#i want more nuance is all

[voltstone]

okay can i say a thing about esther in fics

So, this isn't something I loathe, or take great issue with, or anything, since I understand why this character is the way she is in a lot of fics, or any fandom interpretation. A lot of times, in fandoms, characters will change roles depending on the fanwork context. So if you want to explore a specific type of abuse with Enid, obviously Esther is going to fit that role.

I also have a lot to say with Murray, but I'll cool off with that for now. However, a lot of the same applies.

Anyway, I...do wish there was more nuance to Esther within the fandom? Or a better appreciation as to why she is a problem. Especially since she's a direct foil to Morticia, because both mothers ultimately have the same issue, it's just Morticia handles it with grace, and Esther doesn't.

Esther is an overbearing mother.

That is emotional abuse, which often stems from a genuine care for the child, but through a very warped perception that is so because of insecurity and/or entitlement.

I get it. I get why she's written to be physically abusive in a lot of fics, or do other things. It's a way to tell the stories people want to write, and I can't say that I won't be responsible for that. For context, the project I'm working on now has a lot of medical abuse where...it's really, really bad. Far worse than what's presumably in the show. And it's something done out of insecurity.

...can't really be a good judge of what or how I handle her, since I'm the writer of that. But. Whatever.

The point is, as someone whose personal experience with maternal abuse was never a physical one, and was purely emotional/mental, it does feel like a lot of the fandom doesn't understand how devastating those are, and equates physical abuse as...the worst kind. When in reality, they're not comparable, and it ultimately depends on the people involved. Some people can better defend themselves against mental abuse over physical, others it's the opposite.

And then you just have the additional context. Like what...is actually happening.

It's an oversimplification that I think really misses the point in trying to analyze what the show tries to say about Esther and Enid. Enid is a people pleaser. Enid does want to please her mom, but she acknowledges and pushes back against the pressure she's been put in. Very emotionally intelligent in that regard, probably because she had to be. And because she physically cannot wolf-out for the bulk of the show, Enid chooses to prioritize another thing that her mom may like: finding a "mate", of sorts. With or without a possible issue in comphet, this may be why Enid is so overbearing with Ajax. Because she's trying to compensate for not being able to frolic in the forest, beneath a full moon, as a saber dog thing.

Meanwhile, Esther is overbearing...because she is also compensating for something. When Esther hands Enid the pamphlet for summer conversion camps, she says outright that a cousin of Enid's had the same problem.

This is a familial issue. And may be indicative of something genetic: the Sinclairs, for whatever reason, have a predisposition for late-blooming. And Esther doesn't like it. Maybe because she's a late-bloomer herself, or, she saw what happened in older generations and wants to "save" Enid from it. By doing things potentially just as bad.

And she foils Morticia because Enid is not like her. The same way that Wednesday is not like Morticia. There's friction of interests. There's friction in communication, and in how to articulate love for each other.

However, Morticia actually accepts Wednesday. She doesn't understand her, but she tries. She leaves Thing to watch over her. Leaves the crystal ball. And leaves the necklace that Wednesday wears, because rather than physical touch, she doesn't mind the touch of cold obsidian. Ergo, by the time of season's end, Wednesday understands better how to communicate with her mother because her mother understands how to show her love. So she lets Morticia...kinda sorta embrace.

Esther meanwhile cannot get through to Enid because...she does not restrain herself. She's overbearing because she's being overruled by insecurity, and perhaps entitlement. There is an interesting implication with her wearing a wool vest--making her a literal wolf in sheep's clothing--, and that brings another layer of nuance.

And that's what...I really just want. I want more nuance and complexities than just "Esther evil. Esther hit Enid. Esther sell Enid off to be omega whore, or something."

So. Yeah.

I'mma go back to writing.

[poorly-drawn-mdzs]

Council of lovefools.

[First] Prev <–-> Next

[smhalltheurlsaretaken]

y'all need to get a grip. you blab all day about how much you hate bigots and hateful people and how evil it is to dehumanize anyone and then you turn around and say "kys" and "i think [x] should all just kill themselves" and other disgusting, violent and childish trash

so many people on here are just full of hatred and vitriol and turn into frenzied sharks anytime the target 'deserves it' and they think they can get away with it and not be called bad people. then they whine about how sad it is that we can't all just get along and if only all the evil people in the world would stop doing evil things wouldn't that be nicer

you're just as vicious, hypocritical and fanatically puritanical as the caricature you have made in your minds of the people you think you have nothing in common with. if you've ever told someone, ANYONE to kill themselves you're not advocates of justice, you're not artisans of peace, and you certainly don't have any moral high ground that would allow you to pass judgment on others

[bigskydreaming]

Imagine looking at a character whose entire premise is that in every stage of his life, he's made every version of himself into someone that inspires people to such a degree that EVERY SINGLE VERSION OF HIM has people wanting to literally follow in his footsteps in some way or another.....

And coming to the conclusion that like.....the most important things about him are the sum of all his trappings. His entirely homemade developed from scratch could not exist if not for what he already was and brought with him BEFORE crafting this newest version of himself trappings, with his greatest trait throughout all of it being his adaptability; his ability and willingness to roll with the punches and not try to simply weather any opposition or changes to his life but instead reshape himself as needed to better fit INTO whatever new shape his life and the world around him takes. All while managing to carry the most innate, fundamental and necessary aspects of himself from one version to the next. Thus every single version of himself is different but simultaneously every single version of himself is also undeniably the same person.

The strength of this character, to me, will always be that he can be so many versions of himself, he can become so many things, all without ever actually losing or discarding any of the aspects of himself he considers most essential, the things he's not willing to lose or give up just to keep going. Finding that road not taken by most, usually because most never even think to look for it as an option. But one that he's always able to find because the one trick he's mastered in his tumultuous life is threading that needle of not just digging in his heels in an unproductive way but rather being selective about when and where he makes a stand and decides "this is not a thing I'm willing to compromise about" but here are places and ways I can and will change and evolve and adapt in order to make it possible for me to hold onto these parts and keep them as they are.

And that's why its always so mind-boggling to me that so many writers can't seem to think of anything else to do with Dick Grayson other than invent some new reason for him to just....not be that person, or to like just take the character whose most basic fundamental trait he's NOT about to compromise on is willingly giving up his spot in the driver's seat of his own life.....and make him just a passenger in his own life and stories.

Dick Grayson at age nine....at age nineteen...at age twenty nine....the one core thread running through all versions of him is the only way he's standing back and letting you call the shots for him or putting him on the sidelines in some way is over his dead body.

HOW he goes about that, what that looks like, who he becomes and what aspects of himself he plays up at some times and what traits he lets fall by the wayside at other times when they offer less in service to his primary goal here....that changes constantly. He changes constantly.

But those changes are almost always (or at least they used to be/should be IN MY OPINION) made with the intention of keeping certain things about him or his life as consistent as possible.

That's the duality of Dick Grayson that I'm here for. The inherent contradiction of him that COULD allow for endless conflict and breaking new narrative ground in all sorts of ways if mined properly:

His eternal willingness to compromise....but only ever in pursuit of doubling down on the ways he's not willing to compromise.

Forever walking that tightrope in ways that only a kid born and raised in a circus could ever hope to.

[uncanny-tranny]

I think such a big reason my trans manhood feels almost... bigendered is simply because in the eyes of most people (specifically cis people with whom I interact with most), I straddle this weird line wherein I am a man and often am seen as one, but I am also clearly undefinable insofar as cis theory goes, clearly queer, clearly outside of manhood if one only accepts cishet, patriarchal manhood. This definitely used to be a source of dysphoria for me, but I think now that I've transitioned, it's been interesting to explore this more. Am I wholly a man? Yes. Am I a man of multitudes? Yes. Do these multitudes contradict? Well, that depends on your definition of "contradiction"

[jewreallythinkthat]

The most moderate, nuanced and productive people I have discussed the Israel-Hamas war with have been Jews, Israelis, and people with Palestinian family. Everyone directly affected by this just wants it to stop and to have peace and safety in the region in a way that minimises the casualty count.

The most extreme and performative and vile things I've been told are by people who have no connection to this and like to think they are experts because they have covered adjacent topics during learning, or read stuff online.

If all the randos in the west would just shut up for ten minutes and let those of us actually affected, with an understanding of the history of the land and the culture and the generational trauma experienced by Jews and Palestinians alike talk, we might actually have a chance to salvage this and stop it spiraling

[blood-starved-beast]

Big fan of how Farcille as a ship is undercut by Marcille's issues with aging/death and her own elven biases and Falin's issues with undercutting her own autonomy to mask and the challenges faced by trying to break away from that mindset. Especially how these two facets of these characters ultimately serve as a blockage for the development of a legitimate romantic relationship. It's an interesting development in a ship that by-and-by is pretty vanilla all things considered (dark magic aside). The fact that Ryoko Kui portays that level of complexity in this relationship not only highlights her mastery of character development and worldbuilding but also is a great example of how something "vanilla" can be made complex or interesting if done in a way that is interesting.

[hagoftheholler]

Been thinking about closed practices today, and why many (white) people reject the concept. Aside from general entitlement and never being told "no" before, it's evident to me that many white people (especially white Americans, but still white people in general) never really grew up in an environment where they were taught there are rules and standards to religion/spirituality/magic. Or, they grew up in an Evangelical upbringing and were taught to reject everything that wasn't "Christian"... so they want something else (that they can't/shouldn't have).

The idea of there being rules, a social or spiritual hierarchy in anything related to magic/religion/spirituality is foreign. It scares people. So they attempt to find loopholes. Why go find a genuine priest(ess), rabbi, elder, granny or any other person in the position to give them answers and teach them when there are books written by white "shamans" "gurus" "voodoo priests" etc? It's not like those books are ever going to tell them lies, right? /sarcasm

Committing to a closed practice requires too much... well... commitment, for these people. The idea of reaching out to a person that can actually teach them, initiate them (if required), etc... The process of it all... Too much for them, somehow. And even if it's something that requires a little more than teaching and initiations, they still don't wanna hear it.

[dxxtruction]

"Louis acting like a pimp to Armand" And what is a pimp exactly? Quickly. And, oh so sexual trauma survivors can't engage in kink now without it being all about that? Pet names? They can't be submissive anymore? Consensually? Sexually healthy? Be serious. I'd hardly say there's much power difference between them during all this anyway, except that Louis is freer than Armand and it's been putting a strain on their relationship. Louis wants more from Armand, and less of this 'being his past' for them both, and so helping Armand with this could fix that. It's healthy to want to help your partners get out of a rough patch?

I mean, the whole exchange was very clearly set up as a "I want to help you" after such a great moment of vulnerability Louis feels just how much Armand is desperate for it. Louis called Armand so they could work out a plan together.

And the bit with the umbrella was Louis' way of asking 'are you willing to listen to me?' and Armand said yes by unfolding it. Louis goes on and explains, Armand is allowed to argue against it, but Louis makes his point. And then he gives Armand a way to make his own choice in it too. Armand's already decided 'I want you, more than anything else in the world', but Louis still asks after if he's sure of his choice, and with a name, Arun, that is the one of his fullest agency, running the point home. Honoring the situation Armand calls Louis Maitre - as a way of being like 'I'll do as you've said then'. To make this work he's going to have to give Louis some of the control, yes. But it's the first time such a role is ever established, and it was his choice to do it. So so what if they do it in a very suggestive way? They can't like doing that? I think it's them having fun.

I struggle to find how Louis is being overly domineering here when really he's giving and offering Armand the most agency he's ever had. Same with finding it manipulative. The manipulation was more earlier in the episode I think, when he was stringing him along, giving mixed signals. He's no longer toying with him like that. Louis might be pushing Armand, leading him on to make a decision, but he doesn't mean bad by it.

But back to this pimp thing. I find it frankly offensive that this is where people are going with this. I get it, but to run with it being the case is, on many levels, wrong.

Louis told us episode 1 this was the only sustainable line of work to support his family and keep their standing, at the time. It was never his choice to be doing this either but his blackness allowed no other options. He did what he did so his family could stay in that house and maintain all their same comforts. It gave him privileges most black men didn't have at the time that he wanted to maintain and even have more of. Anyway, it doesn't and had never defined him the way 'being good at running things' had. And in that case he just likes having that kind of control where he can get it, which makes sense.

The world is what placed that kind of role onto him of what he was allowed to be able to run, not himself. And on that he actually treated the sex workers he employed well and respected them enough to give them more opportunity.** He recognizes they don't have much in the way of options either.

Louis employed sex workers, yes, but he didn't subject them to abuse, (like how Armand was)*. He didn't oversee things in a way that would go against their consent (see; episode 1 again)**. Sometimes a job is just a job. And Sex work is work.

Armand's particular past with sexual abuses may strike a particular cord with Louis, given all that, but the very last thing either is thinking is that Louis' pimping Armand out here. This is merely their decision as companions, and had nothing to do with adding another line in a laundry list of selling Armands body out to people at the command of someone else. Armand rescinds some of his control to Louis' wishes, because he wants him, and he trusts him, that's all.

If you aren't allowing Armand that choice, and are doubtful it's fully his, you're putting him right back in the box of being defined by his abuses. Putting him back into that space where he isn't given any agency over what he does. (Which is exactly opposite of what the intent of this scene is for)*.

*: (edit) added for clarity.

**: (strike through) numerous people are saying I'm misremembering these points so disregard it. (Thought he was siding with Bricks, it was the other way around). (Technically one aspect of those opportunities were for getting around the law). I don't have a perfect memory, it happens. Let's not get mad about it. Doesn't change much of the point which is that Louis, now, Louis then, was always considering more about the running things and for stated purposes. So I guess I'd say he may only have respected the SWers enough sometimes for what allowed him to do that, and there are moments he certainly expressed remorse over the fact, but he has a great deal higher respect for Armand that is genuine. It's incomparable. Please read my added notes in the tags, it should address most other concerns.

[stellasolaris]

i've always thought riven got unnecessary hate for the scene in which he storms off and announces he's going to transfer to another squad in season one. naturally, i thought i'd chime in with my two cents that no one asked for.

first of all, it is important to understand what led to his confrontational demeanor. his hostility did not stem from him being an inherently 'shitty' person or just because he had lost the race. before the race even began, riven had a pot of water dumped on him (which was more or less warranted) after which he was given a faulty helmet that resulted in his loss in the race. now, we as viewers, are aware that bloom was tricked into giving riven the helmet as an apology gift, but riven doesn't know that. given the past humiliation and his lack of familiarity with bloom, it is understandable that riven finds it reasonable to question her motives. to riven, it makes more sense that bloom must have tried to sabotage his race just so that sky could win. which, yes, sky did somehow end up winning by default.

what ultimately served as the breaking point was sky agreeing with bloom (a girl sky barely knew at the time) and taking her side over his. on some level, riven obviously felt betrayed because he's known sky longer. again, viewers know sky and others were only trying to understand the situation and not take any sides. here, riven could have shown maturity by pausing and talking things out, but by this point, he starts perceiving everything as a personal attack since no one is offering him any backing because no one (minus bloom) knew what had exactly happened. it's a bit of a tricky situation for everyone involved.

to be clear, i'm not saying riven was innocent – because he wasn’t; he kept toying with the line between bantering and being arrogant until he took it too far and provoked bloom – but to call him mean-spirited or hateful without understanding the context is ridiculous.

[i-dreamed-i-had-a-son]

Broke (2016): BBC Sherlock is a phenomenal piece of media and anything that seems like a flaw just hasn't been fully explored yet

Woke (2020): BBC Sherlock is an incredibly flawed series run by an egotistical writer, it never deserved the hype and is actively bad on so many fronts (especially representation)

Bespoke (2024): BBC Sherlock is flawed and bogged down by increasingly poor writing, which many fans refused to see while it was airing, leading to hugely misplaced expectations (particularly for the final series), AND it has the seeds of some compelling characterizations and portrayals, some genuinely solid performances, and touches--albeit imperfectly--on complexities that are still being discussed today (particularly as it relates to the relationship between Sherlock and John). The huge cultural impact of the show has created a massive pendulum effect in its public perception, leading to most people today remembering a caricature of the show (whether positive or negative) rather than appreciating its nuanced merits and failings...that being said Season 4 sucked

[calware]

"i happened to not find this character very interesting or likeable" doesn't automatically mean they're an objectively bland and boring character it just means you have a personal opinion

[mephoj]

taco and mephone have fascinating parallels more people could explore if taco haters weren't biased cowards

[caeslxys]

Zephrah actively postpones ruidusborn births. It is believed that the actual number of ruidusborn in exandrian history is much larger than has been officially recorded because the stigma of it was so intense that people lied about it. Alyxian, one of the few recorded ruidusborn heroes of the calamity who received direct blessings from three different prime deities (our very own Changebringer, the Archheart, and the Moonweaver) , has been all but forgotten (read: likely erased) by history.

The Archive of knowledge that revealed the truth of Predathos and Ruidus was never some forgotten thing—it was intentionally hidden by the elites in Vasselheim. And we have no idea how long they have been operating with that knowledge. We have no idea what they have been doing with that knowledge, what silent wars have been waging for years or decades or centuries. But we saw what they were willing to do, in Hearthdell. We saw the violence and suppression they were willing to commit. We saw the pettiness of the exandrian pantheon in the Dawnfather’s response to Deanna’s: “Are you worth saving?”. In the Changebringer’s manipulative change of course in her pleas to FCG. In the Wildmother’s rejection of Opal. In the knowledge we have that Imogen spent so much of her miserable time in Gelvaan begging the gods to aid her to no avail—just for Kord to reach out only to demand that she not let them down.

Liliana’s point that Vasselheim and the other faithful elite of the world will hunt ruidusborn down to negate even the potential of this happening again isn’t new, it isn’t something this solstice and the machinations surrounding it caused, and it isn’t some unsubstantiated, fearful claim—it has been happening.

The vanguard—and Liliana—are unequivocally wrong in their means. But can you really fault them in their desire? Can you really fault the conclusions they have drawn from the experiences they have lived? If you spend your entire life being rejected by the people and the pantheon of your world for means you could not possibly control, would you not seek out someone and somewhere that would accept you? And if you found it, if some being that has been connected with you your whole life welcomed you home and wrapped you in an embrace that felt like your mother’s and says that it is starving; well, aren’t you, too?

There is likely a holy war brewing. At the end of it all, is it truly the sole fault of the people and not the organizations and society that expelled them?

[fifiophobia]

I don’t want to be that one person, but why do fandoms (and sometimes writers) tend to excuse morally grey dads/father figures whereas morally grey moms/mother figures are often demonized?

Don’t get me wrong, I love morally grey dads in fiction! I think their presence reminds us that parents are still people and we shouldn’t put anyone on a pedestal (parent or not). Also a lot of them are just fun characters overall!

It’s just a little frustrating to me when I’m seeing discussions related to these kinds of dads mostly focusing or believing that they’re a perfect dad who loves their kid and would never hurt them; whereas in canon said dad (while maybe not physically abusing their kid) might be prone to emotionally berating, enabling, neglecting, or trauma dumping on their kid.

Meanwhile, morally grey moms in fiction that make mistakes or hurt their kid in anyway are instantly labeled as abusive and awful characters with little or no nuance for their actions.

I want to reiterate that I’m not saying we should hate fictional dads and excuse the actions a fictional mom makes. What I am saying is that maybe we should take a step back and acknowledge “huh, maybe he isn’t worlds number one dad, and that’s ok.” and “I think this mom, while not the best, is still a character who’s been given context for their behavior, and maybe I should take away the lessons her character presents without only seeing her in a black and white lense”

[uncanny-tranny]

Something I realized (which was obvious to me subconsciously) is that... The family that vehemently didn't accept me when I first came out but now do accept me are still the same family that I am most unwilling to be open about things I feel protective over.

I remember that my dad reacted so poorly, not to my coming out, but to my transition specifically that my therapist was the one to ask if I wanted to put it on my file that I wanted nothing to ever be shared with him about my health after I broke down multiple times due to my anxiety that I would never transition. While there are and were protections for me, I was incredibly fearful at the time because I was a minor, and I was so worried that he would have prevented my transition that I couldn't have said for certain what (if any) lengths he would have gone to to prevent that.

He's grown a lot as a person, and made some commendable strides. But he didn't find out from me when I medically transitioned the second I turned eighteen, and I think that's among the things that truly made him realize the scope of the issue.

I'm not here to guilt trip parents, guardians, or other members responsible for the care of the children or teens or young adults in their care.... but this is a cautionary tale. You aren't saving the people in your care when you do this, you simply reinforce an idea that you will never care for them, never want them as they are, would rather them be shoved away.

When you give people reasons to be secretive, they will behave secretively. When you give people reasons to doubt their safety around you, they will become sneaky, defensive, and withdrawn. When you give people reasons to doubt that you value their life, they will believe that you don't care if they live or not.