#i hate all those justification posts that are like ''here's why i'm going to buy a million copies of GO and watch s3 when it comes out''

[the-everqueen]

re: WIPs, i have several sandman fics i'm working on and i'd like to finish. these are informed as much by (my opinions on) the spinoff comix and the actors' choices in the tv series as the original comix. also the neilman doesn't get any money from me having better opinions about the Corinthian and Rose Walker than he did back in the 90s (or now tbh). regarding the allegations - i believe the victims, i'm disinterested in any discourse that dismisses them or other women as liars in order to preserve this one man's fragile ego, and i don't want to materially support him via books or events or streaming. but i understand that some of my mutuals need to totally disengage from anything related to him. i'm fairly religious about my tags, so moots feel free to blacklist as needed and/or request specialized tags to avoid potential triggers. (this also extends to other things: if you need accommodations for specific tws, please ask.)

[bthump]

Ik what your stance is on liking Griffs character and I have nothing against it because Griffith's character is arguably one of the best written characters in Berserk, he's actually my guilty favorite.

But sometimes, I catch myself SILENTLY judging ppl who like characters that do morally incorrect things like Mori from Bungou Stray Dogs who's a straight up p*do or same with Hisoka or many other characters who tend to be p*dos and r*pists.

so i guess my question sorta fall in, when do you draw the line in liking a character?

I mean, Griffith did unfortunately rape casca (a horrible writing decision, really). anyways, I guess I sorta try to seek justification like "Oh but Miura wrote the rape scene in such a ridiculous way that I can't seem to really fully have the idea that Griff is a rapist in mind"

or sometimes i just yk, love the character design and how he was written (esp post eclipse god, he is awesome!!)

but sometimes...I see ppl who are justifably upset that I like a character that happens to SADLY have a stupidly written key point where he rapes a character.

And I don't blame ppl who hate Griff for raping her, bc theres been times where I also hate charcters for how they were pedos or also SA'd someone...so why is the line so blurry when it comes to liking Griffith and how can I ig put myself in a position where I don't feel bad for liking him?

tbh I don't have a line when it comes to fictional characters.

Or maybe more accurately, my line isn't which characters people like, but how they discuss them. I wouldn't judge someone (morally, I might judge their taste lol) for liking any character ever, no matter how awful, because I don't know what they like about them, what their lines are, what they feel comfortable ignoring or reasoning away or happily playing up because they like dark shit in fiction, etc. It's all fair game as far as I'm concerned. If they like a rapist I don't assume they love real rape, I assume they like dark fiction and consider them a really well-written villain, or they like other aspects of the character and the rape doesn't ruin it for them, or they like the character design and don't care that much about fictional crimes, or maybe they have a rape kink which is also perfectly fine, etc.

But yk, when people use harmful rhetoric to discuss a character they like, that's when I start judging. Eg I'm fine with people who love Guts. I'm not fine with people who say things like "Casca should forgive Guts for the assault because he stopped himself before going too far," eg. I'd be fine if they said "Casca should forgive Guts because it would make for a more satisfying story" though - I'd judge their taste in fiction and ability to analyze the story lol, but I don't think that opinion would make them a bad person. I'm fine with people who love Farnese, I'm fine with people who prefer her to Casca, but I'm not fine with anyone who might frame it like, Farnese is better than Casca because she's rich and white and from a respectable family. (I've never seen this take lol, but yk, as a hypothetical.)

Also in my personal experience I find that people who like characters due to their own offensive biases tend to have a hard time hiding it, so it's pretty easy to judge them by their own character, rather than their fictional preferences. And in my own experience the worst kinds of people tend to like heroic characters more than villains lol. If anything I find that liking characters who do "morally incorrect things" is often a sign that I'll get along with that person.

There's also something to be said here re: watsonian vs doylist perspectives. I think people who view media from a purely watsonian perspective, ie kind of buying into the fictional story as if it's real, attempting to understand the characters the way someone would understand a real person and relate to them on those terms, are going to have a harder time dealing with morally dark characters.

I tend to view media from a doylist perspective, which means I view the characters as constructions that help tell a story, and I generally judge them on what they bring to that story and how effectively they serve it. I wouldn't want to be friends with most of my faves, and I like a lot of characters who do terrible things, because those characters are fun to watch and read about. So disliking a character just because they did a bad thing doesn't really make sense to me on a personal level. I get why other people feel that way, but I don't care about fictional harm. I'll hate a character for being mildly annoying when they're on screen, but I generally won't hate a character for committing atrocities, unless they're depicted in a way that pisses me off lol. Like, I love Femto, I hate Isidro. Femto is cool even with the obnoxious rape scene, Isidro is annoying even though he's an innocent kid.

(Also I guess to be completely fair I'd judge someone for liking a character who exists solely as like, fascist political propaganda. But I do mean solely, like I'm talking shit like The Turner Diaries, not like the MCU or cop shows lol. Or like, if someone says they love the protag of Atlas Shrugged they'd better clarify that they disagree with the political messaging and they like him for xyz reasons, because it's such an infamously libertarian story that I'm gonna side-eye anyone who likes it by default, bc I feel like in this day and age very few people are reading Ayn Rand for the story lol. So I do technically have some lines in terms of judging fans of characters, but they're pretty uncommon lines.)

tl;dr I don't think you should feel bad for liking Griffith and idt you should even feel like you have to justify it by saying the rape scene was badly written. It was, and I think it's totally fair if that helps you like Griffith more, but even if the rape scene was super well-written and respectful to Casca and thematically significant etc etc Griffith would still be a fantastically written character imo.

And I don't know the other examples you gave personally, but as a general rule I think it's better to judge people for how they behave than for what kinds of fiction they enjoy. I do at least have friends who like Hisoka, presumably because he's a fun, entertaining character give or take the creepiness, and they're awesome people.

I don't think you should have to like those characters yourself ofc, rape/pedophilia/etc etc is a pretty understandable line to draw in terms of your own enjoyment of a fictional character, but other people have different lines and I think that's reasonable too.

[oof-big-oof]

ACOTAR and Setups Part II: Tamlin and Rhysand

SPOILERS: ACOTAR series (and Macbeth too ig)

Part 1: Feyre

In "Macbeth", Macbeth and Banquo are narrative foils to each other. While Banquo is loyal to the king and uses language of growth and imagery of nature when he speaks, the traitor Macbeth's words are full of references to destruction, fire, and unholy happenings. Foils are not just good ways to explore character traits, but also excellent for setting up conflicts and exploring the thematic concerns of the world.

I think it's safe to say Tamlin and Rhysand are foils. They have opposing imagery (spring, flowers and sun for Tamlin, winter, snow and night for Rhysand) and always stand in opposition to each other when it comes to Feyre's narrative, switching in and out of being the "bad guy" and the "good guy". But the way this is handled is .... eh.

I'm going to look at shifts in Feyre, Tamlin and Rhys that work of this foil - and try to look for when and how they were set up.

1. Feyre's shift - TW: discussions of abuse, mental health issues

In the first book, Tamlin is a source of protection and love for Feyre. But by the second book, Feyre is not only struggling with her PTSD but has begun to realise that life at the Spring Court as a dolled up accessory might not be for her. By the end of the book, she has found her place in the Night Court - by Rhysand's side. And honestly? Go girl! Go live up to your potential!

The problem arises with how this is done - that is, Sarah J Mass never does the brunt work of showing us why Feyre cares. It is plausible she is motivated by a desire to protect the human lands, but we never actually see that. There isn't a moment where she realises she needs to work for a greater good, or a moment she realises that she needs to protect those more vulnerable than her - instead, the narrative has her tolerating abuse until she finally has had enough.

Which is great. I have got to admit that I really like the explicit rejection of a happily ever after storyline for Feyre because it took away her agency. But we get this radical shift in character motivation from wanting to be protected and comfortable with those she loves to desiring agency and understanding of herself in two lines:

"The girl who had needed to be protected and who had craved stability and comfort... she had died Under the Mountain"

and

"I didn't know how to go back to those things. To being docile"

hhhhhh. I mean - if you have to say it that explicitly, you're already doing something wrong. But also, why? We never see Feyre struggling with herself in her new body, and wondering why she does not want the same things as she did when she was a human, never see an impetus point for when her desires shifted.

But honestly? I don't mind Feyre's arc. I think it's a bit confused and lacks clarity or intent, and as a result, it is harder to root for her because you don't quite know what she wants, but I think it's still quite good. Where I really have problems are with Tamlin ad Rhys.

2. Tamlin - TW: discussions of abuse, mental health issues

I am not a fan of Tamlin's arc. You could argue that it is part of the thematic message of the series: that things are not as they seem. Tamlin is the wolf to the savour to the abuser, Rhysand is the "most beautiful man " Feyre had ever seen to Amarantha's monster to Feyre's eventual mate. But - the constant twists are unnecessary, more importantly, they and have little to no foreshadowing and just seem like retcons- making it seem as if they are there to keep the audience guessing rather than genuine plot progressions. This becomes even more obvious when the series abandons its core theme of "appearance vs reality" altogether, and as a result loses a lot of its cohesion: a direct consequence of having a bad setup.

His reason for doing the abusive things he does is conveyed to us in two lines, in the same monologue that Feyre's motivation is:

"Tamlin had gotten his powers back, had become whole again - become that protector and provider he wished to be"

Sure. He was much more powerful than Feyre when they first met, so I am having a hard time buying it is the return of the powers that his making him act this way. We know that his actions come from a genuine desire to protect Feyre - this is the guy that was willing to sacrifice his life multiple times and the future of his entire court to keep her safe. The only justification we have left then for the way he acts is that his PTSD, borne out of the trauma and torture he underwent and watched Feyre undergo changed him in some way.

This is why the endless villainizing of Tamlin makes me really uncomfortable. While it is true that the abused can become the abuser, and figuring out how to help them while protecting yourself is something that absolutely needs to be discussed and explored - the way it is done with Tamlin is horrendous because he is never given a chance to heal. Instead, he is thrown from plot point to plot point, an eternal punching bag for the Inner Circle and others to seem morally superior in front of.

And his treatment of Feyre is just weird. If he's so concerned about her safety - why does he not wake up when she has nightmares? Is he instead trying to pretend like everything is okay - if so why does he give Feyre an escort of guards? If his core motivation is protecting Feyre at all costs - why does he lash out at her?? And the text really tries to tell us how to feel about him in this regard, but it doesn't do it very well. For example, take the scene where Tamlin says "There is no such thing as a High Lady". Feyre a second before expressed her desire not to take on any responsibility, and Tamlin responded with this - and the text really makes us want to hate him for it, but all you can see is a person who is perhaps not the best at reading subtext trying his best.

In conclusion - Tamlin's shift to the villain of the narrative is hamhanded and underexplained, making it hard to genuinely hate him, and further confusing the narrative.

3. Rhys the foil gets the girl - TW: discussions of abuse, sexual assault mental health issues

Rhysand in the first book is interesting - he clearly has a heart and a soft spot for Feyre but is also a schemer with dubious motives that drugs and sexually harasses Feyre. There are places in the set up where we understand he cares - but never where we can begin to see he might be a genuine paragon of virtue.

And I will address this more in my post on ACOMAF, but the point I am trying to make here is: we are told through the constantly opposing imagery that Rhys and Tamlin are wolds apart - but never actually given examples of how. Rhys is said to be different from Tamlin because he respects Feyre's choice - but he drugs her in a bunch of weird scenes (that serve no clear narrative purpose by the way - like what was he trying to achieve? why he couldn't he just let Feyre in on that part of the plan?) and withholds information from her about life-threatening situations. Rhys is said to pull less rank - but we multiple times see others defer to him, especially in later books, and never actually see rank being enforced in Tamlin's court with his treatment of Lucien (many times described as his partner, and openly questioning him) and later Ianthe. Rhys is said to have less archaic laws in opposition to Tamlin's Tithe - but he abandons the Court of Nightmares to the monsters who rule it, and never takes serious actions against the Illyrian people who clip of women's wings, and a lot of Tamlin's idea of racial superiority and general superiority just come completely out of left field in the middle of ACOMAF.

Both of them are problematic - it's just that the text tells us to root for one, without actually showing us how one is better, or setting up any clear ideological difference between them. And that cheapens Feyre's character shift and lessen the efficacy of the foil - turning it into Feyre hopping from one lover to the other with little to no character consistency and no nuanced exploration of the theme of the series or trauma.