#ignore inverse flaw

[ky-landfill]

[coffeetank]

Build CHARACTERS!

Every time you write a book, you're creating a journey for your reader. Your main characters are the medium through which this journey is carried out. Your readers see the events in the book through your characters' eyes. Thus, it's very important to have characters that feel human, even though they might not be (if you're talking fantasy).

Now, of course, if your writing fantasy and your character is a dragon or some mythical fox, they won't act the way a human would. But that's the best part about making characters, you can give them layers. No matter the circumstance, every character will have a way of responding or reacting to it. That's where your characterisation comes in.

Here are a few things I do to make my characters, well characters:

1. MORAL CODE:

Your characters, regardless the genre, are the immediate connection to your readers. Fantasy or not, they'll be carrying the story. So they need to have a set of values that they follow. When you're affixing a moral code to your characters, first take an example setting. Suppose, you've created a character named A. Let's say A is a man and a detective by profession. Now let the main event of your story be a case of murder. Obviously, there's going to be an investigation. Let your detective (A) find out that the victim, who is a woman, was a sex worker. After the victim's body comes back from a forensic search, let there be signs of sexual assault. Now conventionally, as a detective, A is supposed to jump into action and go above and beyond to find the culprit and bring justice. But here is where you can add a characteristic that isn't conventional. Even though A is a detective, make him look down on sex workers. That would mean that A believes that the victim probably 'asked' for whatever happened to her. Your character needs to have a moral code so that they can ignite some sort of feelings in your readers. This moral code further also revs the whole process of character development. In a nutshell, a moral code is a set of beliefs that your character has which can either be agreeable, or questionable, or both. We call them the white zone (virtuous/agreeable), the black zone (evil/questionable) and the infamous morally grey zone (both).

2. OPPOSING QUALITIES:

This is by far the most interesting advice I have ever received. Opposing qualities are actually simple – it's one quality (that's good) and it's inverse (which is a flaw). What you do here is, you give your characters a good/admirable quality and then you give them flaws based on those specific good traits. Some of these that I have used are:-

helpful :: people-pleaser (you character helps others but at the same time seeks validation from others, thus only helps people who validate them)

confident :: cocky (you're character is confident, but they often come off as cocky in situations requiring humility)

perfectionist :: obsessive (are they a perfectionist or are they just obsessed with having things go their way only?)

supportive :: nosey (sure, they support all their friends, but they also tend to poke their nose into everything which makes them ignore or overlook people's boundaries)

straightforward :: rude (they are straightforward and don't shy away from speaking their mind which is good; however, they end up saying things which could be harsh or hurtful)

reserved :: unfriendly (character can be introverted and reserved too, but sometimes they get away with being outright hostile all in the name of their introvertism)

protective :: possessive/controlling (this is easy to confuse as both parties involve an exceptional amount of care for their loved ones, but ask yourself - are protective and possessive really the same?)

practical :: ignorant (one of my favourites; is your character just level-headed about stuff? or are they just heedless to others' emotions?)

There's so much more you can do with this one! Use as many traits and their inverses as you wish! This tip really helps a lot (speaking with experience)!

3. BACKSTORY:

Probably the most important part of making a character. Everyone has a backstory. You. Me. Most importantly, your character. Backstories as just significant events that alter the mindset of your character. It can range from something minimal to something grave. It could be a cup of coffee or it could be a traumatic experience. The experience could be personal or they could have been an observer; anything works as long as it affects them and hits their weak spot.

The following questions are important to frame a backstory:

• how does your character think?

• what is their moral code? are they in the black zone, the white zone, or the grey zone?

• what are their emotional fears? how do they deal with them?

• what is their level of emotional maturity? do they have any form of issues (trust, attachment, etc)?

• how was their childhood? how were the parents? how were the sibling, the relatives or family friends?

• was their school/college life good? did they have any life-altering experiences?

• what kind of friend circle do they have?

Answering these questions will help you get to know your character even better. Thus, making it easier for you to create your character for your readers.

4. THEIR EMOTIONAL ENVIRONMENT:

Your character has a family, or doesn't. Maybe they're an orphan, or grew up in a foster home. Evaluate what type of effect that may have on your character. Was the foster family abusive thus making your character too shy and timid? Or was life as an orphan so difficult that they learnt to be hyper-independent?

Include their friend circle in this. What type of friends do they have? Are they friends with the good kids? Or the bad kids? Or is it a mixed group? If it's a mixed group, then further focus on how the differences in opinions has an influence on your character. Use your character's emotional surrounding to build their functioning.

If you've come this far, thank you! Do let me know if these tips seem helpful/have helped you!

- Ashlee.

[profoundfacetiger]

Rewatching s5, I realized why Claudia HAD to lose. And no, it wasn't because it's the heroes who have to set Aaravos free, but because Claudia needs to hit rock bottom and fully transition into a villain before Aaravos gets out.

This is because Callum and Claudia's character arcs have largely been oppositional to one another. Every step of the story, her downfall parallels Callum's rise as a hero - their character journeys are direct inverses. Callum the ascending hero who defeats his inner demons; Claudia the fallen hero who lets her demons consume her:

Callum takes the Sky primal stone, which leads him to realizing he's a mage. But in taking the primal stone, this pushes Claudia to rely exclusively on dark magic.

Callum then learns the Sky Arcanum and rejects dark magic. Meanwhile, Claudia delves deeper in dark magic, changing her hair color for the first time.

Callum learns to create mage wings, solidifying himself as a powerful Sky mage. Claudia, meanwhile, embraces more powerful dark magic, discoloring half her hair in the process.

Callum adopts Ibis' staff, the mage who Claudia fought nearly to the death.

Callum learns the Ocean Arcanum while Claudia transforms herself into a sea creature. Callum then steals her potion which prevents her from healing her leg and releasing Aaravos, leading to...

...where we see the characters in the s6 teaser. While Claudia descends into further dark magic depths, Callum begins to embrace ever higher forms of primal magic (potentially deep magic). The fact that the only new s6 content focuses primarily on the two of them is significant.

And that's the kicker here. While Claudia has done questionable things in the name of family, she was still more of an anti-hero than a villain because she was also tethered by them. And that's why she couldn't free Aaravos yet, as her motivation for doing so (to save her father) was sympathetic, and she was also seemingly ignorant of his actual nature.

But now that she's hit rock bottom with nothing to lose, we may now finally start to see a more villainous, vengeful side of Claudia. Now, she might free him not to save her dad, but to get revenge on the people who let him die. In the end, she becomes the figure who perpetuates the cycle of violence. Not out of misguided necessity as before, but for revenge. This cements her choice to perpetuate violence, contrasting Callum. That is the kind of person Claudia needs to be before she sets Aaravos free - a villain.

If anything, this means that Claudia and not Callum still must be the one to free Aaravos. Not only is it the culmination of her journey so far, Callum is - meanwhile - moving completely in a thematically different direction to Claudia. He is learning to embrace deeper forms of magic, wrestling with but ultimately overcoming his flaws.

The story necessitates this choice - Callum overcomes flaws embracing deeper magic, while Claudia's fall culminates in perpetuating violence. She must release Aaravos, not through self-deception, but embracing the darkness within. Only then will both characters' arcs achieve their heroic - and tragic - climax.

[stuffyflowers]

As much as I enjoyed outertale pacifist it feels like to me all characterizations were flattened to make characters less "problematic." Alphys isn't lying to you anymore or hiding secret cosmic horror experiments. Mad Dummy is now reasonable and doesn't attack you if you're nice to the ghost in the ruins equivalent. Monster Kid now doesn't care if you're a human and hops to your defense when you fist meet before you save their life. And now Asgore isn't a child killer. Sure, I find it interesting how they've tried to invert character's dynamics without swapping their roles to make it an AU, but it's resulted in some things that just don't make sense. Like now Toriel is unreasonable for disavowing Asgore's child killing because he didn't actually kill anyone? Even though he explicitly lied to her (and everyone) about that? I like some of the changes they made but others (and especially the Toriel-Asgore inversion) feels off.

FR YEAH THATS WHAT IM SAYINNNNNGGGG. it puts the idea of having a perfect ending for everyone (except toriel ig bc fuck her even though she didn’t even do anything) as a priority before. An actual satisfying narrative and engaging characters?????? And xanam brought up smth that’s been on my mind ever since last night: erasing all the characters mistakes makes the story make zero sense. If all the humans are alive, if alphys never did the determination experiments, how does twinkly, and therefore the pacifist ending, exist???? Correct me if there’s a (good) explanation somewhere else but ughhhhhh this game does not justify its decisions to me ever.

Anyway! This part of th article from the creator really hammers it in

“A route that has flawed characters confront their deep seated issues” where????? What issues??? Toriel is painted as having “isolation” “mess with her worldview” as if she isn’t just going off of the lie that asgore wanted her to believe for some reason. Mettatons issue is now that his family wants “the old him” back or whatever while completely ignoring how vile napstablook implying his ghost form is the “real him” is especially considering the transgender allegory at play. Alphys doesn’t do anything, she’s just a plot device. I could go on….. if you wanna make solely wholesome undertale stuff I have no issue w that! But trying to achieve that by recreating a game that so heavily centres around loss, mistakes, letting go and accepting change just does not work!!!!!

[summersmithlatinxgyatt]

Summancing The Stone (Part 3 Summer Analysis)

My second Summer analysis blog EXPLODED, so first of all, thank you so so so much for nearly 60 notes as of writing this. Moving to Tumblr, I love that people are listening to what I have to say about Summer, it even seems that I'm one of the few people that TALK about Sum-Sum. Thank you, from the bottom of my heart.

Moving on to the main topic with a recap to start us off. In my first blog, I talked about how 'Wedding Squanchers' features the single most impactful Summer scene, despite no dialog from her and how it lasts a few seconds

Going off this scene, I then talked about how Summer felt the need to address her insecurities and 'avenge' Rick, as she blamed herself for befriending Tammy for feeling alone and then causing a chain reaction that tied in Rick, The Galactic Federation, Earth, and the whole family

I forgot to mention that there's a seeming consistency that before this, Summer goes with the norm to survive and if it will make her popular and/or loved

When she turns to Headism, she strives to be the best version of herself and for her parents, stressed when a single flaw slips through the cracks.

In 'Big Trouble In Little Sanchez', although she rides the wave of Tiny Rick for popularity, she at least addresses that Rick is endangered

In 'Meeseeks and Destroy', she uses a Meeseeks to become popular

In 'Rick Potion #9', we see the inverse with Morty trying to be popular and Summer surviving despite the apocalypse happening around her. We also see a theme of Summer loving apocalypse scenarios (which is the basis of Rickmancing the Stone), which I imagine is because she can show her survival instincts skyrocket alongside popularity when the world is crumbling

In 'Something Ricked This Way Comes', she handles working with the devil/Mr. Needful in order to be accepted for her hard work

The point is that Summer wants to be accepted and fights to survive. This culminates in the aforementioned 'Wedding Squanchers' scene, which is also the pinnacle of wishing to be accepted and having to survive being tracked by the Galactic Federation. And on a final note before we actually talk about Rickmancing the Stone, Summer also has a parallel to Morty's narrative (this being a condensed way to put it). Although Morty dealt with the horrifying reality around him from Rick showing it to him, Summer deals with thinking every action results in horrifying consequences and that she is inherently a product of said horrifying reality Today I rewatched 'Rickmancing the Stone'. And holy shit, talk about a Summer episode. It rounds off this trilogy. 'Wedding Squanchers' marks the end of Summer trying to be outright popular and dealing with all her actions and insecurities in one flash. 'The Rickshank Rickdemption' shows how she's done with going with the norm to survive and goes against the Federation, trying to undo all of her actions and saving Rick. Now we have 'Rickmancing the Stone', an episode that highlights how she's lacking empathy and being blunt. It's time to break this beast down and analyze Summer

First off, we see her ignore her dad in the cold open and already want to go with Rick. I know she doesn't ALWAYS address him as 'grandpa Rick', but just calling him Rick also emphasizes this. Considering the previous two episodes, she wants to be close to Rick after almost losing him for something she blamed herself for. I think it also makes sense because Rick is not only someone she admires, but he's family. She doesn't have to 'befriend' Rick, in a way. He already holds her to a regard, so it works. This logic works in the other way too. She already had a rocky relationship with her father, seen in 'Look Who's Purging Now' because she doesn't hold any respect for her father or in any high regard - just like how Rick views Summer. She ignores Jerry and doesn't care about saying goodbye. It's likely because it's pointless - she'll already be seeing him, it's not some final goodbye, and even if it is, she already didn't have him as involved in her life. It's not like when Rick was ripped out of her life, someone who loved Summer and understood her

Of course, Summer is a killing machine in this episode. As I mentioned, she's fighting to survive and reigning supreme, except it isn't entirely for love and her self image. Although everyone knows this scene, the line 'Okay, but not because you told me to' is not just an angered teen saying. It shows she's still against being told what to do and is now showing she won't take orders, but do what SHE wants - such as killing someone because SHE wants to, not because someone else wants it

Strength.

A core part of Summer and this episode is strength. She joins Hemmorhage and his group when he literally says the group is stronger now. Summer is obviously showing her physical strength, but also her mental strength by choosing to push through (as we saw with all three of these episodes). Because after facing all her weaknesses from no love, she tries to overcome it by being strong and somewhat 'selfish' (not in a negative way)

Again, part of that strength is family strength. She parades Morty and proudly displays HIS strength (and yes Morty and Rick have awesome arcs but I'm focusing on Summer, you see the theme of strength). That's because again, she's focusing on the family and the bond with her brother and grandfather. No friends to be made here, just going with her brother and grandfather

The scene with Hemmorhage is pretty good. I think the foundation of her attraction is that Hemorrhage is flawed. Rather than going for someone who's seemingly flawless and makes her swoon (although this kinda goes against her going after Ethan in 'The Whirly Dirly Conspiracy'), the moment Hemorrhage goes on about his insecurities, it's like she finds it relatable and predictable because SHE went through it, just going in for a kiss. This also comes after when he takes off his helmet and she goes on a lil' nerdy rant about mustaches and helmets, which seems to me that it's rooted in trying to show off her intellegence like Rick, but it just shows her passion and trying to comfort Hemorrhage

Side note, I think this robot Summer managed to help Beth call Jerry because of a mix of her old ideologies and new ones, coming together to AGAIN, have her family bond together. Don't forget that Summer was the one who wanted to bring Rick back, people forget how she brings the family together

Let's talk about Hemorrhage.

Summer does not deny that she's still the same and says she's as crazy as when they first met. Instead, Hemorrhage is the one who softens up. She regrets marrying him and can't continue with it, which is going to culminate in an ultimate breakdown of Summer, the past episodes and blogs, and consistencies/incosistencies

Summer has wanted to focus on herself or closer bonds. Rather than trying to make a friend, she focuses on the strength of her nearest family and being aware of how weak family CAN be. Realizing how fragile it is, is why she doesn't care for Jerry and doesn't take the divorce too close. At the same time, this is why she cherishes Rick and Morty for knowing how one wrong move can break this all apart. In fact, this is probably why Night Summer...was the HEAD OF THE NIGHT FAMILY?? Just a thought...

Back on topic. We do see her insecurities pop up in Season 3, but they also focus on family, such as Jerry's girlfriend and how she appreciates her mother trying to connect and help her cope with her body alongside rejection. She's not perfect, but she works so hard to fix these things. Rickmancing the Stone shows that from now on, we'll see a Summer who is at the top of her game to simply BE at the top of her game. It's rooted in keeping in mind that everything is fragile, but she shouldn't mess up and blame herself. She should be cautious, even if this happens as a lesson AFTER she falls to her insecurities and negative thoughts. She's almost THE glue that keeps the family together this time. She doesn't try to listen to authority but herself, which explains why she still listens to her insecurities that linger. Rickmancing The Stone perfectly rounded off this trilogy I'm studying We go from Summer blaming herself for her insecurities and loneliness, realizing she's put everyone in danger even if she is the ONLY one that thinks this

She then tries to make up for it feverishly by bringing Rick back and trying to make her family reject the Federation

Finally, with Rick back, she doesn't let go of him and excitedly shows him how she's changed not just for him but for herself. She holds his respect high and we've come a long way from Rick saying she and Morty are both whiny pieces of shit he can't tell apart. She focuses on being strong, not on weaknesses. I think Rickmancing The Stone is not only fucking amazing in showing this, but the third part in this sequence of Summer's arc that forever changes her character from a mostly insecure teen to basically being a girlboss who just says and does what's on her mind

tldr summer is so cool and people should talk about how they made her cool it's not an accident or thing they randomly put in episodes #respectsummer

[aortaobservatory]

Hello! I saw your classpecting box was open so if you're able and willing I'd love to be classpected! I already believe I know my own classpect but I think it would be fun to see others perspective on it.

What is most important to you? Happiness, specifically my own. My loved ones are also important to me.

Why is this important to you? I find being happy is my ideal state-- if I am not happy, I need to get there. Happiness is, to me, the ultimate goal of life. I don't know why my friends are important to me, they just are. They make me happy, and I want to make them the same.

Why do you do what you do? Because I like doing it or it makes me less bored, or, failing that, I feel I have to.

What frustrates or upsets you most? Primarily, being bored, or, to a lesser extent and in the case of being around others, being ignored. Boredom is like a black hole and I do not like it. Being ignored is annoying.

What is in your way? What are your flaws? How do you overcome this? What is in my way is my own lack of knowledge as to what I want. It's blocking there from being a way entirely, as how can I proceed if I don't even know the way? My flaws are that I am very apathetic and detached, and if I don't like something enough, I will often avoid it, whether it's a thought making me nervous, a person, a thing I have to make or do, or something else. I currently don't necessarily want to overcome this. It works for me. It may have ramifications later, but currently I avoid all I need to, and deal with the things I can't.

Are you okay with that? For now, I think I am.

Thank you! Have a nice day :]

(left vague, could be any, possibilities -> Void), Blood

(goal, achieve happiness -> Time), Blood

(because you feel you must, restlessness -> Time)

(inverse -> Space), Time, (lesser inverse -> Breath)

(lack of knowledge, detachment -> Light-Void), (don't know the goal and thus can't figure out the journey -> Space-Time) (avoidance -> Bard?), Passive

Passive (contextual)

[Questions]

There's a lot of secrecy around your answers and I found myself asking for more answers than what was provided. Happiness is left open to the individual, and simply mentioning your happiness without elaborating what it is means there are many possibilities as to what it could be. Quite appropriate if you happen to be a Void player.

It's also possible for you to be Blood, as your friends are a source of happiness for you, and being happy is what you consider important, but I hesitate to call it your main aspect as you value your happiness over all, rather than your friends outright. Detachment and avoidance could be a tell of Breath inverse, but you don't seem much concerned with the concepts of freedom and/or escape. You're more concerned with moving forward.

I believe it's much more possible for you to be Time, as you specifically mention a feeling of boredom paired with a need to achieve a state of happiness. You also mention you're not entirely sure what your main goal is; you don't know what you want, and this blocks there from being a way forward entirely. This could be reminiscent of Void, but Space is associated with journeys and this could be your inverse showing itself. Achieving a state of happiness could simply be an easy goal you provide to yourself because you know how to get there.

Not knowing your main goal, and thus, the way forward, frustrates you, which is likely a tell of your class. Princes are most likely to be frustrated by their aspect, but they rely on their inverse. Mages tend to be frustrated, but do not reject their aspect. Sylphs are also often frustrated because they can't figure out how to make their aspect work how they intend. Bards, meanwhile, often reject their aspect and tend to have avoidant natures. As well, you don't seem to want to change your avoidance; you are happy as is because it works fine as is.

I would be inclined to say Bard of Time (inverse Sylph of Space, so if you relate the most to Kanaya, you might consider this). I also briefly considered Witch of Void (inverse Seer of Light); however, you don't show much Light inverse within these answers other than a wish for knowledge so you can move forward towards your goal (a desire rooted in Space-Time, and a potential tell of a Sylph of Space's aimless frustration). You hate being bored, and often, Time can be boring; boredom causes restlessness, and Time is restless and repetitive. You hate being ignored, and given that you achieve your happiness via your friends, I wonder if this hatred of being ignored is also a tell of frustration when you cannot achieve your goal of being happy.

You say you know your classpect already. My perspective is that of a stranger; ultimately, you decide what fits you best.

[themonotonysyndrome]

Sorry for the length of this, but you got me thinking! I feel like I should have started keeping an eye out on Erik not planning a lot of major plot points when he introduced Xavier right before the games, gave us no time to get to know him, then killed him and had characters (even Freelancer) react in a way like they were bffs with him like what in the Star Trek redshirt was that? But Inversion was so good otherwise to me that I ignored that.

I feel like I really should have taken more notice when Milo recovered from his Inversion injury after two videos (but Erik had personal reasons for that so I went sure). Then, after all this lore talk of how much bloodlust new vampires have and how much they struggle, we didn't see any of that with Lovely, but we were still not to far off from Inversion so I ignored it again lol.

There's some personal preference stuff where I get confused at his lack of consistent framing when it comes to consent where Alexis is the bitch and is more or less a villain (with little nuance so far in canon) for ignoring Sam's consent. But Cutie (with how Erik says they and Geordi aren't broken up) is framed as being able to work towards forgiveness despite years of ignoring Geordi's consent even after he cried about it to them.

I'm on the fence about his 'I intended Imperium season 2 to be the end' because I don't think it's the worst place to stop, but I do think that there's some more story to tell and if the views were a lot better then he probably wouldn't have stopped (only guessing here)?

I think what made me finally stop and wonder 'does he plan?' was how Quinn's capture (after all that build up) happened off-screen and only had Darlin' punch him while he was tied up. I thought the Summit was fine in a very Clue way, but watching the Vega video today had me go '...oh okay' which I don't mind deaths, but that shouldn't be a reaction to that lol.

I feel like I want to give one more of his big plotlines a chance and hope he's planned that one, but idk. The guy capable of making Inversion has to be able to do something even sort of to that level again hopefully??

Don't apologise, Anon! I love reading your thoughts.

Xavier was the beginning. Yes, I was also emotionally devastated; it added stakes to the Inversion, but a part of me always wondered if killing off a character was the only way Erik could add impact to the Inversion? Because no matter how good the angst is, if you introduce a character, make them have ties with one of the main cast and later kill them just to add depth to the main cast, it feels very cheap.

Maybe this is me being salty, but making Milo unable to Shift for at least a few more videos before his Core is healed enough would've been better. The anxiety of not knowing if he became truly magicless and the trauma that would bring would be a better alternative to Xavier's death. I feel like Erik is so damn afraid to do anything bad to his cash cows nowadays. That aftermath from the Summit? The talk that David had with Angel or whatever? That was honest to go foreplay. Yes, the Shaw Pack was affected by William's plan; they saw a murder happening right in front of them, boo hoo... boo hoo. The Summit is absolutely nothing when compared to the Inversion, where hello? Actual and thousands of deaths occurred!?

That thing with Lovely, and how well and quickly did they transition into the Vampiric lifestyle? Lame. Boring. Where's the struggle? Oh right, the fandom scared Erik badly enough to scrap Bright Eyes.

Also, I get that Erik's movie is Clue, and he was trying to do the same for the Summit, but it just turned into, 'Great idea, bad execution' kind of video. Meh.

That Alexis and Cutie parallels... I never noticed that before, Anon! Huh! You have a good eye when it comes to details. Listen, I love Alexis. I love Cutie. I love deeply flawed characters, and I also love deeply flawed characters that either own up to it or revel in their shittiness. I just want Cutie and Geordi to break up already so Cutie can find someone on their level, and Geordi can find someone with enough patience to deal with him and his baggage. Though both of them need to work on their own stuff first, tbh. Cutie is not blameless, and neither is Geordi.

Will we get an Imperium Season 2, though, Anon? I already don't have faith in Erik's story writing so I'm not looking forward to he'll fucked up another series.

Ah! So Quinn's Ending was your tipping point, Anon. I hate Sam and Darling but even I believe they deserve better. Though I giggled when Darling beat up a tied-up Quinn as a way to get their revenge. Oooo, so badass! What a strong Listener! You feel empowered at that moment, Anon? I feel like I was ridiculed after everything, IMO.

Vega's death was a slap in the face to me because of the utter disrespect. You built this character up to be ancient, manipulative, powerful, only for him to moan and die? Wow! I wondered if he actually hated Vega! This might be a gambit, and Vega might be faking his death, or this is some part of his plan, but I don't care anymore. At least give him a proper end, ya know? Again, same with Quinn's situation. I FEEL RIDICULOUS FOR EVER INVESTED IN THE SERIES.

I'm not morbidly curious to see how he's gonna fuck up Project Meridian. I don't doubt that Erik can create a new series that starts off fantastically, only for it to end like a wet fart. Let's hope Inversion isn't his one-hit-wonder, eh?

[tumblezwei]

Your post about Nuts-and-Dolts being an unexpected angst-ridden tragedy is a good take, and made me realize Ruby and Jaune's friendship is kind of similar.

"Oh, you thought these 2 friends would be normal students? Guess what, mentally-ill Paladins dealing with A Lot."

Honestly, I have been kind of shipping Penny/Ruby/Jaune as an ot3 for a bit.

I prefer platonic Lancaster myself, but I've always loved Ruby and Jaune as parallels. I made a post about it eons ago, I'm sure, but a lot of their personal journeys can be read as inversions of one another.

And in the Ever After, what I'd find interesting is contrasting Ruby's guilt with Jaune's. Ruby is always too late, never able to do enough, never able to fulfill the role that she's placed it. Jaune's self-perceived flaw is pretty much the opposite. He's always doing something, and that something is fucking up.

Ruby wasn't fast enough to stop Pyrrha dying, Jaune had Pyrrha right there but was too weak and too ignorant to help her. Ruby wasn't even there when Penny died on the bridge, Jaune had to kill one of his friends because his semblance just wasn't enough.

It's a bit too late for me to go full analysis, but the themes that follow Ruby and Jaune and how they compare to each other have always been so fascinating to me.

[sarahreadstoomanycomics]

One thing I think a lot of people don't seem to realize is just as fiction gets inevitably written with the author's biases inserted. It also gets interpreted with the reader's biases. I often see people who debate about comics accuse the other party of not reading the source material, and sure I have seen plenty of people who pretend to read comics that do not. Yet I also just see two people who both have read the source material accuse the other of not doing so because they are not reading it the same way. I find this happens especially with characters. Since whether you think you do it or not your mind will always give preference to he characters you like and ignore the ones you do not. I often see posts like "I read all of this character's comics, they have no personality" and that's because even while reading them your mind was already convinced of that. Or of what a character with actual "personality" should be like.

It actually is very rare to find any character who truly lacks any personality. I have played video games such as Fire Emblem 3 Houses which has the character of Byleth so yes I know they exist, but that is Byleth's point to be a blank slate the player inserts themselves into. I find that is much more common in video games though but I have seen it other fiction. I'm just saying this because, I see western comic book characters get simplified down to this when, no they do have personality. It's just people who don't want to pay attention to them or acknowledge them, as having such refuse to see it. Or people who hate them see only their bad sides and not their good sides. And the inverse is true too people who love characters will often only see their good sides and refuse to pay attention to their bad sides, and sometimes even refuse to admit they are flawed. Since their vision of them is that perfect version they read in their head. There are plenty of people for sure who are capable of seeing characters as who they are entirely, both good and bad. But people are more likely to see the good in the things like they love and the bad in the things they hate.

I just wanted to point out even if you don't know you are doing it, your vision of how a character is will be skewed by how you feel about them. You will read the text paying more attention to them than others, and that's okay because most everyone does that. That people will read the same piece of fiction and come to different conclusions based on their viewpoints. Also these are comics with so many different writers and continuities. Characters get written differently all the time so coming up with a correct interpretation of them is near impossible. And you know what? Fiction does not have to be interpreted the same way, people do not have to like the same things. I just don't like the part of fandom that accuses people of not being true fans or not interacting with the source material when they have is all.

[mr-legoman]

Some bits of thought on MDA:RC Twist

Still working through my thoughts about Rain Code.

Overall I think its alright and is an interesting direction for Kodaka to go while still having the aspects of Danganronpa. I thin there are some flaws in the game like the peacekeepers only really having one chapter to appear then disappearing into irreverence. However its chapter 5 and the final twist that hurt the game in my opinion.

Spoilers below about thought on the Ending

The twist of Kanai Ward's secret is great but has implications that are at minimal earth shattering and they kind of get ignored. Like human souls the fact that all the populace were just eating human flesh up for ost of their lives and the whole immortality thing.

Kanai Ward is often said to be a city of lies and its populated by fake humans. Like I get it narrative of it and that is a clever idea. Its also an inversion of the beginning and how we originaly saw Kanai ward. At the start the rain is gloomy and holding great secrets but at the end the rain is protecting Kanai Ward and yada yada.

Ignoring the whole spiritual crisis and nightmare scenario regarding souls of homuculi and normal humans the ending regarding Kanai ward is just confusing. Like the game sets Makoto up to be nefarious and to be at best uncaring about Yomi and the Peacekeepers. And Amaterasu is giant megacorp. Both get off rather easy. Which kinda means ch.3 and the struggle of the resistance is forgotten. I do wish that there was a mention of Doya destrict or something in the epilogue.

Even if Makoto is a "morally grey figure" he kinda just gets away with everything. And its debatable how much he cares about the lives of homuculi considering how much he lets the peace keepers get away with. And the ending really just sweeps these problems aside and it touches on the problem of human flesh, kinda, but there still major issues with the twist that go ignored.

Although for a bit of praise some of the sidequest become a bit more interesting. The church-servant's quest and the one about the red rain have interesting implications about what is going on and enough is left vague to be appealing.

This is more of a just a jumbled complaint but that's my thoughts on the ending twist.

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

By: Colin Wright

Published: Mar 27, 2023

In a world flooded with information, the ability to discern fallacious reasoning is an indispensable skill to safeguard oneself against the tides of unreason. A skilled orator or debater, however, can easily obscure their faulty logic through the seductive power of rhetoric. One way to safeguard your mind against such manipulation is to expose yourself to specific fallacies and their related forms in advance so you can better spot them in the wild.

One of the most widespread and effective fallacies that activists, as well as prestigious journals and news outlets, continue to propagate is the Univariate Fallacy. The word “univariate” means “one variable,” and this fallacy works by concentrating on a single variable while ignoring all else in order to deceive people into accepting a distorted picture of reality.

Importantly, there are two versions of the Univariate Fallacy that you should be acquainted with. One version is blatantly applied broadly across many issues and is used to invent or exaggerate group differences, while the other is more cryptic and applied more narrowly to reduce or eliminate appearance of real group differences.

The first, more common version of the Univariate Fallacy serves as the foundation for virtually all “equity” initiatives that aim to eliminate outcome disparities for various identity groups based on immutable traits like race, sex, and gender identity. The reasoning behind this approach is premised on the mistaken belief that group disparities are in and of themselves proof of systemic injustice, such as racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and a host of other -phobias and -isms.

Regrettably, these group disparities are routinely (if not invariably) calculated by comparing population averages of a single variable across groups without considering any confounding variables. This flawed methodology often leads people to adopt beliefs that are true in a very superficial and naive sense, yet false in a much deeper and relevant sense.

For instance, it is often claimed that black Americans are incarcerated at higher rates than other races without controlling for crime rates, or that black Americans are more likely to be victims of police shootings than other races without controlling for police encounters. There’s also the purported “wage gap” that asserts women are paid 77 cents for every dollar a man earns without controlling for differences in occupations, positions, education, job tenure, or hours worked per week. In each of these instances, the apparent disparities dissolve when a more appropriate and rigorous multivariate methodology is adopted.

The second and more cryptic version of the Univariate Fallacy is essentially the inverse of the first version—it is not used to invent or exacerbate perceived group differences, but rather to minimize or eliminate them altogether. This is most often deployed in the realm of sex differences, and even to the categories male and female themselves.

To minimize or eliminate the appearance of real sex differences, it is common for activists and activist scientists to insist that in order for differences to be considered real, they must be absolute; that is, it must be shown that these differences reduce to some single factor that clearly and categorically separate all males from all females. In practice, this means that no matter how stark an average sex difference may be, if someone is able to point to a single instance where that trait overlaps, they will insist the difference is not significant or materially real.

Take height, for example. Males and females differ in their average height, but because this difference isn’t absolute (i.e., some females are taller than some males, and some males are shorter than some females), activists will insist this can be ignored.

This flawed reasoning is frequently used to justify males who identify as women (i.e., “trans women”) to be allowed to compete in female sporting events.

An article in Deadspin, for example, uses the Univariate Fallacy to argue in favor of allowing the male powerlifter JayCee Cooper, who last year broke the Minnesota state record for women’s bench press after only one year of training, to compete in the female category:

When we shove the concept of athletic ability—strength, for instance—into the same black-and-white binary that we try to put gender into, we’re wrong. There is no stark line separating what men can do athletically and what women can. Some women, in fact, are bigger, faster, and stronger than some men.

The same argument highlighting the existence of some overlap in all performance-related traits between males and females was also made in a report by the Canadian Center for Ethics in Sports to justify including male athletes who identify as women in sports.

Since the early 20th century, elite sport policies worked to pathologize and control women’s bodies and enforce dimorphic sex. There is, however, a significant overlap in all sexual characteristics. ‘Male’ and ‘female’ are not mutually exclusive categories and should not be treated as such.

The inability to reduce sex differences in athletic performance to a single factor is thus used to argue against the existence of any inherent male sporting advantage.

But the justification for excluding male athletes from female sports is not predicated on there being no overlap in performance-related traits, but based on the fact that, all else being equal, male puberty gives male athletes an inherent advantage they wouldn’t enjoy otherwise that is not available to females. If the justification for exclusion required the total absence of overlap in performance, then this would prevent athletic leagues and events from excluding adults from children’s leagues or excluding athletes who take performance enhancing drugs (PEDs). After all, some children are bigger, faster, and stronger than some adults, and athletes taking PEDs don’t always win.

The same flawed logic is also frequently used to assert that there are no sex differences between male and female brains. For example, in a review of Gina Rippon’s 2019 book The Gendered Brain: The New Neuroscience That Shatters The Myth Of The Female Brain published in Nature, Lise Eliot claimed that the absence of a “decisive, category-defining” difference in male and female brains means that we cannot claim real sex differences exist.

Yet, as The Gendered Brain reveals, conclusive findings about sex-linked brain differences have failed to materialize. Beyond the “missing five ounces” of female brain — gloated about since the nineteenth century — modern neuroscientists have identified no decisive, category-defining differences between the brains of men and women.

But differences between populations don’t have to be “decisive” and “category-defining” to be measurable and real. As we saw with height, no rational person would believe that male and female height differences don’t exist because all men aren’t taller than all women, and the same goes with brain differences. Sex differences don’t have to be absolute and binary to be real.

There is an even more extreme version of the Univariate Fallacy that moves well beyond attempting to eliminate or minimize sex differences—it is used to argue that the sex categories male and female themselves are merely socially constructed figments of our imagination. To this end, the Univariate Fallacy takes the following form:

The insistence that all categories must be cleanly separable and reducible to a single essential factor in order for them to be considered real or natural.

Below are some examples of prominent outlets using this extreme version of the Univariate Fallacy.

This 2018 New York Times article by Anne Fausto-Sterling uses the existence of intersex individuals and the Univariate Fallacy to deny the existence of males and females as natural categories:

It has long been known that there is no single biological measure that unassailably places each and every human into one of two categories — male or female. In the 1950s the psychologist John Money and his colleagues studied people born with unusual combinations of sex markers (ovaries and a penis, testes and a vagina, two X chromosomes and a scrotum, and more). Thinking about these people, whom today we would call intersex, Dr. Money developed a multilayered model of sexual development.

This 2019 Independent article critical of a ruling that prevents male intersex athlete Caster Semenya from competing against females relies entirely on the Univariate Fallacy nested within an oppression narrative to make its case:

In fact, there’s a range of DSDs that can involve either rare combinations of sex chromosomes (e.g. XXY or XYY) or genetic mutations on other chromosomes that affect sexual development. Thus, no single factor, genetic or otherwise, neatly determines whether an individual is male or female. Furthermore, no formula exists that uses genetic and other data to produce an answer of whether someone is male or female. The IAAF regulation disregards this reality and was surprisingly unenlightened considering the chequered history of genetic sex testing in sport.

This Medium article uses the Univariate Fallacy to argue in favor of allowing Caster Semenya to compete against female athletes:

Yet even after these tests, determining the sex of an individual is not straightforward. There are at least six biological markers of sex: chromosomes, gonads, hormones, secondary sex characteristics, external genitalia, and internal genitalia. Each one contains significant variation, both within and across individuals, including testosterone. As a result, no single marker can decisively categorize a person as male or female.

Vox released this video on YouTube, now with 3.2 million views, that is essentially 12 straight minutes of the Univariate Fallacy regarding sex and its relationship with athletic performance, with special focus on Caster Semenya:

The Univariate Fallacy has also been used in court, as seen in this Caster Semenya vs. IAAF arbitral award, to argue against the IAAF’s decision to prohibit Semenya from competing as a female in some events. Also note that Semenya is a DSD male, not a DSD female as suggested below:

Dr. Vilain stated that as a leading expert in this field he “fundamentally disagreed” with the notion that females with DSD should be “defined” as male and “have male bodies”. That proposition is contrary to the current scientific mainstream, which recognizes that sex is not binary but rather a spectrum, where no single factor (e.g. presence or absence of testes) prevails above all others.

And lastly, this essay in Scientific American used the existence of intersex individuals and their oppression to suggest sex is a spectrum because it can’t be defined in “rigid” (i.e. univariate) terms:

DSDs—which, broadly defined, may affect about one percent of the population—represent a robust, evidence-based argument to reject rigid assignations of sex and gender. Certain recent developments, such as the Swedish adoption of a gender-neutral singular pronoun, and the growing call to stop medically unnecessary surgeries on intersex babies, indicate a shift in the right direction.

The argument that sex categories must be socially constructed and hence arbitrary because we cannot point to a single essential factor that unequivocally separates all humans into two neat boxes labeled “male” and “female” is rooted in the false notion that “male” and “female” are polythetic categories.

Polythetic categories are those that can’t be reduced to a single essential feature, but are instead formed by a series of overlapping similarities, where no single feature is shared by all members of that category. In other words, certain things cluster into categories by having a family resemblance. This applies to things like music and movie genres, games, and even mental disorders.

For a clear example of a polythetic category, take male and female faces. What is the defining feature that makes a face appear male versus female? The answer is that it’s no single feature, but rather the correlational structure between many features such as jaw size and shape, brow ridge prominence, the shape of the lips, nose size, and others. All of these traits taken together cluster into two (overlapping) categories that capture typical male and female face morphology.

[ Figure credit: from https://clinicalgate.com/aesthetic-contouring-of-the-craniofacial-skeleton/ ]

Gender activists want to portray “male” and “female” as polythetic categories, because this would imply that nothing in particular makes someone male or female, but that it’s just a matter of having more male- or female-typical traits in aggregate. This would also imply that a person can cross the statistical threshold between male and female categories by simply altering some aspects of their physical appearance through hormones and surgery.

But males and females are not polythetic categories; their existence is fundamentally rooted in the binary distinction between the gametes (sperm or ova) a person has the function of producing.

If we must reduce males and females down to a single bit of essential anatomy, the best choice is the gonads, as these are the primary sex organs that ultimately produce either sperm or ova. But this misses the point to an extent, because males and females are integrated wholes. Asking someone to single out a single essential feature separating males and females, apart from their biological function, would be akin to asking someone to single out the essential distinction between lions and tigers. Is it the presence or absence of stripes? Color? Body weight? Yes, and no. It is all these things, and not one in particular. But that doesn’t mean lions and tigers are polythetic categories, because you cannot turn a lion into a tiger by giving it stripes, or altering any number of its physical characteristics. They’re different species, and the existence of hybrids, such as ligers and tigons, does not negate the reality that lions and tigers are distinct creatures.

* * *

The Univariate Fallacy has proven to be a shockingly effective way for activists to manipulate the masses into adopting false depictions of reality for ideological reasons. By using the two forms of the Univariate Fallacy, activists can present their arguments in a way that suits their purpose. They can use it to invent a difference that doesn't exist in reality to push oppression narratives to justify "equity" initiatives. They do this by comparing groups across a single variable and ignoring all confounding factors. On the other hand, if they want to make a real group difference appear small or nonexistent to justify giving males access to female sports and other spaces, they can insist that the inability to reduce any sex difference to a single unassailable variable means the categories are imagined social constructs.

The statistical nature of the Univariate Fallacy makes it difficult for many to spot, which lends it an air of perceived intellectual sophistication. For the uninitiated, the Univariate Fallacy’s use of statistics and its appeal to reductionism can be alluring. It is not surprising that many people fall victim to these statistical and rhetorical tricks.

However, when academics or editors at respected scientific journals and newspapers use this fallacy to advance ideological or political narratives, it quickly graduates from the status of inappropriate or ignorant analysis to calculated propaganda.

[flightofaqrow]

Vol [4 through] 6 Qrow Analysis

Vol 6 qrow hits so hard, but it’s also a huge confirmation of who he is. This is qrow at his worst, rock bottom, which inversely, becomes a hint of what he’s like at his best, and these things have also been backed up by the volumes before and after.

He’s been reliable, until now. Promising to wake everyone up at dawn, but too many bottles and apathy weariness makes him oversleep vs. always getting to the fight right on time and the job done and Yang’s, “I trust him.”

He minimizes making his drinking the kid’s problem, until now. Apathy cellar and Argus binges and being completely oblivious, with Yang confirming, “I’ve never seen him this bad.”* vs. Making sure everyone’s dropped off at a safe location, the day’s work is done, then heading to the bar alone and returning without incident later.**

He’s been communicative and that’s important to him, until now. sending letters, texts, telling others to call and check in, “communication’s a two way street,” vs. ignoring Ruby’s calls and trying to slink away from things. Why would she have tried so many times, and get so frustrated if this wasn’t unusual for him?

He’s always fought the good fight, no matter what, until now (when his reason for it got yanked out from under him). “Keep moving forward.” “Sometimes bad things just happen.” supporting, guiding, informing team RWBY’s deviances vs. Total Resignation and shooting down ideas.

* doesn’t necessarily mean he’s never been that bad, but he was at least able to hide it from the girls. ** with the exception of Ozpin/Oscar’s appearance bringing him home early, and for which Ruby’s “are you drunk again?” implies there have been other smaller overlaps, but also times of relative sobriety for her to compare them to. It still fits as an in-between example, as Vol 5 for his arc is starting to see these flaws appear or appear more often now that he’s actually around people instead of isolating; they’re just not at the peak yet.

Vol 5 is actually where I get a lot of inspo for this muse from, as I think we get the clearest examples of what qrow’s life and mentality has been for his adult life. Vol 4 he’s half behind the scenes and half stepping out from the curtain, Vol 6 he’s learning new things that shake his worldview. Vol 5 is the sweet spot where we see him acting as he is and has been for awhile: Oz’s functional alcoholic confidant.

So, Vol 6 hurts not only because seeing the behaviors of alcoholism and the demons that feed it front and center stings, but because on some level (if you’re paying attention and reading between the lines, even on a subconscious level) we understand that qrow’s not usually like this. It doesn’t take 100% Emotional Intelligence and a nat 20 perception check for Ruby to pick up on him “not taking it well” here, and that’s why I usually also take Yang’s assessment at face value - if only because doing so really helps drive home that this is truly the lowest of low points for him.

These are not core traits and behaviors, these are his psychological shadow-self traits winning. Flip them on their head, and we see what his actual values are. What he’s been a dimmed down version of before, and what he continues to grow into afterward; once he can leave all that behind, as well as ditch the cool hero/tragic martyr image, and just be himself. No need for an Ever After metaphor here, he already faced his apathy and shed his burdens in real life. He’s still getting there in the subsequent volumes, still stumbling, but that person is the more actualized self which Clover gave him the safety and space to explore, and Robyn held him accountable to.

[chuckduckling]

I feel like there should be a word for the opposite of woobification.

Does it already exist…?

Like, if woobification can be described as “softening a character’s canon flaws to make them uncomplicated (for stan reasons)”, the opposite would be “ignoring a character’s canon nuances to make them uncomplicated (for hater reasons)”.

The inverse of woobification…

Boowification?

[despairing-disaster]

I will say with your last post on David I was reminded of something I’ve noticed where if a character displays a negative side or “suspicious trait” people are quick to villainize them. This is not meant to be shade - I hope it doesn’t come off that way - but it seems to happen a lot. “Teruko is such a bitch” rather than flawed or complicated, David has to be manipulative and evil, Ace is always wrong (he had some fair points even if the delivery sucked). It’s odd to me bc of perspective ig?

It's weird, but people always have a tendency to fixate on things, whether it be positive or negative. With characters, I think it tends to be based a lot in past experience. Maybe people picked out David because everyone's had to deal with someone they saw as fake or a little rude behind pleasantries, but he also hasn't shown much more than that so far (or at least not at the time I got that ask) so people filled in the blanks. I haven't noticed as much with Teruko or Ace so I wont comment on them, but I noticed either the inverse with Arei or an example of this with me. Like, she can be as cold and as teasing as she wants but she always gets away with it because there's always either a character being worse or the people who probably would have gotten on her case are too busy arguing about a different blue asshole. Meanwhile, I tend to feel like my skin is crawling a helluva lot of time she's on screen and a lot of the comments she makes really rub me the wrong way. But I also have had some pretty horrible and even traumatizing experiences with people like Arei in the past, so that's my bias.

Honestly, I think such broad generalizations, as annoying as they are, are simply a byproduct of fandom. People will always see what they want to see first, and ignore anything they don't, and that includes things like character motivations and commonalities in their behavior that signal to certain thought pattern. There's not much that can be done to combat it other than putting your own honest interpretations out there and just hoping they're better.

[the-awful-falafel]

Love reading your analyses on Rick and Morty, but I have very little context as I've never watched the show before. I've been very busy since it aired back in 2013 trying to get rid of a terrible cockroach infestation. I'm wondering what your opinion on Prime Rick is? In relevance to him also being Morty's grandpa.

I feel like I have no opinion on Rick Prime at this point, honestly.

He's... there. He exists as a distant antagonist we can root for our Rick to hunt down to complete his revenge quest, his proverbial white whale that he's pinned all his trauma resolution on. This plot thread does have the potential to be lowkey hilarious if it's revealed Prime and C-137 were friends or dating or whatever (which, as an aside, would be such an asshole move on our Rick's part) but, just based on what we have canonically, I've got nothing.

Even the potentially interesting aspect of Rick Prime being our Morty's "real" grandfather feels like a nothing detail to me, considering our Morty has never met or known him at all so there's literally no connection whatsoever. Our Morty's already been so fucked up by experiences with our Rick that trying to introduce a newer, worse Rick into his history almost feels like a distraction, in an annoying and tone-deaf "hey, cheer up, it could be worse! just appreciate the family you have :)))" sort of way.

It's also that I don't think Rick Prime is introducing a particularly novel paradigm shift or new dynamic to the story? Compared to Evil Morty, who presented a complete inversion and deconstruction of the R&M relationship just by existing, Rick Prime is basically just "our Rick, but worse, more OP, and ACTUALLY gives no shits". My most cynical interpretation is that Rick Prime mainly exists to make Rick C-137 look better in comparison by externalizing his character flaws + self-loathing conflict, plus to exonerate him of past transgressions by making Prime the real Rick behind the abandonment of Beth / failing marriage with Diane, but I've been feeling that since the full tragic backstory was revealed, anyway, so I digress.

In general I just think Rick Prime is sort of... boring, and needs fleshing out. I don't get the sense that he's plotting anything major, I just get the impression he's a petty dick who spent half his life fucking with Rick C-137 (almost analogous to our Rick fucking with the devil in that one season 1 episode) and that the threat he poses is exclusively tied to their cat-and-mouse game, while Morty is just an accessory dragged into it with no personal investment and would be much better off ignoring the conflict entirely. Sorry if my thoughts are a bit incoherent, lol.

[majorbaby]

Please, I need to get this off my chest. Charles has always upset me... he is constantly talking about how much better he is than everyone and sometimes he says white supremacist things :/ and in a deep way because he isn’t just racist towards Klinger! He also thinks he’s better than Radar by calling him a bumpkin. It really annoys me when people ignore that part of him or try to write him as this misunderstood, lonely man

i'm iffy about commenting on how people write characters/ships they wanna write, especially when it comes to less popular ones like Charles because I generally believe in "don't like don't read" buuuut I also think it's so interesting to see what dominant trends emerge from fandom because fandom is a legitimate creative, communal space so we should note our observations and critiques in a respectful way. But anyway, my response is more about the general portrayal of the character and the flaws you've brought up because I think you raise an interesting point, I assume that you made it in good faith, and I’m very into discussions about race and racism in media but particularly wrt MASH. Cut to spare people who aren’t into this and CW for white supremacy and all -isms ingrained in it: 

Winchester is kept in check to some degree by being consistently positioned on the moral low ground, BJ and Hawkeye get the better of him constantly and whenever he makes a prolonged target out of anyone it’s usually Hawkeye and BJ which you could still call classist and how bad it lands depends on what you imagine Hawkeye and BJ’s backgrounds to be. They’re not implied to be from high society themselves but we don’t know much more than that. You’re not supposed to admire the nastier parts of Charles’ sensibilities and the show makes that overwhelmingly clear imo, he’s not a straight villain the way Frank was but he’s still an antagonist. Later on I think Rizzo gets the better of Charles a few times and that’s very satisfying to watch. There’s an interesting inversion of power dynamics when you look at Potter and Winchester. Charles looks down on Potter for his social background and Potter takes a lot of glee in reminding Charles that while he’s in the army he’s to be under Potter’s heel. Which, like, go ahead, eat each other. 

Winchester also gets a lot of moments that (imo, successfully) “humanize” him and it’s fair to feel uncomfortable about that if you perceive Winchester to be a white supremacist which, yeah, I can’t pretend I don’t ever see it – DOS has a remarkably smooth delivery that softens the blow but oof some of the things he says. In Mail Call 3, Margaret is concerned about not being good enough for Donald’s family and she opens up to Charles about it, he makes this comment about eugenics – I think he actually uses the phrase “maintain the integrity of the breed”. And while my brain knows that I’m supposed to empathize with Margaret here and not Charles, I can’t help it if my skin crawls. He calls her good breeding stock and tells her that it’s of utmost importance to the Winchesters and the Penobscotts that they “Maintain the characteristics of the bloodline” like that’s… that’s a white supremacist talking point. So be assured I see where you are coming from. And I have to talk about Klinger: “Klinger whatever happened to your frivolous, pet-like demeanor” yikes. Charles isn’t the first person to say racist things to Klinger, talking down to him for laughs becomes a frequently relied-upon gag in the later years, Potter and Margaret do it a few times. Hawkeye and BJ and even Radar have their iffy moments as well, but it sounds different coming from them than it does from Winchester, in part because he’s made other comments (like the one with Margaret) before that that suggest a much darker belief system – ‘suggest’ might be too weak a word.

We also get glimpses into how the social systems he subscribes to and benefits from actually oppress him too – which is true to life. But how much you care about that sort of thing will depend very much on how you feel about the character in general.

I don’t think Winchester gets a straight “redemption arc”, he’s just portrayed as being a  three-dimensional character, for better or for worse. And look, it sucks to have to think of your political enemies and threats to your existence as three-dimensional people – I know I don’t on a day-to-day basis. I think this was a choice on the part of the showrunners after seeing how things played out with Frank Burns, who some people believe should’ve also been more three-dimensional – you can’t really win with a character like that. I’ve seen people say they prefer Burns to Winchester and I’ve never understood that until this moment lol, because Charles being less cartoonish has allowed me to actually enjoy him. But now I see how one might be more comfortable with a character like Burns because he’s such a butt monkey and he doesn’t get a single redeeming moment that he doesn’t immediately ruin. I guess we know that Burns just ‘wants to be liked’ but I don’t think that garners a terrible amount of pity from anyone – any Frank Burns sympathizers in the audience?? I didn’t have the Burns-Winchester transition on my list of contributing factors to the show’s shift to the political center but you know what, that might actually be a thing: Burns being portrayed as a straight villain vs. Winchester (who is much more well off than Burns it would seem) being portrayed as multifaceted. I’m more or less neutral when it comes to these redeeming moments when they happen between Charles and Margaret, who has her own racism to deal with – and I can’t think of many other occasions aside from the one I described where he was overtly misogynistic to her – although the one example I did give was pretty egregious. Or Charles and Hawkeye or Charles and BJ because as I said about Margaret and them a few days ago, they’re closer to one another on the ladder. It’s really a class issue when it comes to them and that’s not something to be ignored (I don’t care at all for how Charles treats Radar and Rizzo who are both from non-urban, implied to be poor, backgrounds and who are of significantly lower rank in the army) but again, it really depends on how you feel about Hawkeye and BJ’s respective backgrounds and whether or not you think their pranks on him constitute appropriate retribution. I think if you are going to humanize a less-than-savoury character, a good way to do that is to show how their belief systems are to everyone’s detriment, including their own. Charles does go through this a few times: he realizes his discriminating against Honoria’s Italian husband will drive a wedge between him and his sister, similarly his self-imposed separation from the “unworthy” Hawkeye has kept them from perhaps being friends and he calls himself on it in Sons and Bowlers and finally he seems to really be at war with himself over his own lifestyle choices in Foreign Affairs. 

There is also a wrong way to do it – please miss me with his calling Klinger “Max” in Death Takes a Holiday, where the narrative wants me to accept that this is some grand gesture on Charles’ part after he’s been a racist twat to Klinger on multiple occasions and gleefully takes up any opportunity he can to remind him how inferior he thinks Klinger is. This same thing is actually done much more effectively in Sons and Bowlers (...”Hawkeye”) 1) Charles has actually spent the episode doing a lot more for Hawkeye than this single gesture at the end  2) I’m just gonna say it lol, Hawkeye is white so things land differently. Hawkeye is an equal, Klinger is "the help". I’m just pointing these things out, not trying to convince you of how you should or shouldn’t feel about Charles. Ultimately it’s up to each person to decide for themself what they will and won’t condone. I would suggest observing how that plays out when it comes to different characters. Are you uncomfortable with Charles’ notions on the family unit while at the same time being unbothered by BJ’s? Do you forgive the one-off joke from Hawkeye about BJ’s 16-year-old babysitter but get up in arms over Henry In Love? Do you have something to say about Aggie’s pursuit of BJ but nothing about Margaret’s full-fledged relationship with Frank (and btw why do we not keep the same energy for cheating men as we do for the women they are cheating with??).  I’ll end by saying what you let slide vs what you don’t is a deeply personal thing. Mulcahy hits me in a certain way because of the particular chip I have on my shoulder, but at the same time I don’t have any issue with other people’s enjoyment of him. At some point you will have to look the other way on something because no character is perfect and they all uphold some fucked up standard in one way or another. What is important imo is being able to identify what kind of messaging a story intends for you to accept and if you want to take it a step further, consider if there are any harmful ideas it might be perpetuating.