#i'm open to discussion!

[pokemonblack3white3]

Really fun to consider pokemon characters owning merch of more high-profile trainers. Gladion has a Piers t-shirt under that hoodie. Nemona owns a poster of Red and Blue used to promote the Alola Battle Tree. Hop owns dozens of Leon trading cards that go for hundreds each with collectors. Cheren still has a Keychain he bought from the Nacrene City Museum gift shop when Lenora was still a gym leader.

Actually thinking about fandom culture in context of the pokemon world is so fun. Shauna has made amvs of characters Diantha has played. Penny religiously read Lillie's "my mom sold me to Champion Cynthia" fics. Bede runs a Galar league discourse blog on Tumblr. Drayton skipping class to read reader x Raihan rpf. There's so much potential here.

[graceofgondor]

hot take time!!

i've heard a lot of people say that todd gets mischaracterized in that people start blending ethan's personality with him to make him goofier or whatever, including like the deleted cave scene and whatnot.

but the thing to me is like, that is his character though—if you know what I mean. at that point in the story, it's evident he's come out of his shell a bit, he's gained some confidence, and more importantly, he feels like he fits in with the other boys. this is like SUPER evident the night of the play, he's messing around with them when they're getting ready, he's super duper excited to see neil, i mean—he's comfortable.

i think because it all gets taken away so quickly and BECAUSE we don't see that cave scene and his poem after the play, it just cuts so quickly to neil having died and a somewhat reversion to his previous self (albeit NOT entirely because he wouldn't have stood on the desk at the end if he didn't have an arc) people forget how much he had really opened up.

obviously, yes, neil was a huge part of it, and losing him made todd falter for SURE, especially beyond anyone else. but i think his arc is WHY that was so detrimental. neil (with the aid of mr keating as well) showed him the joys of opening up, of standing up for the inherent fact that you believe you should. so of course, that person that showed him everything being gone so suddenly would cut deep—but it doesn't mean that he hadn't changed, it doesn't mean he lost that will to stand, because he still did.

so to me, that little part of the story where he's almost extroverted in a sense, goofing around with the other boys, happy for neil, reading his own poem aloud, etc. is where he was more of himself than he had ever been, at least in a long time.

obviously i haven't psycho-analyzed todd's character nearly as much as some of the others, but that's how i see it. it's another case of, again, both lack of denouement and over-generalization by the fandom when it comes to the character, which creates that perception.

[thelilylav]

So while everyone is trying to get any discourse that isn't Apple related going, would this be a good time to mention I think Faybelle/Apple and Briar/Raven have more parallels than Apple/Briar and Faybelle/Raven? Or talk about the realtionship between Raven and Briar at all? Anybody here?

[touchmytooter]

david crosby and graham nash - definitely fucked definitely in love with each other in some way

neil young and stephen stills - didn't fuck but that isn't needed for the toxic yaoi to be real

robbie robertson and levon helm - this was real as hell

anything including bob dylan - obviously real

peter tork and mike nesmith - didn't fuck but should've

paul mccartney and john lennon - acknowledge as real on some level while deriving no pleasure from it

paul simon and art garfunkel - i would bet both my kidneys on it

[aingeal98]

No one asked so feel free to ignore this, but I think it’s a little bit reductive to view Willis as an abuser when nothing really states that in pre-flashpoint comics.

Like Cathrine getting “drug abuser” pushed onto her while her introduction just called her sick, and Willis being a criminal (working illegal street gambling), and getting painted as an abusive father/husband, paints a ugly picture on people’s bias towards poor families.

It’s kinda how people assume Steph was dirt poor like Jason when she’s stated she’s from the suburbs multiple times. (And while there are suburban ghettos it doesn’t really seem like her financial situation was ever as dire as Duke and Jason’s growing up.)

Very true! I do agree with all of this tbh. There was classism involved in how Catherine's initial illness went from just "sick" to drug use, and same for Willis. When I knew nothing about Jason except from reading wikis, batfam fics and Cass comics, I just thought Willis had always been the way Lobdell wrote him, and then when I actually read Jason's Robin comics I was like hm. That's a bit odd, maybe there's something I'm missing because he seems pretty absent but that's like. It. Jason clearly cares about him! But he can't be around because Batman and Robin need to be a thing.

Since then I've read a lot of good meta from Jason fans on the topic, most of them were along the lines of what you're saying, pointing out the classism at play that's always damned Jason since he was first rebooted from a circus kid. However I've also seen good meta about Robin Jason's anger towards abusive men, and how bitter some of his speech is, that made me a bit more open minded towards the idea of bad dad Willis. I don't really mind when fans want to explore how Willis may have contributed to that mindset Jason had, but it crosses into ick territory for me when they use it as an excuse to prop up Bruce, who's canonically a much worse father. Ultimately I think what it comes down to for me is if the headcanon is done in a way to reinforce the classism at play in the narrative, or if it's aware of what Jason's up against and not trying to paint Willis as naturally abusive due to being poor and a criminal. YMMV on whether the person writing the meta/fic manages to land the headcanon well, but whereas before I used to have a "ew" gut reaction to seeing bad dad Willis, nowadays I'm willing to wait until I've read the full meta/fic to decide if I like it or not. In the comics though? Yeah fuck that, no thank you. I don't trust them to do it in a way that doesn't glorify Bruce for "saving" Jason from a doomed destiny.

It's interesting that you brought up Steph though because I do see her, Jason and Duke as three different perspectives of growing up Not Rich in Gotham. Jason obviously had it the worst, dirt poor. I do think Steph was meant to be in a bad financial state at the start of her appearances, despite living in the suburbs. But there was a clear progression in the comics of her and Crystal getting better and more stable, which is an interesting contradiction of Dixon's. He hated women and poor people and it showed in how he wrote Steph, but he also liked Steph, as much as he could like a female character while being so misogynistic. So she was given the rare opportunity to escape from the poverty he initially wrote her in, to be one of the 'good ones' who worked hard and got out. And then DC killed her, because even if she managed to make it out of poverty, she couldn't escape from being a girl.

And then there's Duke, who's from the Narrows and who's dad was a non union worker at one point (the monologue Duke gave about the shadow crews was so good PLEASE dc give me more of that Gotham worldbuilding from Duke's pov). There's so much there that still hasn't been fully explored and I'm hungry for more because despite everything going on during Zero Year, when we first meet him he and his family seem stable. It's almost like a reverse of Steph, where location wise he's in a poor area of the city but in terms of how his house looks like it seems fine! Whereas Steph is in the suburbs but her house initially looks... not great. So I'd put him at around the same level as Steph financially just based on living in the Tracy Towers and what we know of his parents careers, but with a much less toxic family situation, which meant that they were probably more secure in their finances even when the Riddler was around pulling some fuckshit. And obviously after the Joker attack he's in the foster system and then in the Manor and then living with a cousin. I need DC to give us more on the Thomas family like we don't even know if his dad is well or still Jokerized! And he stands to be such an interesting contrast to both Steph and Jason. Robins two four and six, three different ways of growing up in Gotham when you're not rich as hell, the similarities and differences between them... I don't trust DC to write it well but I want it all the same.

This turned into a big ramble lmao but thank you for the ask!

[lillalis]

Small rant incoming lol

I'm aware of the fact that Elliott seems to be one of the more controversial bachelors... but phew, I didn’t know how some people were so butthurt about his existence. Guy is just vibing and, when marrying the farmer, living his best life.

"He's a snob and arrogant" - just because his portrait is in side profile? Then, with that logic, Sandy is on the same page. However, I can see how his loved gifts can give this impression (since it's very difficult getting those items in Year 1). The loved gifts do imply how he probably grew up in a rather rich family. And just because he takes care of his appearance doesn't mean he's arrogant! For someone who's coming from a (most likely) upper class, he is very down-to-earth and pretty aware of his upbringing. He never insults the farmer or makes fun of the Farmer's style choice CoughHaleycough, instead he greets the farmer with open arms and curiosity. Also he seems to have grown up in the upper class, which explains his loved gifts and the things he likes to have at the cinema; the fact that he seems to care alot about his appearance (especially his hair) seems to stem from his upbringing too. Ultimately he's an absolute romantic, believing hin the most cliché stuff about love ever (see his four heart event where he wants to impress the farmer through his gentlemany gesture). He just wants to love someone who loves and values him the way he is.

"He's a creep" - see this point is a pretty complex one. His four heart event is rather goofy and more light-hearted; sure Gus seems annoyed, but it appears in a more "man, not this again, wanting to impress the farmer now?" thing. They don't seem to have any beef whatsoever!

And then there's the ten heart event.

While the gesture is a sudden one without consent, you have to keep one thing on mind: you, the farmer, gave him a bouquet - which means that you are interested in more than friendship. It's an invitation to get closer, to be more intimate. In-game, he's your boyfriend, you're dating- it might get romatic fast or you can take your time. But at this point in his ten heart event, he chooses to get more direct and serious. The main point is how the Farmer trembles in this scene after Elliott kisses them. Sure, it could be the sudden action and shock that makes the farmer tremble. But again it could be anything, it's more up for interpretation to be honest. CA had his intention with the way of portraying this scene and the choices to choose from.

And that's where we get to the burning point: the writing of this scene. You see, most people hate this heart scene because you are all alone with him on the boat, in the middle of the sea. With the whole consent debate, it's pretty obvious why people think he's a creep.

HOWEVER he isn't the only one, who is with you all alone. What about Sebastian's ten heart event? Harvey's ten heart event? They, too, bring you to a place you can't escape easily. If y'all want to hold Elliott accountable, you should hold the other bachelors accountable too. As much as I don't like saying it, ConcernedApe has his weak moments in character writing with a few discrepancies here and there - his leaning towards the more popular characters doesn't help either (but this is more a fandom thing; seeing what the fandom prefers and going along with it).

Tl;dr: he's not as bad as people seem to portray him; he's one of the few people who are nice to the farmer on the get-go. He probably grew up rather isolated and comes from the upper class which explains his awkward social skills but he's still down-to-earth for someone his status - on top of that he seems very aware of his behaviour and seems to be slightly insecure about it. The ten heart is one of those cases where, yes, it seems to have clear implications but ultimately it's up to you how you interpret it since CA leaves most things rather broad. Also his ten heart event is NOT the only one, where you're all by yourself with a romance blend character. Multiple characters have inconsistent writing and CA seems to very much tend to see how the fandom sees the characters and not standing behind his original ideas (no hate towards him! It's still amazing how he managed to do everything by himself).

Anyway, Elliott my beloved husband they could never make me hate you ❤️❤️❤️❤️

[arrgh-whatever]

can you recommend any (non-fiction) podcasts? i discovered that listening to a podcast while working does wonders to my productivity

[thegroundhogdidit]

so like i've been avoiding saying this bc i don't want to get beaten to death with hammers but i find it really interesting that those theories about how lestat's striped suit at the trial symbolized him being held captive always fail to mention that armand was also wearing stripes. i'm not disagreeing that it might be symbolism either i actually think that could be some really cool symmetry. maybe armand's stripes being harder to notice parallels how his version of being held captive is a lot more subtle. more psychological even. genuinely can we talk about this i feel like it should be recognized more in this fandom since we love to talk about costuming choices and symbolism

[transingthoseformers]

I've really been thinking about the Quintessons from a parasitic angle, especially considering their aligned iterations

[captainjonnitkessler]

What's your feelings on landback?

It's complicated! Especially since "landback" is used as an extremely vague catch-all term for a wide variety of action.

Some people define it as defending and expanding sovereignty over the land already controlled by indigenous tribes, forcing the US government to uphold its treaties, generally supporting and protecting indigenous cultures, and fighting for environmental protections and better stewardship of the earth, all of which I fully support.

Some people define it as "returning sovereignty of ancestral lands to the tribes who used to inhabit them" and tbqh I don't know how that's supposed to work. Kind of seems like any steps taken to ensure that native people retain control over the land/government would necessitate disenfranchising 98% of the country, and that seems pretty bad to me! And no, I don't think disenfranchising almost your entire population is an ethical or effective way to make reparations for past atrocities.

Most of the info I can find on the subject is very much style over substance and doesn't contain any actual plan of action, so it's hard to find concrete info on what the second group is actually proposing.

[lenodrysalad]

"Eddie said he's straight! Buck said Eddie was straight! Buck said he's not in love with his best friend! They shut down Buddie in the show it isn't happening ya'll are delusional! Queerbait! Queerbait! Blah blah blah"

I feel like I'm going insane. I'm sure we're all tired of people shouting "media literacy" every five seconds, but like... Yeah, develop some media literacy, please.

I'm saying this as someone who doesn't usually like romance, despite being subjected to it in basically every piece of media. As someone who doesn't generally look for love stories. As someone who loved Buddie but didn't consider any serious possibility of it becoming canon before season 7/8, who refused to believe Buddie was truly happening until I couldn't deny it anymore: this episode is loud.

Please understand how narrative arcs work. How character arcs work. How character development works. How serial broadcast television works. Understand how writing works. Consider context; take the whole episode, the whole season, and the whole series into account instead of treating things like they exist in isolation.

I'm too tired to go through the step-by-step details of the episode to prove why these, "they said it on screen, therefore..." takes are shortsighted and ignorant; plenty of people have done that already.

But that episode, even if we do take it in isolation, is textbook. Do people really take everything characters say at face value? Do people not watch other character's reactions? Listen to what else is being said? Watch what is being shown? Consider the implications? Themes? Narrative devices?

Consider that maybe, just maybe, characters can be unreliable narrators, or believe something to be true only for that belief to change later. These things don't happen in one episode. There's such a thing as set-up, foreshadowing, the starting point of a plot. 911 is a serial drama, therefore it is going to have A) long-form story and character arcs, and B) drama.

Characters are not going to move in straight lines, or talk in therapy speak, or solve every problem in an hour. They are not always going to be right, or self-aware, or truthful, or rational. Direct dialogue does not equate to honest dialogue.

Also, saying, "well in real life, people do this, I do that, their feelings would be this, yadda yadda yadda" means nothing. Your experiences are not universal, and more importantly, this is a work of fiction. Realism is whatever the story says it is; it's going to do whatever creates the most dramatic, interesting, developmentally beneficial, or emotionally satisfying story. Whether you like that story or not is irrelevant to the fact that stories are not going to cater to all your expectations or real-world experiences.

To people pointing to Tim or the actor's interviews as "proof" they're shutting down Buddie: again, please understand how broadcast television works. They are not going to tell us everything that's going to happen before it happens. They are going to play the neutral zone, the "wait and see," the "will they/won't they." They are going to lie. That is television production 101. You can compare what they've said in the past with canon and list all the contradictions, misdirection, and twists you didn't see coming because they didn't spoil it for you. Watch the show. That is the canon.

They're also not catering to fandom--people they already know are devoted to the show, familiar with Buddie, and consistently tuning in. They're introducing the idea of Buddie to the general audience, people who likely haven't considered the possibility before. The GA has to see that Buddie is an option, so the show needs to manifest it as if it's a brand new concept. This episode pulled the pin on that grenade in a very obvious way; the idea that Buck could be in love with Eddie and that Eddie could not be straight has been planted. The next seed will be Eddie's feelings. Now the show needs to water it and let it grow.

One last thing. Been seeing a fair amount of hand-wringing and condescension over people interpreting this episode differently. As if this is some sort of "gotcha" for bad writing, baiting, or people being stupid. Listen, genuine complaints about this show's writing aside, different interpretations or inferences are completely normal. This isn't unique. That is how people interact with stories, through personal biases, experiences, emotions, and expectations. That isn't inherently a bad thing. It's totally fine to have your own views; media is all about interpretation.

However, it is also true that just because you have an interpretation, that doesn't make it true. Not all interpretations are equal in their validity, evidence, or warrants. The show has an intention, it has a story in mind. If you don't see it, sure, that could be a failure of the writing, but it could also very well be a failure of your analysis, especially when the show hasn't finished telling the story. Looking at one thing in isolation and forming your whole conclusion based around that makes for poor critique.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see who's right.

[a-dragons-journal]

Its cool that you are reminding people that sending sui baits / harassment is bad, even if you disagree with the person they're being sent to. That's v important. Unfortunately I think the core root of the problem is that your positions on that topic do often directly lead to people being hateful and exclusionary.

You constantly talk about how both the label and concept of p-shifting is bad and harmful, and that anyone using the label is choosing to align themselves with harmful people and community and maybe even confusing or grooming young altsrhumans.

And you constantly talk about how people *must* seperate shared reality from personal reality, and that not doing so is bad and harmful and can lead to worse things.

So therefore, people who disagree with the above, by your own logic, are going to be immediately cast as bad and harmful, and possibly even as groomers, cultists, or otherwise.

You have made a position that by default leads to the villifying of the people you disagree with. And as was pointed out in the post you're referencing, it just so happens to align with systemic oppression of many groups. So like it or not, you are directly contributing to the mindset that causes ppl to harass others.

Also to add on to previous anon, I'm not meaning to come across as like. Accusatory? This is my genuine perception / opinion of how people get to the point of sending sui bait to people's inboxes. And my perception of how you talk about these subjects. I don't think you're doing any of that on purpose? But that's just how it comes across. Its just really sad to see someone who was in the community for years leave because of this. And I'm sorry, but I think we all know who he's talking about when it said "big name" alterhuman accounts who are against these things

Yeah, I'm not unaware of that. And I don't know how to fix that without flipping completely to "the separation of shared reality/personal reality doesn't matter at all," which I strenuously disagree with - because while it may theoretically work fine on the level of, say, individual nonhumans, if you embrace that as true then anyone can say anything and no one can fact-check it ever, and on the broader scale that does not work. If you accept that the distinction between personal reality and shared reality doesn't matter, then flat-earthers and young earth creationists have claims just as valid as actual science does, and - surely I don't need to explain the problems with that?

To explain where I'm at more thoroughly/clearly: I do think the distinction between personal reality and shared reality is important and I think it's important to be clear when you're talking about one vs the other, because one can be disproven and the other can't, and if you don't clarify the general observer is going to assume you're talking about shared reality. That's to say nothing of the harm that encountering unreality (to use the common term) like that can do for a lot of people, which is yet another reason it's important to make the distinguishment. But I also don't think that means personal reality should be seen as less important or less real for you than shared reality, though gods know we've got a long way to go on unraveling that particular bias.

And while on the one hand I don't generally think it's helpful or right to go around reality checking people, especially strangers, this community specifically objectively does have a long history of p-shifting claims directly and consistently leading to abuse, and it becomes a risk calculation of whether letting this person go around using the exact same language that group has historically used and/or doing the same things they did is going to do more net harm than telling them to provide proof or fuck off is. Particularly when it comes to the specific word p-shifter, in my opinion at least, if someone's using language they know comes from that history, they... shouldn't be surprised when people assume they're doing the thing that that word has historically meant. (And historically, even beyond the abuse, the most well-known p-shifters were often just flat-out lying, and at least a few of them came out later and openly admitted it. They were not experiencing a personal reality difference, they were lying about shared reality to manipulate people.)

And that's the problem, isn't it - where do you draw the line? When do you pull the alarm cord on someone for lying and misleading people about what is and isn't possible in shared reality? "Making false claims about shared reality" is a clear and objective line, and while I recognize that it's got flaws, I don't really see a better one. I guess you could draw the line at "telling other people they can teach them how to do this," but in practice, things like "telling people this can't be taught but a select few are actually genetically shapeshifters (and you might be one)" is usually just as manipulative, so that doesn't really work. I'm at a point where I genuinely don't feel like there is a solution that doesn't hurt someone, and so I'm falling back on a solution that's consistent, not subjective, and as far as I can tell avoids as much harm as possible. If you've got a better solution, I'm open to hearing it, because I don't like the problems this one has, but right now it's the best I've got.

And because apparently it needs to be said (not to you, just in general), I'll tack on this: good lord, people need to get it through their heads that harassment and especially suicide bait are never helpful. It never helps. It's never justified. Even if someone was intentionally lying and starting a p-shifting cult that wouldn't fucking help anything. "This is a harmful thing/a red flag for a harmful thing" is not a fucking call for harassment it's a "you may want to avoid people doing this" and I am so tired of having to disclaimer that because I can't trust people to behave like adults. The thing I mean when I talk about this is "I think this is a bad idea and something I think most people should steer clear of because of the problems it can and does cause, and it can be a red flag for old p-shifting bullshit making a comeback" and it's a little insane to me that people have taken that and jumped all the way to "so I should harass and suicide bait people who do it, got it" instead of, I don't know, "so I should keep that in mind and be a little cautious of people doing that and maybe disallow claims about shared reality in any spaces I moderate for for safety," which seems like a much more reasonable place to land to me. Maybe I'm just not being clear enough in saying that I do still uphold "mind your own business" in relation to this unless people are actively getting hurt, I don't know.

Anyway. Yeah. Tl;dr I recognize that there's a link here but I genuinely don't see a better position to take that's internally consistent and doesn't also get people hurt. If you've got one, I'm open to hearing it, genuinely, though you'll all have to forgive me if I respond to this discussion a little slowly, my life's kind of busy right now.

[glitter-stained]

Hey do you have some sad heart breaking very depressing Jason fanfic you could recommend?👉🏼👈🏼

Sure! Here are some very lovely reads from the top of my mind:

Cumbersome and Heavy: Lost Days AU Jason with Cotard's Syndrome

Olive Branch: Red Hood and Batman negociate in the wake of Batman almost killing him

To the red planet mars: in the wake of Jason and Bruce being bound by a spell, revelations come to light

Rip up the floorboards: an investigation triggers Robin!Jason on a mission with Batman

Someday I'm gonna be somebody people want: Jason and the bats take a magical deep dive into a visceral autopsy of Jason's mind and heart.

[crows-king]

I've been thinking a bit about how Galinda and Fiyero work as foils(?), and the contrast between their goals, personality, and their relationship to social influence individually change how they navigate their specific social situations.

And why it puzzles me when people judgmentally compare them and what they'd do in "What-If" scenarios as a gotcha to make one seem better/worst. Because in my mind they are similar but not comparable, because they fundamentally have very different personal stakes.

Primarily because of the difference in how they act in an Active (Galinda) vs Passive (Fiyero) approach to social engineering. And also, because one of them in writing is more developed as an individual than the other.

I'LL MOSTLY BE TALKING ABOUT: WICKED MOVIE - PART 1

Galinda is inherently Active. She has wants and desires that she's driven to achieve, and so actively plays the part of the good socialite because it will help her become more popular and to eventually become "Galinda the GoodSorceress". "It's not about aptitude, it's about the way you're viewed", and so on. It’s the one thing she knows she’s good at.

Of course, she also likes the attention and validation, but her charms doesn't come as naturally as she wants others, and probably herself, to believe. (I love that quote Ariana said somewhere about how "Galinda sees herself as a graceful swan, when she's actually a very stiff, but still beautiful swan", or something of that sort). She's insecure that she’ll lose people's favour and thus her most important asset, so she continually appeals to them. It's an act that she simultaneously enjoys doing for the most part, but also traps her from ever being truly close to anybody for fear of being known and not meeting expectations and losing that adoration. Until Elphaba that is.

Because of her drive to fulfill her dreams and to keep her best asset, and personal desperate need for validation, she has a much more obvious internal conflicts when she has to choose between Elphaba/the moral good vs keeping with the good graces of authority and/or the public. She's more prone to being influenced by others, and many of her choices become a calculated risk. She’s often times selfish and chooses her own desires, but it’s what makes her such an interesting and very human character. The struggle she balances when she’s forced to choose for better or worse.

In contrast

Fiyero is Passive. Dancing Through Life is literally him telling others that being lazy and not thinking is the best way to cope and enjoy life by ignoring problems. He is discontent with his life, but doesn't really acknowledge it until Elphaba reads him. Much like Galinda he is also playing a part, but it's not as tightly controlled as Galinda because he doesn't have an end goal for it.

Of course, while he probably doesn't want to lose his princely privileges. His passive "brainless" approach doesn't really put him in risky situations that would put him in conflict leading to losing things he cares about, because he really doesn't have a lot to lose. (Which is a byproduct of the fact he is primarily written as a love interest side character without much of an arc or motives outside his love triangle relationship to Elphaba and Galinda).

What confounds me is when people compare them and judge what their choices would be in if they were placed in pivotal moments, because we never really see them in situations with similar stakes.

For example, the Lion Cub scene. Most people interpret this scene as an act of braverism and heroics by Fiyero. And in some part it is, he's spurred on to save the cub, and he and Elphaba do. But it's telling that he only does this after everyone is asleep and there are virtually no risks. Any present social or physical conflicts that could arise? POOF! Gone. The worst that could probably be done to them is being punished, or even kicked out, if they’re discovered afterwards. Which Fiyero is not new to and doesn't really care about, and while maybe uncertain for Elphaba, is also unlikely because she's Morrible's irreplaceable pupil.

Some people use this scene as evidence that under his facade, Fiyero is secretly valiant like Elphaba thinks so. But I think in actuality tells the opposite. It reveals that Fiyero does care about the Animals, yes. But, the fact he only acts when prompted and there are no longer any present risks initially makes him seem less brave than Elphaba, and even Galinda. Because it contrasts with the Ozdust dance scene between the girls. Where Galinda had to make an active choice to do the risky and brave thing as an apology for hurting Elphaba, and offer to truly connect with her in front of everyone with the possibility of social out casting. She has an obvious internal conflict and risk assessment where she ends up picking the moral good over her personal comfort and social appeal. I'm genuinely curious on what kind of choices Elphaba, Galinda, and Fiyero might have done in that situation if they weren't given the perfect out by the magic poppies.

Would Galinda have helped in with the lion cub if she were awake? Probably, but who knows? Because in the narrative, Galinda isn't really put in a situation where she could choose good without being watched or without someone breathing down her neck. The prospect of being punished and kicked out from Shiz would also be most plausible and ruinous for Galinda. Morrible would definitely use it as an excuse to kick her out, or at the very least punish her, if she could, and it could throw away her only chance of achieving her dream of becoming a sorceress. She would have probably joined them in the end, though. If only to make sure they were safe. Compared to Fiyero, she has more conflicts of interests because she has personal aspirations and influence based on her reputation, and thus have more fears and consequences to consider in losing it.

Would Fiyero have joined Elphaba on the broom? Maybe, mostly likely. Because narratively, he’s never given a reason why he shouldn’t. He doesn’t see his worth and his skills intrinsically tied to public influence and opinion. He doesn’t have any wants or wishes he would have to abandon. He’ll have to leave his friends and family, but it’s not shown how close they really are to him outside Feldspar, his Horse friend, and he’s probably joining them anyway. He’s definitely more equipped to survive on the run compared to Glinda. Unlike Glinda, who is proven right in the end to being most useful when she can wield her powerful social influence For Good, Fiyero would probably be most useful as a sidekick to Elphaba. He was always written to be Elphaba’s follower, it’s no surprise. It’s also easier to take risks when you don’t have much to lose. But I think most people would agree that would make a less interesting story.

[poorly-drawn-mdzs]

Bingqiu ponies (Happy Birthday @Piosplayhouse!)

[pansexualhousecat]

seems like mel's VA said that mel isn't manipulative and people are taking her word as gospel as all fandoms do when a VA speaks up about any media, unfortunately.

i understand her point in that mel was trying to do what she thought was right and that is true, mel is someone who grew up seeing war and colonization because of noxus and her mother so she has a different view of the world and thinks what she's doing is the best and she does have good intentions to protect people.

but she was still manipulating the people around her to get what she wanted. does it mean she's a terrible person and the worst villain in the series? of course not and people who think like that are dumb. her manipulation comes from a good intention in her mind (protecting Piltover) but comes at the expense of the people who were actually suffering which are the people of Zaun, the people that the council ignored, let die and rot until they thought they were a threat to their perfect city. that includes mel.

mel is not a horrible person, but she's not 100% good either, her manipulation coming from a place of good intentions does not erase that but it also does not make her the worst person in the show. people don't seem to understand that the characters are not one dimensional, pointing out flaws in a character doesn't mean it's hate, it's analysis of them.

BUT!!! of course there are people who are spreading misogynoir rhetoric towards mel as well and i'm not denying that at all either, people are disgusting towards poc characters and especially women.

i love mel and i think she's one of the smartest characters in the show and her story is incredible, i'm excited to see more and how she grows. i'm not saying she's a villain in any way here, just explaining my thoughts. we should think critically about characters and not see them as just one thing, having flaws is important to every character and sometimes these flaws are something that helps them achieve what they want, just doesn't make these flaws something good.