#but i want to creat a character that is so fundamentally human

[that-bi-bitch-writes]

i want to write a character that is so person

[marypsue]

There’ve been a few responses to/reblogs with tags on my post about DIY clothing embellishments that basically boil down to ‘I’d love to do this but I’m scared it’ll turn out bad/I’m not a good enough artist’. And I get it, I really do! I also want my art things to turn out nicely. But also...making it badly is sort of the point of punk DIY. 

Listen. We live in a world that would dearly love to charge you a subscription fee for breathing. The bastards are doing everything they possibly can to figure out how to turn art - stories, visual art, music, textile/fibre art, sculpture, crafts and creations of every kind - into a neat, discrete, packageable commodity, a product they can chop up into little pieces and stick behind a paywall so they can charge you for every drop of it you want to have in your life. 

The whole sneering idea that ‘everybody wants to be some kind of creator now’ and anything less than absolute mastery right out the gate is somehow shameful and embarrassing is a tool those bastards are using. It’s a way to reinforce the idea that only a set group of people can create and control art, and everybody else has to buy it. 

But art isn’t a product. Art is a fundamental human impulse. Nobody is entitled to a specific piece of art (which is where this message gets skewed into pitting people who love art against the artists who make it, while the bastards screw us all and run away with the money). But making art belongs to everybody. We make up songs and dances and stories, and paint things, and make clothes, and embellish them, and carve flowers into our furniture and our lintels and our doorframes, and make windows out of tiny pieces of coloured glass, and decorate our homes and our bodies and our lives with things we make and make up, simply for the love of beauty and of the act of creation. Grave goods from tens of thousands of years ago show that ancient hominids gave their dead wreaths of ceramic flowers, tattooed their bodies, beaded their shoes. Making things for the sake of beauty and enjoyment is one of the most ancient and human things we can do. 

The idea that we can’t, that we have to buy shit instead, because art is a product and you have to have the bestest prettiest most perfect product, is the enemy of joy. It’s the death of culture. And it means that, instead of whatever it is that you cherish and enjoy and value, you get whatever inoffensive (and to whom is it inoffensive?) bland meaningless samey-samey crap that the bastards want you to be allowed to have. What are you missing and what are you missing out on, if you don’t make or modify or decorate anything for yourself, if you don’t think you can because the product at the end won’t be polished or perfect or marketable enough? What do you lose? What do we lose? 

It is a desperately vital and necessary thing for you to make shit. For you to know that you can make shit, that you don’t have to just lie back and take whatever pablum the bastards want to force-feed you (and charge you through the nose for). That the bastards need you more than you need them. 

Become ungovernable. Be your own weirdly-endearing punk little freak. Paint on a t-shirt. Sing off-key in the shower or at karaoke night or at open mic night. Make up a story where you get to meet your favourite fictional character and you guys hug or fuck or punch each other in the face. Make art. Do it badly. Do it frequently. Do it enthusiastically. Do it for love and joy and creativity and fun and the spiteful joy of thumbing your nose at some smug motherfucker with a Swiss bank account who wants to track your heartbeat and location for the rest of your life in order to automatically pump AI-generated beats matched to your mood into your earbuds for a small monthly subscription fee of $24.99/month. It is literally the only way we are ever going to have even a chance to save art and our own lives from the bastards. 

So. Paint that t-shirt. 

(Also support artists where you can, and buy your music from Bandcamp.)

[kookiyu]

I love being pandered to but this difference between the manga and anime is why I sort of regard the anime as just being supplemental fanservice/a commercial for the manga rather than an adequate alternative for enjoying dungeon meshi.

There's this sense of awe and stunned surprise to Marcille's expression in the manga, like it doesn't feel real what's happening... and that is how she reacts! She pulls away from Falin because it takes her a moment to process what she's doing and the intensity of the moment gives her such a fright she can only recoil in shock. But anime Marcille is so expectant and hopeful in a like. "I can't believe this is finally happening" way that it kind of misses the point...

In the context of the series this moment is fundamentally tragic. The erotics of it are tied into the dread and anxiety surrounding it... Marcille has done something really dark and scary out of her love for Falin, and there's this mildly overbearing sense of unease hanging over everything even in reprieve. When Falin looms over her and half-shadows her face, it's a really strong visual metaphor and piece of foreshadowing for her role in the story. Falin is this larger than life figure and person of worship for Marcille, she thrives in memories and stories, and when we finally see her interact with the cast tangibly and in the present she's shown to also be physically and emotionally overwhelming to be around. The lengths Marcille has already gone to to save her are pretty extreme, but it's only a fraction of what she'll inevitably resort to.

Smarter people than me have pointed it out, but love is a value-neutral emotion in Dungeon Meshi. There's no inherent goodness to love; it's the reason Thistle created the dungeon, it's the reason the demon grants wishes for humanity. This isn't the only instance of sexuality in Dungeon Meshi, but it's probably the most overt example of it barring the succubi chapter (which is largely played for laughs but is also a great chapter for characterization, because Ryoko Kui loves character writing so much.) The eroticism is employed really deliberately here in contrast to everything that comes before or after because Kui wants us to feel, along with Marcille, just how intensely Falin makes her feel. The totally unbarred physical intimacy and vulnerability is extremely potent! It's unlike any other relationship in the entire series! And it's just another seed Falin plants in Marcille that compels an intense response from her. The manga is (by nature of the medium) extremely intentional in its visuals, and that's why this scene hits so hard... But the anime forgoes a lot of that added visual meaning in exchange for a softer, warmer moment that doesn't carry nearly the same weight or nuance.

Another episode that should have hit like a truck but just sort of fell flat when it mattered

[mysterycitrus]

I know a lot of ppl ask u abt jason or dick but im wondering now, what do u think about bruce? I find him a very interesting character whose characterization is incredibly feeble, both bc of his 80 years of history and the tendency writers have to project their own male fantasies on him. So i'd definitely love to hear ur own thoughts about him. I personally enjoy depicting him as someone morally grey, although my sympatization for him changes day to day. Wether you think he is a good or a bad person, i believe u need to make him dedicated to gotham and the bat as a symbol, and that comes with all its advantages and drawbacks

bruce wayne is sooooo interesting (derogatory) because like u said, he carries the baggage of every masochismo author that decided batman was too woke and should hurt his kids and that supporting gotham’s infrastructure is for pussies. there’s also the flipside of that, where he’s the perfect father who’s waaaay too emotionally regulated for my taste. both of these interpretations are bad imo, and both functionally miss the point.

i think part of this (in fandom) is an obsession with moral angst — u can either be a good person doing good things, or a bad person doing bad things. think about how some characters are crucified while others are babied. someone always has to be absolutely right, and the other has to be absolutely wrong.

in reality, there are a lot of people who are fundamentally kind and fundamentally want to do good that are really terrible to the people in their lives. bruce wayne being someone who relies on having so much control that it implodes his connections to the people around him is an important part of his character. his profound love for his children, for gotham and her people, for humanity in general and his belief in peoples ability to change, doesn’t circumvent the fact that he’s often an emotionally abusive man who hurts others to achieve his own ends. he contains multitudes.

writing him as a functionally irredeemable, violently abusive person is the anti-thesis to the symbol that he himself created. no, i personally don’t believe he actively beats his kids (even though it’s supported in the text). no, i don’t think he’s an irredeemable sadist (as much as frank miller wants u to believe otherwise). to have people like dick grayson and diana and clark and dinah love and believe in u means that there has to be something there worth caring about, otherwise the whole universe is gonna fall apart.

that’s what makes his relationship to cass so interesting — he sees his neuroticism, his dedication to the cause above all else, and does not find it admirable. he finds it confronting and upsetting. and to be clear, cass (like dick) is very much the moral ideal of what batman should be, but still bruce finds it hard to deal with!!

his abject failures — his treatment of the robins, his crippling guilt about jason, his fears of becoming a killer, the impossible load he gives himself to carry — means that when he’s shown as someone who genuinely cares, it makes him more complex. like yeah, bruce isn’t actually a cold hearted person. he really really gives a shit. too many shits, to be totally honest. he’s a morally grey person that wants to do good, but is so terrified of losing control that he keeps others away and hurts them in the process. there’s a reason why his emotional crutch was a traumatised eight year old fr. nothing is more important than the mission, including bruce wayne himself

[iridescentscarecrow]

what frustrates me about fandom interpretations of makima as a one note Source of evil, apart from the fact that the manga itself refutes this, is that her character haunts and ties together so much of part two that it's impossible to fully understand without understanding her.

makima isn't ever a unilateral antagonistic force. she's an agent of the institutional evil that looms over all of CSM. she's in as much a commentary on gender and performance of gender as denji is.

and fjmt in part two enacts the "haunting the narrative" trope in such an interesting manner because you see flashes of makima in every female character. you see elements of her diluted into, most visibly, the characters of asa, nayuta and fumiko.

in asa, i see makima in that yearning for connection. i see her in the way that asa herself is fundamentally unable to approach the relationship of equals that she so desperately desires, partly due to her own social awkwardness but also because of yoru's threat: everyone she gets close to turns into a weapon. the fundamental inequality to human relationships that makima is unable to overcome.

during the aquarium date, you see asa echo makima again and again in lines that evoke makima's purposing of denji. that weaponising. "i'll grant you any request / save me chainsaw man! / you don't have to think about a thing."

and her connection with denji also founds itself upon this. yoshida talks to asa about parasocial relationships -- rerendering makima's idealisation of the CSM in how asa sees denji as a love interest. asa and denji parallel each other so organically in their gendered suppression and portrusion of desire. it's a punctuation of denji's search for intimacy that's mirrored by makima's in part one. exploring how asa is different from makima is perhaps the most intriguing part of this reflection though: an example being the way asa overthinks her outfit for her date with denji while makima seamlessly models herself into an Effortless woman.

[it's not like asa borrows just from makima. for example, there are things to be said about the way she views her Body (as compared with reze and quanxi) but examining how mkm's character bleeds into asaden is quite compelling.]

nayuta being the most visible remnant of what makima was is also interesting because makima herself appears so little in nayuta beyond the surface. nayuta's role as the control devil is hinted at frequently as is her appearance resembling makima's

but her and denji's dynamic more often echoes the hayakawa family and pochita than anything else. consider: aki giving up his goal (his 'easy revenge' that he finally sees for what it is) for the sake of his family, that warmth of blood and platonic bodily intimacy that power embodies--

it's all referenced to again with nayuta and denji, in direct panel callbacks and the plot itself! nayuta is The Family that makima constructs for denji in part one to pull him along the plot she prepares. i'm thinking about how makima is an allegory for capitalism. and what the family unit means in a capitalistic structure. the propagation of an ideal that hinges on birth and descendancy, about narrative and reproduction of narrative, about how nayuta births herself from makima and denji's relationship.

and this is also why nayuta herself exerts so much control over denji in the plot, as well as why she's used as a piece to control him. in part one, family was used to create the Chainsaw Man from denji. in part two, it's used to make denji abandon the Chainsaw Man, this icon that the church and the public now take possession of. [something something alienation of the worker from the product. from the collective. from the self.]

fumiko is perhaps the hardest to pin down here because her role evolves as the fandomisation of the Chainsaw Man evolves too. in fact, as a denji fan, she represents not just makima but multiple people who see something in and want something from denji! (think of how she references reze in her highlighting how denji is just a child; how reze uses her commentary on denji to engage with her Self. it's fandomisation,,, and what is makima but Chainsaw Man's fan?)

fumiko most obviously calls back to these wants and their conceptualisation of denji in the raw sexual violence that the events in the theater scene moving into the karaoke scene embody. the undercurrent of sa that runs through p1 and p2 is brought to the forefront in this scene -- denji falling back into these cycles of abuse, him slipping into habitating the wants of others (his initial horrified expression and then his grin during the fight. his initial inner monologue and then the cut to him licking the tentacle.)

so much of CSM rests on this fandom of denji, this theme of what production and idealisation means, one you can trace through fjmt's body of work. and this fandom reaches its crescendo in p2. what's even more interesting about fumiko is her pathos under this layer. her seeing denji as denji at some level but in the end, her handling of him is so selfish. her echoing makima's uninhibited laughter at the horror of denji's situation, her predatory cruelty. denji simultaneously humanised and dehumanised through her fandom.

fjmt's characters exist as foils, as parallels and ideas. makima's character has such a stranglehold over part one and these ideas run over into part two naturally -- as a consequence of denji being a reciever of these themes, but also deliberately in fjmt evoking the Thing that is makima repetitively -- to underscore the forever re emerging structure that denji and now asa are trapped in. the same structure that makima produced and was simultaneously caged by.

[vigilskeep]

i have never thought of the bg3 paths as railroaded before but oh my god... i see your vision. i think that, for all that can be picked apart in the writing of dragon age, the worldbuilding in that series is so so interested in complicating all factions that you can envision a character who /makes sense/ while bouncing through various ideologies. and the sort of fantasy writing in (most of) the forgotten realms doesn't really allow for that.

dao is particularly the light of my life because the origins mechanic is specifically intended to let you create a character who has a distinctive perspective on the world that’s grounded in the worldbuilding. one of my favourite aspects of this is several origins having completely different codex entries on their own culture as opposed to those an outsider would get. it’s really good! it’s also a reasonably grounded world (while obviously silly) because, like, the basic fundamental premise of thedas, from which they ikea flatpack built almost every feature, is “how would people react to magical and fantastical diversity? the same way they react to human diversity.” you’re meant to feel like, aside from i guess the darkspawn, people are normal and have real motivations. sure it has to fulfil certain roles in a story, and dragon age was manufactured too quickly and purposefully for everything to land feeling authentic, but evil in dragon age should feel recognisable. and in most of the origins they give you a chance to do something that is bad, but also totally makes sense, because of the context of your character belonging to this world where these things happen

in dnd/the forgotten realms it’s a bit different because capital e Evil exists, so there are people and deities and devils (and, to open another can of worms, races) whose entire goal is to Do Evil. it’s also harder to produce grounded evil because in a world where i’m being given basically no context and just told to make whatever i want, i don’t have an inch of the kind of social information i get from for example a dao origin: what my character has been taught to believe they should do to survive, who they are willing to sacrifice, whatever. bg3 also happens to have a main plot goal that is, at least for the first part of the game, broadly selfish (“i am sick, and i need a cure”) which works really well for getting a bunch of people with vastly differing moral standards to band together for the same goal, and not so good for any kind of “greater good” type blurred morality, so that’s out too

however much the worldbuilding factors into this, bg3 specifically went for quite a clear distinction between the good path and the capital e Evil Path, and i find it pretty hard to vary up the good path. when i say railroaded i mean you either do the specific thing that gets you a quest down the line or not. i was really disappointed actually in my playthrough where i totally fucked up in the druids’ grove and caused a fight to break out, because it immediately instakilled tons of characters i knew i would need down the line. the few it spared needed some of the dead ones to stay alive in later quests, so it’s like... oh. that’s just... over. for both factions. bg3 arguably lets you do basically anything you want but they are able to do that because if you fuck around it just breaks the entire quest line from coming up again, which means playing a character who fucks up is not even really going to get me consequences it’s just going to cut content from the game. does that make sense? and then the Evil Path is just straight up evil, like... there’s no way for me to complicate and empathise, here, especially playing a blank canvas character whose motivations i would have to make up from nothing, and who faces basically no consequences for not doing this. the only neutral/cowardly/self-interested option in act 1 is to do neither path, which gets me the least content because i literally don’t get to play the fucking game

i don’t know, i’m not saying it’s necessarily bad just that it’s hard for me, personally, and how i like to create characters. especially when you have my constant restart disease and you have to do this all over again a dozen times just for a handful of different dialogue. does any of that make sense

[neil-gaiman]

Good whenever, absolutely shameless Sandman fanmail here (because I have the plague and am finally getting around to watching it):

24/7 is such a beautiful depiction of the "curse of truth" trope. Like, to the point where calling it a trope feels cheap and tawdry.

(Motif isn't quite the right word though, because motifs are something more like an intricate, specific pattern that is repeated multiple times through a single work. Theme isn't right either, because themes are over-arching background/structural elements.

(Metaphor, allegory, analogy, device, parallel. I cannot find a better word for "the shape or starting point of a story that can be told many times with many cases of characters yet still retain fundamental similarities with itself" than "trope".)

So often, the Curse of Truth is chaos with a comedic, and it's so refreshing to see a properly tragic take. Because yes, the apparent human reliance on little white lies just to make it through the day is a fucking tragedy. It's not a joke. It's not a standup routine where one co-worker admits to stealing your yogurts and another is frantically hoarding staplers. The fact that I can't have an honest, one-on-one conversation with my spouse about the things we want but aren't getting from our marriage is a tragedy. It doesn't automatically have a happy ending and we shouldn't feel obliged to shoe-horn one in.

24/7 is just... So beautifully written. The audience knows, as soon as John states his intentions, that metaphorical blood is going to be spilled. But we don't know why, or how, or when. And when the pieces start falling into place, they do so in a sequence that lays so many different foundations for how the rest of the scene can go. Dread, then hope, then horror. Truly, absolutely one of the most well crafted sequences I have ever watched. Thank you. Thank you for helping create that.

Thank you. That was definitely what Allan and the writer, Vanessa Benton, and I were going for. And I don't think it's just little white lies: it's also what people are underneath, and also, the person pushing his idea of honesty into the world is not really sane. He's very damaged, and has done bad things, and doesn't really care for people or their dreams.

[pangurbanthewhite]

Hey guess what it's time to talk more about Stray Gods.

Specifically about the concept of "reactive narrative" in video games and how I think Stray Gods executes it as gracefully as you can possibly execute on the concept.

I think a lot of people balk at how choice-based games do and can only change in a limited way based on your choices. Which is a shame, because only being able to change in limited ways is a hard rule of both hardware and the concept of a story.

I think the games that handle it best are the games that lean into that fact. They should flesh out those limited choices as much as possible rather than try to stretch them to their breaking point. They should accept the reality that there WILL be fixed points in the narrative and build around them.

Example - Pan will always turn up in your apartment early on in the game and lead you into the "tutorial" song that is "I Can Teach You". But, based on your choices, the song can sound entirely different.

And that's if you stick to one color exclusively over another. You can weave the choices in and out to create dozens of unique instances.

The choices you make do not fundamentally change anything beyond the song, excluding the last choice. But those choices set the tone for what kind of story you are going to tell. Is it a story of how Grace, even when granted the powers of a god, still values her humanity and cherishes her human bonds? Or is it a story of how Grace, who begins by feeling adrift and out of place, immediately chases down any chance she has at belonging somewhere, at having a purpose? Is Pan a mentor or a source of suspicion? How big of a part does Freddie play?

Your thought processes behind making a choice, your reasons for choosing red over blue, do make a story unique as much as your choice to let Aphrodite "live" or "die". I think you have to accept that if you really want to get a lot out of these kinds of games.

Some scenes WILL always happen, and that's okay! That's good, even! Because differences in the journey matter just as much as differences in the destination! You might always wind up in the same place, but you will have told a different story in getting there. You'll be in a different headspace, you'll bring different baggage, you'll have had some different conversations which drive you to feel differently about characters along the way.

Freddie does always die, yes, but if you've spent the entire game flirting with her, expressing affection and admiration for her, traveling to find her in the Underworld leans so heavily into the Orpheus and Eurydice parallels. Orpheus becomes a dark mirror of Grace as much as Persephone.

Do you retrieve a Freddie that you love from the Underworld because of that love, or do you retrieve a friend as much out of spite, as if to prove that you can succeed where Orpheus failed? Is godhood worth her friendship? Is godhood worth her love? Are you making a sacrifice at all, or are you glad to be rid of these powers that you never asked for? Freddie returns either way, but your motivations have changed the story.

I'm getting a bit lost in the weeds here, but hopefully people get what I'm going for. The fact that, ultimately, Grace is going to wind up on trial against Athena, with the primary differences being whether or not Freddie is there driving the song, or whether it's Aphrodite in one body standing there vs. another, doesn't invalidate the choices and the uniqueness of the journey to get there.

And I cannot stress enough that the potential variation in any given song is so impressive. I'm genuinely kind of bummed that there's no way to listen to some of the versions I made, that I feel like really added to the story I was trying to tell.

And, most importantly, I think Stray Gods understood that this kind of variances gets infinitely more complicated and precarious the longer a game goes. 6 to 8 hours is almost certainly your upper limit possible. Anything much beyond that, and the variations you have to account for spin out into something approaching infinity. And, yes, they do and can get much less meaningful as a result.

IDK! I like this game a lot. I think it did some really cool and inspired things in really cool and inspired ways. And I think its understanding of how to use player choice within the narrative and hardware constraints of a video game is one of those things.

[transmutationisms]

I read your review of Poor Things and I was wondering if you had any thoughts on the section in Alexandria? It was horrifically executed on many levels but narratively, that part of the film is about Bella learning about class structure. She rebels against the cruelty of society through charity then by working as a prostitute, during which time she has cruelty inflicted upon her instead. Finally, she realizes that God’s creation of her was ultimately cruel, and then she runs away with her ex-husband-father only to realize that her prior self-mother was fundamentally characterized by cruelty, especially to her “lessers.” She then decides once again that she does not want to be cruel, but then she achieves this by taking God’s place as the doctor-patriarch and ruling his household with a new pet goat. The entire film is also about Bella learning about feminism: the arbitrary oppression of women is not only nonsensical, it’s bad! But then the ending has her reproduce almost all those power structures and cruelty she claims to reject, and has the unfortunate consequence of positioning her as ultimately equally cruel/callous as God, the guy she meets on the boat who shows her all the starving people, and her former self-mother, etc. I was wondering if you had any thoughts on why this is or like, what the director’s message was beyond self-contradiction and taking cheap shots at starving people?

so i would quibble a bit with the idea that bella's experience in the maison-close is exclusively or even primarily portraying sex-for-pay as a site of cruelty. i think it's more depicting paid sex as work, and work as unpleasant and repressive, and that's why the maison is the site where bella gets involved in socialist politics—if moral philosophy is the arena by which she responds to the injustice of the poverty in alexandria, then labour politics plays the analogous role where the maison is concerned. her problems there aren't inherently with the idea of being paid for sex, but with specific elements of the work arrangement (eg, she suggests that the women should choose their clients, rather than vice versa). ofc she has some customers who are cruel or thoughtless or rude, but i didn't read the film as suggesting that was universal to sex work, and the effect of the position is more to demystify sex, for bella, than to convert it into being purely a site of trauma or misery. now i don't think this film offers a particularly blistering or deep analysis of sex work or socialism or wage labour, dgmw, but i do think the function of the maison is different narratively to that of the alexandria section.

anyway to answer your actual question: yeah so this is really my central gripe with the film. lanthimos (slash his screenwriter tony mcnamara) spends much of the film gesturing toward bella's growing awareness of several hierarchical structures that other characters take for granted: the uneven nature of the parent/child relationship (god took her body and created her without asking); class stratification (alexandria); the 'civilisation' of individuals and societies via education and bio-alteration (bella's talk about 'improving' herself; her 'progression' from essentially a pleasure-seeking child to an educated and 'articulate' adult). these three dimensions often overlap (eg, the conflation of 'childishness' with lack of education with inability to behave in 'high society'), though, most overtly, it's in that third one that we can see how these notions of improvement and biological melioration speak to discourses about the 'progress' and 'regress' of whole societies and peoples, and voluntarist ideas about how human alteration of biology (namely, our own) might produce people, and therefore societies, that are better or worse on some metric: beauty, fitness, intelligence, morality, longevity, &c. this is why i keep saying that like.... this film is about eugenics djkdjsk.

the issue with the alexandria section to me is, first, it's like 2 minutes (processed in the hollywood yellow filter) where the abject poverty of other people is a life lesson for bella. we're not asking any questions like, how is that poverty produced, and might it have anything to do with the ship bella is on or the fantastical lisbon she left or the comparative wealth of paris and london...? secondly, everything that the film thinks it's doing for the entire runtime by having bella grapple with learning about cruelty, and misery, and the kinds of received social truths that lanthimos is able to problematise through her eyes because she's literally tabula rasa—all of that is just so negated by having an ending in which she bio-engineers her shitty ex-husband, played as a triumphant moment. i don't even inherently have an issue with the actual plot point; certainly she has motive, and narratively it could have worked if it were framed as what it is: bella ascending to the powerful position in the oppressive system that created her, and using her status to enact cruelty against someone who 'deserves' it—ie, leveraging her class and race within the existing social forms rather than continuing to question or challenge them. if that ending were played as a tragedy, or a bleak satire, it would at least be making A Point. but it's not even, because it's just framed as deserved comeuppance for this guy we were introduced to in the 11th hour as a scumbag, so it's psychologically beneficial for bella actually to do the sci-fi surgery to him that literally reduces him to what's framed as a lower life form. unserious

[antiquery]

been thinking about Medea lately, and I think I’ve finally figured out why the attitude of “wow Medea was right, go off queen” (e.g. this post) really gets on my nerves: I think it’s sexist!

like, let’s be absolutely clear: Medea’s actions at the end of the Euripides play are deeply, deeply evil. Jason and Kreon treat her horribly, and there’s no excuse for their behavior, but like...Medea slaughters two innocent children and an innocent woman in cold blood, not to protect herself or someone else, but to ensure Jason’s suffering. that’s evil.

the idea that Medea could possibly be justified in such an action fundamentally requires us to hold her to a lower moral standard than a man in her same position. the implication is that Medea’s experience as a woman in Greek society entitles her to revenge at any cost: she has been wronged, so punishment is hers to exact. we don’t consider this acceptable when Achilles is asserting that his grief over Patroclus entitles him to the emotional torture of Priam, and in fact the great human moment of the Iliad is Priam’s plea to Achilles to return Hector’s corpse. same moral standard applies to Medea. her rage over her mistreatment is not the problem: her violence against innocent people in an attempt to drag Jason down with her is.

which is not to say that I think Medea is a one-dimensional character! I think Euripides was really onto something with the way Medea agonizes over what to do during the play, by turns committing to this great evil and shrinking back in horror at what she’s contemplating. I also like the emphasis he places on Medea’s divine origins, her connection to the world of the gods via both her bloodline and her practice of magic. it creates this sort of dualism in her character: there’s Medea the human woman, who’s deeply in love with Jason and in agony at his betrayal, who loves her children and is terrified of what will become of them, and of her, once she’s forced to leave Corinth. this Medea is angry and scared, helpless to save herself or her children, helpless to make Jason understand how badly he’s hurting her.

and then there’s Medea daughter of the sun, Medea the hero, whose response to Jason’s betrayal is to make his life a living hell. except Medea-daughter-of-the-sun and Medea-the-human don’t exactly share the same value set: the former is the latter with all of her humanity stripped away, whose purpose is wholly aligned towards divine justice. but divine-Medea is powerful, and if human Medea only lets her, she can make damn sure that neither of them ever feel helpless again.

honestly my ideal version of the play is a tragedy about Medea’s fall, whose central tension is whether the human part of her will give in to the divine part of her under the stress of betrayal and rejection. at the end of the play, Medea gets everything she ever wanted (power, glory, fear, vengeance)-- all it costs is her humanity. but I think that only works if you frame Medea’s actions at the end of the play as horrific, rather than a triumph; if you take the morality of her actions seriously, as opposed to justifying them prima facie because she’s been through hell.

[zvaigzdelasas]

"it was made by a person" does not absolve the image of sin, because by that logic every piece of ai art is ok actually. because obviously the ai could never just make art, the people using it to generate book covers so they don't have to pay an artist are actually typing in the description for what they want the ai to make. so it's ok !! a human told the ai to make that ❤❤❤❤

I mean. Other than the moralizing ("absolve of sin", "so it's ok!" etc)...Yes? Of course AI art is made by people?

Do you think AIs have agency or something? Do they find their own data and train themselves without a human telling it to? How does the AI pay for electricity?

If AIs have agency why can't they be Artists?

You're undermining your own position and actually fundamentally agreeing w the silicon valley tech bros lmao

If someone pays a human on Fiverr $5 to make a book cover in order to avoid paying someone a more reasonable price....thats basically the same moral situation right. If that guy on Fiverr is just choosing between 10 different templates he already has (and maybe copied from the internet!) and just changing the text on it, he is "typing what they want to make". What's the difference to paying someone $5 on Fiverr to generate a book cover for you using AI. Where's the moral difference, what does the tool have to do with anything.

AI doesn't have any agency, people do. AI is a tool. AI being used to lower prices is an economic choice made by humans.

A useful analytical framework to understand why this is the natural result of competition is actually Historical Materialism, which understands the social world as fundamentally existing of Humans, Human action, and Human relationships. Instead of trying to act like things like AI - spectral reflections of human labor - are "creatures" themselves, and tilting at windmills. Historical Materialism teaches not only why this happens, but how to overcome that process entirely.

In machinery, objectified labour materially confronts living labour as a ruling power and as an active subsumption of the latter under itself, not only by appropriating it, but in the real production process itself; [...]In machinery, objectified labour itself appears not only in the form of product or of the product employed as means of labour, but in the form of the force of production itself. The development of the means of labour into machinery is not an accidental moment of capital, but is rather the historical reshaping of the traditional, inherited means of labour into a form adequate to capital. The accumulation of knowledge and of skill, of the general productive forces of the social brain, is thus absorbed into capital, as opposed to labour, and hence appears as an attribute of capital, and more specifically of fixed capital, in so far as it enters into the production process as a means of production proper.[...]

In machinery, knowledge appears as alien, external to [the worker]; and living labour [as] subsumed under self-activating objectified labour. The worker appears as superfluous to the extent that his action is not determined by [capital's] requirements.[...]

Fixed capital, in its character as means of production, whose most adequate form [is] machinery, produces value, i.e. increases the value of the product, in only two respects: (1) in so far as it has value; ***i.e. is itself the product of labour, a certain quantity of labour in objectified form***; (2) in so far as it increases the relation of surplus labour to necessary labour, by enabling labour, through an increase of its productive power, to create a greater mass of the products required for the maintenance of living labour capacity in a shorter time. It is therefore a highly absurd bourgeois assertion that the worker shares with the capitalist, because the latter, with fixed capital (which is, as far as that goes, itself a product of labour, and of alien labour merely appropriated by capital) makes labour easier for him (rather, he robs it of all independence and attractive character, by means of the machine), or makes his labour shorter. Capital employs machinery, rather, only to the extent that it enables the worker to work a larger part of his time for capital, to relate to a larger part of his time as time which does not belong to him, to work longer for another. Through this process, the amount of labour necessary for the production of a given object is indeed reduced to a minimum, but only in order to realize a maximum of labour in the maximum number of such objects. The first aspect is important, because capital here -- quite unintentionally -- reduces human labour, expenditure of energy, to a minimum. This will redound to the benefit of emancipated labour, and is the condition of its emancipation.

Nature builds no machines, no locomotives, railways, electric telegraphs, self-acting mules etc. These are products of human industry; natural material transformed into organs of the human will over nature, or of human participation in nature. They are organs of the human brain, created by the human hand; the power of knowledge, objectified. The development of fixed capital indicates to what degree general social knowledge has become a direct force of production, and to what degree, hence, the conditions of the process of social life itself have come under the control of the general intellect and been transformed in accordance with it. To what degree the powers of social production have been produced, not only in the form of knowledge, but also as immediate organs of social practice, of the real life process.

Marx [PDF link]

[tentacleteapot]

it’s been said many times before but Ranni is easily the funniest character in Elden Ring, and in my opinion she’s the funniest character FromSoft has ever written

she was so vehemently opposed to being used by the higher powers in the Lands Between that she responded to being picked as a potential new goddess by killing her own body and moving her soul into a doll body with four arms. (said doll body may just happen to look exactly like the person she learned her signature magic from.) she did this by stealing a piece of the physical manifestation of the concept of death, and then had one of her many siblings assassinated with that same piece of the rune of death, and she flat out admits she did all of this to your face if you ask her about it.

she is (apparently) on a first-name basis with your horse, and the only reason she initially introduces herself to you is because she heard your horse has a new master and wants to find out what you’re like. she’ll comment on what a “ruffian” your horse has chosen as a master if you’re rude to her. she uses an alias the first time you meet her, and said alias, Renna, in addition to being the name of her mentor, is literally just her mom’s name with two letters dropped from the end. (it's also just her own name with slightly different spelling and one letter changed.)

her first body used to be really tall, so now she constantly tries to appear taller than the player by sitting on a wall the first time you meet her, and later by sitting on a pile of books, concealed by her robes, on top of an already decently tall chair. conversely, she later abandons her relatively more human-sized doll body to hide out inside a tiny little replica OF her doll body, and when you find her she pretends to be an inanimate object the first few times you talk to her and then she gets pissed at you for figuring out it was really her.

she responds to marriage proposals by saying “okay that’s fair, but you have to become royalty first, I’ll see you when you have that figured out” and then leaves you a free sword because that’s the traditional wedding present the women in her family give their spouses. and then when you’ve beaten the game she DOES in fact take you as a consort, no questions asked. there is absolutely no gender-specific dialogue of any kind at any point when you talk to Ranni, including when you propose to her, and she is the chaotic bi representation I know a lot of my bi friends have been hoping for.

if you try to fight her mother, an optional boss most people will go after during their playthroughs because the benefits are pretty useful, Ranni impersonates her mother by creating an illusion of her at the height of her power, and has her ‘mom’ say she hopes Ranni is able to achieve all her weird goals as her ‘death’ quote if you destroy the illusion… but also if you destroy the illusion she just. leaves. and you reappear in the same room as her mom, who’s seemingly totally forgotten you two ever fought, without any apparent worry you might just try to pick that fight again.

if you ask to work for her while having an ulterior motive (due to already being on a quest that requires you to gain her trust so you can snoop around her castle) she immediately calls you on it but also finds it funny enough to let you work for her anyway. then if you come back to her after she's given you what you want, she continues putting you to work because why not? you came back, after all. she is the best she's such a fundamentally weird person and that makes her feel so effortlessly real, like a friend of a friend you're always hearing crazy stories about. I love Ranni so much.

[tumbld-out-of-my-bed]

What if the first scene of S3 is the fall?

No, see, it makes sense, cuz S1 was them meeting for the first time after the fall, which sets the tone for their friendships, but also does a fantastic job of setting up their characters. Crowley questions things, even the Ineffable plan, and Aziraphale is giving, even risking falling to help humans, but still has unwavering faith in God's plan.

S2 was them meeting for the first time ever, and shows the beginning of their character development, as Crowley starts asking questions, a little recklessly, because the beauty of Creation (the beauty of something they created together, if you'll allow me) is at risk and the beginning of Aziraphale's toxic relationship which heaven, which actually stems from his desire to protect Crowley, as he tries to fix the problem by trying to reinforce the rules and their positions in the hierarchy (It's not our place to question the Almighty). It establishes their character flaws, which will eventually cause their separation at the end of the season. Crowley tends to be reckless, wants quick solutions to problems, and Aziraphale wants the system to work because it's all he's ever known.

So, why the fall in S3? I think it'll make a neat parallel. S2 ends with their last separation, and S3 starts with their first separation. But also, it would show their relationship fundamentally changing forever, the barrier between them being erected, and show how they grow into their flaws. It would link the S1 opening with the S2 opening, both thematically and chronologically, and be in keeping with Good Omens style of starting with important Biblical moments to raise philosophical questions.

A lot of people think it might start with them meeting Jesus. While I would LOVE to see that, I don't think that's gonna happen, simply because Good Omens always starts with a scene of the two of them together, and as established in S1E3, Aziraphale and Crowley were never with Jesus at the same time (Aziraphale asks Crowley is he's ever met him). (And also because, if it does indeed start like this, with Aziraphale and Crowley separate, and not together, I will-- well, I'm sure most people would relate to what I feel here :'))

Anyway, from what I remember, Neil Gaiman has already written the opening for the third season, so we just have to wait and see for now. And support the strikes

[physalian]

8 Signs your Sequel Needs Work

Sequels, and followup seasons to TV shows, can be very tricky to get right. Most of the time, especially with the onslaught of sequels, remakes, and remake-quels over the past… 15 years? There’s a few stand-outs for sure. I hear Dune Part 2 stuck the landing. Everyone who likes John Wick also likes those sequels. Spiderverse 2 also stuck the landing.

These are less tips and more fundamental pieces of your story that may or may not factor in because every work is different, and this is coming from an audience’s perspective. Maybe some of these will be the flaws you just couldn’t put your finger on before. And, of course, these are all my opinions, for sequels and later seasons that just didn’t work for me.

1. Your vague lore becomes a gimmick

The Force, this mysterious entity that needs no further explanation… is now quantifiable with midichlorians.

In The 100, the little chip that contains the “reincarnation” of the Commanders is now the central plot to their season 6 “invasion of the bodysnatchers” villains.

In The Vampire Diaries, the existence of the “emotion switch” is explicitly disputed as even existing in the earlier seasons, then becomes a very real and physical plot point one can toggle on and off.

I love hard magic systems. I love soft magic systems, too. These two are not evolutions of each other and doing so will ruin your magic system. People fell in love with the hard magic because they liked the rules, the rules made sense, and everything you wrote fit within those rules. Don’t get wacky and suddenly start inventing new rules that break your old ones.

People fell in love with the soft magic because it needed no rules, the magic made sense without overtaking the story or creating plot holes for why it didn’t just save the day. Don’t give your audience everything they never needed to know and impose limitations that didn’t need to be there.

Solving the mystery will never be as satisfying as whatever the reader came up with in their mind. Satisfaction is the death of desire.

2. The established theme becomes un-established

I talked about this point already in this post about theme so the abridged version here: If your story has major themes you’ve set out to explore, like “the dichotomy of good and evil” and you abandon that theme either for a contradictory one, or no theme at all, your sequel will feel less polished and meaningful than its predecessor, because the new story doesn’t have as much (if anything) to say, while the original did.

Jurassic Park is a fantastic, stellar example. First movie is about the folly of human arrogance and the inherent disaster and hubris in thinking one can control forces of nature for superficial gains. The sequels, and then sequel series, never returns to this theme (and also stops remembering that dinosaurs are animals, not generic movie monsters). JP wasn’t just scary because ahhh big scary reptiles. JP was scary because the story is an easily preventable tragedy, and yes the dinosaurs are eating people, but the people only have other people to blame. Dinosaurs are just hungry, frightened animals.

Or, the most obvious example in Pixar’s history: Cars to Cars 2.

3. You focus on the wrong elements based on ‘fan feedback’

We love fans. Fans make us money. Fans do not know what they want out of a sequel. Fans will never know what they want out of a sequel, nor will studios know how to interpret those wants. Ask Star Wars. Heck, ask the last 8 books out of the Percy Jackson universe.

Going back to Cars 2 (and why I loathe the concept of comedic relief characters, truly), Disney saw dollar signs with how popular Mater was, so, logically, they gave fans more Mater. They gave us more car gimmicks, they expanded the lore that no one asked for. They did try to give us new pretty racing venues and new cool characters. The writers really did try, but some random Suit decided a car spy thriller was better and this is what we got.

The elements your sequel focuses on could be points 1 or 2, based on reception. If your audience universally hates a character for legitimate reasons, maybe listen, but if your audience is at war with itself over superficial BS like whether or not she’s a female character, or POC, ignore them and write the character you set out to write. Maybe their arc wasn’t finished yet, and they had a really cool story that never got told.

This could be side-characters, or a specific location/pocket of worldbuilding that really resonated, a romantic subplot, whatever. Point is, careening off your plan without considering the consequences doesn’t usually end well.

4. You don’t focus on the ‘right’ elements

I don’t think anyone out there will happily sit down and enjoy the entirety of Thor: The Dark World.  The only reasons I would watch that movie now are because a couple of the jokes are funny, and the whole bit in the middle with Thor and Loki. Why wasn’t this the whole movie? No one cares about the lore, but people really loved Loki, especially when there wasn’t much about him in the MCU at the time, and taking a villain fresh off his big hit with the first Avengers and throwing him in a reluctant “enemy of my enemy” plot for this entire movie would have been amazing.

Loki also refuses to stay dead because he’s too popular, thus we get a cyclical and frustrating arc where he only has development when the producers demand so they can make maximum profit off his character, but back then, in phase 2 world, the mystery around Loki was what made him so compelling and the drama around those two on screen was really good! They bounced so well off each other, they both had very different strengths and perspectives, both had real grievances to air, and in that movie, they *both* lost their mother. It’s not even that it’s a bad sequel, it’s just a plain bad movie.

The movie exists to keep establishing the Infinity Stones with the red one and I can’t remember what the red one does at this point, but it could have so easily done both. The powers that be should have known their strongest elements were Thor and Loki and their relationship, and run with it.

This isn’t “give into the demands of fans who want more Loki” it’s being smart enough to look at your own work and suss out what you think the most intriguing elements are and which have the most room and potential to grow (and also test audiences and beta readers to tell you the ugly truth). Sequels should feel more like natural continuations of the original story, not shameless cash grabs.

5. You walk back character development for ~drama~

As in, characters who got together at the end of book 1 suddenly start fighting because the “will they/won’t they” was the juiciest dynamic of their relationship and you don’t know how to write a compelling, happy couple. Or a character who overcame their snobbery, cowardice, grizzled nature, or phobia suddenly has it again because, again, that was the most compelling part of their character and you don’t know who they are without it.

To be honest, yeah, the buildup of a relationship does tend to be more entertaining in media, but that’s also because solid, respectful, healthy relationships in media are a rarity. Season 1 of Outlander remains the best, in part because of the rapid growth of the main love interest’s relationship. Every season after, they’re already married, already together, and occasionally dealing with baby shenanigans, and it’s them against the world and, yeah, I got bored.

There’s just so much you can do with a freshly established relationship: Those two are a *team* now. The drama and intrigue no longer comes from them against each other, it’s them together against a new antagonist and their different approaches to solving a problem. They can and should still have distinct personalities and perspectives on whatever story you throw them into.

6. It’s the same exact story, just Bigger

I have been sitting on a “how to scale power” post for months now because I’m still not sure on reception but here’s a little bit on what I mean.

Original: Oh no, the big bad guy wants to destroy New York

Sequel: Oh no, the big bad guy wants to destroy the planet

Threequel: Oh no, the big bad guy wants to destroy the galaxy

You knew it wasn’t going to happen the first time, you absolutely know it won’t happen on a bigger scale. Usually, when this happens, plot holes abound. You end up deleting or forgetting about characters’ convenient powers and abilities, deleting or forgetting about established relationships and new ground gained with side characters and entities, and deleting or forgetting about stakes, themes, and actually growing your characters like this isn’t the exact same story, just Bigger.

How many Bond movies are there? Thirty-something? I know some are very, very good and some are not at all good. They’re all Bond movies. People keep watching them because they’re formulaic, but there’s also been seven Bond actors and the movies aren’t one long, continuous, self-referential story about this poor, poor man who has the worst luck in the universe. These sequels aren’t “this but bigger” it’s usually “this, but different”, which is almost always better.

“This, but different now” will demand a different skillset from your hero, different rules to play by, different expectations, and different stakes. It does not just demand your hero learn to punch harder.

Example: Lord Shen from Kung Fu Panda 2 does have more influence than Tai Lung, yes. He’s got a whole city and his backstory is further-reaching, but he’s objectively worse in close combat—so he doesn’t fistfight Po. He has cannons, very dangerous cannons, cannons designed to be so strong that kung fu doesn’t matter. Thus, he’s not necessarily “bigger” he’s just “different” and his whole story demands new perspective.

The differences between Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi are numerous, but the latter relies on “but bigger” and the former went in a whole new direction, while still staying faithful to the themes of the original.

7. It undermines the original by awakening a new problem too soon

I’ve already complained about the mere existence of Heroes of Olympus elsewhere because everything Luke fought and died for only bought that world about a month of peace before the gods came and ripped it all away for More Story.

I’ve also complained that the Star Wars Sequels were always going to spit in the face of a character’s six-movie legacy to bring balance to the Force by just going… nah. Ancient prophecy? Only bought us about 30 years of peace.

Whether it’s too soon, or it’s too closely related to the original, your audience is going to feel a little put-off when they realize how inconsequential this sequel makes the original, particularly in TV shows that run too many seasons and can’t keep upping the ante, like Supernatural.

Kung Fu Panda once again because these two movies are amazing. Shen is completely unrelated to Tai Lung. He’s not threatening the Valley of Peace or Shifu or Oogway or anything the heroes fought for in the original. He’s brand new.

My yearning to see these two on screen together to just watch them verbally spat over both being bratty children disappointed by their parents is unquantifiable. This movie is a damn near perfect sequel. Somebody write me fanfic with these two throwing hands over their drastically different perspectives on kung fu.

8. It’s so divorced from the original that it can barely even be called a sequel

Otherwise known as seasons 5 and 6 of Lost. Otherwise known as: This show was on a sci-fi trajectory and something catastrophic happened to cause a dramatic hairpin turn off that path and into pseudo-biblical territory. Why did it all end in a church? I’m not joking, they did actually abandon The Plan while in a mach 1 nosedive.

I also have a post I’ve been sitting on about how to handle faith in fiction, so I’ll say this: The premise of Lost was the trials and escapades of a group of 48 strangers trying to survive and find rescue off a mysterious island with some creepy, sciency shenanigans going on once they discover that the island isn’t actually uninhabited.

Season 6 is about finding “candidates” to replace the island’s Discount Jesus who serves as the ambassador-protector of the island, who is also immortal until he’s not, and the island becomes a kind of purgatory where they all actually did die in the crash and were just waiting to… die again and go to heaven. Spoiler Alert.

This is also otherwise known as: Oh sh*t, Warner Bros wants more Supernatural? But we wrapped it up so nicely with Sam and Adam in the box with Lucifer. I tried to watch one of those YouTube compilations of Cas’ funny moments because I haven’t seen every episode, and the misery on these actors’ faces as the compilation advanced through the seasons, all the joy and wit sucked from their performances, was just tragic.

I get it. Writers can’t control when the Powers That Be demand More Story so they can run their workhorse into the ground until it stops bleeding money, but if you aren’t controlled by said powers, either take it all back to basics, like Cars 3, or just stop.

—

Sometimes taking your established characters and throwing them into a completely unrecognizable story works, but those unrecongizable stories work that much harder to at least keep the characters' development and progression satisfying and familiar. See this post about timeskips that take generational gaps between the original and the sequel, and still deliver on a satisfying continuation.

TLDR: Sequels are hard and it’s never just one detail that makes them difficult to pull off. They will always be compared to their predecessors, always with the expectations to be as good as or surpass the original, when the original had no such competition. There’s also audience expectations for how they think the story, lore, and relationships should progress. Most faults of sequels, in my opinion, lie in straying too far from the fundamentals of the original without understanding why those fundamentals were so important to the original’s success.

[robinmage]

It's curious to me, how the general consensus among others when it comes to Chise's curses are "bad; we need to get rid of it (we just don't know how.)" Which, considering they are both curses made of pain and suffering, makes sense why someone wouldn't want to keep those around.

We (the audience) know vaguely how the curses interact with each other. The dragon's curse: made from strong emotions of anger and despair, provides Chise with her strength and durability against both magical and physical elements, at the cost of her own strength one day tearing herself apart. Cartaphilus' curse prevents her from dying, but offers no protection against injury or decay. Together they "keep each other in check"-- Cartaphilus will keep her alive, the dragon will keep her strong.

A lot of things have happened in the past arc that make it easy to forget the fundamentals of the first season. When the series started, Chise was a few steps away from walking off a roof. Even after she arrived in England, it took a long time before she decided that maybe life wasn't so bad. Her entire life up until that point had been nothing but misery; abandoned and alone, she had no one to protect her from the constant targeting and harassment by both fae and humans alike. She believed that the only way to escape her torment was through death... I think its a facet of her character that goes unfairly unrecognized a lot (especially after the first arc).

When she's in England and is going through her mental/psychological character development, she is still facing the imminent threat of her weak sleigh beggey body constantly failing her. Using magic exacerbates her condition, causing her to be sick and/or incapacitated for significant stretches of time. It's painful, it's uncomfortable, it's frustrating. By the time she realizes she wants to live, her clock is already running quite short.

Her solution is handed to her on a rusted platter. To be "just like everyone else", for once. Finally.

Going to school, hanging out with friends, using magic without it killing her-- all things shes never been able to do before. All thanks to the curses trapped in her. These things that should be considered a horribly tragic fate have now become her salvation. Both physically and mentally, she's the strongest and most resilient she's ever been. Yet, when faced with the idea of liberating herself from her curses...

The curses only work the way they do because they're in sync with each other. Taking away either curse would leave her vulnerable to the other-- the dragon's curse would slowly overwhelm her into a brutally agonizing death, while Cartaphilus' curse would leave her to live and suffer through the constant breaking down of her sleigh beggey body.

When told about the reality of her curses and just how severe they are (not just to her, but to the people around her), she doesn't seem to completely understand what that may mean for herself and her future. Or perhaps, she just doesn't care. After a life where pain and suffering was her "normal", she finally has the means to create something meaningful and positive out of herself. How could that possibly be a bad thing?

She understands on some level that these curses were only ever meant to be temporary. Elias' original goal, to keep Chise alive in spite of her sleigh beggey curse, has not changed. Tacking on two more curses was not a part of the plan, and though they've offered a temporary solution and some time, curses are called curses for a reason. They cannot be relied upon. They've got to go.

But getting rid of those curses (both, or either) essentially puts her back at square one. Back to the pain, discomfort, and illness. She probably won't be able to use magic without hurting herself, too. She's gained freedom in both mind and body for the first time in her life. Sure, she encounters a few hiccups, but considering what she's used to, this is a big step up.

Something has finally given her the power and freedom to spread her wings and fly. Would she be able to clip her own feathers just because that power is "supposed" to be "bad"?

Could she? Could you?

Through it all, everyone she's come across has appointed her curses as a problem. Everyone, except...

[celaenaeiln]

Batman Issue #137 is fantastic

It's written so well it feels like a literary masterpiece, and I'm truly in awe of how well it's done. The parallelism, the character development and deterioration, the logic, the emotion, the art-all of it is spectacularly written. Like the people who wrote this issue must be some kind of geniuses to condens nearly a century of dc comic writing to come up with this. I highly, highly suggest everyone go read it because this is the most accurate representation of the members to date.

I know what I said is a contentious opinion but I think we need to step back from the issue and evaluate it from a "who is batman" perspective.

Batman at his core is a selfish human being. He created the identity because he wanted vengeance for the murder of his family, not because he particularly wanted to save the world. It's this desire that led him into a world of crime fighting because he refused to be the same as the person holding the gun.

Batman 137 is the peak depiction of Batman as an uncontrollable force of nature and what I love about this comic is they nailed him to a T. The batfamily's perception of Bruce are so accurate.

Dick and Barbara are exactly on the dot. He is out of control but also he's doing this to be in control.

Canonically, Bruce has a god complex.

And I know I shouldn't quote wiki but I like the way they worded their response:

"A god complex is an unshakable belief characterized by consistently inflated feelings of personal ability, privilege, or infallibility. The person is also highly dogmatic in their views, meaning the person speaks of their personal opinions as though they were unquestionably correct."

That is the core of who Bruce is.

Every action Bruce takes, he believes it is the best action. He is confident in his ability and he ensures his successes through planning and training. I believe in Dick and Barbara's points combined-Bruce is going out of control in order to be in control. He feels what he has done is not enough and thus is doing everything he can to correct that issue. To him, his personal opinions are unquestionably correct because he has analyzed every possible route to proceed in and has come to the one he believes is best.

This man was never meant to be a lovely family man which is precisely why Robin is so important to batman. Him hugging his kids, saying he's sorry, praising them-that's him on his very best days where everything is going his way. It's him on days where he's reaching into the past. It's him on days where he's tired and broken done. But that's not who he is at his worst.

And this issue is the downward cascade of his mental state.

At his worst, Bruce is the type of person who beats his kids for not following his rules:

He beats them for not obeying his orders:

He punishes them by endangering their loved ones:

He hurts them for not follow his rules and purposefully sets up tasks for them to fail for the purpose of them failing:

But

But even though he's done horrible things, he's not a bad person. he does it because he believes he's working in the city's best interest. And Jason understands this so well.

The reason why Selina calls Jason Batman's biggest failure is not because he's actually a failure but because he's the clearest proof of everything wrong with Bruce's God Complex.

Where Jason sees leniency, Bruce sees fault.

That's what makes their relationship so amazing. Bruce and Jason will never see eye to eye because their fundamental beliefs are different. It's a teetering relationship because they love each other but they can never accept each other and that delicate balance makes them so exciting (yeah sorry I love fcked up relationships).

Tim is on the fence

Before I can explain Tim's interaction, I need to drop Dick's, Cass's, Stephanie's and Duke's too

Okay back to Tim. Notice the extent of Bruce's reaction to each of the batfamily's views. Jason's view is the farthest from Bruce's and as a result he received the harshest punishment. Tim's view is grey and in response, Bruce's answer was grey too - a warning but not a damnation. Dick, Cass, Stephanie, and Duke's view on the issue was silence. They express no stand on the Selina vs Bruce's debate of criminals and as a result they receive an answer fitting of that.

The writers characterized each member of the family so, so, SO well. Everyone's perspective and character was on point and it didn't degrade any of their abilities, strengths, emotions, beliefs, or anything.

Furthermore, the family stands as one.

Dick checks in on Jason's mental health and makes sure he's feeling okay. Tim stops Bruce from killing Jason or hurting him too badly. The rest of the family shows up in time to protect the both of them and each other. Jason and Dick work together to bring Bruce down. When all of them talk on the batfamily channel, everyone gets an equal chance to speak including Steph. Which is a rarity.

The family dynamic is accurate.

Tim would look to Dick as the defacto leader for answers when Bruce is gone just like he did in every single other comic.

Damian would 100000% punch Jason in the face. He electrocuted him before, tried to kick him out, and attacked him before- he's not suddenly going to have reservations now.

Jason and Selina would absolutely work together the most and best because of their shared values and understanding of Gotham.

No one in this issue is irrational or out of character. Everything is so exact about this comic I'm over the moon by it! Sure it's not a "let's hug it out, guys!" issue but when has that ever made it bad? It's exciting, fun, meaningful, and logical and I love Bruce Wayne so incredibly much for it. I love the way he thinks, the way he acts, and what he believes.

If I were to characterize in a nutshell, I'd say issues 136 and 137 are all you need. The authors who created this - so much praise to them. They've capture each character as well as the family dynamic perfectly.

I can't speak much of Damian's intentions and behavior as of now because he's just entered the scene but I'm excitedly looking forward to the next issue.