#but in some of you my meme seems to evoke sympathy

[fey-ax]

This is what I believe to be a summary of Vere's character

[cero-blast]

Your post about Gin "messing with people's heads" makes me think, doesn't this also apply to Ulquiorra? He also psychologically tortured Inoue, don't you think it's hypocritical to say Gin's actions don't nullify the bad things he did, but say that UH is good/not toxic? I'm not trying to hate on you, I don't ship anything in Bleach, I just wanted to know why Gin is considered a bad inexcusable guy but Ulquiorra's relationship with Inoue is glorified?

This will get… really long. I’m genuinely sorry it’s this long.

I never said Ulqiorra did nothing wrong (though it’s fair to say I didn’t happen to specifically point it out), or that UH is a ship with many positive feelings associated to it. That would be… an interesting take. I hope you don’t think I think that. But I also need you to understand that I don’t base my taste in ships on what I desire/consider healthy in real life. They exist in the context of the canon — not interchangeable with reality considering the existence of superpowers, ghosts, semi-human creatures and time warping — and that’s where it ends for me. Applying the dynamics in my ships to any situation other than the precise one of Bleach’s canon would make them fundamentally different.

I’ve wanted to mention this about Ulquiorra for a while now and I’ll take the occasion to do so. It’s a mistake to put him in the same framework as a human or shinigami. (The latter two also have their differences but based on observation shinigami seem to behave in a much more human-like manner compared to hollows/arrancars.) He’s practically incapable of understanding what empathy is or find any good reason not to hurt other people, which is why it’s surprising when he manages to grasp even a shred of the concept right before dying. Hollows are born from experiencing such severe pain that it distorts their whole ‘essence’, so something has gone terribly wrong with them emotionally by definition, whether they evolve to arrancar form or not. Ulquiorra’s aspect of death, his ‘theme’, is emptiness — characterized by complete neutrality towards everything. Since a person with a healthy mindset tends to focus on danger and negative events, neutrality often comes across as immoral for being equally conceding towards moral right and moral wrong. The point is, Ulquiorra’s motivations for provoking Inoue had nothing to do with him taking joy in causing pain to her. In fact, it’s hinted he’s not even fully aware he’s doing it, like the scene where he tells Inoue he’d laugh at her friends’ foolishness in her place. He’s unaffected by most things AND has difficulty placing himself in others’ perspective, which results in him assuming everyone around him would be unaffected. The only thing that factored into him doing just about anything was curiosity, the need to fill the void, however you want to put it. If a human or shinigami behaved the same way he did around Inoue, it would come across in a vastly different way and I’m not sure it would even interest me as a ship. Ulquiorra is not only a hollow, but a hollow with a particular impediment in understanding how others feel, and this is an integral part of him as a character, of his interactions, of UH, of anything regarding him. I know it’s funny as a fandom meme to act as if he were human, but he’s NOT and this needs to be kept in mind.

This applies to any arrancar or espada, really. It’s tempting to judge them on the same basis as enemies who are closer to humanity, mainly because of their appearance and intellect. But this is the trick itself the narrative plays, a progression that has been present in Bleach since the start: it created a human/monster (shinigami/hollow here) dichotomy, then spent the longest arc deconstructing it by blurring the lines between the two. It doesn’t matter how smart and eloquent the espada manage to get, the only productive way of interpreting them is as people who are missing a very core part of their personality, so someone severely psychologically ill. (I say this as someone who has their own problems, before it gets misinterpreted as condescension.) Should this absolve them from punishment? Bleach says a very clear no. They almost all get killed by shinigami, in Ulquiorra’s case Ichigo specifically — Ichigo, who, by his own admission, empathized with everyone he fought and even gets angry at Yammy for speaking ill of Ulquiorra after his death. (I don’t want to start arguing about how he was in hollow state when he defeated him. He would have killed Ulquiorra either way if he continued to stand in the way of protecting his friends.)

In summary, the espada aren’t human. Ulquiorra isn’t human. It’s unrealistic to expect him to behave like a human. You’re free to pick who you want to have compassion for among Bleach’s positive and negative characters and if you decide Ulquiorra is irredeemable in your opinion, that’s fine — many characters would agree. But at the very least it can be objectively said that Bleach spends a lot of time presenting ‘evil’ characters’ perspectives as nuanced and explicable instead of writing them off. It gives the audience a choice in the matter. A core message of the entire story is that we’re subjective and maybe we’ll never manage to see the world the same way as someone else, but that’s fine and it doesn’t make us all that different; hollows can become *almost* shinigami, shinigami can become *almost* hollows, and they both have ways to relate to one another while retaining the insurmountable differences and even fighting and killing each other.

Now, onto Gin. First off, you seem to be under the impression that I don’t like him as a character. That couldn’t be further from the truth; I only said it in the tags because I figured saying it in the post would have sounded like making excuses, which is not what the post was about. I don’t know if I would call him a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ person. All I know is that I really enjoyed him as a character and I could see how he evoked sympathy — in the tragic way antagonists do when they get some sort of redemption. I noticed it’s a common tool in fiction to make an impact on the audience, I suppose because we’re happier when we see ‘bad people getting fixed’ rather than someone already good doing more good things. It’s a Prodigal Son type of thing; can be argued about but it definitely makes an impact.

Gin is a quintessential ‘mysterious type’; he has a long-running plan that he executes throughout almost his entire life without ever consulting with anyone (an important detail). He had a hypothesis on what would be the most effective way to kill Aizen and constructed a convoluted plan based on it — a plan where the ends would have justified the means in many, many situations, and that required causing problems to a lot of people. He had, however, no certainty that what he was doing would lead to the desired results (which it then didn’t…). A lot of his provocation was a means to create a certain image of himself and there’s a big question of where to draw the line there, whether all of that was absolutely necessary. Leaving to Hueco Mundo and technical demonstrations of loyalty were, sure, but mocking Rukia on her way to being executed? He considered keeping everything a secret a prerequisite for things to work out — presumably because if he talked to anyone, Aizen could have noticed — but was it, really? Many of his actions were based on his personal judgement on what would and wouldn’t have ruined the façade, subjective and hunch-based since he didn’t know the outcome for sure.

Gin isn’t inexcusable, but I noticed a lack of emphasis on the damage his actions caused among fans, both because of the chronological order of the story and his affiliation with the protagonists’ side. Because the last thing he did was a good thing, that’s what he’s remembered by, without taking into account the sum total of his interactions with others. He posited himself as vicious until the last moment and did so consciously. Ulquiorra had a very, very gradual progression in the way he talked to Inoue, which doesn’t make it less rude and traumatic, but there’s a difference between him showing up and telling her she ‘has no rights’ and later taking an active interest in her views on the Heart. It would be equally reductive to interpret him by his last moment and nothing else, but all he did before led to that moment progressively, while Gin’s was a very abrupt twist.

My post was a comment on psychology on the most basic, technical level, not a moral judgement. The two are separate in the way we process trauma and that’s exactly what I find interesting. Having strong negative emotions associated to a memory (what I think Kira, Hinamori, Hitsugaya or Rangiku could have had with Gin’s betrayal) creates a very subconscious reaction that can hardly be fixed by suddenly finding out it was necessary for a positive cause, which is why healing from trauma requires years of therapy. Because *in that moment* you didn’t have that knowledge, the pain remains in your memory and it’s not a matter of logical reasoning. Now, I’m not saying Ulquiorra’s interactions with Inoue were numerous or productive enough to properly process the trauma he caused her — the canon info is ambivalent on how comfortable Inoue was around him towards the end of her captivity because there’s both scenes like the famous slapping one *and* her seeming more light-hearted towards Ulquiorra in Unmasked, plus no one has any idea of which came before which. All things considered, I think repeated discussion and an attempt at mutual understanding does a better job at elaborating something traumatic than one single piece of information on why what traumatized you was justified. And note that the *only reason* the understanding between Ulquiorra and Inoue could have been mutual is because Inoue was exceptionally patient, empathetic and willing to face discomfort, way beyond the base level or what should be expected from anyone. Even if it was a *small amount* of *not very productive* discussion, it’s better than one act in my opinion (which most of the people who had some sort of issue with Gin didn’t even directly witness). Which of them is *morally worse* depends on how you draw the lines and define morality and that’s not something I feel qualified to decide.

So, in the end;Ulquiorra:-working towards enemy goals overtly-motivated by curiosity, which can be considered self-oriented-gradual improvement-not fully conscious of the emotional impact of his actions-Inoue considers him an ambivalent presence but “Isn’t afraid”, in her words-half-succeeded, as in: failed the goal of killing Ichigo but sated his curiosity

Gin:-working towards enemy goals on the surface and soul society goals covertly-motivated by attachment to Rangiku and/or revenge, less self-oriented but still focused on close acquaintances -long-running façade of being a terrible person followed by a sudden twist towards the good side-completely aware of everything he’s doing, plan laid out hundreds of years in advance-Gotei 13 don’t interact with Gin throughout HM arc, consider the traitors a lost cause-failed to kill Aizen

Instead of this encyclopedia I could have just written “Gin isn’t irredeemable, I just said he did bad things before”, but I thought too much about it. And I might go through spelling mistakes once I wake up.

[jeanplaisance]

Mutual Humanity: Behind the Scenes

If I had to summarize my teenage experience, it was being a bleeding heart to people who didn’t give a shit. Even my best friends were pretty cold to my attempts at evoking some kind of emotional response from them.

Now those same two best friends, more than a decade later, are closer than ever to me and they are every bit as expressive and in touch with their emotions as I wanted them to be back then. Which is great, but also upsetting to me because I got hurt and they got better. Just great. I’m a little hung up on that, but I’m looking forward. Don’t worry about that.

It makes me wonder, “What changed?” Did they have no emotions and suddenly one day woke up to them? I know my own experience which is that I always had them, but I can’t really say for anybody else. I’ve always been expressive of them too. Put in the simplest way, it’s like the transition between saying “lmao words can’t hurt” and then one day acknowledging “words are meaningful and important.” From cold to sympathetic. How does one make that kind of transition?

I considered how I should approach this. I see now that they’re the thinking, feeling, intelligent people that they are. I don’t doubt that people have a mind of their own, but there’s a certain genuine “I really can’t say for sure” quality to my feeling about it. These days, I do try my best to embrace the assumption that all people are thinking, feeling, and intelligent but perhaps struggle to show it for some reason or another. So where was that when we were kids? I ask this not necessarily to understand our relationships with each other or get some kind of closure, but so that I can maybe do the right thing with the people I meet in the future. I want you to keep that line in mind: with the assumption I’m making that people are thinking, feeling, and intelligent, but fail to show it, I am also making the assumption that they are living a sort of tortured existence like wanting to scream but not having a mouth.

So I asked them in plain simple words. “When we were young, I often viewed you as edgy and short-sighted. You never had any concern with the big ideas like connection or meaning. Was that really the case? Can you tell me what you were thinking then, now that we’re mature enough to talk about it?”

Let me give some background about my own character before I jump into theirs. I think that while I was diligent in my own efforts of articulating my feelings to others as a kid, I don’t mean to suggest that I was a sympathetic character in my own story. It simply is what it is. I believe that my intentions were good, but I lacked the necessary experience and soundness of mind to really be a reliable individual. Struggling with my own issues, I was still as unstable as anybody else and prone to lashing out in frustrations that didn’t help the situation.

I was very much so the “I am 14 and this is deep” type. Kind of obnoxious, yeah, but I don’t regret it. Think about somebody who takes Kingdom Hearts seriously. Christ. It was kind of edgy, but I think it invited sympathy. I ate up media that was full of sob stories. Games, movies, books. I really romanticized heartache and kinda turned my nose up to things that lacked substance. Not to mention, I struggled with loneliness as I had a lot of feelings that I tried to share with people but only found rejection. Y’know, since that kind of person is a real bummer. I’m talking about it in a somewhat dismissive way, but I really do think that teenage heartache deserves respect. I respect children and the difficulties of growing up. So when I talk about myself and my friend, I think it does warrant serious consideration as a human experience beyond simple entertainment.

My friend says he was concerned with those bigger ideas. However, wracked with his own insecurities, he never had the confidence to stake his ideas. He even mentioned getting mooshed back into his box after trying to take part in a discussion with a mutual friend and me once. You know the meme. We insulted his intelligence on the one rare opportunity that he did try to reach out. So even while I was trying to coax expression from him as kids, my own volatility did some damage. Looking back, I see other opportunities where he did express some degree of vulnerability and while I appreciated them, I don’t think I gave them the recognition that they deserved. I was interested in the idea of emotional vulnerability, but I wasn’t entirely equipped to deal with it.

To give you an example of both of those at once, I remember this enormous moment in our relationship with one another. I was talking with a mutual friend about something. I can’t remember what it was. Something like starving children in Africa. Again, I was 14 and this was deep. Have mercy on me. My friend made a comment about it that apparently didn’t strike me in a good way, so in a VERY exasperated way, I told him straight to his face, “Alright, I get it. You don’t give a shit about people. You don’t have a soul.”

I had apparently done this a few times in the past because at this point, I was tired of our interactions. This is the volatility I was talking about. Where my rejected attempts at bonding on that level had been repeatedly met with rejection, I had become aggressively dispassionate with him. But he didn’t take it this time. He didn’t react violently either. I just remember in a moment of lucid clarity that I had rarely seen, he told me that every time I accused him of lacking heart, it was a very subtle needling to him that very subtly grew to really piss him off. He wasn’t loud or aggressive. He simply articulated that he was deeply bothered by that.

I never said it to him again.

Looking back, I think that was exactly the kind of thing I was looking for. If I had heard this kid say that back then, I would’ve thought all the world about him. That minor act of expressing your discomfort articulately without anger is an act deserving of the highest respect. I didn’t stop out of intimidation, but I suppose I did respect that expression even though I can’t remember thinking too much about it later on. Though clearly it made quite the impression that I remember it a decade later.

With his explanation about the insecurities and this fond moment giving me more than enough evidence that it was exactly as he described, I felt somewhat validated in my belief that my assumption was correct. He was thinking, feeling, and intelligent but never really showed it. And maybe, we weren’t so different after all. Both just lonely with our thoughts and feelings. I talked to people about my feelings even if they weren’t always well received. I asked him, “Did you have anybody to talk to about this? Anybody at all?” He didn’t. It really does strike me as a sort of negligence that kids have to grow up this way. And a reminder, I’m telling you all this not so that I can get closure for myself, but because I have a dream for the future generations. 

It makes you wonder though, doesn’t it? I was one of those students in the “Gifted And Talented Education” program where I remember that the theory of the class was to foster all sorts of growth in children who seemed exemplary. What stands out was that it wasn’t just fostering raw intellectual strength, but emotional intelligence too. I did well in school before I discovered the internet in middle school, so I assume that’s why I landed in there.

I’m not telling you this to jerk myself off like some kind of idiot who peaked in elementary school. I’m telling you this because I believe my friend was every bit as thinking, feeling, and intelligent as I was, why the fuck were these qualities not being fostered in him as well? It didn’t show up on paper exams? Maybe he didn’t demonstrate it, but did the system just overlooked him because they had a different assumption? He was just a kid who needed someone to foster these qualities in him as well.

They assume differently, and he was alone.

Sure, I tried to make that contact as a kid and he was alone all the same.

Despite this, it’s unbearable for me to think that it couldn’t have been different. We had good times, fond memories, and we both grew up healthy and well (I guess), but it feels like a failure at every level for my friend for the most important part of his being at one of the most vulnerable periods of his life. I was a child so it’s arrogance to think that he was my responsibility, but I’m an adult now and that’s where it counts for kids. They need to see it in their authority figures.

The outcome in this case was fine, but the principle of the matter is what bothers me. The schools, the family, and friends all came up short. Coming up short came out in the wash, but outcomes vary… and so do the severity of the consequences. If I thought less of people, it wouldn’t bother me as much as it does, but that’s not what my assumption is about.

I’m lazy and selfish, but the absurdity of emotional isolation despite the ubiquity of the experience troubles me. I want to believe in our mutual humanity. I keep an eye out these days for those subtle signs of character in others so that I can cling onto that shred of hope, if not just to feel a little less lonely myself.