#like for example i think it's been made very clear all the abuse really happened they're not gonna suddenly pull the rug from under it

[loumands]

I feel like many people have a fundamental misconception of what unreliable narrator means. It's simply a narrative vehicle not a character flaw or a sign that the character is a bad person. There are also many different types of unreliable narrators in fiction. Being an unreliable narrator doesn't necessarily mean that the character is 'wrong', it definitely doesn't mean that they're wrong about everything even if some aspects in their story are inaccurate, and only some unreliable narrators actively and consciously lie. Stories that have unreliable narrators also tend to deal with perception and memory and they often don't even have one objective truth, just different versions. It reflects real life where we know human memory is highly unreliable and vague and people can interpret same events very differently

[am-i-the-asshole-official]

AITA for breaking up with my boyfriend after uncovering his web of lies?

Ok. I’m going to try keep this as short as possible, and there’s some things I’ll keep out because I don’t want to accidentally reveal our identities. I (31, m) just broke up with my partner (35,m) of 3 years. We met on an app during Covid, and lived together for 2 and a half years of that. I truly loved him, he was a challenging person which sometimes led to fiery arguments that I hadn’t experienced in past relationships, but he also pushed me to feel more comfortable with confrontation and conflict which I needed. He was also really ambitious and supported my ambitions; I’ve had 3 promotions since we got together and I wouldn’t have dared to go for them if it hadn’t been for his encouragement. Basically, on the surface it all seemed really great.

That is until I discovered he had lied about his entire past - and some of his present. It all started when I stumbled across pics of “his home” online and discovered they were a museum (he claimed to be from a wealthy background). I asked him and he said it was to protect his family’s identity and swore there were no more lies.

I have never met his family, nor talked to them on the phone - they are in another country and he claimed they were old fashioned and wanted to meet in person, but Covid was in the way at first, and then his mum was unwell. After discovering the pictures were a lie, I started to really think about other stories he’d told me and what evidence I really had for them. The more I thought, the more I realised things didn’t add up.

A few examples: his mum and dad both apparently had high profile jobs but I couldn’t find anything about them online; he claimed to be from money but wouldn’t buy himself a car and borrowed mine; he claimed to have a brother my age but I couldn’t find any social media of his.

There was a lot more, but that was enough to make me question whether there were more lies. I asked him a few weeks later why I couldn’t find anything about his parents online, and asked to be introduced to his brother on social media. I told him that this felt like the most normal thing that would happen in relationships - I was very clear that I didn’t want to test him, I just wanted some contact with someone who knew him before I did. He said it wasn’t possible because he was more distant from his family than he’d led me to believe, due to childhood abuse that his parents had refused to acknowledge. I’m also a survivor of childhood abuse so this touched a nerve and the conversation shifted to me wanting to support him and make him know I believed him.

Anyway. Fast forward another two months and nothing has changed. Tonight, it came to a head in a discussion where he wanted to get rid of my favourite chair in order to make room for a new TV. I told him I wasn’t comfortable with this because I felt insecure in the relationship as nothing had been resolved. I went over my concerns again and suddenly his whole tone shifted. He asked if I was “ready for the truth” and asked me not to share it with anyone.

The truth turned out to be very different from everything he’d said over the past 3 years. Whether it is the truth, I don’t know, but he claimed that his mum was actually a drug addict and he hadn’t known his dad until he was 18, he was removed by child services at 14 and the character he created as his mum to me was based on the woman he lived with during that time. He never studied abroad as he had first claimed, and a whole load of other lies. The worst lie was that his mum had cancer - the reason why we couldn’t visit because she didn’t want him to see her while she was weak (this made sense with the strong character her created for her). It turns out apparently the woman who took him in died from cancer when he was 18 and he based it on that. Now, I don’t even know how much of this is true, but it feels closer to the truth than the original stories. The thing is, he’s cried on me about his mums cancer, and he’s told my mum about it (a cancer survivor), and regularly talks about it in detail. In fact, all his stories have had incredible detail - which is what made us all believe them.

Now, here’s where I may be the arsehole. After he confessed all of this, I said I can’t be in a relationship with him because I can’t trust him. But he took a big step in admitting it all to me and he’s clearly very unwell if he is lying on this scale. He clearly has had a traumatic past and he told me that his lies were because any time he opens up to people about his past he loses them. I worry that by breaking up with him, I’m reinforcing this cycle where he feels he has to lie to be loved. The thing is - none of what he told me in any of this was the reason why I love him. I didn’t care where he came from, or his claims of wealth, etc. I just liked who he was as a person. I really feel torn because on the one hand he is clearly in need of help, stability and love in order to heal himself so that he doesn’t feel the need to lie. On the other hand, I can’t foresee being able to trust him in the near future. So, AITA for breaking up with someone who is so desperately in need of love and support?

What are these acronyms?

[tendergraphite]

Julian Morrow: ''Honesty Is A Dangerous Virtue''

Julian's class is a cult, no getting around that—He's selective about his student because he wants to wade out the vulnerable from the resilient and questioning: And of course, Julian has a God complex (But that goes without saying, now doesn't it?) An Example—When Julian addresses Richard by ''Pepin'' It's on purpose, him testing to see if Richard would be the sort to push back or not, well he hadn't, had he? And reaching our scenes conclusion, it's back to ''Papen'' again; Julian had gotten the proof he needed.

Julian was a teacher given leniency due to his heavy donations, Hampton College was desperate for donation (As many University would be/are) So what if he was a tad odd in his practices? His reputation was undeniably accredited, and he'd hardly been doing anything illegal—And I mean, education around cults wasn't exactly booming at the time was it?

So yes, the College ignores the fact Julian shouldn't be allowed to teach, despite him 1) Purposely isolating his students 2) Accepts them based on their world views/what materials they've read, and what their own ideologies are—Along with 3) Accepting them based on their wealth and how Isolated they'd been—It's all brushed under the rug of academics.

The class is so obsessed with upholding this particular image of refinement that—they do not seem to notice that, just how they condescend everyone else around themselves, Julian had done the very same to them, the entire time.

If you listen to Donna Tartts audio books, Julian's tone of voice is even more so noticeable—He feigns astonishment and wonder to the point of a waxy quality, and within our very first greeting there it is: When he initially rejected Richard, he really is sorry that he couldn't possibly accept him into his class; It meant this young man would miss out on Julian's godly guidance, something truly extravagant—How egotistical is that? Julian comes of as flattering to whom ever he is faced with, but said flattery is used to bolster himself up each time.

You know—He was far more apologetic about Richard ''not being able to join his class'' Than he ever were about Bunny's abrupt passing.

Julian is just a bored old man who longed for his youth (-To be something it hadn't? Perhaps?) To regain the power he once had in his early adulthood. He grew up isolated himself, I think that's quite clear—He's less akin to Henry and more so Richard in this case, as he wished to flip his trauma into something bewitching threw fictionizing himself. Really he should've majored in the Dramatics considering how eager he is for excitement—That Bacchanal never would've happened without himself, and when Henry had brought it up he had the perfect opportunity to stop the situation before it started, but he didn't.

He knew it would be a sex ritual with dangerous dinking and drug use (Their young adults, going overboard is to be expected and they did didn't they.) Yet he still wanted it to happen.

Bunny's own quote sums up Julian well enough: ''Julian is like one of those people that'll pick all his favourite chocolates out of the box and leave the rest''

I found Julian particularly disgusting because he knew what power he held over these vulnerable individuals, and really considering this fandoms leniency towards ''Doing it for the Aesthetic'' It seems to me he's fooled many of us—It's why I sometimes like respond to tsh posts with ''Your parents didn't love you, did they?'' Because really, for someone to thirst for poison they must've been parched for years—Because like many abusers do, Julian made a silent promise: To feel the true terror at the face of our own thirst for beauty.

[avelera]

Authority and the Urge: Morality and Redemption in Baldur's Gate 3

Theme 1: Domination vs. Freedom as an Alternative Moral Axis to Evil vs. Good

One thing that makes Baldur's Gate such a pleasure to play is that the writing team had such a clear understanding of their themes. Good and evil are not the clean-cut alignments of the D&D world. Rather, they reimagined good vs. evil along more subtle lines of domination and control vs. personal freedom and healing. For the most part, they are remarkably consistent without being preachy, which is no mean feat. Nor do they say you can't dabble in the morally ambiguous, indeed, all the Companions have dabbled in the morally gray and you are invited to draw your own line as to what behavior you find acceptable for them. Even Wyll and Karlach, the most morally upstanding, have made deals with devils for the greater good, and been press-ganged against their will into fighting for an evil tyrant. You are given the choice to say there is no redemption for even these unwilling moments of moral impurity, if you so choose. You can reject Gale for not telling you about the Orb immediately. You can kill Astarion for being a vampire, which isn't his fault. You can criticize and reject Shadowheart for her Shar worship and thus never learn the full extent of how much it was not her choice to join in the first place. You can also urge companions like Gale, Astarion, and Shadowheart to give in to their worst instincts and become true monsters, which brings me to the next important theme.

Theme 2: What is the Worth of a Single Life?

When speaking of themes in BG3, another major one is the power of one person to sway the path of others in their lives towards good or evil. One hand extended in friendship can draw Astarion back from a painful and self-destructive existence, the pursuit of power to insulate him from pain and harm that ultimately would lead him to perpetuate the cycle of abuse he suffered under. There are clear implications of how much the Companions life is changed by their encounter with the player character, in a really touching dynamic about the importance of one life to another, which also works as a game mechanic, imbuing your interactions as a player character with the satisfying power fantasy of being able to have social impact on your Companions as friends, loved ones, or (in an evil run) victims of your sadism. You can make or break them.

Which brings me, finally, to the Dark Urge. It's clear to my eyes that the Dark Urge was originally planned as The Custom Character path. What I imagine happened next, however, is that they realized that there were hard story beats in the Dark Urge's narrative, certain deaths for example, which would be supremely limiting and unsatisfying for many players, who would chafe against the lack of choice.

The Dark Urge is a fantastic novel character, since characters in a novel don't have to do what the reader would do, but video games with their interactive nature usually require a bit more freedom of choice for players to be satisfying. Obviously there are exceptions to this rule, but in general it's very challenging and rarely attempted in video games to put the player-controlled character into a situation where the player loses agency, where the character dies without player freedom to prevent it, makes choices contrary to what the player character would do in a game that otherwise offers choice, or that simply kills the player character without the option to avoid that fate. It can be done but it's very very tough, some of the biggest complaints leveled at RPGs like BG3 or Dragon Age games is when the narrative takes choice away or makes the character make choices, unavoidably, that players would not make or would fight to avoid if they could. They are often the center of the greatest fandom ire. So that's why I think the OC Tav with the blank backstory was created, for those who chafed at the lovely but restrictive narrative arc of the Dark Urge.

Mirrors of Morality: The Dark Urge's Redemption

I mention that I think the Dark Urge is fundamental to the core design of the game because their narrative path so nicely mirrors the other Companions. A blank-slate Tav is wonderful to work with, and very freeing, but you are left with the slightly hollow feeling of not having nearly the level of trauma or issues to work through that the Companions do. Your character has no past and few opportunities to form a coherent narrative that precedes the events of the tadpoling the way the others do. From a gameplay perspective this is of course nearly impossible to do otherwise, they can't anticipate every RP headcanon a player might run, but they can offer one with the Dark Urge who has the same sort of deep dichotomy and divide in their backstory that the others have.

That said, I completed an Evil Dark Urge run before I completed a good one, despite rolling two attempts at a good Dark Urge before stumbling onto an Evil Dark Urge that worked for me (an older drow matriarch, for those curious).

The reason I struggled was because I couldn't imagine a Good Dark Urge with agency in their prior life. My evil Dark Urge was a willing partner of Gortash and Thorm. One reason I made her older was because I imagined her as mature, worldly, cruel, sadistic, and completely on board with the plot. The amnesia was only a brief interruption to her plans, a distraction. Once she recalled enough of her life and previous goals to piece together her part in the Dead Three plot, she went right back into enacting it and, in the end, won, becoming the unquestioning ruler of a world of thralls in Bhaal's name. If anything, the dialogue options that implied that Bhaal was the one controlling her, or that she had done anything but make her own choices were almost insulting. This woman knew what she was doing, beginning to end, with the amnesia as only a minor interruption.

But this interpretation of the Dark Urge was based on the letter we find in the Dark Urge's point of view, where again, they show no unwillingness to be an agent of the Dead Three plot. Gortash's warm welcome further cemented the view in my mind: the Dark Urge knew what they were doing and was a willing evil participant.

So how, I wondered, can anyone justify a Good Dark Urge? Not saying it can't be done, but how?

The implications I found troubling at first were that anyone who was evil would become good if they were simply removed from their environment. It had a ring of a sort of natural innocence, a sort of "noble savage" worldview that all of us would tilt towards good if our minds were wiped clean. Optimistic in some ways, very dangerous in its implications in others. Then I realized it wasn't a statement. It was a question.

Theme 3: Nature vs. Nurture

I then realized that nature vs. nurture is actually everywhere in BG3 side plots. Another reinforcement of the fact the Dark Urge storyline is baked into the DNA of the story. You have the Githyanki egg plot, Baelen's memory loss making him a good but absentminded person (which can be undone if you give him noblestalk, when he reverts back to the cruel man he was), heck, even the owlbear cub can be given a loving home where he thrives. You are shown, over and over again, stories where you can choose and contribute to and ponder whether or not evil is a product of nature or nurture, in a way that's incredibly relevant to pondering the Dark Urge's path forward under amnesia. Was this Bhaalspawn evil by nature or by choice? It's very juicy stuff.

Furthermore: all of the companions actually offer ways to rationalize the Dark Urge and choose a path forward for them to fall back into evil or move forward into good. This is because the writers of BG3 are actually superb at thematic mirroring. Each Companion can be a mirror for one way to understand the Dark Urge, how they were evil in the past, and how they could choose to change.

Shadowheart: Indoctrinated into the cult of a cruel god from childhood, you grew up in a world where the only moral compass you had was utterly controlled by those around you. You never knew a different world than the cult of Shar/Bhaal. Now with your memory wiped, you have the option to listen to the voice deep down that says the cruelty demanded of you by the little you can remember feels wrong or even follow the good examples of your newfound Companions to see a different way to live. Maybe you always had goodness in you deep down, but the society you knew channeled you towards evil that you're only now free of, albeit with a past full of holes you're trying to fill in again.

Karlach: Maybe you were never a truly willing participant in the Bhaal cult. Incredibly skilled at killing, yes. Perhaps a bit morally flexible to get involved with figures like Gortash. But ultimately, when you were whisked out of the bloody war and world that you were immersed in by circumstance, you saw your chance to get your old life back from before the Bhaal cult and you took it. Baldur's Gate is your home. People like Karlach are the ones hurt by the actions of the Dead Three Plot that you might never have put a face to if you'd never been taken from that world. Now that you see the harm caused, now that you're free, you can finaly become your own person again after being a foot soldier for evil forces.

Lae'zel: You were a true believer in Bhaal's cult. You grew up worshipping your evil god. It's the only life you knew and the only life that gave you meaning. You were a willing participant but before now, you'd never known any other life. However, through exposure to other people, other cultures, other ways of life, you're beginning to see that there are ways to live outside your narrow life of indoctrination in violence. The final blow comes to this worldview when you learn that your beloved god is completely fine with your destruction. They allowed Orin to take your place. Bhaal/Vlaakith would see you destroy and enslave the world for their own glory and be perfectly happy to destroy you at the end of all your hard, devoted work. You did not sin against Bhaal by rebelling against the full horror of his cruelty and negligence towards you, rather, Bhaal has sinned against you.

Gale: You were the beloved Chosen of Bhaal. Coddled, cradled, told you were special and perfect and wonderful. Of course you happily participated in the Dead Three plot, you lived a charmed life as the elevated darling of your deity. But then something went wrong. You were cast out. You've awoken lesser than you were, your body betrays you, you've lost knowledge that once made you walk among mortals as a near-godly figure. And it seems like Bhaal/Mystra doesn't care, as you wander the wilderness. You're hurt. Betrayed. Tadpoled. Orin has taken your place so easily, just as Gale was cast aside so easily. You don't know what you did wrong. You're angry. Resentful. How dare Mystra/Bhaal cast you aside so easily? They offer you a solution to get back into their good graces which require a complete denial, a complete destruction of yourself - becoming Bhaal's chosen once more or blowing yourself up for redemption. Ultimately, the way forward is in choosing yourself and relying on your own cleverness, rather than being seduced back into their circle of influence.

Astarion: Bhaal was a cruel master to you who controlled your every move. That doesn't mean you were a nice person though, or you didn't enjoy murder. But now you are finally free of Bhaal/Cazador's immediate reach. They cannot fulfill their evil plot without you. You can destroy them now, undermine them, or replace them - fulfill the Dead Three plot in your own name. Or you can take this chance once finally outside their grasp to rediscover who you really are, what you want, all the while your hungers drive you towards continuing to take the lives of others. But perhaps the help of new friends can help you deny these urges and steer you towards being a new person. What that new, better person is, what they even look like, is unclear to you, you've never really had positive influences. But maybe you can find it together.

Wyll: You lived your own life before you ended up in Bhaal's plot, as Bhaal's chosen. But that life was stolen. Now, through circumstances beyond your control, you have disappointed your father. Is there a way to escape the reach of Bhaal's control, Bhaal's pact? Will you sacrifice your soul to redeem yourself in the eyes of your father?

Honorable Mention - Minthara: Tadpoled and controlled by the Absolute, you are now set on throwing down all old gods that once thought to control you. Maybe you'll take over the Dead Three plot in your own name. Maybe you'll just take pleasure in tearing it down for your own reasons. Either way, your gods have sinned against you, the cult of the Absolute controlled you, and now you are unleashed to take vengeance.

With the Dark Urge, any one of these paths can provide a map for how to imagine your life under Bhaal's cult. Any one can provide a map for how to make use of your newfound freedom and to justify becoming a better person and saving the world. Or choosing not to.

[pynkhues]

Apologies for the disorganized ask but - how much (if at all) do you think the golden trio understand the experiences their siblings have re Logan’s abuse? I’ve been rewatching Succession to cope with the show ending and I noticed there’s this kind of warped view the siblings seem to have of each other (for example, Ken and Rome’s view of Shiv being treated better as the girl and favorite or Shiv and Rome believing Ken is treated better because of how close Logan keeps him at times like S2). I’ve also noticed a lot of Logan’s abuse tends to happen in one-on-one scenes as well (meaning other characters are not privy to those exchanges) and the times it’s brought up is by “witness” characters as opposed to the character who experienced the abuse (inherently to my read meaning that if acts are not witnessed, we tend not to hear about it).  Do you think this has impacted how each of Roman, Shiv and Ken view each other?

I don’t think it’s a disorganised ask at all, anon, I think you’ve really hit the nail on the head in the sense that the Golden Trio don’t have a clear sense of each other’s experiences of abuse, nor more broadly of each other’s relationship with Logan at all. A lot of this is, of course, the fact that Logan’s parenting style seems to have been divide and conquer as that’s been the way he’s managed to control the people and the world around him, but in a lot of ways I think it’s symptomatic too of Logan’s own experience of abuse. Logan’s childhood was one of separation after all – from parent, from brother, from sister, sometimes in death, sometimes by force – and I think in a lot of respects, that division is to him a complicated cocktail of love and self-hatred (I think the funeral ep in particular made clear that Logan sent Roman away in the same way Noah had sent him, and whether that was out of punishment or self-hatred or in an effort to try and make Roman strong like he felt he was we could speculate forever).

Of course, it’s also the very ethos of the show that the past is made up. There are no objective truths in a personal history, which means there can be no shared understanding of what an experience was. The show plays around with memory all the time – Logan telling Roman he didn’t even hit him, Shiv and Caroline having different understandings of when Caroline and Logan divorced, the scripts showing us that the memory of the kids being shown their own crying faces in the mirror is attributed to different parents by different kids (Logan for Kendall, Caroline for Shiv) – and it seems to understand at its core that memory is inherently personal.

Add to that that children experiencing trauma often face developmental delays and memory loss (funnily enough, I just did a whole course on this for work), and neither the kids nor Logan ever really stood a chance.

But yes, more to the point of your question, haha, I do think the Golden Trio know that Logan ruined them, I think they know that his abuse was real, and I think they have a sort of vague idea of what buttons to push with each other because they’ve seen that behaviour modelled for them – know how to lean on Shiv’s gender and perceived politics and Kendall’s emotional vulnerability and mental health, and Roman’s mother issues and runt of the litter title – but I don’t think any of them have ever unpicked the reasons they do it beyond the fact that it’s ingrained in the DNA of the family, or have any deeper sense of what it means. They’ve been trained to sniff out each other’s weak spots, but they’ve also been trained to think only in the context of what that means for them personally.

We see that all the time, but especially I think in s2 when Kendall’s at his lowest and we see both Roman and Shiv feel threatened by Logan and Kendall’s seeming new closeness, but there’s a reticence to actually think about why or what it means beyond their own precarious places in the family unit. They’ve been raised in competition, and they’ve been taught to weaponise even the most personal of tragedies, which is exactly what Shiv does when she weaponises the waiter’s death in the finale, and Kendall does exactly what he’s been taught to do too which is re-write a memory in a way that makes what he did bearable. It’s tragic and it’s inherent to the show’s sense of identity, power and abuse – after all, how can you ever truly see each other when what you’ve been through and what you’ve done can be turned into nothing at all?

[hersweetrevenge]

Hi there! <3 I re-watched Halloween Ends yesterday because I was upset and I needed Corey to save me, lmfao, and I wanted to ask you something that I've been wondering about. So, I have no way of getting the novelisation of the movie anytime soon, and you're kinda my only frame of reference for it; so I hope you don't mind me asking you this. When Corey is on his revenge killing spree, he kills those bullies at the mechanic shop. And Ronald is there. And then Ronald comes out to help the kids because of Terry. And only because of that. So, that makes me wonder... Did Corey plan on killing Ronald after he was done with the kids? Is that something that was elaborated on in the novel? Because I keep wondering about that, since Corey pretty much killed everyone that ever wronged him during that night, and Ronald was right there; but Corey didn't kill him (or didn't get the chance to, at least). Terry shot him by accident. But Corey killed his mom, of course. So, it'd make sense if he had at least planned on going after Ronald as well; even though he never actively wronged Corey (only passively, if we look at the way he just sat and watched while Joan abused Corey right in front of him, for example). But more so for completion's sake, y'know? They were on generally good terms, after all. I mean, in your latest post about the novel, you quoted that Ronald is "the loveliest thing" in Corey's life, according to Rohan. So, that makes me wonder all the more. OH, and... I fought with myself to include this point, but anyway- Corey takes the mask off when Ronald comes to help the kids, so that Ronald can see his face and know it's him. And it clearly disarms Ronald immediately and is the reason why Terry accidentally shot him instead of Corey, because he shielded him instinctively. Thus, I keep wondering if Corey meant for that to happen or if he took the mask off in order to assure Ronald that he wasn't actually in danger... It's such a seemingly insignificant thing that I'm thinking about far too much, but it's been bothering me that I don't know, and I was curious if the novel said anything about that at all, or if they just brushed over it there, as well. If they did, I'll just make up my own mind, of course, hdsfdjkfsk Anyway, I'm very sorry for rambling on about this, gosh! I love your blog(s) and everything you have to say about Corey and Rohan, you're awesome!!! Thank you for your detailed posts all the time, they keep me going! Take care! <3

ahhh hi !! thank you so much for sending this ask !! i love talking about this sort of thing more than anything lol and i’m sorry this took a little longer than i expected to reply, i was double checking like every ronald scene in the novel and cross-referencing that with behind-the-scenes details from making of, and re-watching the movie (i didn’t have to do that last one but like you, i needed emotional support from corey too 💗)

WARNING for discussions about (canon-typical) violence, murder, child abuse, abusive households, mentions of suicide and self-harm, and spoilers for the novelisation.

TL;DR – the novelisation does not elaborate on corey's intentions in any huge amount of detail, but it does provide some insight into a few different possibilities for ronald and corey’s relationship and what that would mean for corey's intentions.

general relationship

the novelisation actually gives some really specific details about the cunningham-prevo backstory, but also leaves a lot of aspects vague too.

joan married ronald when corey was 15, and she made it clear to ronald that he would "remain firmly on the sidelines when it came to corey's upbringing" which ronald "gladly" agreed to. so from the very beginning, ronald accepts he isn't going to be an active parent to corey, which maybe means he didn't believe he would do a good job anyway, or maybe he agreed it wasn't his place to parent corey in the same way joan does.

also, corey was already a teenager, he didn't need parenting in the same way a younger child would, which is partly why i think joan waited until corey was older to get remarried, because although being a single parent is difficult, she wouldn't want someone else in the picture as a father-figure for corey.

i don't personally see corey and ronald having a super close relationship, but there are multiple instances that show they are at least comfortable and familiar with each other (in line with what rohan said).

corey had a job before working for ronald, so we know ronald didn't have to give him a job. i hc that corey really wanted to do something stimulating instead of call centre work, and ronald agreed despite joan's grievances over it.

ronald doesn't seem too angry at him for being late, even though it is a regular occurrence (third time in a month).would he be so lenient on anyone who wasn't his stepson?

the gifting of the motorbike is a huge moment of course. that's a big gesture which, in the novelisation, also comes with some stilted bonding when ronald reminiscences that he used to "get laid [...], if you can believe it".

they have their united front moment over dinner when joan is trying to work a reaction out of them and neither gives her what she wants.

a smaller but still significant gesture is that corey uses dumbbells and a pull-up bar in his room to workout, which ronald bought him for christmas. very much feels like an attempt to help corey rebuild his self-confidence.

honestly though, rohan's comment about ronald being the "loveliest" thing in corey's life is probably right, especially as corey's life has been incredibly insular. as the town pariah with an abusive mom, his stepdad being cool about him being late for work is probably one of the best parts of his day.

but then on the other hand, there are moments which do not characterise their relationship very well, including multiple instances of ronald "ignoring" joan's abusive behaviour and not intervening.

to reiterate a previous point: ronald very willingly obliges joan's wishes of not "interfering" with corey's upbringing. her unfounded criticism and distrust of doctors, the school system and anyone other than her taking care of corey should have been a huge red flag (if, of course, any of that behaviour could have been inferred prior to their marriage).

ronald's passivity at being side-lined by his wife, allowing her to continue an unhealthy and unbounded relationship with corey.

when joan is berating corey for "sneaking around" and seeing allyson (the slap/kiss scene), she questions ronald as to whether he knew about the motorcycle, to which ronald stays completely out of it and doesn't answer her, despite her being furious with corey.

however it is a really difficult family dynamic to navigate, with so much nuance. i'm reluctant to say if ronald is a "good" or "bad" stepdad, or whether their father-son relationship is "good" or "bad", simply because their circumstances are so trying and complex. yes, joan has abused corey for a long time, but that abuse also extends to ronald in many ways too, resulting in him allowing (or enabling) joan's abusive behaviour in a flawed attempt to maintain the (toxic) status quo of the household.

did corey intend to kill ronald?

like i mentioned, there isn't any elaboration about corey's intentions in the novel, either through narration or extra dialogue. the scene happens almost exactly as it does in the film, with a few alterations and added background details. it's the surrounding details and plot differences that change my opinion.

i think movie!corey would have killed ronald if he had to. he knew ronald would be at home or at the yard, both of which were places he intended to go (to kill momma and the bullies). i'm not sure he had the same desire to kill ronald as he does the others, especially if he sees ronald in a good light, but to tie up loose ends he might do what is "necessary". i do find it very interesting that he lets ronald see his face though, and i can't decide if that is as a reassurance (he wouldn't kill ronald and ronald should know that) or because it just didn't matter (he's going to kill ronald so even if he sees corey's face, he won't be a liability to worry about).

however, i don't think novel!corey intended to kill ronald. in the novel, despite all of the extensive set-up of joan being abusive and corey's repressed desires to hurt her (and arguably ronald), there's no suggestion that corey planned to go back home as part of his spree and kill joan. if he wasn't going to kill joan after everything she did, i really don't think he'd have plans to kill ronald.

that's not to say there aren't implication in the novel that corey would hurt ronald too. there's a scene after the slap/kiss where corey can hear joan and ronald arguing about him, and once they've gone to bed corey gets a knife and stands outside their room, but ultimately doesn't go in. it isn't specified whether he wants to hurts just joan, or ronald as well.

michael's mask

ahh so when i was re-reading the scrapyard massacre in the novel to try and answer whether corey letting ronald see that it is him was a way of corey saying "you don't have to be scared of me" or even "you should be scared of me", i've come to a different conclusion about the mask.

“Who did this to you?” [Ronald] asked. “Him,” Margo said, pointing across the street. Ronald turned to find Corey twenty feet away on the other side of the fence, pulling Michael’s mask over his head. "Corey?" he muttered in disbelief.

the way the novel reads, i think that when corey puts the mask on in front of ronald, it's the first time he puts the mask on at all. if that is the case, it adds a whole other level to the transition between corey's kills as himself (or as the scarecrow) and his kills "as michael".

earlier, billy's sees "corey's shape wearing his prevo jumpsuit". it's fair enough that billy would assume it's corey without seeing his face, because they know that corey is there, but there's no mention of the mask either.

then, the way it describes ronald seeing corey put on the mask doesn't really indicate that corey was making sure ronald saw it was him. he's already "pulling on the mask" by the time ronald looks over at him; he wasn't waiting for ronald to look he was already doing it.

alternatively, the movie shows corey very deliberately stood there, waiting for ronald to see him and recognise him before he puts the mask on. i'm leaning towards it not being a gesture of reassurance but more of a last show of humanity to someone corey cares about -- "it's me, and i appreciate that you always treated me well, but this is the monster they've made me into".

in both versions, ronald jumps up to stop terry shooting corey. whether he was intending to shield corey or was just getting up to try and talk terry down, i think it says a lot about ronald as a character. he has been very passive this whole time, especially in scenes that take place at home, but in this moment he takes an authorative position to try and diffuse the situation. there's a scared kid with a gun, and his own stepson who he's starting to think might have done something awful, but this doesn't have to continue -- they can talk about it and calm down and whatever it is that has happened can be worked out.

[acacia-may]

Acacia's Definitive Defense of Langris x Finesse

No one asked about this pairing, but I'm going to ramble about them anyway... especially since I realized I don't think I've ever actually written a proper post about them as this has been sitting in my drafts for over a year (A/N: Yikes! Sorry friends. I completely forgot I wrote this until today when I tried to find that post I was absolutely certain I had made about Langris x Finesse only to find it buried in my unposted drafts 😅🙈 But I'm posting it now to coincide with the ship ask game so it kind of works...? Maybe? I have no excuses...).

Anyways, dear goodness do I have thoughts about this ship. I’m not sure I can even wrangle them all, but I am going to try my best.

I’m sure it’s pretty clear from my blog that I have a deep love for my spatial mage boys and want good things for them which is one of the main reasons why I have a lot of concerns about the whole House Vaude soap opera. A friend of mine (irl) and I once discussed that plotline for literally 6 hours so I could go on and on about this for ages, but I have tried my best to be brief. That didn't really happen so I apologize in advance for all of the rambling.

I've tried to keep the focus of this post on Langris and Finesse's relationship, so please check out this post if you want to hear my many thoughts on the House Vaude succession drama as whole and in general. To keep things organized, I've divided this discussion into 2 main subsections for clarity under the cut!

(Warnings: Black Clover spoilers and discussion of some heavier topics such as childhood trauma and abuse. Arranged marriage is also mentioned)

Why I Think Langris and Finesse Genuinely Love Each Other (not necessarily in a romantic way but definitely in a selfless care and concern kind of way)

One of my most basic premises for my personal interpretation of Langris' character really comes down to the fact that I think what Langris actually wants more than anything else is unconditional love and to be accepted for who he is (rather than what he does/his accomplishments). He wants to have people who love him, a family—but he'd never admit this because he is convinced he'll never get it. He is convinced that love needs to be earned and he can't earn it, and his relationship with Lady Finesse is a perfect example of this, I think.

It hurts Langris that she is just the kindest person ever and she doesn't like/love him (or such is the reality in Langris' mind anyway given the fact that he has carried around that one time she complimented Finral as "she hates me" for literal years in the canon. But I digress). Langris doesn't like games he can't see a possibility of winning. He closes himself off from love and building meaningful relationships because he doesn't think he'll "win" people's love in the end. He's very cynical and jaded in this way, but more than that, he's wounded. It comes from a place of being denied love without strings attached, without conditions for his entire life and of being told his by his parents that love has to be earned and being convinced that he can't earn it, that nothing he does will ever be good enough and that he will never deserve the love he so desperately craves. And in that way, it comes from a fear of being hurt and rejected. When you care about someone, you give them the power to hurt you—and Langris doesn't want that kind of vulnerability. So I think he just completely counts himself out of the running when it comes to Finesse and defers to his brother—assuming (probably correctly) that she’d choose Finral if she was given a choice between the two of them.

All of that said, he can't quite stop himself from caring for her with a genuine love and respect (not necessarily in a romantic sense but he does care for her)—it’s just sealed off somewhere and not something he really thinks about or allows himself to feel (let alone label) until his brother "declaring war" on him brings all of that to the surface and he kind of has to reconcile how much he wants to be the Head of House Vaude (what he’s worked for his entire life) with how much he wants Lady Finesse to be happy. I love how in that scene there is actually a moment (at least in the anime) in which "the camera" turns and we're watching the scene unfold from Langris' eyes/perspective immediately before he gets involved and tells Finral to clean up his act.

(A/N: If you listen very carefully you can hear the sound of Langris' entire world falling apart...)

Okay, bad jokes aside, this is a huge moment for Langris. It takes him all of five seconds to decide that Lady Finesse's happiness is far more important to him than House Vaude, than his title, his future, his own dreams and aspirations that he has worked for literally his entire life and, ultimately, is more important than everything he has looked to for his own self-worth and fulfillment up unto that point (which causes him to have a bit of an existential crisis as he tries to figure out who he is without those things, without being the next Head of House Vaude, but I digress again). It is an incredible act of love to set aside what someone wants for themselves in order to make another person happy—to choose what is best for another person even at great personal sacrifice. Regardless of how you want to qualify that love (romantic or platonic), it does not diminish the gravity of Langris' sacrifice and the willingness he shows to choose Finesse's happiness over the things that are (seemingly) the most important to him in the world.

Up until this point, Langris is this incredibly goal-oriented character who is set on becoming the best, the strongest, and eventually the head of House Vaude which comes off as self-interested and a little ruthless in his willingness to do whatever it takes to achieve his goals, but suddenly, here he is, ready to give all of that up so that Lady Finesse can have the chance to be happy. It's almost like he is saying (honestly, far louder and clearer than any words possibly could), "I love you more than all of that."

Why else would he be helping his brother take over as heir to House Vaude when that actually seems to be something Langris wants for himself? (I know the poll I ran examined some different ideas and interpretations but that's always been my personal take on it). It’s almost like in that moment, Langris has realized that he can’t make Lady Finesse happy (even if he wants to), but he thinks that Finral can so he wants to make Finral into the best he can be for her.

Once Langris is reasonably sure that Finral is at a place that he can make Finesse happy and has become a man "worthy of her," I could definitely see him stepping aside so that his brother could take over their House and marry her—purely out of concern for Finesse’s happiness, and there is something incredibly selfless and very beautiful about that.

I think Finesse's side of things is much more practical. The fact of the matter is that Finesse is royalty in a medieval society where she will inevitably be married off for a political alliance and/or to produce children, and she has probably always known that she needs to marry out of duty/responsibility, so I can’t really see her as that much of a hopeless romantic given the circumstances. If she allows herself anything, it is the hope that she will get to spend her life with someone who does care for her and who she can be content with. I don't think throughout most of Finesse's life and certainly not throughout this whole arranged marriage business that anyone has ever really asked her what she wanted or ever really cared about her wishes before, but Langris seems to have a genuine interest in her wishes and her happiness more so than anyone else. And I think she does care for him (again, not necessarily in a romantic way but it is a genuine care and concern of at least friendship).

As I discussed in this post, when Langris has all that elf-business and the King threatens to dissolve the betrothal and punish the Vaudes, it is Finesse who comes to their defense rather than taking what is quite possibly her only chance at an "out." And it is an informed, free choice on her part. I love her line in the English dub that she "knows Lord Langris and has no misgivings about him" and therefore essentially begs her uncle not to "judge him too harshly." I think there is something very strong and very courageous in her decision to believe in the good in Langris even when he is at his worst, and her concern is truly and completely focused on what is best for him. I'm especially thinking of that moment when she begs him to stop before he does something he will regret. She's worried about him: his hurt and his guilt. She really wants what's best for him, and it's this love for him and this belief in him that really brings out the best in Langris.

My absolute favorite thing about this ship (besides how selfless they are towards each other) is really that Finesse has this way of bringing out this softer, gentler side of Langris that, I think, very few people have actually seen. Langris himself is so insistent on hiding this (probably a learned response from growing up in an environment where any hint of emotion and any sensitivity is viewed as a weakness), but really he has such a deep capacity for love and given the opportunity would be fiercely loyal.

Langris may not care about a lot of people, but the ones he chooses to care about he will love forever. He's just such a tsun about it, I think, so it can be very hard for anyone (and especially for those with preconceived notions of him as a snotty stick-in-the-mud) to see that he's really very sweet and awkward as heck about his feelings. Langris' love might be quiet—it's not very flashy and usually shows itself in doing little, everyday things for the people he loves—but still waters run very, very deep and he has shown that he would do just about anything to protect the people he loves most and make them happy, no matter what that means for himself. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that he would die for Finesse if it came down to it.

Ultimately, I can imagine a lot of different outcomes for this relationship (some of which never, ever cross over into that romantic place). I really just want them both to be happy whether that means they end up together or not, but yes, I could see them happy with each other in a romantic sense under very specific circumstances since they do have such a selfless love for each other (but I think that is probably a discussion for another time because this is already super, super long so I'm cutting myself off in favor of the next section...).

Why I personally think Langris rather than Finral is better suited for Finesse

As much I don't like pitting ships against each other, I don't think it's avoidable in this case since she is going to be in arranged marriage with one of them. To paraphrase a favorite musical of mine, it's not a matter of "if" but which one. And I think it's best for me to just start off by saying that while I do genuinely like and appreciate Finesse and Finral as a ship as well, I personally think that Langris and Finesse are better suited for one another in the long term.

I will admit upfront that this is in part because of my own personal experiences of having a chronic illness (and needless to say that is a personal bias that colors my opinions, so please just keep that in mind), but I think it's important to talk about the fact that Finesse is chronically ill because it's not something I've ever really seen discussed when talking about ships for her and I really think it should be taken into account. Like Finesse, I have been sick for most of my life, and I can really relate to the kind of difficulties and limitations that Finesse likely experiences due to being chronically ill and the realities of the less active and much more slower-paced life she would lead and, by proxy, the life anyone who married her would have to lead. Again, I am not saying that I don’t like or couldn’t imagine her & Finral together (I do genuinely like that ship too), but I almost think Langris is better suited for her in that he actually wants (or seems to want) the slower-paced life they’d probably have together. For instance, there are likely to be frequent situations that would arise in which Finesse is too ill or too tired to go out and her husband would then be “forced” to stay home with her. With Langris, I think, there would never really need to be much of that feeling of guilt on Finesse’s part or the fear that she is taking away something from Langris or being a burden, because Langris isn’t super sociable and would just want to stay home anyway. In fact, let’s be honest here, he’d probably, actually feel kind of relieved that he has gotten out of unwanted socializing. Whereas Finral is a much more lively and sociable person (rather than an "old soul" like Langris), and though Finral would never, ever want Finesse to feel like a burden or to feel guilty about being sick, I could imagine there is more of that feeling (at least from Finesse’s side) that he has given up a lot more to be with her since his active social life would drastically change as soon as they married.

There's also the matter of the panic Finral would probably have whenever Finesse was ill or having a flare of symptoms. Of course, Langris would be worried as well, but I think because of his personality, he is better able to shelve that and help in a crisis rather than Finral who gets really worked up and then just sort of shuts down. Obviously this is something that can be learned over time, but I just worry that it would be a constant source of stress for Finral which would ultimately make Finesse very worried about him and upset that he is upset on her account. I think Finesse would have a lot of fear that the life she could give a lively, busy, & social person like Finral would be holding him back in some way. The question there is really: will what Finral wants out of life ever gel with the limitations Finesse has to live with? Whereas I don't think that question is as much of an issue with Langris since he is an old soul and incredibly steady, very unlike his more restless, adventurous, and high-energy brother.

I think Langris and Finesse are alike in this way. Though they have many differences in their personalities (and a really nice balance there), they have a lot of similarities in worldview and their attitudes towards life and their life goals—being more traditional, formal, and proper ‘old souls.' Whereas I think she and Finral have more similarities in personality (despite him being much more lively), they’re both incredibly kind, gentle & easy-going people who aren’t particularly ambitious and often make decisions based on what will make other people happy and "keep the peace." But worldview wise he seems much more modern and less traditional than her which I could see causing some tensions since I think they want different things out of life, in a way. It’s almost more important to be alike in life goals/worldview than personality, I think.

I also think Finesse and Langris share common interests and genuinely enjoy each other's company (as we get these glimpses of in the anime where they're just having a quiet, comfortable tea parties together for instance). Even if it started off as an obligation to spend time together because of this arranged marriage they were going to be in, I like to think that eventually Langris and Finesse actually became fairly good friends and came to genuinely enjoy each other's company. I guess it’s a bit unfair to Finral to bring this up since we haven’t seen him spend a lot of time with Finesse so we can't say that they don’t enjoy each other’s company but I just don’t see them having the same shared interests that she would have with Langris.

There is a lot more I could say about these two and their relationship, but I think that's enough ramblings for now. If you read this all the way through to the end, bless you. Thank you for coming to my TED Talk. Cheers!! 💖

[vampire-sugar]

Again not at all related to QOTD but related to stuff i see under the tags that’s been bothering me a lot. I was originally gonna send this as an ask but it might potentially not get answered so just gonna post. It’s in relation to this answered ask which i sent and just wanted to be more clear in what i meant. https://www.tumblr.com/nalyra-dreaming/742009291203035136/hey-i-originally-sent-this-ask-to-virginia-bc-a

@nalyra-dreaming Thanks for answering, and I’m gonna come off anon bc I think it’s more transparent that way, only was on anon bc didnt want to be potentially blocked and not see a response. Just wanna clear some things up. I did not read all the books, just the first couple and working my way up, but im aware of what happens bc idc ab spoilers etc. Also I like Loustat, i like jam I listen to the podcasts read the interviews etc etc so im aware of the things u might think that I’m not aware of. I know the characters are still the same, I know we’re gonna get revisits and personally I’m excited for them I love shows/movies where there’s a shift in perspective I think it’s so fun. However I do think they gotta be careful when doing the revisits bc some things would be problematic/racist, and I have read your rant which is why I say that you agree w this. You also agree with this in your response. What I’m confused about thooo is the contradiction in both your rant and your response to me where you say that “ if I‘m going to see anyone scream “bad writing“ or “Louis being made a liar or the memories revisited/changed is racism“ when the changes will hit I‘m just gonna block you.” And then say that it has nothing to do with the problematic directions the show could take to the revisits “because there are many traps there to consider because of the racial change”. And then say “but it’s not bad writing, or racism, if and when these things happen”. I don’t understand, what is it then? Or maybe we disagree about what would actually be a problematic way to revisit ep5? Would something have to be super explicitly racist for it to be considered problematic or bad?

As for listening to the Black cast and creators, I do and I agree with them as well? Jacob says Louis lies and I didn’t need him to say that for me to see it already in s1 like Louis’ lies ab tbe extent in which Claudia resented him, how much he loved Lestat to the point of not being able to kill him etc. I’m literally saying if he lies ab the ABUSE it would be badddd which is why I don’t think they’ll go that way, even if Louis lying ab things is canon (+++ how are things being canon suddenly an argument for why they wouldn’t be bad if adapted in the show??).

And then the other anon saying “why would it be bad if Lily was shady anyone of any race can be a villain” bruhh like what evils could she have committed to deserve death? (stealing and killing from her clients like the prostitutes in the book who lestat feels justified in killing? she’s a Black sex worker in 1910 New Orleans the show opens with Bricks literally being assaulted by a client if she had killed him I would have cheered so idk what would make lily evil enough to have deserved death that’s what i mean by thatt which is also another example of something being canon still being bad)

Also I realize the way I phrased my ask made it seem like I think the making fun of wanting jassad is weird bc it’s mean or something, which is not at all why I think it’s weird. Ppl specifically making fun of wanting to see two poc who are an important pairing in the show be paired in promos as well, that’s the weird part.

And I did not say at all that I think they’re gonna be wholesome bc they are POC, the fuck? Why did you have to do all that when discussing the jassad part of my comment? That’s also very weird. Like I know who Armand is and what he does, that doesn’t mean that I will stop being excited that the ppl playing the part are POC and no longer want to see them on my screen or do promos together…. I’m excited to see all that stuff play outtttttttt….. y am i supposed to only be excited for loustat…..?

As for the comments you got on your fic, I personally did not read your fic but I’m sure you write v well and I’m assuming the comments are super hurtful and unnecessary and things like “kys”, which I find the casual use of in online spaces in general very weird so I’m genuinely sorry that you received that in your inbox. However I’m talking about how even getting just a “hey that’s racist” would also be not a great thing to receive like no one wants to be called that. Getting anything negative at all in the inbox is not great so getting even wilder stuff is very hurtful, I get that, which is why I’m trying hard not to come off in any type of way that would suggest that. People saying I’m tired of this discourse, plz know this is in response to your rant as well as a lot of the asks ab the jassad pairing, not just for discourse’s sake. Personally, I think it’s important and interesting to discuss how changes in certain characters’ races could affect the story moving forward, and I like that you talk ab your theories for how they will adapt s2 that stuff is fun and very fandom like behavior. But when ppl point out that some things won’t work bc of the race (which again u agree w in ur rant + ur response) u talk ab how some fans who say this pair it w hurtful language and then by dismissing the hurtful language you dismiss the notion that the suggestion would be racist or problematic in the first place which is very contradictory. But I guess since I have not read all of Anne Rice’s work my opinion ain’t shit.

[overthinkthis]

I will make this one post criticising The Sign because there is one criticism about it that I think is worth sharing and that's about why the story kind of falls apart for me. (honestly not sure if posting this is a good idea but... yeah, anyway, tw for discussions of rape)

I wasn't really disappointed by the finale, I was actually really happy that no one died, but one of the main reasons is that I didn't expect much from it. I knew very early on that I wouldn't be overwhelmed by the ending because to me, this series is a perfect example of art that sets up a conflict it isn't ready to resolve because the people making it aren't ready to resolve it in real life.

A lot of this show is based around Tharn's struggle for agency. He's stripped of his autonomy by Chalothorn, who puts Tharn in a position where going for what he wants endangers the people he loves. He cannot decide freely, he's always bound by the fear of losing someone, of causing the people around him pain, and Tharn has been through so much he doesn't dare to fight back anymore.

And this is just my personal view, I know other people have different reads on this story, but for me the only satisfying solution would have been to actually give Tharn his agency back. Really make it his decision how to end the story - and not in an 'oh, he talked Chalothorn into letting him go' kind of way but in a real 'he gets to choose his life no matter what the others want for him, no matter how dangerous it is' kind of way. In a way that makes it clear that he gets to make his choice even if it hurts others.

And I pretty much knew I wouldn't get that from the show after their first police case, because the people who made the show obviously don't share my believe on how important giving back agency to abuse victims is. They didn't really care about the (re-traumatised) victims at all, they stuck to the idea that catching the bad guys is the most important thing. That rape can be prevented or solved by more control from outside.

And this is not surprising because it's the common opinion when it comes to rape. It's a power fantasy, really. To be able to protect the innocent by punishing the bad guys. It's the only solution most TV shows have when it comes to sexual abuse. Even The Warp Effect, which did a really good job talking about consent on the whole, kind of threw up its hands in the face of something like rape and said 'guess the only solution is to turn back time so it never happens'.

And I personally think that this is because the real solution - fighting to give people back their agency - hurts. It means giving up control and accepting that there is no way to always protect those we love.

Tharn should have got the chance to decide. Even if it meant someone dying. Even if it meant him leaving Phaya forever. He should have got the chance to make that decision actively and with Phaya accepting it.

Anyway, I'm gonna go back to thinking about how much I still love this show now, because it brought me such an immense amount of joy and I still have a lot of gif sets to reblog.

[cruella1989]

The Tragic Life of Darth Sidious

Why are villains like Darth Vader, Darth Maul, and Kylo Ren considered tragic? Well, the short answer is because they had “tragic” experiences that played into them going down the wrong path (although I think in the case of the latter it’s debatable). But they’re not what I’m going to discuss today, it’s another villain who has an equally sad background, but for some reason is often considered very unsympathetic. That antagonist is none other than the big bad guy, himself, Emperor Palpatine. 

Personally I’ve never understood why so many fans say that it’s “impossible to feel any sympathy for him” and that he has “no redeeming qualities”. I especially don’t understand these type of statements with the fans that pity other villains. I’m talking about bad guys who have killed and hurt many people, some of which have not reformed, others who don’t even have that sad a backstory. Is it because, he’s the guy in charge? To each their own, I guess? 

Anyway, here’s why I view this particular villain a little differently than the norm. (Disclaimer! I am in no way excusing his actions! I know he’s evil, and I’m simply explaining why I think he’s more sympathetic than many other fans do.)

When we first meet Palpatine in the, now Legends, novel Darth Plagueis he is a troubled seventeen year-old, to say the least. There’s also no denying that he’s an egocentric, little jerk right from the start of his initial appearance. It can be hard to see him as anything other than that, especially with some of the things he admits to have done. Those include all kinds of petty crimes and even vehicular man-slaughter! How are you supposed to feel bad for somebody like that? I’d say the first thing you need to do is look at what caused him to become that way.

I think a lot people either ignore or miss a few very important clues when reading the novel that strongly states he was abused by his father and came from a very dysfunctional home. For example, they tend to take his father buying him out of trouble with the law as a sign that he’s a spoiled brat. Of course, that action does send the message to youth that they are above the law no matter the intent. But the book states that the patriarch of the Palpatine home is doing that because he wants no ‘stain’ on the family name, not out of some kind of mislead love for his troubled son. On top of that, the book makes it clear that his father, Cosinga, was a terrible man that did awful things to the family and all sorts of illegal acts. In fact it’s stated that he committed fraud, made bribes, hired hit men, had multiple mistresses, and intimidated his wife and children into being subservient to him.

“Palpatine forced a laugh. “Only because she espouses no views of her own; only because he has made her subservient to him—as he has my well-behaved brothers and sisters, who treat me like an interloper and yet, to my father, represent all I can never be.”

“Plagueis had no need to delve any further into whatever traumas had given rise to Palpatine’s cunning, secretive nature.”

“Cosinga flung his words with cruel abandon, “It will be so good to have you gone.”

Being raise by someone like that in that kind of environment is really going to mess a kid up, especially if said youth already has violent tendencies. All children need some sort moral guidance, but when a child has a bad temper they particularly need help learning how to controlling it. I think it’s pretty safe to say that young Palpatine was getting much the opposite of what he needed in his childhood home.

“…his father, who shared with his son a penchant for violence,…”

“Sidious took a moment to respond. It was odd to think now that he had once known fear... But as a child, he’d experienced fear as a conditioned response to threat. Despite a reassuring voice inside him that had promised no harm could come, there had been, for a time, a chance that something terrible could happen. More than once his father’s raised hand had made him cringe.”

But, what about him killing his own family before he even became a Sith apprentice? Okay, there’s a difference between premeditated murder and self defense. Palpatine’s dad had just said he wanted to kill him, and in response the boy unleashed a force-storm on him. It was obviously result of a bunch of fear, anger and force power that had been bottled up inside of him. The author makes it plain that he doesn’t know what he’s doing and that he’s even scared of his own power. Heck, Palpatine even tells his mother to stay away from him while this mess in going on. Please, keep in mind he’s only seventeen, has had no force training, and his father just said he wanted him dead.

Also, do not forget that Hego Damask, (aka Plagueis) who was likely Palpatine’s only friend, had goaded him on about killing his father only a few days earlier, when the boy stated that he wanted be free of his family. Yes, he tells the impressionable teenager a story about how he ‘did away’ with his own family, when they were in the way of his own desires. He even admits it after the event is over. 

This particular act by Damask obviously left a big impression on Palpatine and angered him even decades later. This is shown when Sidious brings it up right before killing Plagueis and becoming Sith Master.

{“Hated you more than you know,” Cosinga said, allowing his ire to rise once more. “Enough to want to kill you from the start.”

Palpatine stood his ground. “Then you had better do it now.”

Cosinga took a step in Palpatine’s direction…}

“Palpatine stood rooted in place, his hands trembling in front of him and his face stricken. Something stirred behind his incandescent eyes. He heard the pounding on the hatch and whirled. “Don’t come in! Stay away from me!”

“It was Hego Damask as Plagueis who then set his sights on a seemingly confused young man and, with meticulous skill, manipulated him into committing patricide, matricide, and fratricide.”

Another argument I see being made against young Palpatine has to due with a few insults he and his father throw at each right before the latter’s death. I’ve heard many fans claims that these quotes prove that he was “born evil” or “it’s meant to symbolize the devil”.

{“…You are an animal heart.”

“King of Beasts, Father,” Palpatine said.}

“I knew this day would come. I’ve known it since the first moment I tried to swaddle you, and you fought me with strength that was too powerful for your size and age.”

Okay, to start with his abusive father calling him ‘an animal’ doesn’t mean that he behaved in a sadistic way his entire life. I know that that’s popular belief when in comes to that line, but it is not true. Remember, this is the guy who made most of his family subservient to him. So why wouldn’t he call his rebellious eldest son, a name like that? If the insult did have any meaning to it (beyond just being mean) likely he’s referring to the boy’s bad temper and his trouble with the law. And second Palpatine’s response is more than likely a claim that he’s stronger than his father, not confirming that he’s ‘demonic’ or whatever.

 Also, baby Palpatine being strong and more powerful than the average infant does not prove that he was born evil, or was some kind of demon baby. It only confirms that he was strong in the force from infancy. And guess what? Babies fight all the time.

So, did the troubles stop once the dysfunctional family was gone? Not exactly. After witnessing Palpatine’s strength in the force and hearing the boy admit that his true desire was to be powerful, Plagueis decided to offer him an apprenticeship. Damask revealed that he was a Sith Lord, and told Palpatine that if he swore his allegiance to the order, then he could obtain great power. 

He, of course, took the offer as he did crave power, and there was a promise of it. Was it the right path to take? No. Did he join for selfish reasons, like the promised strength and authority. Of course, why else would he? But, that doesn’t change the fact that he was put through a lot brutal physical, mental and emotional tests while going through Sith training. 

I’d also like to add, that unbeknownst to the his new pupil, the Sith Master had other plans to use the boy as a way of obtaining power for himself. This basically involve getting Palpatine elected Chancellor, (since a human stood a better chance than a Muun) and using Sidious as a ‘puppet’ while he called the shots. So Plagueis was not innocent here, by any means.

"He admits it! And who better than a human to wear the mask of power while an immortal Sith Lord rules in secret!" 

{“Now tell me again, Apprentice, and in greater detail.”

Once more Sidious allowed his memories to unfold, and he relived the crime— the event as he had come to think of it. His father’s limp and bloody body, the smashed skulls of the bodyguards, his hands around his mother’s slender throat—but not really, only in his mind—strangling her with his thoughts, the lifeless forms of his siblings, slumped here and there. In telling it and telling it, in reliving it, he had finally gained a kind of authority over it; the ability to see the event merely for what it was, without emotion, without judgement. It was as if the event had occurred years, rather the months, earlier.}

“…You want strangle me like you did you’re poor, misunderstood mother, tear me limb from limb like you did the bodyguards. Fair enough. But to do so you will have to make a greater effort, Apprentice.”

Clawing his way across the tundra, his body rashed with lightsaber burns, Sidious looked up at Plagueis imploringly, “H-how much longer…Master?” 

The final dispute that I tend to hear made against him is that he was “tricking” his master, Plagueis, the whole time they worked together. Personally, I never saw that. Much of the dialog, his internal thoughts and the situations that he was in during the Sith training made it pretty clear Sidious was not the one in control. 

Now it is true that Palpatine does start tricking him later, as he gains more desire for power, and wants to kill Plagueis and become the Sith Master. It starts off subtlety but you can tell when he starts loosing respect for Plagueis and wondering when he will be the one in charge. I’m not saying that it didn’t start before that, but I just have a hard time imagining the young Sidious “clouding” his master’s mind the entire time, without any previous training.

I’d also like to point out that despite popular belief, it’s actually never stated that he was tricking him the whole time, not even during his villainous rant at the end. What Palpatine actually says is that he never intended to share the power. And okay even if he had somehow been “clouding” Plagueis’ mind (despite having no force training) during the entire apprenticeship, what do you expect out some one who was raised in a dysfunctional home until age seventeen and was then taken in by a mass murderer? 

“You lost the game on the very first day you chose to train me to rule by your side—or better still under your thumb!”

“The truth is, I haven’t changed. As we have clouded the minds of the Jedi, I clouded your’s. Never once did I have any intention of sharing power with you.”

Now, I’m sure that people are going to claim that, unlike many other Star Wars villains, he still as no redeeming qualities. Of course, having no positive qualities makes it much harder to view him in any sort of positive light or feel pity for him. At least it would be if that were true. Especially in Legends timeline, there are several glimpses of humanity that we see from him. These are mostly shown by some attempts to help and in hints that he cares about his apprentices in his own twisted way.

“…that the force was strong in the infant was reason enough not to let it wonder around unprotected, and perhaps fall in the hands of the Jedi.”

“There is a moment—just one moment,” McDiarmid remembers, “It’s after Anakin’s been almost destroyed and he’s got little life in him. Palpatine has sent for a medical team and he’s waiting for them to arrive—and he just gently touches Anakin’s forehead. Sidious doesn’t have any qualities we normally associate with humanity, except he does have a master-servant relationship with Anakin. Anakin means something to him.” 

The Making of Star Wars: Episode III- The Revenge of the Sith 

J.W. Rinzler 

I hope that you enjoyed this article and that it has clarified things, and maybe helped you see him in a bit of a different light.  

[samlovesfurrs]

I want to talk about something that, to be honest, I didn't expect when I entered the Dinotrux fandom.

The truth is, I was quite surprised by something specific: the romanticization of many things.

This has definitely left me somewhat shocked. Okay, to start off, I've seen many fans romanticizing certain character relationships in the series. The biggest example is the Ty x D-structs ship. I'm not saying you can't like the ship, but it's undeniably a very toxic, abusive, and problematic relationship, but the problem is how his fans handle it, I've never seen a story where the kind of relationship they have is not romanticized, Overall, I strongly disagree with these things, .

It's not just that, I've also noticed that many fans tend to have incorrect ideas about certain things, especially when it comes to the actions of the villains. They often wrongly justify what they do. This case is interesting because I have had to see dozens of fans say that either D-structs or D-stroy do their actions only because of "pressure" or because of something from the past, which although it may be a possibility, that still doesn't justify anything they do, they are not villains by nature, they are villains by choice, this is made very clear by Ty, who even though he is a T-trux, is nothing like they, even Rexy could be used as an example, what I want to try to say with this point is that they are not your "little guys" or anything, nothing justifies the actions of a villain.

Also something to highlight is the stereotyping of homosexual relationships, in most "important" stories or that came to stand out more at the time they do this. You would be surprised by the amount of transphobic comments that can be found around characters from my series, comments that are full of stereotypes, sexism and invalidation. In the worst cases I have seen many fans taking incest as normal, they would not like to know the large amount of content there is about this kind of disgusting things.

Depression, mental disorders and some other things like adhd, autism or adhd are often romanticized a lot, mostly people use it for "Aesthetics", which is a horrible thing.

In something a little further from his series, there are cases of harassment, fights between fans, even slightly more explicit content shared with minors This being the worst thing I've ever seen for now.

It really puzzled me to see this kind of content, considering that the series aims to show that these things are wrong. I'm just saying that, based on my experience in this fandom, which is quite extensive, as I devote a lot of time to consuming all the content related to things I like, this kind of content is much more frequent than I had initially thought. It used to happen more often a few years ago, and while it's not as prevalent now, it still feels unusual.

I don't want to generalize to the fans at all, but the Dinotrux fandom is where I've seen these things the most, which saddens me a lot considering that we are a small community.

Even I have had to experience mistreatment for this, I love the series, I am not much of a socialist but without a doubt there is a very dark part in the community that I think is worth talking about.

This is more based on things that I have been able to see but it does not take away the fact that to this day, there are still these things.

Again, sorry for my bad english.

[a-student-out-of-time]

Like I'm pretty sure that SDRA2 tells that in killing game you should trust nobody think about that. Kokoro end up trusting Teruya that he protect her but he mess up and she died. Setsuka end up trusting Hibiki and her sister and end up dying. Shinju was one of characters who says that they need trust each other end up be a tool that Nikea used for his plan. And Syobai survives who was isolated and trust nobody and he survivor unlike people who trust in someone.

//I think you're misunderstanding the real issues here. One, this is a terrible message in general because you can't get through any sort of game like this without trusting someone.

//Two, LINUJ absolutely has this very cynical perspective on human nature, but it feels incredibly selective and haphazardly applied. For example:

He's talked about how he created Kizuna to be the most hateable character in DRA and someone you'd want to suffer the worst death, yet he gives her some very sympathetic moments and backstory elements that show there's depth to her behavior. Everything about her sudden turn to murder doesn't feel like she's showing her true colors, but a contrived turn out of left field to make her a villain because that was the plan.

He'll talk constantly about how we should hold characters accountable for their actions and how no element of their backstory makes what they do okay. And he'll say this no matter how much those characters clearly show compassion, camaraderie, regret, guilt, sorrow, or how tragic their backstories are. He has this weird habit of giving them understandable backstories, but instead of using them to contextualize behavior or provide some sympathy, it's like he tells the audience "No, you can't agree with them, they're bad people."

Despite that, when Sora deliberately tries to save Yuki's life by using an unconscious Nikei's hand to injure Shinji, he was baffled and hurt that a lot of people were angry at her, when he felt she deserved sympathy for that. Honestly pretty hypocritical there, ngl.

When his characters aren't regressing as people or dying, they're just stagnant. Iroha doesn't undergo any kind of growth in this game, and her true colors turn out to be those of a self-centered coward. It honestly gets pretty insufferable, yet he hasn't really had a bad word to say about her.

He also has this uncomfortable desire to see the nicest and kindest characters suffer the worst deaths, and for no other reason than its emotional impact on the audience. Yet he's also sad that he did it and wishes it didn't have to be like that?

Third, your points don't make any sense within the story's logic:

Syobai does not survive because he "doesn't trust anyone." He survives because he has literal cheat codes and can leave the simulation whenever he wants. Plus, as a Broker, he makes deals with people, and deals require trust. He even made a deal with Emma and only broke it when it was clear his life would be in danger if he still upheld it.

Kokoro died not because she made a mistake trusting Teruya, but because she made the absolutely boneheaded decision to confront Emma about her status as a Void and her abusive father without any protection at her side. Bringing Teruya with her would not have been hard at all.

Setsuka's death happened because Kanade is a jealous clingy freak, and also because she read ahead in the script. Hibiki didn't betray Setsuka, she was in her puppet state and couldn't act on her own at the time, having no conscious awareness of her actions.

The closest you could really say was genuine betrayal was from Nikei, but that had nothing to do with Shinji. It was because Nikei wanted to ruin Mikado's plans out of petty spite, and that meant hurting Yuki by getting him to kill the guy who was there for him the entire game.

//Moreover, SDRA2's themes are so weakly-presented and executed that any messages you take away from this game feel accidental at best. Yes, it's the conclusion of the Another series' story, but there's no obvious exploration of themes or ideas in place, so I really can't say LINUJ had an aesop he wanted to share with us.

//So, no, it isn't saying anything about trust or betrayal. It's not saying much of anything beyond "Let's watch Yuki Maeda suffer for 6 chapters."

//LINUJ is capable of good ideas, but he has this very bad habit of failing to take advantage of them, undercutting them or throwing them out in favor of bad ones instead.

[reflections-in-a-critical-eye]

Hey m, what's your stance on separation of the art from the artist when it comes to the artist being of a questionable character?

And on a wholly separate note, did you ever talk of Letter and Jimin and Jungkook and if there's a case for interpreting the song as most shippers have done?

Wow, that is a totally separate note there, anon 😆

But let's start with the first part of your ask. I'm sure I've written about this in the past, but my tagging system is not the best. Anyway..

What I can tell you is that there is no definitive answer. Which is probably boring because we're "supposed" to pick a side and stick to it. Regardless of our position, it's almost expected for us to be radical. I've had this exact debate so many times, with people of different ages and backgrounds. It's an ongoing debate and I really don't think there is a correct way of looking at it. I think that the more we try and move away from an abstract position and rather look at the particularities, it would be easier to understand our own arguments and how/why we choose to accept or dismiss some people. Then we also have to keep in mind what is condered questionable character. Does its definition include a general understanding of a person that is accepted all across the board? Or our own character and world views influence the way we perceive other people? And sometimes, there's another element that perhaps it's easily explicable, but in my mind, it's the one about a lack of logic. I'll give you an example. It's close to impossible for me to rewatch CMBYN because of Hammer's cannibalism allegations, more than the ones of abuse against women. I also publicly and vehemently condemn Woody Allen because I believe he is guilty of what he's been accused of, but it doesn't mean I will also never watch Annie Hall. Does that say that I'm a bad person? A hypocrite? Maybe. But it also says that I can't help but be subjective depending on each singular situation and that some of my views don't have any logic even in my own mind.

But these are extreme cases, of people who had actual charges brought against them. There are countless others that are usually accused of wide range of things, from sexism, racism, homophobia to xenophobia, you name it. Everything under the sun. Some people will not care, while others will. It's an individual choice. Not only a moral one, but economic as well.

I'd like to end this though by saying that I personally don't expect art to be made only by morally righteous people. I think that's a dangerous trap that leads to just another type of extremism.

Now, the second part, a bit more fun!

The only time I mentioned Letter was in one of my early posts on the new blog. I said it reminds me of a studio Ghibli movie but that I also have a more personal attachment to it.

I know how it's been interpreted by jikookers. I personally don't subscribe to the theory, but not for some major reason. I think it's nice Jimin had Jungkook do the backing vocals and seeing him sing during a livestream was moving. That's sort of enough for me. I think it's perfectly possible for the song to really be a letter to his fans. What I'm trying to say is that as much as it is really sweet, if it's for Jungkook or not, it doesn't have a major bearing on my opinion regarding them.

But I want to be very clear that just because I believe that, it doesn't mean I have an issue or condemn any jikooker who believes in the theory that it's a song for JK and about them. It's a harmless theory that is not based on any toxic or weird narrative. People should be free to talk about it, without having condescending anons or bloggers making fun of it or even criticising it too harshly. I've seen that happen a lot after the album was released.

P.S. Anon, I just saw your second ask. I'd rather stick to my answer as it is now, without going into any RM specifics as of today. I'm not in the mood for that.

[amyintherapy]

Big T Versus Little T Traumas

Thought I'd share what stuck out to me most from my therapy appointment a few days ago.

I continue to process childhood trauma, and at one point in this session I had brought up a time where I was blatantly emotionally abandoned when I was in very clear emotional crisis. I was around 14 at the time of this memory.

And my T asked if I remembered anything I thought or felt about this experience, if it was surprising or shocking, hurtful, if it made me angry, etc. I didn't really remember specifics like that, and told my therapist that. But then also elaborated by saying that I didn't think it could have been particularly shocking, as it was a pattern for my mom by that point. I then listed four or five other instances of very blatant neglect when I was in a crisis. Like, your kid is metaphorically on fire, and the parents say nothing and do nothing and just pretend it didn't happen, sort of situations. And a bit later in this conversation I said it's funny how just a couple months ago (maybe not even that far back..I Don't recall for sure) I was struggling with identifying as being emotionally neglected - because it was quite severe emotional neglect. I think emotional neglect of any "level" is valid, don't get me wrong. But it's weird that I was struggling with using the term when I was quite severely emotionally neglected. And part of that struggle is how society at large seems to not recognize 'small T' traumas as being traumatic, and also how the bubble I grew up in seems to see emotionally neglecting children, especially in more 'mild' ways, as just, normal.

For example, I know SO many people who are not authoritarian parents, and who very clearly mean well as parents, but who still feel like they can't validate their kids emotions and hold a boundary for their behavior at the same time. So many people who routinely minimize, dismiss, invalidate or avoid/distract their kids feelings rather than teaching them how to really sit with and process their feelings. Often because the parents themselves never learned how to manage their own feelings so they can't possibly teach the kid to. Emotional neglect isn't exclusive to bad parenting, it's super common with parenting from people doing their absolute best, but who just were traumatized themselves and never learned coping skills themselves. And when people really truly tried their best, they have a hard time even imagining that their kid could still have trauma from their childhoods. It feels unfair that doing your absolute best could still traumatize your kid. But I think that's the reality of how it often works. Kids are fragile, and most of us have a lot of generational trauma so even when doing our best we can't break ALL the cycles. I don't imagine I'll succeed at breaking all of mine. My absolute best won't be enough either, and I'm trying to come to terms with that now, while also balancing trying my best to heal for my future kid(s) too. But anyway...

The traumatized/mentally ill part of my brain likes to use that 'neglect is just normal' thing to invalidate me having cPTSD, basically. That part of my brain feels like I am just dramatic, and things 'weren't that bad' and so on. That part of my brain still looks at my childhood as having one type of big T trauma (sexual abuse) and that's it.

But after mentioning how it's funny that I so recently was struggling to even accept that I had experienced emotional neglect, my therapist said something about how I also have minimized how much Big T trauma I have. I was confused briefly. They pointed out that all the specific instances I had listed of blatant neglect in the face of crisis, count as big T traumas. That little t traumas are the day to day, mini 'cuts' that we don't really even remember because they were just normal tuesday things to us despite being hurtful. Things like coming home from school excited about something only to have your mom hush you rather than listen to you. Of course, this happening occasionally isn't traumatic but when kids live with dismissive or invalidating or overly critical parents regularly those mini cuts add up to cause accumulative trauma, and that's what cPTSD is about, mini cuts adding up to a wound, rather than traditional PTSD which leaves more acute injuries. They pointed out that Big T traumas are specific events that you do specifically remember, that left a specific wound. So just the fact that I was able to list these specific events means they are big t traumas, not little T.

Clearly, my therapist was right that I was minimizing them a bit because I had never considered that they are big t traumas.

[cosmiclion]

From the news I read I’m surprised they’ll welcome Miri’s mom return in future episodes. I guess it isn’t that much of a stretch considering that Miri would eventually want to see her mother again. Though I’m interested to see how it will go. Her mom made it clear she doesn’t want to continue caring for her. Miri will be crushed of course. If that happens I just hope she remembers she has a new family now and her support network is larger then before. Miri’s mom doesn’t seem as horrible as other abusive anime parents. I mean Miri wouldn’t be as cheerful and energetic as she should if her mother at least took care of her enough to not realize her growing hatred. I could tell from her first appearance she’s a very broken woman, trying to live her dreams singing in a shady bar in the red light district, loving a man who shows blatant abuse towards her. It was for the best that Miri left her and stayed in the care of adults who will look after her needs with no regrets. Otherwise she’ll be faced with abuse and regret should Miri continue living with her.

Hi! Uh... first of all I'd like to offer my sincerest apologies for taking ages to answer this, I've been a little too busy with school and general chores plus I really didn't know how to put my thoughts into words 😭 I know it's pretty pointless to answer your specific ask by now since the show has already progressed and ended but I still didn't want to leave this ignored, and if you don't mind I'll take the opportunity to offer some thoughts.

Now that the show has ended I see why they made the choices they made and they make a lot of sense given the context of the story. I personally don’t have any complaints about the writing but I think Misaki deserved better. I'm sad she died but I understand why it happened, I suppose with her arc going that route it wouldn't have made sense for her to survive in a show where nobody's safe from violent criminals who are willing to murder women and children to get them out of their way. Still, I don't think she needed a big change of heart, I think she was already a great character as she was (it also rubs me the wrong way that some people started viewing her as a good person only once she started making an effort to do things right but I digress).

I'll be honest, I'm not a huge fan of the "unwilling parent learns to love their kid and learns to be a good parent so that they can finally be a happy family" narrative. It just doesn’t sit right with me, maybe I’m reading too much into it but the message I get from these kind of stories is that anyone can be a good parent/caretaker with enough help and resources and in the right place mentally and emotionally (ESPECIALLY because that's an argument people use in real life for why they think everyone should have kids, or hell, even as an anti abortion argument; like that's not an exaggeration, I've seen them saying pretty much the exact same thing), when the sad reality is that sometimes kids are just unwanted. I sincerely wish the show had acknowledged that some people just don’t want to be parents even when they already are, I know it’s not pretty but these things need to be talked about in fiction.

I also think it would’ve fit the story perfectly: we would’ve had an example of horrible abusive parents (Rei’s father), amazing loving parents (Rei and Kazuki themselves) and parents who do their best but would still rather be doing anything else (Misaki; as you said, Miri wouldn’t be as cheerful if her mother hadn't kept her unhappiness to herself). Maybe I’m biased, I don’t know, but I’m really starved for this kind of content. As a friend of mine as well as a few other people have said, we need more situations like in Matilda, where the bio parents admit they aren't fit for the role and happily sign away their parental rights.

(Granted that if Misaki hadn't popped back into Miri's life she wouldn't have died like that, as she got targeted precisely because she was with Miri, that's why I say I understand why the writers made the choices they made).

I also wish they hadn't given her cancer if they were going to kill her off anyway, give the poor woman a break lol.

If you (not you the asker but you as in anyone reading this) disagree with me that's perfectly okay, and let me reiterate that I do NOT think this is bad writing, I'm just tired of seeing this trope over and over again; but any angry asks or comments will be ignored and deleted.

(Edited to add some more thoughts).

[pluralprompts]

Hi yeah I am a ramcoa system and for starters the system community has a HUGE problem with what you're doing which is "well its fiction so its fine" or "well you're just one kind of system what about these OTHER systems that are sort of similar but arent actually experiencing even close to the same thing". Having people from ramcoa "explore their trauma" through fiction is not only a bad idea, its dangerous. The systems with "false memories" implanted into them by a "big bad" ARE ramcoa systems. Ramcoa systems should not be exploring their trauma through any means other than therapy. And yes I know therapy is expensive and all of that. What happens when you explore that level of trauma alone leads to VERY DANGEROUS situations that often lead to the system hurting themselves and possibly, though rarely as theyre more likely to hurt themselves, even others. False memories and gaslighting are NOT the same thing. Gaslighting does not lead to you creating a whole past in your mind that didn't actually happen it makes you QUESTION what you know happened which can make it feel like the thing you DO remember is a false memory. That is not and has never been what false memories are. I have been both abused through severe gaslighting and am a ramcoa system. It is offensive to use our trauma as a trope, regardless of how "popular" it is. Split was a popular movie. Does that make it good? No. Ramcoa systems are the systems with false memories and using them like that and then hiding behind "it's fiction to explore" it's just a really crappy thing to do. Ramcoa systems exploring their trauma without the proper tools and support system is EXTREMELY dangerous.

If you wanted something better talk about gaslighting. Like real gaslighting. "Mastermind B" has been making system A question their every move for so long. When System A finds out it was all to make them listen to Mastermind B, they aren't as upset as B imagined they would be.

Or have it be like the movie The Truman Show. That's not taking years of someone's life and making them believe in never happened through abusive means. It's almost the same, but more just fucking weird than abusive. It happened. That was their life. But it all happened in a bubble for some experiment/TV show/whatever.

Thank you for answering my questions. In accordance with your concerns, I shall edit the prompt.

For the record, I did not mean for my response to seem like I was "hiding behind fiction to explore" as an excuse – I was genuinely curious about why that didn't appear to be considered in the original ask, as I know of other systems who have worked through similar problems and experiences in that way.

There is one more thing I would like clarification on before I edit the prompt, if you're willing to give it. Would it help if I made it clear that Mastermind B gave System A false memories through fantastical means that have no associations with the abuse RAMCOA systems go through, or would you prefer the prompt to more clearly reflect gaslighting (or some other experience)? The original prompt was meant to be about fantastical/unrealistic means of implanting false memories (for example, a sci-fi device that can create fake backstories), and wasn't at all meant to be about abuse (although I acknowledge the prompt could be taken that way – it simply wasn't what I was thinking of when writing it, hence why I was mainly speaking about fantastical elements in my last response), so I'd like to know if that would be an alright option.