouldn’t be noted as the fictional Verum Rex video game in KH3 – there’d be no explicit sign at all of its existence, as it would be the higher reality generating the lower one. Which suggests that what may actually be the case, if the series is going meta, is that KH-verse and Quadratum view each other as fictional – in which case MoM would be somebody falsely claiming or believing to be the Creator, which makes sense in relation to the sin he represents.

Not that I’m saying KH-verse isn’t generated by a higher reality/being; but I don’t feel that the higher reality is Quadratum or that the higher being is MoM. There was a fairly interesting post on Reddit comparing KH to Plato’s world of the forms; in which case Kingdom Hearts would be the higher reality from which both regular KH-verse and Quadratum are generated. Or “unreality” really is a “lower reality” than the regular KH-verse, which TBF seems a bit less likely than “’reg. KH-verse’ and ‘unreality’ view each other as mutually fictional but are actually ontologically equal”.

I think my theory posts predate most of the Quadratum reveal so the details of the reveal haven’t been accounted for in my words but I did call it when breaking down Remind’s Yozora scenario. That said yes, I think there is a higher reality and I feel like you mentioned it outright. I see KH and Quadratum as equal fictional realities, segregated but connected through creator. Some of my earlier meta posts before re:mind saw Quadratum as the “higher reality” (or like “host reality”) until the presence of an author between them became apparent enough. We can potentially consider MoM=the author as a separate subject in this respect as it’s not entirely dependant on that reveal. Ultimately, my point in this caveat of the theory is that the relationship between KH and Quadratum strikes an intentionally meta-referential parallel to the actual creator Nomura. That’s an angle that is very audacious and I have full understanding in the denial but it’s my supporting evidence to a higher power within the re:mind secret episode alone.  As for the ‘unreality’ I literally think that is just a way for them to say ‘fictional’ without saying the word, not necessarily an indication of ‘rank’ (for lack of a better word). I use a little reverse logic on the reveal in Melody of Memory when I claim they are ‘equal fictional realities’. No one thinks to assume that they themselves are also “fake” so it;s not a stretch to believe that the reverse assumption could be true. This putting KH and Quadratum on the same level and almost guaranteeing a connection through a mutual creator. 

Now, you also talk about the Whispers in FF7R, but in that they’re in-universe contextualised as “guardians of destiny”, essentially manifestations of the Will of the Planet. Which just goes to show what I talked about earlier – the meta-level of a story can’t exist without a surface-level narrative. We know that the Whispers out-of-universe represent fan anger at changes to the plotline; but they’re presented as something in-universe, which can be defeated by in-universe forces (another reason I doubt it as it seems to leave no room for our heroes’ victory in the confrontation with MoM that’s being teased as the next saga).

I bring up the Whispers to note a synonymous use of the words ‘destiny’ and ‘fate’ to ‘story and ‘narrative’ Not explicitly of course, that would break the 4th wall, but its a subtext that's easier seen in a ‘remake’ because of direct references and deviations being drawn. I think the same synonymous use can be applied when brought up in KH because of their common creative entity.

Finally: How do you see this “metapocalypse” of yours playing out as an actual KH game? We know the conventions well enough by now – a trip through Disney worlds fighting monsters and villains in flashy shonen-style combat, being stalked and looked over ominously from afar by a council of villains with mysterious schemes. Then an invasion of the villains’ lair by the heroes with a final serving of flashy, SFX-heavy boss battles, a number of dramatic plot twists and arc resolutions, and an ending with the villains’ schemes having been at least forestalled. Then we get the ending credits; with an epilogue, a superboss and a secret ending all hinting at more to come.

Well I’m glad you asked! Honestly, I’m basically writing a fanfiction about it. I’m writing the story in part to engage some of these theories/speculations into a serviceable game narrative. So I’ll be vague:

Thematically: This breaking the 4th wall has the power to thematically drive home concepts of free will, defining your personhood and defying expectations. Furthermore, you have questions like... what makes something real? What makes it matter and what’s important? With growing up and the sanctity of youth being a constant struggle as the series and the characters age, the reverence in imagination and growing connections to things that aren’t stereotypically ‘real’ is a strong concept. If I were to break down the big message simply: As long as it’s real in your heart it doesn’t matter.

Overall, the reveal doesn’t really have to impact the basic formula. You can have Disney World Hopping and Villainous characters scheming and manipulating a greater force. I personally think the world-hopping parallel can become more direct with the context of it being movies/stories adding a different understanding of the process of visiting those worlds and meeting those characters. The episodes can be more about fate and predestination and can speak directly to the importance of the connections to those worlds. And the dramatic stakes are the literal threads of reality and godhood! 

If I am to be more detailed and imaginative (without substantial evidence)  I might say... MoM’s experiments in manipulating his own created world(s) are aiming to shape Sora (or 2nd favorite son Yozora) into some kind of perfect conduit for the marraige of reality and fiction and the success or failure of that process might weaponize his ability to connect with other hearts... real and not, all to the greater ascention of one chessmaster. 

(That’s not even mentioning how I have a personal reason to dislike it as it reminds me of an old theory that the KH plot was actually SRK imagining it all up in their childhood games or to put a darker twist on that idea, Sora dreaming it all up in a coma or while dying. I hated reading those ideas when I was younger and still do.)

I’m gonna sympathize hard with this. I hate ‘it was all just a dream’ theories. They are cheap and they trivialize the journey. That is not what this theory is saying. There is a higher reality in this concept and that is used as a proxy for our relationship with the series. The imagery of dreams is only a small facet of the reality/unreality theme so there is no ‘waking up’ or ‘end of story, goodbye’ attitude. The commentary is broader and it can potentially speak on the power of dreams and reality. The ‘realness’ of fake things. I’m sort of calling out KH for what it is: an imaginative story that expands upon what it means to truly experience stories.  Anyway, I rambled more than I thought. I haven’t written anything about KH in months so this was a little caffine shot for me. I’m not gonna be too stuck in the details and nor do I care exactly. I’m a story teller first and I just so happened to have predicted some things not so much because of the hints being dropped but because I understand some of the thematic intent behind the lore and certain narrative beats. The rest is just me having fun and finding the best reading. Sometimes I’m right. 

[dabistits]

while reading your posts, i always feel that you’re really well rounded and good at character analysis and just articulating your feelings and opinions towards stories in general. it’s something that i’m trying to get better at, and something that i admire you for, so i was wondering if you had any pointers or tips regarding developing analysis skills? thank you!

first of all, thank you so much!!😭😭 i’m so glad you enjoy my stuff and it gives me a lot of joy to know that this, like, inspires people or w/e fkdkgkf

i’m putting everything below a cut bcs it’s long as fuck and kind of disorganized. i wrote some parts half-asleep, so they might be rambly or stating the obvious or whatever, but you know, pick and choose what’s helpful to you! this probably isn’t exhaustive (and i kinda focused in on the ‘character analysis’ part, bcs otherwise there’s… so much), and if anything’s unclear or if you want more elaboration on sth just let me know!

the basics:

write!! it doesn’t matter what you write, it can meta, fanfic, rp, whatever, but as long as you write about this character you’ll be forced to articulate your thoughts; by extension that means you’ll have to gather evidence and make a convincing case for your portrayal. even if you’re writing fic or rp i think you should have a strong reference of where your characterization is coming from - i used to rp at places that required applications, so that would force me to think about my character’s personality and put it into words. i think most people are helped by the actual process of writing itself also, so don’t let lack of confidence stop you if you’re someone who tends to do that: you might wind up happier with your ideas after having written something than before (and you can aaalways edit).

read!! read other people’s analyses, not necessarily just about the character you have in mind, but about other characters, other stories, other genres, etc. what kinds of things do they point out to support their argument? what patterns are they picking up on? do you agree/disagree? what’s a new thought they’ve introduced to you? what are things they do that you particularly like? can you replicate that idea/technique in your own reading? there are so many times when i’ve read another person’s analysis and made a note to be more aware of [a certain thing] in the future, so that’s what helps me change and build and incorporate new stuff into the way i think about stories.

try to keep an ongoing chronicle of your thoughts. this could 100% be a personal thing, but i actually started to think and absorb a lot more (especially about small things) after i started this blog. being here meant that not only was i keeping up with chapter releases bcs of other fans, but i was also regularly writing about my impressions. reading and discussing chapter by chapter forced me to read & process everything in smaller increments, which let me take in more details, and gave more time for my thoughts and feelings to develop. in contrast, when i binge-read, i actually miss a lot of details and a lot of finer points of the storyline because i’m just trying to get from one plot point to the next.

stick close to canon. this is definitely subjective, but since this is also partially about how i approach character interpretation, i’ll toss this in. i personally don’t stray too far from what’s shown to me in-text, and i revisit canon a lot to establish a “baseline” characterization rather than building off of my own headcanons. this has pros and cons: for example, i feel like i don’t overstate things compared to their canon importance, and i feel like i don’t get too carried away with embellishing character traits; however, it also holds me back from theorizing unless there’s a ton of evidence in front of me, and i can be overcautious when it comes to approaching narrative hints. sometimes i do talk about my headcanons, but even then i usually point out whether or not it’s substantiated, because i do think the line between headcanon and canon gets muddled a lot in fandom discussion.

think about a character’s role in the story. so, we know stories have plots, a start and an end, and messages and themes. all characters function within that framework, they advance us from point a to point b, the carry the moral of the story. i think these are aspects that are important to include in your character analysis; while sure, there’s already plenty to analyse about the LOV as self-contained characters, but they also seem more important, more interesting, and more complex when you take them into the context of the larger story (how and why their relationships are built, what they mean as a part of man vs society conflict, etc.). not only does it inform you about the character (what the author is trying to say through them, what direction the author might push them in), it can also tell you a lot about the overall structure and themes of the story itself.

authors include everything for a reason. when you’re creating something from scratch, you have to actively decide what you include. the way someone’s room looks doesn’t necessarily mean anything in the grand scheme of things, but the author decided to design their room that way based off something—most likely a character’s interests, tastes, and preferences. while mina’s dorm room looking a certain way might not mean she has an old-fashioned personality, it can maybe tell you that she has a more retro taste and aesthetic. this can apply to “big” things too, like one of tomura’s severed hands still surviving the chaos. hori chose to have it survive rather than be decayed like everything else, so of course the question is why?

… but they are imperfect. creators also do make choices out of plot convenience, because of their own biases, or sometimes they just forget (as hori has done before, such as twice duplicating himiko in the overhaul arc and then saying he doesn’t know her measurements for the mla arc). so it can sometimes also be assumed that a detail was included/excluded because of something on the creator’s end, rather than because of it necessarily being symbolic or important to the characters (e.g. a character not being able to make it to a fight might be because their skills are too useful and could resolve the plot too easily, not because them getting sidetracked is important in itself; a female character losing a fight she should have won could be an issue of the creator’s misogyny). so these are aspects you can keep in mind as well when you’re evaluating characterization!

tendencies i see people fall into:

don’t take everything characters say at face value. characters can and do lie. they can be sarcastic. they can be manipulative. they can be deluding themselves. they can even be mistaken! there’s a reason why they’re expressing themselves that way, and sometimes you can gain more by actually investigating that contradiction rather than just assuming they mean what they say.

allow characters to change! they will change in canon, so don’t be too beholden to their early characterization if you’re trying to analyze or write them from a later point in the timeline. again, this seems intuitive, but i see a lot of people who still appear to draw on tomura’s early character portrayal by making him irritable towards the LOV, but he’s much more recently allowed himself to be physically pushed around by some of them without really reacting in any way.

embrace subtlety. a lot of people in their fanfic just see one aspect of a character and blow it up to make it their only characterization. like, tomura is irritable, himiko is obsessed with blood, any villain can be written as a sadistic killer hellbent on annihilation, etc. while having a couple personality traits come through strongly can help the character have a unique personality and voice, too much will make them appear one-note. it’s just as important to recognize moments when characters are being calm and focused and articulate, as much as their most dramatic moments. for example, a lot of writers don’t seem to notice that tomura doesn’t snap at his allies, tends to answer their questions evenly, and never lashes out at them; that’s because these moments are very understated in the manga. hori doesn’t point a huge arrow at them, and he shouldn’t have to! it’s one of those very subtle ways to show a character’s growth. so, pay attention to those moments, and pay attention to what’s not being done as much as what is.

[gamzee]

@mightyhydrator

While the part about demonization may be true, i wouldn't go as far as trying to make him be sympathetic, or even anywhere close to that. I wouldn't say his care was that deep before the meteor, he was devoted to his religion more, and his "snap" is an extension of that.

Gamzee cared a lot about his friends. That was the entire thesis of his presence in act 5.

This was in contrast to Karkat, who really is not openly positive towards friendship or friendly feelings, and Alternia, a place where normal relationships are supposed to have an undercurrent of mutual animosity. Gamzee’s practically obsessed with friendship, and that’s to make a point; it’s fucking weird of him to do that, in order to demonstrate what a weird planet he’s on.

This is a pretty synergistic characterization, paired with a guardian that came & went seemingly at random; he’s appeasing because he wants people to stick around.

(Like, he is on the beach waiting for goatdad in this very scene..)

I think there are arguments to be made abt his various coping mechanisms and how they ultimately created a pretty maladjusted person-- someone who was too emotionally underdeveloped/naive to often be truly supportive, despite wanting to be;

But to say he didn’t care at all is, imo, not textually supported! Plus, I argue it would weaken the whole scenario that we’ve concocted here. With all this in mind, that moment he snaps feels like a gut-punch, like watching the very spirit of pollyanna childhood get ground under spacetime’s bootheel.

[megashadowdragon]

Fire Emblem: Three Houses - Perspective, Tragedy, and the Value of Connection

comment by a

Pinned by Aleczandxr)Table of Contents: Introduction: 0:00 Rhea and the Church of Seiros: 4:22 Claude and the Golden Deer: 15:35 Edelgard and the Black Eagles: 29:10 Dimitri and the Blue Lions: 37:57 Conclusion: 58:11 Please note that a decent portion of this video involves summarizing certain lore, backstory, character and plot elements in order to provide a foundation for my arguments about the themes and ideas presented. This game has an extensive and quite complex setting and story, and it is told piece-meal across four routes, so I felt the need to summarize them for the sections in which they were relevant. Also, the main point of this video is now to have four all-encompassing character analyses for Rhea, Claude, Edelgard and Dimitri, but to go over their backgrounds, mindsets, philosophies and how they are integrative with the game's main themes of perspective and the importance of a connection and "light" like Byleth. This isn't intended to discuss every little nuance of each character, and there are undoubtedly some things I left out about each of them, simply because they wouldn't contribute to the intent of the video. So simply put: don't expect me to talk about every aspect of these characters, because that isn't the point. HAVING SAID THAT - I now realize that the main problem with this video is that I didn’t really delve into Rhea to the fullest extent. In the process of writing her part I got a bit too caught up in leaning on summarizing the lore of the game and talking about how you can be her “light”  and didn’t give her quite as much sympathy as she deserved with regards to her motivations. My phrasing should’ve been more fair and elaborate to help justify her perspective. ALSO: Note that I said that Rhea created the Empire, but it’s more accurate to say that she fostered the founding of the Empire, which is what she said in the scene I provided.Show less

comments I saw on the channel

I think it’s interesting to characterize Byleth as a light for Dimitri and Edelgard but not for Claude. There’s some nice visual storytelling in the fact that in the reunion cutscene with Claude, he’s already in the light while Byleth has to walk out of the darkness to meet him (which is the exact opposite for Dimitri’s cutscene). It reinforces the fact that what Claude needs isn’t “a light” or someone to pull him up, but a partner and companion with the power to help bring his dreams to fruition.

Edelgarld isn't in need of a light either,  she also just needs someone who she can trust to break the stalemate situation,  because if byleth didn't come she would have still won the war with the help of cornelia and house Gloucester in the alliance,  this is made proof in the amount of chapters you have to beat.

yes she can win, but  the " with the help of Cornelia" caveat to that statement is the big problem there. Yes if Byleth didn't exist she likely would have been able to win the war, but in order to do so she would have had to sell her soul completely to the devil (TWSITD) and compromise her morals for the sake of victory. Once you start down that slippery slope, it's difficult to pull yourself back. We see this in the Azure moon route where Edelgard becomes so committed to attaining absolute victory, that she's barely even tries to reach an understanding with Dimitri to avoid greater bloodshed. She becomes convinced of the fact that only she knows what is right for Fodlan and is prepared to do anything to win, including using her own people as meat shields and trap bait if need be. She's even willing to quite literally surrender her own humanity in order to increase the odds of her success. Edelgard and Dimitri are both good people who find themselves surrounded by darkness in different forms. They both need Byleth to act as a guiding light of sorts to lead them out of that darkness and into the brighter future that they hope for.

I feel like in that cutscene Claude is in a way serving as Byleth’s light which is why they have to walk out to meet Claude in the light. Claude focuses mostly in comforting Byleth, offering food and companionship first and foremost and throughout the story serves more in a guiding or advisor role letting Byleth be the leader/figurehead. This is all the more clear in the final battle where Claude sets up Byleth for victory even at risk of his own well being.

The tragedy of the game really hit me when the new difficulty mode came out and I had to pick a route again. I realized that no matter what house leader I chose to support, it meant i would have to watch the lives of others end in tragedy because my choice deprived them of the support they would desperately need

@kamden madan  that’s why I feel like a dick in silver snow I canonically upheld a system that harmed my students was the  cause of multiple wars lead to death innocents and then put people  for responsible  said system on top with no reforms no matter how much I like the church characters I can’t side with them it makes me sick to the core .

if Byleth doesn't join any faction, Edelgard probably would have won eventually, but at that point she probably would've compromised so many of her moral stances that I'd see it more as TWSITD's victory and not Edelgard's

What I love about Edelgard is just how much the butterfly effect is conveyed with this one character. If you opt not to help her, she closes off her heart completely. She becomes a ruthless empress intent to conquer all and absolutely destroy anyone in her path with no qualms or empathy. But the one action you choose in the crypt changes everything. Edelgard did not expect Byleth to side with her. In every single situation, Byleth should try to kill her. They have absolutely nothing to gain and everything to lose by siding with her. The Church turns on them, they become one of the biggest enemies there. But in that instant, Byleth's choice to believe in Edelgard purely because they care about her shakes her to the core. When you next see her, she cries tears of joy over Byleth's reappearance. Her moves are less brutal and cruel, and she has opened up more to her fellow classmates. The Agarthans do not dominate every choice that Adrestia makes, and as such she tries to win the war while minimizing casualties. The Agarthans do not seize Faerghus, and Dimitri is not driven out. He does not lose himself with madness, and instead goes down as a noble king who harbored the Archbishop and tried his best to fend off Adrestia. Claude can be spared, which will ultimately lead to peace between Fodlan and Almyra as he is the next in line. Edelgard's willingness to show empathy pays off in the end, as she mentions that she wanted to create a treaty with the nation. Who better to help create ties than Claude? All because Byleth reached for her hand.Show less

I always wondered why there wasn't such a heavy emphasis on Edelgard's and Dimitri's relationship in BE but if you recall the conversation that Edelgard, Dimitri, Byleth and Hubert have right before the attack on the Empire in the BL route, it's revealed that Edelgard forgot that Dimitri was the boy that she stayed with for all those years which makes sense if you realise Edelgard was tortured shortly after her time in FaerghusShow less It is apparently a realistic symptom of trauma like Edelgard endured that huge chunks of her life surrounding the trauma would fade from memory. One of the things I liked a lot about 3H was that all four of the leads Byleth can side with are carrying around a lot of trauma but it manifests in very different ways for all of them. Of course, it's a major knife in the heart to realize that if things are consistent between Azure Moon and Crimson Flower, Edelgard's memories of who Dimitri was to her come back into focus when he calls her "El." Which in Azure Moon happens moments after they realize neither of them can back down and they're going to fight to the death for their principles, and in Crimson Flower happens as Dimitri's bleeding out at her feet.Show less