#i.e. the wrong kind of romanticism

[sigritandtheelves]

So i went to meetings and the grocery store and there was Discourse. I can’t believe there’s “Mulderist” vs “Scullyist” discussion happening… have i traveled back in time to 1998? What’s going on? Where am i?

The problem with the “Mulder suffered too!” argument—aside from the fact that it hits me the same way as “not all men”—is that every single time Mulder suffered and was tortured etc. etc. was a product of his own agency: his choice to run head-first into danger, to hurl himself at it because of Quest, because of Truth, because he saw himself as the Hero. This is precisely what @leiascully was saying but i want to say it again louder. Mulder made active narrative choices as the Hero, which led to his suffering.

Scully never had choices.

Additionally, the “wHY dO wE nEvEr tALK aBoUt mULdEr’S sUFfeRiNg?!?!” complaint is like… the whole goddamned show is about his suffering? He’s literally a Byronic hero? Scully’s tragedy is much more subtextual, and I think it took me a lot longer to be able to see it fully—partially because I was a kid during the original run and now i have Wisdom or whatever—but it does strike me as deeper, just because you have to do a bit more work to see how cruel the narrative was to her over the whole run.

The thing about the X-Files is that some of it is about misogyny—evil men experimenting on women, not seeing them as fully human, Jerse’s and Pfaster’s hatred of women made monstrous, etc.—but much of it is misogynist (even if unintentionally) in its writing and narrative structure. That’s kind of the great irony: that it treated its female characters almost as badly as the evil men in-universe did. (Not jumping back into my "CC is CSM" diatribe, but… he is.)

Anyway, we are not comparing suffering, we are comparing writing that gives some characters agency and continually strips it from others. We are talking about narrative choices that seem exceptionally cruel when you examine the storyline end-to-end, but which were written off quickly because of… laziness? various external constraints? an inability to see the big picture and understand your own story?

tl;dr: It’s heartbreaking and infuriating to be a fan of this show.

[pinkandpurple360]

it's weird that the best 'defence' the show could potentially muster for Stolas is also the one the show is desperate not to rely on

when hezuneutral was describing Stol/tz circa s1 in her review of the circus she described it as 'Blitzo used Stolas for his book so Stolas turned around and used him right back - they were mutually being assholes and that made it interesting' (paraphrasing but that was the crux of it)

and like, obviously what Stolas does is still way way worse but at least under this framing there's at least the idea that Stolas knows what he's doing is using Blitzo as a means to an end. that the feelings evolved over time until the gap between what he wanted and what they actually had was so big he couldn't ignore it any more

but the show as of season 2 seems super reluctant to have Stolas acknowledge he was using Blitzo solely for sex in the early days. first we get the flashback of them as kids outright retconning in the idea that he always saw Blitzo in a romantic light

then the 'what's between you and I/just a comfortable lie' line really makes it seem like Stolas was deluding himself that the arrangement was some kind of pseudo dating they were doing (otherwise why is he empathizing so hard with telenovelas where the heroine bemoans the hero not loving her??? It can only mean Stolas expected to have Blitzo's love and more romantic feeling from him despite the deal being in place - he doesn't seem to think it's remotely weird Blitzo calls him up to go to a club, immediately refers to it as a 'date', etc) & that Blitzo telling him off at Ozzie's was some sort of rude awakening

and it's really weird because the pilot/Murder Family Stolas reads as more, idk, aware of exactly what he's doing and why he's doing it? It'd be far easier for him to develop as a character and see what he's doing is wrong and apologize for it because the original full moon deal scene suggests a Stolas who wasn't fooling himself that he was principally out for sex i.e. he could actually recognize and admit what he did and why

retcon season 2 Stolas is being pushed by the writers as someone who just sort of stumbled into the deal, likely isn't capable of acknowledging it was his idea without victim blaming that he thought Blitzo wanted it, too (when there is literally nothing Blitzo has done after their one night stand that should give him that idea) and so far has presented as someone incapable of understanding how he's wronged Blitzo (the 'I'm sorry if something I said or did at Ozzie's offended you' text message, still pawing at him during seeing stars)

like Stol/tz is already a bafflingly toxic main ship for a show to have, but between:

option a) Stolas who recognizes he just wanted sex in the beginning, caught feelings and feels bad about it so could change and respect Blitzo more

and

option b) Stolas who is ignorant of the circumstances in which he got a 'childhood friend', romanticized that one day for the next 25 years and then is incapable of recognizing he coerced said only friend into sex and ignored a huge amount of what Blitzo said, did & felt and anything resembling logical behaviour to convince himself they were sort-of dating this whole time, culminating in him potentially getting mad at and publically dragging Blitzo for daring to call him out when he decided to ditch the arrangement and just ask Blitzo out like he should've done to begin with

I feel like if the show is gonna force Blitzo to be with Stolas anyway option A is actually the better choice, because at least A has some emotional and self awareness and isn't so pathetic he won't even own up to his worst behavior (funnily enough this extends to his behavior towards Stella - s1 Stolas felt guilt and shame over cheating, s2 Stolas has decided he never did a damn thing wrong to begin with)

the biggest bone the show has thrown critics of Stolas up til now is him calling their arrangement transactional in the trailer and calling himself a monster in the duet. but none of that is gonna mean a whole lot if he ends up refusing to listen to Blitzo's feelings, publically berating him through song and making snotty comments like asking Blitzo if he regrets what he's done - he'll be just as self obsessed and unempathetic as before. And all Blitzo ever did to Stolas that he can criticize him for is stealing the book.

It takes a huge amount of mental backbends to even suggest Blitzo led him on or played with his feelings in any meaningful way because Stolas is the one who ensured Blitzo was forced to deal with him & appease him every month, something which he did while maintaining a neutral at best, annoyed/frustrated at worst attitude towards him

I keep reading option b) and I’m just so confused at what was even being attempted in that writing room. And the bone is only thrown to poke fun at people, to have the idea of him being a monster be so funny and silly that this sweet goofball boy thinking that of himself is just plain funny! When uh, no.

We had someone who was malicious, cunning, but still somewhat quirky and endearing with a soft side. A scary morally grey creature who pretends to be weaker than he truly is (see: when he hired theme park security then effortlessly defended himself right after). And is manipulative to everyone around him but can’t help drop the manipulative side around his child, she was unique in that she can see right through him, as perceptive as he can be at times, and has the ability and the position to call him out. Making him slightly nervous but admiring her intelligence at the same time. So at least in loo loo land he was redeemable to me, his dark side being predatory lust and classism, his good side being a reflective humble and protective father. With the good side winning out in the end. I liked that relationship because it was like Octavia saying “dad you don’t need to control people to make them care about you, stop playing these games. Im here, I care, and I just want your time, and honesty” So he abandons the fake, forced connection with a disadvantaged person, to work harder on improving his authentic one with an equal. I feel like if the affair ended after harvest moon and the crystal exchange happened right then and there, his story arc would be complete and be a positive one.

He was a mess but it was just, better. I feel like that unique dynamic is gone now. Back then the flaws and bad actions were the point and he fit right in, now all those things are hand waived with a million asterisks. The “security for a theme park?” “Look via! It’s looloo!” “A ripoff of lucifers more popular lulu world” - Via and stolas are kinda gone. Now he’s a blameless martyr who takes blame where he shouldn’t, and she’s utterly in the dark. That’s an entire 180 flip. He’s ignorant, enthusiastic, slightly obtuse, where she’s perceptive, cynical, and very sharp. It just worked. Stolas is not nearly as likeable as Doofenschmirtz and Vanessa but could have been.

Trying to make his lustful relationship his redeeming quality and making him as weak helpless and pathetic as possible for pity, fails dramatically. We know how strong he is, we know he’s lust driven, the romance thing began at the very end of season one. His behaviour just doesn’t match up with the backstory at all. And makes me feel like he has entire sketchbooks of blitz drawings and fanfics about them that he’s been putting together for over 20 years like an obsessive freak. I find it very weird that Hezu and others were just okay with shipping something where one person is acknowledged to be roped into and manipulated into sex , but I think we are all on the same page now.

Not a single one of his three soon to be four long winded sad songs about Blitzø line up in a continuum at all. He feels sad and lied to, then he takes accountability and is heartbroken that it’s over, then he just can’t figure out if he’s done anything wrong and can’t wait to get together? Then he hates him? Why even adapt LMW at all then? Damn.

[ecoamerica]

Watch the American Climate Leadership Awards 2024 now: https://youtu.be/bWiW4Rp8vF0?feature=shared

The American Climate Leadership Awards 2024 broadcast recording is now available on ecoAmerica's YouTube channel for viewers to be inspired by active climate leaders. Watch to find out which finalist received the $50,000 grand prize! Hosted by Vanessa Hauc and featuring Bill McKibben and Katharine Hayhoe!

[zalrb]

what's the difference between julie and tami's relationship vs rory and lorelai's. What makes tami the better mother?

what's the difference between julie and tami's relationship vs rory and lorelai's.

Boundaries.

So, in the post that probably initiated this ask, I said this:

while Lorelai had her moments, like telling Rory she was treating Dean like dirt and then telling Rory she was wrong for sleeping with Dean when he was married and then telling her she was wrong for dropping out of Yale, for the most part I didn’t think the show really portrayed Lorelai as a mom at all. Like even when they talk about Rory growing up, it’s like Rory raised herself, she came out as this booksmart, curious kid and Lorelai just happened to luck out because what do we really know of how Lorelai actually shaped Rory as a person?

and I stand by that

although after the rewatch I did a couple of years ago, I will say we do see more moments than mentioned where Lorelai pushes Rory like when she encourages Rory to go to the formal because she doesn't want her to miss out on experiences simply because she's scared or during the Dean break up where she tells her it's OK to just wallow in how she's feeling and later on, when she says she doesn't want Rory to be closed off to love. Fine. But.

Boundaries are still an issue.

So to reiterate ... this is interesting as someone who doesn't like Julie as an individual character but Tami is understanding, she's gracious, she's communicative, she can concede things, admit when she's wrong

but she is a parent and reacts to Julie like a parent

as opposed to

she is interested in having an open relationship with her daughter, she is interested in having a relationship in which Julie will be able to come to her and talk to her

she specifically tells Eric that she will not be her own mother, she says that a daughter is entitled to an open relationship with her mother

but she is not saying this

and that's a healthy boundary to have.

Julie doesn't have to take off from school and comfort her mother over a breakup; she doesn't have to tell someone to stay away from her mother because she's worried about how Tami acts around them; Tami isn't encouraging behaviour like devil egging a seventeen year old boy's car because she doesn't like him. Tami definitely has to contend with judging other characters on the show when it comes to hanging out with Julie i.e. Tyra, although that's presented imo as a very typical parent doesn't want their kid to hang out with a 'bad influence' and not what Lorelai does and Tyra and Tami end up having their own relationship, which... not that Lorelai had to with Jess tbh, but again she's an adult and he's a kid, and she did the same thing to Dean the first time he and Rory broke up.

Like, we're keeping in mind here that the whole premise of Gilmore Girls is a romanticized "what if your mother was your best friend?" notion and FNL is a more grounded, slice of life drama which means that Tami and Julie are more organic in my opinion. Even when we're supposed to see how close Rory and Lorelai are when she tells her that she's considering sleeping with Jess despite the fact that Lorelai has extreme reservations around it, that moment isn't really anything, it's just Lorelai saying we're doing this and they eat, and put their hands on each other's backs and that's a sweet moment, sure, but it's also kind of perfunctory whereas when Tami and Julie have their sex talk, we actually see how uncomfortable it can be, how Julie can be seemingly dismissive, how she gets serious when she sees how intent Tami is and we see that actually have an effect on her

and because we actually see times where Tami struggles with Julie during her rebellious era

it has a more emotional and realistic impact when even during this time, Julie can cry with Tami or talk to Tami because of a relationship that Tami makes sure to have had established with her, which is we can open

[aquickstart]

You know the b99 episode where the dentist who did the perfect murder ends up confessing in a rage because Jake lays down the theory that he was impulsive and sloppy and simply got lucky at every turn? To me Oliver is lowkey the kind of guy Jake described.

i read your ask wrong the first time and assumed something you didn't imply at all and typed out almost a full response. talk about presumption and literacy my god. anyway. to actually answer this correctly this time.

YES. yes exactly. i don't remember this episode well. but oliver quick is impulsive and hungry and horny and confused by his desires. he is sloppy. he is the kind of guy who thinks that of course no one wants him, ugh, poor him, he deserves a sob story because he might as well have been poor and neglected, he felt like he was, so what of it; insecure but compensating by pride. he is also the kind to think that he is smarter than everyone and understands whatever he set his mind to understand better than anyone ever could (i.e. felix, the cattons, the reality of being actually poor, too). he relies on his own perception. once he establishes what he thinks is the full picture, he sticks by this understanding until he gets hit in the face by the concrete wall of reality (e.g. farleigh who keeps defying his expectation and driving him more and more mad).

in his mind, as evidenced so clearly by his monologue in the end, he calculated everything perfectly because he is so smart and everyone else isn't. the truth of it is that the cattons played with him until it was too late. it just so happened that the cattons were also sloppy with their playing, and unfortunately oliver was too impulsive, and too hungry, and never had to face rejection in a way that mattered to him before oxford (because everyone at school was an idiot, clearly, so they just didn't appreciate his genius, and his family, predominantly women, were clearly also too meek to reach his depth of thinking (i am being sarcastic. this is oliver's logic)). he fumbles everything and everyone and then soliloquizes to convince himself (and us, the audience) that he actually didn't. it wasn't actually just a crush that accidentally drove him to something sinister, because oliver quick is a cold-hearted calculating mastermind. if you implied the contrary to his face he'd flip out, probably.

so that's that. but i'll tell you why i first misread your ask. i will also tell you most of what i typed out at first because it is still relevant because of your comparison of b99, a sitcom, and saltburn, an enigma of genre.

by comparing it with a sitcom you're picking up on genre conventions and bringing up, i think, indirectly, a great point about the messiness of saltburn as a film, a cinematic work of art, and the difficulty of defining its genre because of the context of its form. i saw a comment on tiktok in a similar vein, about how saltburn defies the concept of genre and is impossible to pin down, and disagreed with it, because saltburn is fundamentally gothic romanticism, which is, however, largely (if not exclusively) a book genre/aesthetic.

yeah! so like, with this comparison, you're kinda drawing attention to the fact, i think, that oliver soliloquizing his genius plan and recounting everything we've already seen is kind of silly on its own, on a surface level. it is kind of silly because it sounds like it does in marvel-esque flicks, because in those types of stories it's a cliché that works to emphasize the villain's villainy, the pride, the presumption of the win. in those stories we know these dudes are evil (there's nuance, but in general, they are anti-heroes). and i need to stress this: saltburn can definitely be watched and read in the exact same way. surface reading can be completely justified (it is a legitimate literary practice! i have a pdf on hand if you want but here's a citation on researchgate). it's liberating not to dig into psycho- and lit-analysis of a piece and could serve some of us well.

your ask is not about that at all, but i fuckin love the comparison. because saltburn is fuckin silly in a huge part. it has a whole bunch of bits and pieces that it strings together and a lot of people are trying to pin down its genre based on individual bits that they recognize the tone of. but this kind of seeing it is a mistake, because what it does is play into the aesthetics of gothic romanticism. and gothic romanticism can be anything at all, it just has to convey certain themes in certain ways. which is what it does. so it's not that much about whether saltburn is a comedy, a drama, a horror or a thriller. it's more about the fact that it's a gothic story. i fuckin love saltburn.

[stilldancewithyou]

I really think they’re not gonna do J cheating in s3 which on one hand I’m fine with since they made him bi and as a bi person myself I don’t want to see that awful stereotype on screen for the billionth time (granted I also feel like it was so tokenized because it was such a blip and I don’t think they’ll ever mention his attraction to men ever again or explore that in a meaningful way but hey maybe they’ll surprise me since I have low expectations when it comes to TV and bi representation; personally I think Gavin has great chemistry with Sean but I’m not sure they’d ever explore j/s since people may find it weird he’d bounce between the Conklin siblings and as of now Steven is straight in the show iirc) but also I read that s2 follows the book very closely according to some extras on set and it would make me mad if they show Conrad’s very human mistakes and then sugar coat j’s so he still looks like the “nice” guy…

I can’t say j is my favorite but I also liked that the books kinda went beyond his nice guy persona and showed how this behavior can be a red flag (bc there’s too many shows that romanticize the guy who definitely sees the girl as the prize and let them end up together and like sorry to Jere who I know loved belly in his own way but his romantic intentions with her started off wrong since deep down it was about getting back and stealing something from Conrad and that just turned me off to them romantically (I do like their friendship)) but then also show him overcome it (I.e. letting belly go at their wedding day and presumably finding happiness since he was mentioned to have a plus one at the b/c wedding) I think this would be nice to see on tv but idk

granted I feel like they have shown in s1 the darker sides of J already and people ignore it (ex. The firework scene like no jeremiah physical violence is not the answer to your problems😒 and him yelling and projecting at Conrad saying he only sees belly as a competition and then scheming to separate them) but idk I don’t know what other problem aside from the cheating that they could throw between b/j to have them on the brink of a breakup that leads to their sham engagement happen for s3 (my worst fear is they’ll make belly the cheater to take the heat off of J since many of his Stans always say belly was projecting when she claimed him to cheat bc “technically” they were broken up and she was still in love with C and this would will further villanize her relationship with Conrad and thus prop up j… and that would remind me of how dirty the second to all the boys movie did LJ by not showing the very real mistakes Peter made in their relationship and making it look like she just freely bounced between John and Peter for no reason)… anyways this is a ramble but I’ve just been thinking about it since s2 is nearing (and in my heart I need it to be s3 already lol)

okay I have thought long and hard about this specific topic and I hear what you're saying. but I still firmly believe the cheating thing is going to happen in the show. I just...idk. there's just no way around it tbh. It's kind of like having Susannah miraculously live...the story wouldn't be the same. I think the cheating went a lot deeper than the surface level people are stuck at, at least in my interpretation of the book. The whole thing about it is that Jeremiah found out that Belly saw Conrad in Cousins in December and she never told him, and Jere spent months secretly brooding about that and being angry (somewhat rightfully) and the way he says things in the books I feel like Jeremiah thought/assumed that something happened between Conrad and Belly (cause they were alone at the beach house!) and he thinks that's why she never told him she saw Conrad. So I feel like after the whole fight about Cabo and Belly not wanting to go (bc she wanted to be in Cousins instead!) Jere went to Cabo pissed and jealous and slept with what's her face out of spite, to get back at Belly. at least that's my interpretation. But he obviously ended up realizing it was messed up and tried to make it better with the engagement. And then as a double whammy to Jeremiah, because of the engagement, Belly ends up spending the summer alone in Cousins with Conrad planning the wedding which probably made Jere even more angry (it's just so ironic lol).

I'm also with you on the point about Jeremiah being portrayed as the nice, perfect guy up until the 3rd book, and I really hope the show captures what the book did. Because they have worked overtime showing how perfect Jeremiah is and how he's the better option and trying to sell him as the best person. I think the way you get to see his flaws and mistakes (which are very human but also he was a jerk for a lot of the 3rd book outside of the cheating thing and ppl are blind to that I feel, like everyone is stuck on just the cheating). I also think it was super important for Belly to see Jere's flaws. She never truly appreciated what she had with Conrad and the person he is because she couldn't see past his very human mistakes (which all happened when his mother was dying and immediately after her death!!!) and she got so stuck on what Conrad did wrong she looked over and felt like Jeremiah was perfect and seemed so much better, funnier, happier, etc, etc, it was very much a "the grass is always greener on the other side" type of situation. The show definitely did show a lot more darker, more flawed sides of Jeremiah pretty early, but I still think they also worked really hard making him look perfect like in the books (up until book 3). I also think that's partly intentional, part of the point is that Belly had very idealized and romanticized ideas of both boys and what dating them and being around them all the time would be like and her bubble needed to be burst by reality.

anyway, all of that is to say that I still firmly believe the cheating thing is going to happen in the show. So prepare yourself while you have time. There's just nothing else that could compare to that to create not just the sham engagement but the angst, the jealousy, the anger and everything and then the way Conrad finds out about the cheating and immediately runs to Belly, all pissed off at Jere...I don't think anything else could get us there.

also as a side note: Jere and Steven did have good chemistry, but also I LOVE THEIR FRIENDSHIP TOO MUCH TO GO THERE. The friendship between Steven, Jere, and Conrad is so important and special and I feel like in the books they're presented as being like brothers. I don't think I could handle another lifelong friendship being ruined tbh (cause Belly and Jeremiah also had a great friendship and I loved it in the books but the show kinda fastforwarded over it). And I don't think it's something that could ever be explored because it gets too close the whole premise/storyline of Belly dating the Fisher brothers. But there's no harm in shipping! I personally thought Jeremiah and Taylor had really great chemistry as well (Taylor and Steven were also good together and I do love them) and I wanted to see more moments with Jere and Taylor. I am also still salty that the show basically erased Jere and Taylor's whole brief dating thing and some of the best flashbacks from the first book. But they're clearly going in the Steven/Taylor direction for now so I'm not getting my hopes up.

[romanticizingmurder]

Last reblogs about kink in tvc are very good and I've been talking for a while in my own fandoms about how like...a lot of people struggle with the concept that something can be bad in real life and okay in the context of fantasy or fiction.

And I don't mean okay to enjoy - certainly, there are people who think it's wrong to enjoy anything dark. But there's an equal amount of people, an alarming number of whom self describing as proship/fic, who go with the old "you can like it but you have to admit it's bad" i.e. dark fiction is fine but not the old boogie man romanticization.

And I don't agree! And I could list a lot of arguments why but I don't think they'll really sway anyone, and this post is mostly just to try and articulate my thoughts and hope other people see their own reflected. I think you can write an abusive relationship as being romantic and Fine, Actually in the context of a dark romance and that shouldn't be seen as condoning it irl. I think you can write world's where real world morals don't apply and say xyz person who would be terrible irl is actually noble and good.

I see too much judgment even from people who should know better that basically comes down to "just admit xyz is toxic" which misses that often the fantasy is the not admitting. Sometimes the fantasy is that this thing that was terrible irl is good in this fantasy, it's good and kind and okay and doesn't hurt. And that doesn't mean thinking that's true in real life, it means suspending your disbelief for the purpose of a fantasy or story.

[ecoamerica]

Watch the 2024 American Climate Leadership Awards for High School Students now: https://youtu.be/5C-bb9PoRLc

The recording is now available on ecoAmerica's YouTube channel for viewers to be inspired by student climate leaders! Join Aishah-Nyeta Brown & Jerome Foster II and be inspired by student climate leaders as we recognize the High School Student finalists. Watch now to find out which student received the $25,000 grand prize and top recognition!

[kimwexlers-brownhair]

i feel like with sansa, there were so many assholes saying that sansa deserved to be taken hostage by the lannisters because of her mistakes in book/season one, so of course her stans rightly wanted to defend her from the horrible misogyny and victim blaming. but i think sansa’s defenders took it to a place of “she did nothing wrong in book/season one”, which ultimately kinda ends up reinforcing the “good victim” idea that what happened to sansa would only be wrong if she was a flawless person.

As the years go by, that “She's known sadness, and it has made her kind” quote people used to circulate in regards to Sansa around here kind of encapsulates the pitfalls of over-romanticizing her. It's like...her sadness (i.e. intense trauma) didn't make her kind, she was always kind; we just didn't see it as much in AGOT because her infatuation with Joffrey and King's Landing blinded her to reality (and even in AGOT we have her scene with Sandor where she shows deep compassion in a somewhat scary situation).

You know what the sadness really did to her? It gave her PTSD. It made her suicidal. It put her in so much shock that to cope, she started relying on selective memories and fantasies that she became convinced were real (Unkiss). It made her hate herself, and it made her think she was stupid and worthless.

Honestly, I would support her if instead, "she's known sadness, and it has made her apeshit".

And I know most of these fans mean well (shit, I was one of them when I first got into the fandom), and it's of course inspiring how strong Sansa is throughout. However, you start infantalizing her at a certain point by focusing on how soft she is. Kind of like, "that's right, Sansa, you have to stay meek and subservient and obedient and nice. That's what you're narratively there to do. Don't worry your pretty little head about it, and don't step outside your neatly feminine little box."

I remember seeing some amazing fanart of Sansa in armor with a sword, and people freaked out about it. "Sansa would never pick up a sword, OP doesn't understand Sansa at all if she thinks she would!" And I'm like...you're talking about one of, if not the most adaptable character in the series. If she had to, she would learn how to wield a sword. She may never love it or excel at it like Arya, but if it was her duty or her life depended on it, she would. And heck, maybe she would learn to like it! Just because she is traditionally feminine doesn't mean she can't widen her horizons! She is not a static character.

And also, examine why the idea of Sansa with a sword makes you so damn mad.

This cult of femininity around Sansa can get really icky, and you're absolutely right that part of it is in response to the intense hatred her character first received. But a not insignificant portion of it is just plain sexism, I think. The truth is, it's sexist if you think Arya is more badass solely because she likes more traditionally (for that time period) masculine things, but it's also sexist to put Sansa on a pedestal for presenting as more feminine and mild. To me personally, the way both of them perform or don't perform femininity is the least interesting thing about them. They're compelling because they're both scrappy survivors who learn how to shapeshift -- Sansa symbolically, Arya literally -- and have huge hearts and want to do what's best but definitely mess up a lot (which is a big reason why I love Daenerys, too).

I wouldn't love Sansa like I do if she wasn't a bit of a hot mess in a lot of ways. She can be a real prick! And she can be kinder than anyone in the story deserves! She convinced herself her scary crush kissed her when he didn't! You're doing amazing, sweetie.

[spectato]

09 September 2022

I think there's an inherent romanticism in the idea of choice. I know that was a bunch of vague concepts thrown into a sentence, lemme elaborate.

First off, I think life starts kind of ironic: you didn't choose to be born. Ultimately, that decision came from somewhere outside of your control. You don't really have the option or knowledge of choice until much later than anyone would like. By that time, plenty of expectations have been reinforced in your mind. More often than not, these expectations are restraining rather than freeing. "You're supposed to act this way because you're XYZ" type deal, you know? The circumstances you face at this point in life are difficult to control. Leads you to question, "What can I do about it?" From there, the first seeds of choice are planted.

The simplest, yet arguably the hardest choice anyone ever makes is to keep living. Especially in this day and age where tragedy after tragedy are thrown into your face constantly, instantly. The next hardest choice is probably choosing to live how you want. Now, unlike the previous choice, not everyone has the ability to choose how they want to live. This can be due to the hand they're dealt in life or the restraints placed on them by themselves or others. But I believe there is always a choice. You can choose to play the hand you're given. You can choose to fold'em or hold'em. You can choose to tell the dealer that the game they're hosting is bad and start your own game. Basically, what I'm trying to say is, despite many things being out of your control, it is not those things that define you. Your ability to choose what you do and how you do it does or, at least, it should. Yes, you'll make decisions that may limit someone else's. Contrarily, you'll make decisions that opens up a door for a variety of people. Choice, choice, choice, it defines us, moves us, and makes us strangely human.

A little side bar: This thought is mostly influenced by me reading a lot of what I call "biblical fanfiction" (i.e. Paradise Lost, East of Eden, The Divine Comedy, etc.). I don't like the idea that God is this ultimate good. I'd like to think the omnipotence of it comes from free will. While Eve was deceived into eating from the Tree of Knowledge, Adam chose to follow her, arguably a larger sin in the eyes of biblical lore since he knew what he was doing was wrong. Yet, knowing that he would encounter sin, pain, and death, he still chose to shoulder it because Eve was there. There is something so much greater than the paradise that was given or the threat of fear that came from sin. It was the ability to exercise free will, choice. Of course, I am no final authority on this stuff. You can disagree with me. I can be extremely wrong. At the end of the day, you chose to disagree with me and I chose to be wrong. Isn't that how it goes?

[theoriginalcarnivorousmuffin]

Okay but I would LOVE to here your heretical opinions on Padame if you ever want to share them or any of your other views on star wars prequel characters. Your character analysises are INCREDIBLE and really fun to read <3

Oh boy, are you sure about that? Well, the ask has been made so here, we, gooooooooooooooo!

Padme’s one of those strange characters who appears as one thing but in actuality is quite different. Because she appears as the first thing, and it’s something people really like, most people accept that at face value and if she’s not always consistent--well, she came from a series of screenplays written by George Lucas.

Padme comes across as a very noble, kind, and courageous character who is also quite politically savvy. At fourteen, against all odds, she saves her planet from invasion when the Senate did nothing, secured herself an ally in the chancellor (nevermind him being secretly Palpatine), and even after relinquishing her title as queen remains a major player in the senate for years and is seen as enough of a threat to warrant several assassination attempts (one so bad she has to be guarded by Jedi and sent home to Naboo for several weeks). 

And I’m not saying she’s not any of these things. Padme is very courageous, is one of those odd politicians who... believes she stands for what she believes in (more on this later), and has a remarkable political career.

However, she’s also romantic to the point of being completely and utterly delusional, self-centered, and frankly a little nuts.

(Yeah, you knew you were waiting for me to say something terrible, WEREN’T YOU?!) Right, so what’s wrong with Padme?

Well, if you look closely at a few of her choices, the ones that never seemed to make much sense, then you can look at her other choices and... Well, it all sort of comes together. 

That’s right, I’m talking about “Attack of the Clones” and “Revenge of the Sith”.

Attack of the Clones we have the very lackluster and strange romance of Anakin and Padme.

On Anakin’s end, his infatuation with Padme makes a lot of sense. She was part of the party that rescued him from slavery, she was very kind to him, and was the prettiest girl he’s ever seen in his life. Ten years later, always having harbored a crush on her memory and keeping it alive through whatever news he hears of her, she’s grown into a very beautiful woman and Anakin is by chance introduced back into her life. I get why Anakin falls head over heels for Padme, I’ll get more into this later and how their relationship has some major issues (aside from the obvious), but I understand why he marries this girl out of nowhere even when it could get him thrown out of the Jedi. (As an aside, since this is more of a Padme post, I think Anakin was spurred on in part also by the death of his mother and his massacre of the Tusken Raiders. Anakin’s life was flipped upside down in a very short amount of time, one of his great emotional ties is suddenly gone, and I think he has this internal crisis that culminates in him deciding to marry Padme. Without this, he and Padme may have become lovers, but I don’t think he’d marry her).

On Padme’s end... it’s a little less clear. Anakin has grown into an attractive young man, yes. Take out all of George Lucas’ dialogue, and maybe Padme finds Anakin very charming. However, Padme secretly marries a Jedi she’s known for three weeks. Now, I’d be a bit more forgiving of this, love is love and we can’t always think rationally, but there’s some other things.

Unlike Anakin, Padme hasn’t been spending the past ten years romanticizing her memory of Anakin Skywalker. When they met in Phantom Menace, Anakin was not only five years younger than her, he was nine-years-old. To fourteen-year-old Padme, Anakin was not then dating material and was instead this poor boy in slavery. Which means while Anakin has build up justifying this rapid romance, Padme really doesn’t. What this means is that her romance with Anakin reads a lot more like a romantic fantasy. Cute dashing bodyguard shows up, saves her life, through contrived circumstances they’re sent back to beautiful Naboo where they spend time together, only cute bodyguard is a Jedi and can’t marry, which makes their love excitingly taboo! 

Everything Padme does, before and after this point, lends itself to this overdeveloped sense of romance. Padme wants to be whisked away, wants to have this secret unsustainable marriage with a man who cannot be married, she’s in love with the idea of being in love. Given how little time she spends with Anakin, how little they really know of each other, I’d say she’s more in love with the idea of Anakin than Anakin Skywalker himself. And this isn’t a bad thing necessarily, or at least not a grievous flaw, however, that’s not all. 

Padme chooses to marry Anakin knowing he murdered an entire village of men, women, and children. She marries him almost immediately after the massacre of the Tusken Raiders. Note, she does not learn about this later and have to come to terms with it, she is right there. She is on Tatooine with him and sees him go to do it and then return. 

Padme doesn’t take it... particularly well, that said, she also seems to shove it under the carpet immediately. She, first, marries Anakin within days after this event. She second, never really has a “holy fuck, Anakin” conversation with him. And worst yet, she never confesses to anyone else. Padme is a hypocrite and willing to sacrifice everything she believes in, albeit I believe unwittingly, for her romantic fantasy.

She tells no one about what happened. An entire village was brutally massacred, those who are already poor and oppressed and have no voice, by a man who is supposed to be a protector of all people in the galaxy. I’m sorry, Anakin, but if Padme was who you think she is then she would have to tell the Jedi Order at the very least if not the Republic. Instead, there are no consequences, only Anakin’s descent into guilt and madness as three years pass with it festering in the back of his mind.  Padme does not stand for the poor, for the people, or for justice. She only does so when it does not conflict with her own interests, i.e. her actions regarding the invasion of Naboo. More, I do not believe Padme has the introspection to realize this about herself, she never realizes that not narking on Anakin was very very very bad. Three years pass and she lives the whirlwind romantic fantasy that she and Anakin both want. They’re secret lovers/spouses, meeting up at the oddest hours of the day and... This is three years of this ridiculous affair. Three years to come to terms with the fact that something must change. And then the kicker, Padme gets pregnant, and this is where the extra delusional comes in.

The child should have been a signal of the end. There can be no more secret now. Padme is having a child, presumably out of wedlock, and even if space is very very very different from our society I imagine this would be quite the scandal that could even get her thrown out of the senate. I believe Padme mentions as much to Anakin. More, Anakin is no longer a lover, he is now a father. What’s supposed to happen now? They raise this secret child, instructing them that Anakin is only a father in private, never in public?

Anakin and Padme briefly flirt with the idea of Anakin leaving the order. Anakin even wants to do so, but it... never happens. Now is the time it absolutely should happen. Yes, Anakin’s a big part of the war effort, but he could at least start talking to the Order and they could decide if it’d be a slow or fast exit. 

My theory, Padme’s too in love with the fantasy. Anakin leaving means he’s no longer a Jedi, it means he’ll come to Naboo, be unemployed and be around. Anakin visiting will no longer be this romantic, fraught with the danger of being found out, passionate, short lived event for Padme. It’ll become real life. He’ll be a real, ordinary man, she’ll be a real, ordinary, woman, and that spark of romance will be gone.

I don’t think Padme wants that. 

Which is why, even with the child on the way, we see Anakin and Padme continue to play out this ridiculous secret lovers fantasy. And then, of course, Anakin goes insane off screen.

Padme is told that, once again, Anakin has murdered dozens of children. Of course, this is a terrible thing to be told and she can’t process it. She needs to find Anakin and confront him, but people always criticize Lucas here and feel it’s out of character for Padme to have run to Anakin in sobbing hysterics with no plan of enacting vengence.

Frankly, I think it’s very in character. She did nothing about the Tuskens, remember? I think at the end of the day, the murder of the Jedi children means very little to her. What hurts Padme the most is that the fantasy of Anakin she married is not real. The Anakin she married would never murder the Jedi children, betray the Republic, or do any of what he’s done. And I think Padme only has that strong, iron, will when she knows the world she’s in. With the Trade Federation, her stance was obvious. Her people were being oppressed, butchered, and invaded. In this case, the world she knew no longer exists.

The Republic is gone, perhaps hasn’t existed in thirteen years, as it turns out the senator who had always been her biggest supporter was a Sith Lord. The Jedi are gone, children murdered by Anakin while those in the field are picked off by their own clone soldiers. Padme’s world has fallen apart, and I think that makes it much harder for her to be the girl we saw in Phantom Menace. In time, perhaps, she would have joined the rebellion but... I do think Padme might have also given into despair.

So, yeah, that’s Padme for you.

[sweetbitterimpossiblecreature]

A Brief And Concise Summary Of Is Wrong With The ACOTAR Series

I think we can agree that a lot of ACOTAR is pretty iffy. Consider this a very brief refresher.

What's Wrong With Feyre/Rhysand (juxtaposed against Feyre/Tamlin)

Rhysand drugs and sexually assaults her in Book 1

This is "for her own good". Because he "has no choice". Despite the fact that, from what we know of the plot, Amarantha thinks that Clare Beddor was the one Rhysand was diddling, and is only interested in Feyre because Rhysand, "her" man male, has taken an interest in her.

If we extrapolate from this we can figure that Rhysand is the one directly putting her into danger.

Now, let's be clear: drugging someone is bad. Sexually assaulting someone is bad. One could argue there were extenuating circumstances. But if, in such a situation, what your mind goes to is "I know, I should assault this person... for their safety" I have questions about your moral qualities. There were a million things he could have done. He could have done whatever he did to Clare - that is, remove her ability to feel any pain - easily. He could have helped her escape. Under The Mountain, he - while still there unwillingly - has a lot of power, as Amarantha's side piece. Maybe this would have resulted in him being punished- however, he is hundreds of years old and a badass motherfucker, and she is a nineteen year old human girl.

Now, onto Tamlin. Obviously not a lot of people really ship F/T anymore after ACOMAF, because compared to F/R, it's boring. I read another person's post about it, which was very enlightening: they said that Feyre's personality is essentially a mirror. When she is with Rhysand, she's snarky and malicious- because she is "bouncing off" his energy. When she's with Mor she's super feminist and "in awe of her strength". On the other hand, Tamlin is kind of an empty character. He's a pretty boy with anger issues, which should be more interesting than it is. SJM manages to make him bland. Because Feyre has nothing to bounce off of, (a lot of this is from the person's post), she and Tamlin together is mainly just him introducing her to his world.

What Tamlin Does: prevents a skinny twenty year old from going on dangerous missions with him and combat-trained soldiers, accidentally blows up a room with her in it, and, at the end, prevents her from leaving the house.

This is not a Tamlin apologist post. Obviously it was really fucking gross of him to do that, and their relationship was toxic. However, a lot of his abuse stems from their inability to communicate, as well as own negligence. He does not knowingly and purposefully sexually assault her or rape her mind. And tbh, leaving a girl without combat training at home while he goes on missions with a bunch of muscled sentries is... kind of reasonable?

Again: not a Tamlin apologist post. It was abuse. However, if Rhysand is "allowed" to sexually assault, mind-rape, and drug Feyre "for her own safety", why is Tamlin demonized for preventing her from leaving his mansion "for her own safety"?

Another pertinent point: Rhys is never punished for sexually assaulting her. It is brushed off as part of his "mask" or that his hand was forced. Jesus Christ my dudes, his hand was not forced under her skirt. If he has to maintain his gross rapist abuser tyrant oppressor mask... why? Who did that benefit beside him? None of his actions remotely helped Prythian. They were done solely for his buddies - five people safe in a rich hidden city - and no one else, which is explicitly stated.

Finally, the power dynamic is fucked up. Feyre is less than twenty five years old. Rhysand is 500. There is a tendency in fantasy romance to romanticize a centuries year old man with a young girl, because the man does not show symptoms of age, and so it is easily ignorable. However, can we just briefly acknowledge how fucked up it is? Rhys is over five times older than Donald Trump, Harvey Weinstein, Jeffrey Epstein, and other known predators/abusers. She is twenty. That is really fucking gross. She is in a vulnerable position and he takes rampant advantage of that.

If he had wrinkles, liver problems, and erectile dysfunction, more people would acknowledge it.

Let's be clear: I'm not saying writing a book with an uneven power dynamic is automatically bad. For example, in The Locked Tomb series, which is in my opinion THE BEST FANTASY SERIES THAT HAS GRACED THIS EARTH (lol i'm starting fires), one main character Harrowhark Nonagesimus is in a position of power over Gideon Nav, the other main character. However, this is not glossed over or romanticized. Gideon resents Harrow for this- there is a relationship of mutual antagonism, fraught with unwilling familiarity and intimacy from growing up together. They are roughly the same age. While there is a certain power dynamic (in that world, there is a dynamic of necromancer and cavalier, i.e. sorcerer and sword) the "empowered" character (Harrow) emphatically respects her and does not abuse this power, although both would of course deny this, and she does make a show of threatening and being aloof. In short, while Gideon obeys her, Gideon also has power over Harrow, and the idea of what is essentially slavery is not romanticized.

Feyre Doesn't Face Any Consequences For Her Own Actions

Let me present a radical notion: a guy preventing you from leaving his house does not justify completely fucking ruining his country and harming the people inside it.

In other words: Tamlin does not deserve what she did to him.

I know that sounds iffy. We're conditioned to think that if someone is an abuser, then they are the scum of the earth, they deserve to die, torturing/murdering/doing anything to them is completely A-OK. However, here's another radical notion: someone harming you does not justify you doing worse.

Obviously, the effects of psychological abuse can cause you to hurt other people (see: Nesta), but Feyre deliberately and maliciously (oh, God, that insufferable POV of her in Spring Court; she reads like a cartoonish Disney villain) dismantles his country. She uses sexual manipulation (Lucien), torture (causing the sentry to be whipped), and mind-rape (who didn't she do this to? lol).

A summary of the entire first half of ACOWAR: "It smelled like roses. I hated roses. For this capital offense against my olfactory system, Tamlin and the entire Spring Court deserved to burn in hell. I knew exactly what I was doing. I smiled at him sweetly: no longer a doe, but a wolf. He didn't see my fangs.............." *aesthetic noises*

Man. I'm starting to think SJM had a horrible experience at a Bath & Body Works and took it out on the rest of us. Don't do it, Sarah!! I know Pink Chiffon and Triple Berry Martini are way too strong, but don't take it out on an innocent population!!

She steals from Summer Court (there are, yk, other solutions to theft. Like maybe asking politely) and ruins Spring Court. Her boyfriend - yeesh sorry, MATE - does nothing while a dozen Winter Court children are murdered.

Now: moral ambiguity is not automatically bad. Again using The Locked Tomb as an example, in the second book (spoiler alert), Harrowhark has a sort of moral ambiguity. She was raised from the beginning to worship the King Undying as God, and so she obeys him without question. Because of this, she commits a lot of crimes in His name: she "flips" - i.e. kills - the life force of planets, and she plots murder (albeit the murder of someone who tried to kill her first). There is no attempt to justify this. There is also no attempt to paint her as a virtuous and yet also badass Madonna figure. She is desperate, plagued with the "wreck of herself", and the book clearly displays her moral pitfalls. While her POV is of course colored by her mindset, it also is limited by her lack of information, and we as readers can acknowledge that.

BACK TO ACOTAR: Feyre is seen by everyone as gorgeous, formidable, and essentially perfect. Rhys sees her as flawless, "made for him", wonderful, beautiful, blah blah blah. (THEY ARE SO BAD FOR EACH OTHER; THEY EXCUSE AND GLORIFY EACH OTHER'S CRIMES, IT'S SO BAD, GUYYYS). Tamlin is insanely batshit in love with her, or whatever. To the Night Court she's the High Lady. In this way she personifies the Mary Sue character. (Excerpt from the TV Tropes page on Mary Sues: "She's exotically beautiful, often having an unusual hair or eye color, and has a similarly cool and exotic name. She's exceptionally talented in an implausibly wide variety of areas, and may possess skills that are rare or nonexistent in the canon setting. She also lacks any realistic, or at least story-relevant, character flaws — either that or her "flaws" are obviously meant to be endearing. She has an unusual and dramatic Back Story. The canon protagonists are all overwhelmed with admiration for her beauty, wit, courage and other virtues, and are quick to adopt her as one of their True Companions, even characters who are usually antisocial and untrusting; if any character doesn't love her, that character gets an extremely unsympathetic portrayal." Sound familiar?)

There is the Ourobous scene. And yet, paradoxically, while presented as an acknowledgment of her flaws, it is in fact a rejection of them. She sees her own brutality... and instead of recognizing that she has these deep, deep moral flaws and realizing that she needs to grow and be better, she in fact "accepts" them.

Guys: Self love means: "I'm important to me, so I'm going to get a massage today after work", or "heck, why not splurge on some expensive lotion, you only live once" or "you know what? I had a tough day today. I'm going to get that strawberry cupcake". SELF LOVE DOES NOT MEAN "oh, I accept all the war crimes I have done, I love myself". LOVING YOURSELF DOES NOT MEAN ABSOLVING YOURSELF OF ALL WRONGDOING.

It's this refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing that is so grating about ACOTAR. It's so goddamn one-sided. And you can tell that after Book 1, SJM decided to completely change the trajectory simply because of how jarring Book 2 reads compared to the first one.

Also: Feyre is a very, very young girl (compared to the other ruling fey) who did not know how to read for the majority of her life. She has no experience whatsoever in politics. Her being High Lady is not a win for feminism.

Rhysand: He Sucks

First, he is 500 years old. He should be written as such, not as some 20 year old virile frat boy feminist. Fantasy is all the more compelling for its elements of realism, which is a concept that SJM does not appear to grasp.

Second of all, his morals are absurd. He is written as the Second Coming of Christ, as someone who can do no wrong, ever, and his flaws only serve to make Feyre love him more. Anything shitty he does is written as part of his "mask" and she can See Beneath It and knows that it "hurts" him to maintain this "mask".

Fellas, WHY DOES HE HAVE TO MAINTAIN THIS MASK???? There is no reason for it. If A) he does not give a shit about Court of Nightmares (we'll get back to that), only about Velaris, and B) Velaris is hidden/protected from the world, what is he pretending for?

It would not hurt him politically to be seen as someone who cares about his country.

"Pretending" to be "Amarantha's whore" does not in any way shape or form benefit the macro-world that is Prythian. In Amarantha's name, he commits atrocities. He commits war crimes; he systemically oppresses entire societies. It doesn't even really benefit Velaris, because Velaris is already hidden.

Let me put this in a real-world perspective. This would be like if Donald Trump was suddenly like: "I know I was a shitty president but IT WAS ALL PART OF MY MASK, WHICH WAS TO PROTECT THIS MICROCOSM OF PRIVILEGED PEOPLE THAT I CARE ABOUT". Like: okay? Sorry, or whatever, but I don't actually give a shit. What about the parents of the children who died? What about Clare Beddor? What about the people who were held in slavery, murdered, tortured?

Rhysand: omg it sucks that my cousin Mor was oppressed by this toxic misogynistic culture from the Court of Nightmares.

Also Rhysand: lol whatever, who gives a shit about Court of Nightmares. They all suck. They meanie. Lol what did you say? That there might be other girls just like Mor who are oppressed by this system? Lol whatever. I can't do anything, I gotta maintain my Mask. I gotta sit on this throne and show the entire Court that not respecting women is completely okay.

In summary: by parading Feyre around as his "whore" (!!) he demonstrates by example that it is completely okay for the Court of Nightmares to abuse their women.

A good ruler cares about all his people. Rhysand cares about a tiny tiny fraction of his people: those who were fortunate enough to be born into Velaris.

God, I'm exhausted. Onto Nesta:

The only character who successfully breaks the Mary Sue effect Feyre exerts on her people is Nesta. Her POV for the first half is a joy to read.

Obviously it sucks that Nesta was a huge bitch to Feyre for the beginning of her childhood. However, it was wrong for Rhysand to threaten her- he is a man male with a huge insane amount of power, and it is not okay for him to threaten to bring the brunt of it down on a young girl because she was a bitch to his girlfriend.

I've seen a lot of discourse on the morality of F/R sending her out of Velaris. Here is my two cents:

It was okay for them to cut her off of their money. If they don't want to enable her self-harm, that is their choice. Again, it's their money, even if it wasn't fairly earned (Rhysand born into an enormous fortune).

It was not okay for them to banish her from Velaris with the implication that she was an embarrassment. Let me explain.

If Rhysand and Feyre are talking to her as sister/brother-in-law, then that is that. They have the complete right to express disapproval and try to help. However, they should not be using their royal privilege against her.

If they are talking to her as ruler to subject, then they have the power to banish her from the city. However, a ruler would not give a shit about a random subject getting drunk and having sex. So, they should not be talking her about her problems as a ruler to subject.

I've heard it compared to her being sent to rehab. However, rehab is a system designed to help people with certain problems. It has specialized medical centers and involves therapy. Nesta gets her life threatened multiple times. It is not rehab.

In summary: why did SJM inflict this upon us. Throne of Glass was actually good! GAHHH! After the first few books she completely whipped around and introduced the idea of males and mates and fey and that C is actually A and the quality took a huge nosedive. Sigh.

Final horrible but unmistakable truth: The entire ACOTAR series reads like a bad A/B/O fic. I hate to say it but it's true. We're lucky there were no heat cycles. OH WAIT

[bigteefsmallbrain]

Soul Eater: General headcanons - Adults

@zorgammazoo you didn’t specify which adults so I did Stein, Spirit, Blair, Medusa, and Death! I hope you enjoy it!

Warning, Stein is a freaky child with corpses in this, and is not mentally sound.

Franken Stein:

When he was younger, he used to play with animal corpses

Probably started with him finding a dead rat and he decided to stick toothpicks into it

Maybe something crawled out of it, maybe he just liked watching coagulated blood squish out of it’s bloated body

Either way, this was the seed to his fascination with experimentation

He was a A+ student, not because he’s a try hard, but because the teachers would excuse his odd behavior because of it

He liked studying advanced science and medical procedures

Probably took a lot of night classes and didn’t sleep a lot, which clouded his judgement

Hence his insane persona

He’s a grade A doctor, certified, but lost his license on day one

Probably forgot he was trying to SAVE the patent, and ended up blending their organs like a smoothie and trying to bring them back to life, just to see what would happen

He has extremely fluffy pillows

He can twist and turn those cogs all he wants, they hurt when lying down

He needs pillows that are 12 inches thick at LEAST to be able to sleep comfortably

If he does sleep that is

It’s a rare occasion when he does

He actually misses Spirit, not for his experimentation, but his company

Spirit was probably the first one to actually put up with him and his creepy behavior

So losing him was a new experience

And kind of hurt

This was probably the point where he gained some semblance of mind

Was a bit more open to kindness and care

Spirit Albarn:

You mean Tamaki Suoh if he was a horrible flirt?

I said what I said

And I stand by it

He’s Tamaki Suoh in a different font

Dumb, obsessed with his daughter, womanizer

Boxes checked, he fits the bill

He definitely fell in love at first sight

Not necessarily with Maka’s mom, though he did with her too

But I mean with every woman he has ever liked

He’d see them, and bam, in love

Probably got slapped a lot for randomly proclaiming his love to strangers

When he met Stein, it probably started out with him being romantically interested

LOOK ME IN THE EYE AND TELL ME SPIRIT ALBARN IS STRAIGHT, YOU CAN’T

As time went on Spirit probably started seeing Stein as more of a friend than a partner

Probably still cares about Stein, despite the fear he feels towards him

He also frequently writes to Maka’s mother

Has probably gone on trips to find her so he can properly apologize

He tries to ignore the guilt when he’s around other women

Mostly because he can only see Maka’s mother when he looks at them, and it physically hurts his heart

He’s ready to literally toss his life away for his daughter

He cares so very deeply for her

And supports her no matter what

He would willingly die protecting her

Whatever she asks of him, he would do without question

That probably includes murder under certain circumstances (i.e. a boy breaks her heart)

Blair:

She doesn’t know what's inappropriate or not

I mean literally

She’s a cat, she doesn’t know that giving a little kid lingerie is bad

Nor does she know what pedophilia is

Concepts like consent and adultery were never taught to her, so she really just doesn’t know

Literally doesn’t know what she’s doing, just likes seeing the funny faces people pull when she does things

She doesn’t purposefully flash anyone

She just thinks their reactions are hilarious

So she keeps doing it

She elongates slightly when someone picks her up

Her back just stretches with her body

You have to pick her up a few extra inches

She also actively keeps her feet on the ground for as long as possible when someone does this

She only takes bubble baths

Strictly because they smell good

And it’s fun to play with the bubbles

Doesn’t know how to read

She knows maybe a few words

But other than that, she can’t read

Medusa Gorgon:

Oh how time has made her bitter

She is, 800+ years old, and has seen sh*t splatter the walls

And people wonder why she turned out the way she did

She’s had to see lives come and go

Lovers promise to stay, only to fade

I can see why she would be bitter and such

Was probably a very kind woman in the beginning

The type to comfort you when you cried

Help you win your ex back

Just in general be so sweet and caring

Like how she acted when she was nurse at the DWMA, but like, that was her genuine self

Her bitterness probably started to fester when her friends and lover started dying for the first time

But she wasn’t

She wasn’t aging

Her lover had grown white hair and wrinkles

Her friends turned old and grey

She probably tried to save them, but ended up failing

And she tried again and again

Eventually giving up, isolating herself, going insane, seeing life as feeble and useless

She probably saw a part of her past lovers in Stein, hence her “Love” for him

But it was more of her pushing the image of a past lover onto him, romanticizing it a bit

She could have possibly thought he was a reincarnation

Honestly, all those years could have made her delusional too and she could have thought it was actually them

Death:

He’s a good father, really, but probably accidentally influenced his son’s betrayal and other son’s perfectionist views with his want for a perfect world

The idea of a perfect world filled with peace was probably because he wanted to let his sons live in a world full of peace

Though his first son probably thought he was standing in his fathers shadow and let rage consume him

And his second son took it a bit too seriously, and became a perfectionist in hopes of pleasing his father

He’s exceptionally good with kids

Time will do that to you

He uses a high pitched voice and friendly outward appearance to put others at ease

Has probably babysat children for the staff members before

Unlike Medusa, 800+ years turned him wise, and made him treasure human life

Hence his want for peace and a perfect world

He already knew he was different, and so any bonds he made with mortals, he treasured

He’s actually very emotional when thinking of his friends, weapons, and possibly lovers

Has been known to sob during these times

Has a few paintings/photos of all the people he’s made emotional bonds too

He also cries when watching the students grow up, especially his second son

And cries when thinking about his first son

Wants to live without regrets, but mulls over his first son

Constantly thinks about what he could have done wrong

If there were any signs he should have seen

If there was a chance to save him from the darkness

Definitely has thought about what it would be like if his first son remained by his side, and how amazing of an older brother he would make

Has fantasized about having his family all together

About living in that perfect world with his sons

About how happy they would be

How happy he would be to watch them grow

To watch them love

Be there when they’re sad

And support them through everything

I’m not crying, I swear-

I hope you like these General Soul Eater Headcanons for the adults! You never said which adults in specific, so I went with these guys! Thank you for the ask!

[schwaybatmoved]

the reason ofmd is on my blacklist is the fact that it makes me so angry. i didn't really want to talk about it in depth here on tumblr but it fictionalizes these very real people who did very real bad things and 1) turns it into a comedy and 2) changes the story to make it more appealing to people (i.e. sticking representation in there). since the day i found out about the show and its appeal to people these days i have been talking to multiple people in my life about how wrong it makes me feel. like genuinely gross it makes me feel when i think about it. from what i hear it glazes over the bad things these pirates have done and it romanticizes and fictionalizes what kind of relationship they may have had, in every way. i understand how attached people get to gay/trans representation but can we please not do it with real fucking guys who were genuinely scum of the earth

[shieldofrohan]

I don't think GRRM hates Sansa but more in the like of he despises what Sansa as a character represents in AGOT .

Hello Anon,

Martin doesn't hate Sansa, that's for sure.

And I don't think that he despises her character's position in AGOT either.

Tbh, I don't know what exactly you mean by what her character represents in AGOT? So I'll try to assume.

Do you mean naive and romantic girl who wants to become a queen? Who was in kind of denial to achieve her Disney princess dreams?

Let's look at his thoughts about romantic ideals:

He was asked or mentioned most of the stuff that's already been covered, but one thing he talked about that I found particularly interesting was Romanticism. He said that he is a romantic, in the classical sense. He said the trouble with being a romantic is that from a very early age you keep having your face smashed into the harshness of reality. That things aren't always fair, bad things happen to good people, etc. He said it's a realists world, so romantics are burned quite often. This theme of romantic idealism conflicting with harsh reality is something he finds very dramatic and compelling, and he weaves it into his work. Specifically he mentioned that the Knight exemplifies this, as the chivalric code is one of the most idealistic out there, protection of the weak, paragon of all that is good, fighting for truth and justice. The reality was that they were people, and therefore could do horrible cruel things, rape, pillage, wanton killing, made all the more striking or horrifying because it was in complete opposition to what they were "supposed" to be. Really interesting stuff. [SSM 2005]

As you can see, Martin faced what Sansa faced in Agot in his life... So I doubt that he can despise her for what she represents because she represents a part of himself. And this is not just Sansa you know.. we see this in characters like Samwell, Brienne, Jon, Young Jaime etc. He doesn't despise what she represents in AGOT, in contrary he works on this in his books and he makes this one of the central themes of the series.

I found this passage in an article and I want to share it here:

This first paper tackled “Disney Medievalism” by examining the way in which authors like George R.R. Martin smash the traditional fantasy genre with “gritty” medieval realism. Martin takes the reader through this process with Sansa Stark, a character who represents this notion of the “idealised medieval” i.e., knights, fair ladies, chivalry and camp merriment at every turn. Martin destroys Sansa and the reader’s fantasy of the medieval through constantly forcing her into real life situations as far from her perceived ideal as possible.

[...]

“Disney Medievalism” descends from Victorian medievalism. Disney medievalism is for children and Martin’s work breaks from that and is purposely written for adults. Martin sets up situations and characters to show his audience that his books will not be the usual Disney trope common with most fantasy series.

[...]

Sansa struggles to digest this cruel reality and eventually realises that life is not a song. She finally starts to see that her vision of life is immarture just before the Battle of Blackwater however, she still acts like a lady even if her circumstances aren’t ideal. It’s her way of clinging to a vestige of the idealised world she craves.

[...]

Martin’s work is often shocking to fans who come from reading traditional fantasy novels. He writes to portray the realities of the human condition, not the idealised Victorian medievalism that is rampant in most fantasy tales. While he is smashing the mould, he still gives the reader hope that virtue is not entirely out of reach for Sansa and Jamie, it comes from within, not from romaticised ideals, songs and fairly tales.

source

I think this article was on point enough. Sansa faces the harsh reality but Martin still shows the gleams of hope that come from inner romantic ideals. Martin crashes her world view but not her spirit. He makes sure that her weakness AND strength come from the same romantic ideals. She is not wrong to have those ideals... she just needs to face the reality to know better and still hold on to that ideals to make her statement against the world. This is a very powerful message. I hope I managed to explain it well.

BUT do I think he was wrong to write her in less sympathetic light? Yes I do, I can see that he wanted to make readers see her as a mean older sister to Arya "on the surface".

Do I think he made her face the harsh reality too much? Yes I do... she is the only character who can't catch a break. He made her face the same reality over and over again by keep writing perverts molesting her and etc.

And do I think he doesn't examine her inner struggles enough? Yes I do... He doesn't examine the reasons of her so called betrayal to her father enough... he doesn't examine her bitterness towards her family/abusers enough and so many other things.

SO I do believe that he uses her to represent one of the most important themes of the series but when it comes to her as a character he owes her a lot.

BUT he doesn't hate her. And he doesn't despise her. He just failed to utilize her character and he made some mistakes by writing her in bad light sometimes but that's all.

Thanks for the ask. Have a nice day.

[lordelmelloi2]

Over the years I’ve learned to try very hard to put aside my initial PTSD responses when I see people liking characters that I Don’t Like who I *know* have done horrific things either in legend, or history, or in lore etc... because not every fate fan can know absolutely everything. Even the most obvious villains somehow have people repping them and saying they’re actually good people for this-or-that reason. Fate series has a lot of characters and a lot of them are servants and a lot of those servants are historical figures or figures in legend and mythology that have committed crimes such as sold people as slaves, committed rape, abused their family/friends/partners, brutally murdered innocent people, colonized and commit genocide, and so on and so forth. 

You can’t really expect everybody to know absolutely every single crime someone’s committed, and there are so many servants in fate that are so far distanced from their original counterparts that it’s more accurate to say that you’ve summoned an idealized “image” of them rather than the real one. When I say this I think about characters whose less than savory pasts have basically been annulled such as Nero, Napoleon or Iskandar. They carry aspects of their original historic selves but are not a 1:1 copy of said self. And the in-universe explanation to this is that the Throne of Heroes can summon an image of a person that has been influenced by how they’ve been perceived and talked about, especially in later legends and mythos created around said character. Again, Iskandar is a good example because his existence as Dhul Qarnayn in the Quran is directly referenced in his materials despite him having no Islamic narrative of him and his insistence on using the Hellenic Pantheon when referencing his divinity.  

The same goes for mainstream fate series characters. Kiritsugu is a good example of this. Not everybody reads materials or finds out ages or anything like that, so the other aspects of his character could be ignored or so for any-which reason. But for those who do look in the lore we find out that he groomed Maiya since he rescued her as a young teen, specifically because we find out when he rescued Maiya that she was just a young teen. We find out that in his escapades of doing his “save the majority and kill the minority” bullshit that he has injured or killed innocent people and yet still continued on. It’s still possible to like him as a flawed character without romanticizing the sheer bullshit he does. A lot of fans of his foil, Kirei, are well aware of Kirei’s own history of abusing others intentionally and yet simultaneously consider his rearing as a child soldier that rewired his mental illness to such that he literally only has a reward response to hurting others. Whether you believe Kirei had a basement full of orphans in each canon or not, his treatment of Rin left her emotionally scarred and unable to process her own emotions without fear of backlash or someone taking advantage of her. But despite that, there are also people who believe that Kirei did nothing wrong, and that he was simply doing his best. That’s an important dialectic to understand, yes, but it’s important to note that when your best is hurting others or yourself, it’s really not enough and you have to do better. 

And then there’s Romani’s Law. Romani’s Law came as a response to the out-of-character writing in the Prisma Illya event where Romani Archaman, an otherwise decent person, said some things that were plainly disgusting. This kind of law has been utilized in the treatment of other characters when they were either written by other authors who have less of a grasp of said character or when there were throwaway lines that were disgusting. An out-of-FGO example of this is with Aoko Aozaki’s characterization in joke materials in Tsukihime as a sh*tacon. Anyone who has read what’s there of Mahoutsukai no Yoru can tell you that Aoko is a normal person who isn’t interested in children like that. And yet the authors still insert that joke with her -- why is that? 

The pervasiveness of the otaku industry’s problems with normalizing pedophilia material is apparent. But that’s not what this is overall about -- I would say that many people tend to pick-and-choose which characters they like based off of the overall gist of the character. Regardless of what the character has done, most people tend to ignore the unsavory things and apply a sort of Romani’s Law of pretending to not see it in order to continue. This is fair and valid, but I want to add that it’s not appropriate to do that when others point it out. 

When someone brings up that a character has issues relating to either industry normalization of pedophilia, or perhaps they’ve done things in history/legend/lore that are factually wrong things and repeated that behavior (i.e. no one-off stuff), or their overall characterization has aspects that are considered harmful to others, the best thing to do is to listen to the complaints. Examine why you’ve been able to ignore these traits. Is it an issue with inconsistent lore, inconsistent authors, or something bigger than that? Is the character a truly bad person, or were they written by an author that is using them as a temporary mouthpiece? Was it a one-off statement, or a pattern of behavior they tend to have? Has this information been redacted in later characterizations or writing? 

It is up to you to determine what your next step of action. No one is saying you have to stop liking a character or enjoying their writing, especially if it tackles subjects you do not see normally approached. But you should at the least keep it tucked in the back of your mind that there may be reasons why others dislike this character or have a stress reaction when they engage with the characters content. Understanding others’ concerns in good faith and thinking about it is a good idea and helps sharpen your senses and also helps you understand the author’s intentions and communicated ideas when they write these characters. This trains your brain to be able to better understand text and writing in turn, which can sharpen your own skills in those subjects and heighten your enjoyment of media, too. 

TL;DR -- you can like who you like, but be mindful of others who may have reasons for disliking them, either because it’s in history, legend, mythos, or in other bits of lore not commonly known. Approach others in good faith when they try to discuss this and don’t brush it off just because you like them, because that may hinder your ability to understand the intent behind an author’s writing. 

[phdmama]

About your thing for sensitivity readers., I can barely read a kid fic because ones written by non parents are 99% wrong. Also I’m reading fic to get away from my children so don’t want to be reminded of them😂in the nicest way possible.

My friend, first let me tell you, I've taken to drinking my coffee with heavy cream, just a dollop, and it is FANTASTIC.

A thing I've realized about myself is that I'm actually, fundamentally, just not very romantic (anymore? maybe? was I ever? who knows!) in the way fandoms often seem to think it happens. So I don't romanticize things like pregnancy or parenting, because I have done it/am doing it, and for *me*, lived reality is so much more amazing and interesting and compelling than romanticized fantasies (this is 1000% not a judgement on people who DO enjoy that!! It's just not for me). I totally get that fic is just that, fiction, but I'm concrete enough that the kind of fantasies people build about parenting or babies or even long-term relationships just genuinely aren't engaging for me because they're not real. To be fair, I didn't romanticize the experience, for example, of being pregnant even when I was, so there's that.

It's not that I think you have to be a parent to know and understand kids! I think people who work a lot with kids can totally get it! It's that I get frustrated with the stuff that's SO obviously developmentally wrong - whether it's about when babies talk (hint, not at 6 months) or about how no, we're really don't go into the old folks' home at 50. THEY DON'T LET YOU MOVE IN, TRUST ME, I ASKED

I am fine with *fantasy* (I.e. magic or werewolves or A/B/O-lite Magical Royalty AUs), but even my fantasy has to be grounded in a reality that resonates for me, which means I've had to make my peace with the fact that about 98% of fic just isn't for me.

And agreed, fic is an escape! It's my leisure time! I just don't see the point of spending time in worlds I don't like, or with characterizations I don't like. Obviously, I don't give unsolicited crit, I just make liberal use of the back button and head on my way.

I keep threatening to write a realistic mpreg but I doubt anyone would like it because it'd be a lot more trying not to puke in the fish section of the grocery and a lot less basking in the glow of nurturing life.

[qqueenofhades]

Hi!! 💕I was reading across your medieval queer history tag, and I came to the part of Muslims and homosexuality where you mention the active / passive narrative that this activity had.

I had two questions and I don't know if you can help me with them. I was wondering if there was something similar to that position in Nicky's time (?) at the European part of the world. And based on that, would it be a problem for the sexual activities that Nicky and Joe might have had? (sorry for this insane curiosity) I don't know if I'm being clear, haha. I mean, would it be a problem being active/passive for Nicky and Joe? ( based on common Islamic and/or European thought of the 11th century)

Thank you!!

Hmm. I feel like this is a better subject for fanfic (i.e. how Nicky and Joe viewed their relationship in the early days) because it touches on something historians can’t answer: how historical individuals privately viewed their own internal/emotional decisions and preferences. Obviously, Nicky and Joe themselves are fictional, so the only inner feelings they themselves had about how their relationship first developed, whether in its sexual components or otherwise, are the ones that are created for them by a team of modern writers and showrunners. As a historian, I can offer some perspective on the institutional, legal, and societal mores and customs that influenced how queer behavior was collectively viewed, tolerated, or restricted, but I can’t say how any given individual would have then interpreted that to themselves. Obviously, some gay people have been raised in such deeply self-hating environments that their internalized homophobia is very embedded and they struggle for years to get over it. Some others have been raised in the same environment but have never actually accepted any of it and have less difficulty in leaving it behind. Once again, this goes into the realm of speculation rather than strictly provable history, and which goes double for fictional characters.

Queer people have always existed in a complicated and sometimes contradictory relationship with the mainstream (that is, often heteronormative) dominant society. Sometimes they accept all of it in an attempt to “pass” or because they have been taught to be homophobic, sometimes they choose to selectively adopt parts of it but try to live a secret “second life,” sometimes they reject all of it. These choices are conditioned by personal safety/family background, political, cultural, religious, and social environments, formal and informal education, kinship and friendship networks, positive/negative reinforcement, individual character, and so on. There is not necessarily a “wrong” choice for a queer person to make, because each course of action comes with its own risks and rewards, but if you’re choosing to embrace your queer identity and to live out its truth (as Joe and Nicky seem to have done relatively soon after they met), then that will involve an element of rejecting whatever constraints heteronormative society has placed on you. After all, the formal legal conventions about sodomy in the Middle Ages weren’t developed in consultation with actual queer people. They reflected the concerns of conservative establishment clergymen, who weren’t interested in promoting social acceptance of it (and yet again, this doesn’t touch on THEIR actual feelings or whatever they might have done in private). I’ve discussed the complexity of disentangling historical homoromanticism (which was pretty widely celebrated in the medieval era) and historical homosexuality (which had a rockier time, but as I wrote about in this ask, the attempted policing of sexuality and sexual behavior was as much the case for m/f relationships as m/m or f/f ones -- nobody got away from this and it wasn’t just for the gays.)

Basically, I personally don’t think that either Joe or Nicky would have had a problem with sex or certain sexual positions, just because if both of them had reached the point of deciding that a Catholic/Muslim was their true love and they were going to run off together and be a couple no matter what anyone said about it, that already entailed rejecting a huge amount of the ideology they were originally taught and grew up with. It’s again a subject for fanfic how much Joe and Nicky were personally comfortable with being queer before they met each other, so this would more likely be a rejection of religious teaching about the unworthiness/evilness of the rival faith (as Nicky says, the love of his life was from the people he had been taught to hate). Since almost all medieval queer behavior and views on queer people had a religious component, if Joe/Nicky had gotten as far as rejecting the religious tenet that told them the other was Evil, they were (again, in my opinion) extremely unlikely to use any of those old religious arguments for prohibiting or proscribing certain kinds of sexual activity. I’m sure they had to negotiate many issues in the early days of their relationship (as I write about in DVLA), but they’re clearly head over heels in love with each other, wildly attracted to each other and have been for almost a millennium, and eager to embrace the physicality of that relationship, so I don’t personally see this as being a major stumbling block.

That said, you did ask about European views on sodomy in the 11th century and whether there was a parallel to Islamic views on the moral acceptability of the active vis-a-vis the passive partner. Since antiquity, there has always been less “shame” attached to the penetrative/top partner in sex, no matter whether the receiving partner is male or female. Ancient Greece is another example of this, where the adult man could not be penetrated without insult to his manhood and dignity, but the fact of him penetrating a younger man/teenage boy was a fine and even accepted rite of passage. We can obviously talk about how this is related to phallocentrism and misogyny, because the person “receiving” sex is usually expected to be a woman or a woman-equivalent person, which entails lower social status. The dominant male can take whichever sexual partner he pleases, and it’s a mark of honor and status for him to be virile (the very, very ancient chestnut about why playboys are tolerated and admired while sexually active women are “sluts.”) The gender of his partners might not matter as much as their social class, their status in relation to his, his “right” to expect sexual availability from them, and a whole lot of other factors. This could be and also was the case in medieval Europe. But may we point out that the men engaging in these kind of explicitly unequal relationships, which are more about reinforcing power and control than real desire, are very, very unlike the equal and loving mutual partnership between Joe and Nicky, where they were clearly happy to please and respect the other in whatever way.

It has not always been the case that same-sex activity would automatically be defined and suspect, though yes, there has never been an instance in Western history where it was placed uncomplicatedly on the same level as opposite-sex activity. It had to be constructed that way. As I keep saying, modern homophobia is a lot more stringent and explicit than any medieval expressions thereof, because if “homosexuality” was not constructed as a clearly recognized identity, there was less ability to rail against it. In fact, the usual rhetorical tactic was to just ignore it. Sodomy is known as the “silent sin” or “peccatum mutum” in Latin, because moralists usually didn’t talk about it or discuss it or give it an actual framework for debate and thus implied legitimacy. There were obvious exceptions (Peter Damian, Peter the Chanter, Bernardino of Siena, Heinrich Kramer, etc, etc) and as the medieval era went on, homosexuality became more grouped in with other undesirables. But that also reflected a growing visibility/awareness among people as to what it was. As I keep saying, you can’t be anxious about something, you can’t be worried about people being susceptible to it, you can’t be worried that it’s happening in reality, if it’s just an abstract concern of rhetoric that only a handful of churchmen know about. The increasing visibility of queerness as a category of exclusion in late medieval polemics reflected a) the social stress of the crises of the late medieval world and the usual function of Others as a scapegoat and b) the fact that by then, people must have had enough awareness of it as a pattern of consistent behavior for clerics to get mileage out of attacking it.

Anyway. In an attempt to summarize: historians can’t possibly know how historical queer people felt about themselves, if they were influenced by societal or internalized homophobia (itself quite different from modern homophobia), how much of the dominant social narrative they accepted, the reasons for the choices that they made, if they saw their queer preferences as a sin or as a valid lifestyle, and so on. But it seems unlikely that historical queer people specifically in loving long-term relationships, such as Joe and Nicky, would be unduly tied to much of that, and that has always been the case.