#like he has a very specific moral code and he follows it no matter what

[jonathanrogersartist]

How 'The Acolyte' Disappointed Me, and Why the Themes of 'Star Wars' Matter

Someone recently commented on my 'On the Dark Side, the Jedi and the Moral Decay of Star Wars' essay with these words: 

"A lot of words for saying 'I don't like the newer media, but I won't get into specifics as to why.'"

Okay! I shall then finally clarify those specifics....

That first essay has, so far, been my biggest success on this blog, and it's attracted a number of interesting responses. Full disclosure: I wrote that fresh off the heels of feeling depressed over how the Acolyte ended, and after reading/listening to several of Leslye Headland's interviews, where she went into great detail about her ideas behind the show's choices, the themes she's trying to get across, and what personal baggage she brings to Star Wars. 

Why was I depressed?

Because the show's finale ended with the deeply problematic implication that Osha, by killing Sol and joining Qimir, has achieved true self-actualization. As Leslye herself put it, it's a 'positive corruption arc.' Interesting way to phrase it. 

Furthermore, Vernestra's actions that frame Sol for several murders, all to protect her own reputation, and to avoid oversight by the Senate, confirmed one of the things that I was really worried this show would do as soon as we began learning plot details, which is that it's leaning into this very persistent edgelord take that the Jedi are actually big ol' bastards not worth seeing as heroes. 

It's the Dave Filoni gospel of the Jedi Order as a morally broken and fundamentally hypocritical institution, a decaying monument to religious hubris, who brought about their own destruction with their arrogance and so-called rejection of emotion making them lack empathy. 

This is, as many of my followers know already, a giant misreading of George's storyline in the prequels, and what he was actually telling us about the Jedi's philosophy and code. And in my experience, it gets us some vicious pushback when we try to inform fans of it, even if we back it up with proof of George's words. 

George really did intend the Jedi to be the ultimate example of what a brave, wise, and all-loving hero should be, and are very specifically inspired by Buddhist monks. They do not 'repress emotions': they learn to regulate their emotions, so as to not let the negative ones feed the Dark Side, and they have the moral fortitude to focus on their spiritual duty. They're professionals that have dedicated themselves to a higher calling, and who still feel and display the same emotions we all feel, unless I watched very different movies from everyone else. We see that Jedi characters can still crack jokes, cry when they are sad, become scared or anxious, feel strong love and loyalty to their peers, and can even be righteously angry in some situations BUT always knowing when to pull back.

The Jedi of the prequels were victims of manipulation by Palpatine, and were caught in between a rock-and-a-hard-place with the Clone War, and they were ultimately destroyed not by their own actions, but by the treachery of Anakin Skywalker, who failed to overcome his own flaws because he refused to really follow the Jedi teachings, and was gaslit by Palpatine for decades on top of that. 

Leslye's take on Star Wars, based on how she wrote the story of the Acolyte, is that "yup, the Jedi were doomed to destroy themselves by being hypocritical and tone-deaf space cops," and she also outright compared them to the Catholic Church (this reeks of Western bias and misunderstanding of Eastern religions). The one that really stunned me, was when she said she designed Qimir to be her own mouthpiece for the experience of being queer and suppressed, who isn't allowed to just be her authentic self in a restrictive world. Which, to me, implies that Leslye wanted to depict the Dark Side as actually a misunderstood path to self-actualization that the Jedi, in keeping with their dogma of repressing emotions, only smear as 'evil.' 

Let me remind you all: Qimir is officially referred to as a Sith Lord, by Manny Jacinto, by Leslye, etc. And what are the Sith, exactly? 

Space fascists. Intergalactic superpowered terrorists. Dark wizard Nazi-coded wannabe dictators, whose ideology is of might-makes-right, survival of the fittest, and the pursuit of power for power's sake. To depict followers of this creed as an analogy for marginalized people who have literally been targeted and murdered throughout history BY the real-life inspirations for the Sith.... I find revolting and tone-deaf by Leslye. 

SO.... seeing how that show ended, and reading up on how Leslye intended it to be interpreted (Osha's 'triumph' over the 'toxic paternalism' of Sol/the Jedi in general), really put me in a funk, because deep down, I could just sense that this was not at all compatible with the ethos of Star Wars. It made me go on a deep-dive into the BTS of the writing of the prequels and George's ideas about the Jedi, and it's how I discovered the truth that Dave Filoni has been pretty egregiously misrepresenting George's themes for several years now, usurping George's words with his own personal fanfic about the motivations of characters like Anakin, or Qui-Gon, or the Jedi Council, etc. 

His influence on the franchise has caused this completely baseless take on the Jedi to become so widespread as to rewrite history for modern fans. Who are utterly convinced now that this anti-Jedi messaging WAS George's vision all along, and they get real mad at you if you show them actual proof of that being a lie. 

And the Acolyte is perpetuating this twisting of the very core of Star Wars. This is what I meant by the 'moral decay of Star Wars.' 

The Star Wars saga was made by George Lucas in 1977 to accomplish these specific tasks: 

To remind people of what it really means to be good.

What evil actually looks like, and how it comes from our fears and greed.

To teach kids how to grow up and choose the right path that will make them loving, brave, honest people that stand up to tyrants.

To give the world a story that returns to classic mythological motifs and is fundamentally idealistic, to defy the uptick in cynical and nihilistic storytelling after the scandals of Vietnam and Watergate broke Americans' belief in there being such a thing as actual heroes anymore. 

THAT is the soul of Star Wars. That is what George meant for this remarkably creative universe to say with its storytelling. But I sincerely think that what the Acolyte told, was that morality is relative, the heroes of this saga are actually bastards, the fascist death-cult is misunderstood, and a young woman being gaslit into joining said death-cult is a triumphant girlboss moment. When it actually comes across as the tragedy of a broken person choosing the wrong path that will only make her miserable, full of hatred and powerlust, and hurt innocent people along the way. 

The Acolyte betrayed one of George's most critical lessons: that the Dark Side ruins people, and if you want to truly become your best self, you must choose the path of Light, and the Jedi are the ones who have best mastered that path. So if the future of Star Wars is to continue framing the Jedi and their teachings as some corrupt and immoral system that is making the galaxy worse, then I would rather stick to rewatching the classic scripture of Episode 1-6. George wrote a complete and satisfying story, that is thematically consistent, and in my opinion should have been allowed to rest. 

I will not hate on new fans that love the new material, but I will pity them if they really think any of this is actually faithful to George's vision (they may very well simply not care, either, which troubles me too), and I am afraid of a show like Acolyte teaching young people to see the Jedi's philosophy as wrong, and the Sith as having a point. 

(P.S. I have a moral duty to clarify this, given the discourse around the show: No, this is not a problem with 'wokeness,' or diversity, or representation; that side of the fandom is very sick in the head and not to be taken seriously. 

It's a problem with Leslye's themes and tastes as a storyteller, being fundamentally against the ethos of Star Wars and how it soured the entire show in hindsight for me... a show that I was actually really liking, before the finale dropped its thematic nuke.)

[theogonies]

what they look for in a partner ft. the cast of touchstarved

characters: ais, mhin, vere, kuras, & leander

word count: 2k

content warnings: some suggestive elements but nothing explicit, mentions of corruption kinks (ais), brat taming (kuras), and light exhibitionism (vere and leander), leander is a little emotionally manipulative

AIS.

Considering his relationships with MC and Vere, it's not exactly a secret that Ais has a thing for brats. He loves teasing, and wants a partner who can keep up with him, giving as much as they get. He's all about the thrill of the chase, learning exactly which buttons to press to get you flustered--so don't make it too easy on him.

Surprisingly, he's not usually the one to make the first move. He'll flirt, but struggles to take initiative when things start to feel too real for his comfort.

He finds people who can find a cool head in moments of crisis insanely attractive. Whether it's pulling him back when he's about to pick a stupid fight or constructing a perfect alibi on the spot when you find yourself in trouble, the contrast between your self-control and his impulsivity always gets him itching to push your limits even further.

Humans and Monsters alike, he's grown accustomed to the absolute devotion of his followers. So being around someone who isn't constantly bowing and scraping to him is a refreshing change of pace.

He still greatly values loyalty, and it's something that he's more than willing to return--he's a ride or die type of guy. What he's not interested in is empty flattery; telling it like it is is, in his eyes, a much more valuable kind of devotion than total obedience.

I definitely think he's got a bit of a corruption kink, and is drawn to people with a more innocent, even naive personality--easier to get them flustered that way. More importantly, though, he enjoys the interplay between his impulsivity and his partner's willingness to stick by their personal code of ethics, no matter how impractical. For all the teasing he does, he has a very deep and genuine admiration for people with strong moral principles and sense of self.

The only thing he loves more than drawing out your hedonistic side is knowing that he's the only one who can do it. It's a very specific, psychological kind of possessiveness, knowing that you want him enough to show him the greedy, impure side of yourself that you hide so carefully from the rest of the world.

On the other hand, narcs are a major turn off. It's one thing to tell him off for fucking up, and another entirely to get others involved. He fantasizes about a Bonnie and Clyde, us against the world type of love.

MHIN.

Another one who isn't particularly subtle about what it takes to get them heated. Mhin loves it when you can keep up with their acerbic personality. Even more than sharp tongues, they're drawn to people who are physically assertive enough to follow through on their threats.

Mhin is all bark and no bite, a fact that they're very much aware of. Deep down, they desperately want to feel safe and protected. It's not exactly that they're insecure; they don't have any hang ups about their own strength. But it's exhausting to keep their guard up all the time. So, they figure that their perfect match is their perfect equal--and 90% of their bluster is just that, a test so see who's willing to break past their emotional barriers and strong enough to keep up with them.

They're a switch, and definitely have a thing for size difference. One of their biggest fantasies is dominating a partner who's bigger than themself.

One of Mhin's most immediate turn-offs is people who look too clean and polished all the time. They're enamored by scarring and callouses--basically, the physical traces of a person's life, especially those associated with hard work. They're not particularly interested in fashion or flashy clothes, either; rather than being with someone who's always up on the latest styles, they admire those who know how to make things last, and who would rather underdress than overdress.

It's not hard to get them flustered. Put them in a good ol' fashioned kabedon, whisper simple praises in their ear, and they'll absolutely melt (not that they would ever admit that to you, of course). Mhin's affection is very subtle, blink and you'll miss it (they're big on acts of service, and usually quite sneaky about it), but they like partners who are more forward than themself, whether verbally or physically.

While they are a loving partner (once you break past those oh-so-strong emotional walls), Mhin isn't a super relationship-oriented person. They have goals of their own outside of romance, and would prefer to be with someone who feels the same way, supporting each other in the pursuit of their own, independent dreams.

VERE.

It's not exactly that Vere is a commitment-phobe. When he falls for someone, he falls fast and hard, and he's never been one to be secretive about his feelings. But he views relationships of all kinds--platonic, romantic, sexual, even antagonistic--with a kind of levity that can be offputting to many. Love, to him, is a game, and he has zero interest in dropping out of the race the moment he takes the lead, so to speak.

Even in a committed, monogamous relationship, Vere is a flirt and a bit of a player--with his partner and outsiders alike. In his eyes, it's not a sign of disloyalty, but rather, a way of keeping the spark alive. Possessiveness is an immediate dealbreaker for him (although he's not opposed to a good ol' jealousy fueled romp in the sheets--that's half the fun of teasing).

Vere tends to bottom more often than he tops, but he's attracted to switches far more than he is fully dominant types. He likes having dynamic interplay in a relationship, especially sexual, and wants to be with someone that isn't content with always falling back into the same old routines.

Physical attraction is very important to Vere, although he doesn't necessarily require that his partner is conventionally attractive. He's especially drawn to unique senses of style and physical traits--a particularly intense look in a person's eyes, a scar or blemish that gives their face an interesting character, even an interesting tilt to the way they hold themself. The only thing he loves more than standing out in a crowd on his own is hanging off the arm of someone who does the same, intentionally or not.

He likes to imagine himself and his partner as a power couple--the two most powerful personas in the room, the ones that everyone else wants to either fuck or become.

While he is very attracted to confidence, there's a bit of a feedback loop here, because he's also extremely good at psyching up his partner's self-image--stick with Vere long enough, and it's hard not to see yourself as someone powerful and desirable.

Massive tit guy. 'nuff said.

KURAS.

Kuras is also attracted to oddballs and quirky types, although unlike Vere, he's not super interested in physical appearance or their ability to stick out in a crowd. He's much more drawn to interesting personalities: people with unique tics, speech patterns, responses, and the like.

His favorite part of relationships (sexual, romantic, and otherwise) is gradually learning what makes the other person tick, so unless he gets the sense that there's something interesting lingering under the surface, it can be hard to get his attention. He needs to feel like there's some kind of puzzle to be solved, and a tricky one at that.

On the other hand, once his curiosity has been captured, he's an incredibly attentive partner--even if it's not entirely unlike the kind of attention an entomologist would give a bug under the microscope.

He's also drawn to outspoken, forthright personalities to counter his more polite and subdued persona. There's something he finds incredibly amusing about a person who speaks their mind even when they know it'll get them into trouble.

For that reason, Kuras is, much like Ais, attracted to bratty types. Unlike Ais, he expects them to learn the rules at some point down the line. While his form of discipline is a gentle, cool-headed one, he still views himself as more of a teacher than a playmate.

He very much prefers to feel in control of a given situation (even if that isn't immediately obvious in the way he presents himself). It can make him stubborn, to the extent that he'll reject the advances of a person he's interested in just because he wants to be the one to confess.

While this characteristic can make him come across as rather clinical in his approach, it gets its chance to shine when paired with his detail-oriented nature. From a grand confession of love to a simple weeknight dinner date, he's extremely methodical about preparing the perfect romantic atmosphere for his partner's tastes, from the locale and decor to the scent of his cologne.

While his partner needn't necessarily come across as kind at first impression, it is deeply important to Kuras that they have a good, generous heart. All the better if he gets to be the one to make them feel safe showing it to the world.

He likes 'em a little clingy and needy, too. Independence isn't necessarily a turn-off, but he needs to feel like all the effort he puts in is appreciated, or he'll move on to some other curiosity.

LEANDER.

We all know that this man loves to flirt, and in a much more grandiose, romantic sense of the word than Vere or Ais at that. In the same way that he gets a bit of a rush putting his strength to use in a fight, he likes using his charm and good looks to get a reaction out of people.

That's not to say his teasing is ingenuine; Leander comes on strong because he knows what he's looking for, from his partner's looks and the way they carry themself in a crowded room to the way they respond to his advances. He wants to be with someone who'll fall as fast and hard as he does, and as manipulative of a tactic as it may be, he's willing to put on the mask of a romantic until he finds the one that responds in kind.

Leander doesn't play games. Once he commits himself to a person, that's it. His absolute devotion is yours, and he expects that loyalty to be returned. Some of his biggest turn-offs are people who don't seem sure of what they want, or who won't express their feelings to him straightforwardly. He'll put up with some level of shyness, but too much beating around the bush and he starts to feel more like a therapist than a partner.

Total ass man. He has no compunctions about grabbing it in public to get a rise out of you--not to mention how utterly shameless he is behind closed doors.

He also really likes long hair. He has a lot of restless energy and tends to fidget when forced to stay still for long periods of time, so playing with your hair is one of his favorite ways to calm his mind. Braiding it and running his hands through it if it's straight, or spiraling your curls around his fingers--he doesn't mind either way, just wants it silky-soft and long enough to play with. (He also loooooves helping you wash and care for it.)

He's very physically affectionate in private, and even more so in public. He likes showing his partner off, and being shown off by them. To some this might make him come across as rather shallow (his favorite date nights involve going to bars or out dancing--anywhere that gives him the opportunity to turn some heads), but to him, it's a way of demonstrating that no matter how many may want him, he's decided you're the only one deserving of his attention.

[karmathehalflander]

Why both Eddie and Venom are autistic and how the movies are actually a metaphor for neurodivergence

Includes some of my personal headcanons and concepts that I’ve been thinking about and need to share.

BE WARNED!!! This post is a bit long (and also a cringy, rambling, nonsensical mess) full thing under cut.

Some quick notes before we begin: when I have one of their names at the beginning of a section it means anything in that section only applies to one of them. (Idk, I couldn’t figure out how to organize this, you’ll see what I mean)

I don’t know much comic lore, all of this is based off of the movies. Though the movies are a different universe so I don’t think it will matter too much.

Also I use He/They/It pronouns for Venom.

In the end, Im just one guy with a hyper fixation please take everything I say with a grain of salt and feel free to add on or correct me about stuff. Especially if I say anything stereotypical or offensive about nurodivergance/autism a lot of this is based on some personal experience and I absolutely make mistakes and generalizations.

Alright enough of my yapping let’s get to it.

Overall big picture stuff

Applies to Both of them

the whole concept of them being “losers” together is kind of autistic coded. Autistic people are often viewed as incompetent or childish or useless. And I like to think they are connecting over that shared experience.

Noise sensitivity!!! Both of them have noise sensitivity! I probably don’t need to elaborate that much but that one scene in their apartment was some of the best overstimulation representation I’ve ever seen overstimulation guitar scene

Venom

Venom comes across as unfeeling because they don’t emote in a “normal” way.

They’re very blunt and literal.

Venom sometimes has a slightly higher-pitched voice when excited or angry. Which I’m going to attribute to him masking. He wants to appear tougher and scarier. This is important to its species and Venom, who is already perceived as weak by their peers, intentionally deepens his voice a bit to blend in. (This is definitely a headcanon but I love this concept so I don’t care that the real reason is that the voice modifier they use does silly things)

This is also why I think it’s so concerned about Eddie and him “looking bad” Looking weak was dangerous and they trained themself to hide “weakness”

It’s always “How does Venom affect people” and never “What does Venom need and how do other people’s actions affect them”

Venom prefers to express its thoughts and feelings through mental connection with its host and then have that person relay the information to whomever they are “speaking” to. Nonverbal communication!

Venom not understanding humans (social interaction, conventions, etc.) is kind of autistic coded.

Eddie

Edie kind of disregards a lot of social conventions. Still hangs out with his ex-fiancé AND her boyfriend. He also doesn’t seem to mind talking to Venom out loud.

Eddies is just kind of anxious in general.

Eddie struggles to find full time employment.

On that vein, he also struggles to maintain relationships.

Eddie's sense of justice. Eddie has a strong sense of justice and morals that often don’t align with generally accepted values and he follows this view of justice and morality to an absurd degree and it often gets him in trouble. Aka, the entire plot of the first movie is because Eddie has autism.

He wears the same clothes all the time.

Specific moments that I think about

Venom

Venom chewing on the tire swing (they both have oral stims btw)

Sand between his toes. Idk I just thought it was cute and chose to believe they like the sensation.

Say it with me. Tater tots are a safe food!!!

Venom rocks back and forth a lot.

This is a stretch but when Venom is like “look at all these weirdos, my kind of people” it’s a metaphor for him being queer but I’d argue it also kind of fits with neurodivergence. Neurodivergent people often connect with “weirdos” (other neurodivergent people)

Likes organization “Pile of bodies, pile of heads”

Eddie

I’ve been told Eddie chews on his necklace at the beginning of the movie but I can’t find the clip and can’t do a rewatch right now so take that with a grain of salt… (I chose to believe this happened though. Also his bracelets are stim heaven)

When he says “Oh, I have a parasite” to Mrs. Chen he had no clue what to say here. He just said the first thing that came to mind and panicked instead of explaining.

Also the way he says things funny. Ex: “✨It’s a treeeee✨” supa, supa, fhasstt” “Heee…. has. one. up. hi’s. Ass toooooo” “ET. Phone home. Aliens? 😃” I chose to believe they are vocal stims (I also attempted to find a compilation but I couldn’t find any. Maybe I’ll make one sometime)

Eddie also makes sound effects a lot.

Eddie writes notes on pen and paper instead of digitally.

He apologizes an excessive amount. Like he says “I’m sorry” to people actively trying to kill him. Which is so real.

“I just bit that guys head off” “I, uhhh, yea I’ve been there it’s not fun” 😕

Eddie also rocks back and forth. Which can be seen in this scene

Quick segment into why I think Venom was rejected by other Klyntar (it’s because he has autism)

Venom doesn’t adapt as quickly or as efficiently as other Klyntar. It doesn’t handle change well.

All of the normal Klyntar weaknesses are turned up to 1000 with them. Instead of just certain frequencies, the range that hurts him is larger and is also affected by loud noises. As shown by: “Venom” car alarm scene

instead of just fire, heat also bothers it. Also doesn’t adapt to light well. (Just a headcanon)

Can’t create weapons out of their body like other Klyntar. struggles with “simple” skills.

Much more emotional than other Klyntar and develop attachments (also purely a headcanon)

Just overall didn’t fit well into their society.

Just headcanons

Venom and Eddie are so compatible because their brains work the same way.

“I wish I could just mentally project my thoughts and feelings directly into your brain. Oh wait, we can do that!”

Venom also has temperature sensitivities. He gets hot.

Venom likes to stim to low key music, mainly jazz and lo-fi. Does the one song on repeat for three hours to wring all the happy chemicals out of it like a dish rag thing.

Venom also absolutely loves cheesy pop music (unrelated to anything here but I’m right and I needed to include it)

Venom functions as a weighted blanket for Eddie when he’s anxious. Maybe even hides under his shirt and stuff and becomes an extra weight.

Eddie stims with his jewelry.

Venom likes to sit in the freezer. Sometimes they visit Mrs. Chen's walk in just to chill (lol)

Purely my opinion but I think Venom also has some light sensitivity for a bit because it’s not used to being in such a bright environment. He gets used to it eventually but every once in awhile he finds the city lights overstimulating.

They are both very tactile. Touching things. Love a good texture.

Venom is super particular about food for someone who eats out the garbage but certain textures and flavors drive them crazy.

Venom hates vegetables. (Except for celery because it likes the crunchy and stringyness of it)

How all of this makes for a great metaphor!

Feeling like an alien in the world is probably the most relatable thing for a lot of nurodivergent people. Like there’s a manual for being human you don’t have. And just the concept of a literal alien showing up and struggling to navigate in a world not made for it is so relatable!

The way they both immediately connect to each other because they have the same weird brain stuff and weren’t accepted by their respective societies is so adorable and wholesome.

“We’re not so different, you and I” This line lives rent-free in my mind at all times. It’s my favorite quote. I think it perfectly encapsulates their relationship and why it’s special. They have autism and are bonding because the other is the first person who truly understands them! (Cries, screams, throws up)

In conclusion

They are in love and have autism. And they cling to each other because they are the first people to truly understand each other. Thank you for coming to my ted talk.

Also I listened to UFO by Smith and Thell on loop while writing this. It’s very autistic symbrock coded so give it a listen if you’re a fan of inde-pop.

[transmutationisms]

pleaaase share any and all thoughts you might have on as i lay dying by william faulkner if you're willing, i'd appreciate your analysis on any topic dealing with it. I recently had to read it for class and kept thinking "tumblr user transmutationisms would probably find this very interesting" and when I search your blog i see its one of your fav novels! personally am interested with the treatment of darl and what is considered "sane" vs. "insane" as well as addie and how her death is handled.

yeah this book made me so insane when i first encountered it lmao. i was always surprised by people who read it and thought that darl had genuinely or intrinsically 'gone insane' or even that he was in some kind of decline throughout the book. i thought what faulkner was doing with him was very different.

i'd posit there are basically 2 main mechanisms by which darl comes to be regarded as insane. one is the construal of criminal action as prima facie pathological. in darl's case it's specifically criminal action against his mother's body (so, the violation of a blood tie that is so important it has guided the entire novel) and ofc the barn burning has a more general sort of antisocial effect as well. so, the designation of insanity follows not because darl's action shows some kind of intrinsic breakdown or loss of lucidity, but because it puts him outside the bounds of accepted familial and social behaviours. so, in that sense there's a very straightforward connection between the social mores, the criminal code based on them, and the invocation of insanity to preserve the dichotomy between 'sane' and 'criminal', ofc with the asylum then appearing as another arm of the carceral / criminal apparatus.

in addition, though, faulkner's work is generally marked by an interest in the sort of social breakdown and decline that articulates along family lines. which is to say: although i wouldn't attribute to him the same degree of evolutionary-hereditarian degeneracy theory as, like, zola, there is certainly a repeated interest throughout faulkner's work in the family as a site of inherited social and economic decline. i don't think the point here is to write anse as insane, per se, or as passing on a discrete malady to darl, but parentage matters (cf. jewel's illegitimacy) and in the same way that anse is antisocial, illogical, and frequently illegible to the surrounding characters, darl by the end of the book has come to occupy a similar socially marginal position. darl is ofc punished more violently for his transgression; anse's chapters convey pretty clearly his outsider position and complete inability to make sense of the world on linguistic-logical terms, but darl escalates this when he burns the barn because he's breaking a rule that has more external social ramifications than, say, anse's biblical exegesis about snakes and trees and whatever.

broadly and kind of annoyingly you could say the novel is investigating the relationship between consciousness and language, or at least feeling and language. the words are "a shape to fill a lack", vardaman's fish chapter sort of sums up the failings therein, &c. so, anse and darl are interesting to counterpose in this respect because the disconnect between their inner worlds and linguistic abilities are very different. darl is the most linguistically adept narrator in the book, yet by the end he's committed an act so illegible to the state and to his community that he's declared insane for it. anse, on the other hand, is motivated by what is in certain ways a very clear and simple moral code (he is driven primarily throughout the novel by the desire to bury addie and then take care of his own material needs re: teeth and a new wife), but he's not really able to communicate this directly in narration, which makes his chapters some of my favs to re-read. with anse the stream-of-consciousness is continually hinting at and around what he's trying to convey; with darl there are certainly things he's capable of expressing clearly and directly in language, and so the effect (for me) is to surprise you when it's revealed that darl, too, is on a kind of margin of social logic.

[blurredblu]

My opinion on IDW being canon to Sonic

I watched a video by GamesCage on the topic, who I've been watching a long while on YT before subscribing to him recently on Twitch, and it reminded me of my own thoughts on the matter as well!

But first some preemptive notes because I am entering Sonic discoursespace:

This is just some guy's opinion about a little blue dude! That's it! If you hate it or me personally because of it, I refer you to this image:

I won't ever go into using insulting or uncivil language. But because this is an opinion essay and I got opinions up the wazoo, I'm also not trying to word things in some neutral, disinterested way to appeal to all audiences here

That being said, game-story-wise, we don't fuck with meta-era shit here. I Do Not See It

I'm all for chats and discussions about the topic, agreement or disagreement alike in response to this essay—things just ought to stay civil and respectful. Think of WWSD (What Would Sonic Do?) and the image above

Sonic's morality and what IDW misunderstands of it

Though I respect what the IDW team does (I fondly remember following Evan Stanley's Ghosts of the Future on Deviantart back in the day), I don't prefer their characterisation of Sonic, and that alone is enough to have me a little chagrined as to IDW's integration into the games' canon. I think it's because, ultimately, it detracts from what makes Sonic's character—specifically his morality—unique and appealing to me. Though he isn't nearly as anti-hero in nature as characters like Shadow, Sonic still has moral tendencies that are atypical for characters that occupy the hero role as he's been avowed to have in the games, e.g. being labelled Team Hero with Tails and Knuckles multiple times

To give some sense of signposting, here are the headings of this essay:

Sonic distinctive moral thinking - The games' simple, reactive Sonic - IDW's merciful, principles-first Sonic: on freedom and oppression - Sonic's self-centred in a way, though, right? The mascot problem - "What's your idea then, genius?" – the reader reading this - Why keep things static - Examples of peak Sonic Conclusion

Sonic's distinctive moral thinking

To contextualise my judgement of Sonic as distinctive in his moral thinking, I think there is a tendency in Western media to give heroic characters very merciful streaks. Think Superman or Batman—codes of never killing or always offering mercy, often with backstory or informed moral reasoning behind it. While these streaks are understandable, they appear often and thus don't ring as special or particularly unique to me. Sonic has always been interesting to me because he explicitly does not entertain such clear moral principles. His attitudes embodied in his SA2 theme "It Doesn't Matter," Sonic Unleashed, or the Storybook Series (Black Knight being my favourite), show that he just does what he thinks is right and shows no qualms using considerable force (lethal in the case of Black Knight) if he has to against those he thinks are doing wrong—even against people who he would be friends with, like Merlina. He does not barter or reason; he takes action, moves before he thinks, and follows his heart

The games' simple, reactive Sonic

From my interpretation of Sonic regarding mercy, examples from the games show how he isn't interested in rehabilitating or looking for threats to neutralise like some Miguel O'Hedgehog. These tendencies become most apparent when his friends are involved. A standout example is when Amy protects E-102 Gamma from Sonic, convincing Sonic that he isn't like the other badniks. Another, more indirect example is Gemerl, where Sonic fights and subdues him from causing more harm but Tails is the one who reprograms and rehabilitates Gemerl, who lives happily with Cream and Vanilla with his more peaceful disposition. Sonic doesn't go out of his way to help Gemerl post-defeat, but he doesn't doubt or attack him further after his integration either

At heart, I find Sonic to be a reactive, not proactive, hero. He won't go out of his way to check if the day needs saving—he's not a dutiful guardian doing patrol like Knuckles or a principled fighter for an organisation like Shadow—but if Sonic sees someone in need, he won't just pass them by. And I find Sonic's moral judgements to be simple, instinctual, and self-centred in the most literal sense. They come from his bias towards his friends' judgement and what he believes to be right, regardless of how others may judge his actions. I've only mentioned some examples, but they highlight to me that Sonic is neither healer nor hunter. His main priority isn't rehabilitating or reasoning with his foes—he will do what he feels he needs to do, even if that means destroying something or someone for good. But, as Amy for E-102 and Tails and Cream for Gemerl show, he won't go out of his way to make sure threats are dealt with through violence if his friends vouch for them.

IDW's merciful, principles-first Sonic: on freedom and oppression

In IDW, the topic of him showing so much mercy and espousing freedom as an ideal he thinks everyone, even his enemies, deserves makes him much more merciful and deliberate in his mercy than I like him to be. I want to discuss this by briefly expanding on oppression and freedom, a topic that comes up in Surge and Sonic's fight and Surge angrily questions why Sonic wouldn't just end her. Sonic essentially answers it's because he values freedom for all, including his enemies', because he can exercise his freedom to stop them. It's representative of why I think some fans take issue with Sonic's characterisation because it warps how much Sonic might believably value freedom versus oppression on two flops: on philosophical concepts and characterisation.

IDW's concept flop, to me, shows a fundamental misunderstanding on the nature of oppression and freedom, assuming some inherent ranking of freedom above oppression. The two are different things: freedom is a kind of instrument, a means of doing things, a concept that has no content in and of itself. In other words, you have the freedom to do X; having freedom is only meaningful insofar as it enables to do what you want. Oppression, however, is not an instrument in the same way; it makes far less sense to say 'you have the oppression to do X' or 'you are oppressed to do X' like you could for 'freedom' and 'free'. Freedom, precisely because it is an instrument, enables far more flexibility—both good, evil, and neutral acts can arise from it. Oppression is a state of being with an inherently negative core, predicated on suffering and the oppressed being harmed.

Quick and messy take from me on this: freedom for all and oppression for some is worse(!) than freedom for some and oppression for none. But here's something that has a source, leading to the characterisation flop: according to Sonic Adventure's DX Director's Cut manual, the only thing Sonic hates is oppression (for, presumably, anyone). Honestly, you don't even need a game manual to tell you that. I think IDW writers make the mistake of assuming the inverse to be true of Sonic as well: that the thing he loves most is freedom (for, presumably, anyone).

Oppression being the only thing Sonic hates does not mean freedom is the only thing Sonic loves.

It may be notoriously slippery to insist on consistency in the Sonic franchise (or maybe franchises, plural), but this philosophical gloss on freedom and oppression starts to explain why IDW's characterisation strikes me as inherently contradictory to Sonic's preexisting values. Namely, it shows how IDW commits a false equivalence between the two and assigns it to Sonic. Sure, Sonic likes freedom, but that's different to showing mercy and second chances. IDW ends up conflating the two. As a result, IDW has Sonic care more about the principle of freedom than about the feelings and suffering he knows he or his loved ones have gone through. Put another way, it makes little to no sense why Sonic would prioritise freedom for all, even his enemies, when he has been shown to much more consistently put the most weight on what his friends feel and what he himself thinks. IDW does little to no detectable work establishing why Sonic would have such priorities either

Also, not a real argument—just taking things to the extreme in a throwaway thought—but could you imagine Sonic in the beginning of Unleashed actually considering Eggman's pleas saying he's changed and telling Eggman he...values his freedom? Like. c'mon

Sonic's self-centred in a way, though, right?

How about that self-centred angle, though? Sonic's way of thinking is highly independent—he will do what he thinks is right, first and foremost. It would be easy to claim that IDW's characterisation is just a mindset Sonic just holds in the comics, and that alone passes muster; his brand of ethical egoism admittedly does a lot as writerly cover to justify nigh anything about him. Looks like a hedgehog, smells like a hedgehog; chances are it's our hedgehog, right?

I disagree. One: if IDW is considered canon and yet is just so different to what's appealing about Sonic in the games, then the decision to make IDW Sonic canon, to be frank, kinda sucks. That ain't my Sonic—that's some Marvelised-DC version of him trying to moralise that I don't find compelling, distinctive, or endearing.

Two: even if you try to adopt the angle that upholding freedom for all would just be what Sonic believes to be right, it would still be the same as saying Sonic cares more about philosophical ideals than what he sees right in front of him. He's famously poked fun at Knuckles for being gullible before—why is Sonic himself showing that same gullibility and benefit of the doubt towards hostile enemies or those who have notably wrought so much damage to the lives of those he loves?

The trouble is that IDW builds no meaningful narrative foundations on top of which to stake this claim on Sonic's mindset when the games exist. Like, I don't even privilege the games just because they've been around first and for longer (even though, hey, that is true)—he's just cooler in them. Sonic is no philosopher; he's repeatedly shown it's genuinely not that deep when it comes to his moral thinking in the games. All it is is that he has a good heart. As a result, it comes off as a considerable mischaracterisation to show his enemies mercy mostly in the name of freedom or hope for their change (i.e. lofty ideals) compared to something actionable he can do (i.e. kick their ass and break their tech so they don't hurt anyone he cares about again).

The mascot problem

GamesCage mentions a worthwhile point which he calls the mascot problem. Sonic, as a mascot for Sega, has certain narrative lines he cannot cross or change for good. Like with Mario, there is a clear status quo to maintain; for one, Eggman cannot ever truly be vanquished. However, unlike Mario (with the one exception of Super Mario Galaxy), Sonic routinely has narratives that he and his friends undergo. There has to be this delicate balance that Sonic Team, IDW, and anyone writing for Sonic must contend with as a result. You have to write stories—events and plot where characters grow and change and are affected—but maintain the status quo where many fundamental things cannot change

In other words: how do you explain that Sonic never gets rid of Eggman or his other enemies because he, as a company mascot, cannot ever do so?

IDW does this one way by assigning Sonic an inadvertent little philosopher's cap, which I've already opined is a mischaracterisation. It also just generates another kind of untenable narrative problem that's even harder to reconcile: how do you justify that Sonic, hero with a heart of gold, just lets his enemies keep on going for freedom's sake? Arguably, all that does is dress up the mascot problem but with worse consequences—it makes Sonic less likable. It casts him as someone who essentially ends up condoning his enemies' actions, which has already led readers to question his judgement and whether they would even want to root for a character like that when you have an alternative and contradicting blueprint that the games have already provided for him. Like, my boy embodies direct action and IDW turns it into direct-ish-but-hey-do-what-you-want-who-am-I-to-judge action. Dress it up however you want; it's a nerf on who he is

"What's your idea then, genius?" – the reader reading this

In my eyes, what could work for the mascot problem is falling back on the static nature of the characters that have already been long established. The basic formula is there: Eggman is tricksy, proactive, and two steps ahead, but Sonic is always good-hearted enough, reactive enough, and fast enough to catch up by the end.

Elaborating on that formula, you have enough of Sonic's existing characteristics to justify why bad things keep happening despite his presence. He's not like Iron Man, who takes it upon himself to leverage his resources and power to look out for the world when no one's really asked him to. Again, Sonic is a reactive hero; he's not a ruthless hunter and he likes his peace and quiet as well as his adventure. He'll do what he can to fight what's right in front of him but may miss the bigger picture or potential traps by going in too fast. That happened in the beginning of Sonic Unleashed and it made sense. Even in Black Knight, you had him try to whale on King Arthur armed with just a decreasing number of chilli dogs. In an extended or episodic storytelling format, this allows other characters to shine—Tails's powers of analysis, Amy's ability to connect with others emotionally, Knuckles' sense of duty—by contributing to plans and helping Sonic because he has persistent, character-defining flaws. Highlighting his non-proactive and chill nature allows for arcs with more breathing room, too, where the characters aren't going up against some world-ending force or they all hang out. On that front, I'd say IDW has done well giving other characters that spotlight

Briefly touching upon Eggman's characterisation and how that might address the mascot problem, his tried-and-true tendencies should be relied upon, too. He is incredibly intelligent but also a massive narcissist—it makes sense that he has his own sense of short-sightedness where he prioritises and secures his own well-being above all else and underestimates the importance or wrath of godly and natural entities he frequently exploits and disrespects. Because of how strong and distinctive Eggman's brand of narcissism and villainy is, it is honestly fitting that he will never change; that alone explains how often he will cause trouble and will never fully succeed. And that also justifies why Sonic will always be the one to fight him. Both have their imperfections and flaws and that has them in a deadlock.

Why keep things static?

Now, this might bring up the question of static-ness. It might seem like an odd solution to mascot problem to just lean into it. Surely, there has to be greater justification or some potential for change for things to stay interesting, appealing, and compelling for Sonic and his stories.

In response, here's my hot take: ya don't need any of that.

Here's a longer version of my hot take: in any given narrative, Sonic is at his best when he does not grow or change. Sonic is already peak. Others may flounder and oscillate, but he remains steadfast with his heart of gold. He is a pillar of strength. He is static. Think of him in the Sonic Adventure games, characters and humans' reactions to him in Sonic X, the knights of the round table's reactions to him in Black Knight, Chip himself remarking that Sonic has such a good heart that not even the powers of a fucking dark primordial god infecting and transforming him can change who he is on the inside in Unleashed. When unstoppable forces come about, lo and behold, he is the immovable object they meet!

Sonic always stays on the move—that's how you can justify all the amazing, different, wild stories he'll go through, because he is an adventurer at heart. You don't need to humanise a character and subject them to point-A-to-point-B arcs to make them enduring, beloved characters. Just because that's a common format for characters and stories and comics to take nowadays doesn't mean that it's a good fit for Sonic. He's never been one to do something just because everyone else is doing it anyway. I, no joke, think Sonic should be treated like a mythical folklore figure, never-changing and transforming the lives of those he meets before breezing on by—and what figures are more enduring in our consciousness than those of mythology?

And, to refer to IDW, there isn't any need to wax philosophical on top of that. Like I've repeatedly said so far, Sonic is no philosopher (and saying this as someone who did philosophy for undergrad, thank fuck for that). Leave the philosophising and podcast soundbites and video essays to the fans—in fact, I'd even wager the simplicity of Sonic's premise and character, or, hell, even the dissatisfaction that can come from that, is why his fandom even thrives (but that's definitely a separate topic).

Examples of peak Sonic

I forget which interview this was, but Sonic's characterisation was inspired off of Bill Clinton (aged like milk I know; this was before his scandal with Lewinsky), from the idea that actions speak louder than words for him. Obviously, Sonic does get in his quips with his friends and enemies alike, but he's not supposed to be Marvel superhero about it and isn't actually a massive braggart. Even the first episode of Sonic X shows his confidence and demeanour so well—he doesn't need to moralise or talk your ear off for you to know he'll fuck you up. And that's just so much cooler than what IDW accomplishes with their version of Sonic

Like, consider my beloved Murder of StH, which the IDW team had a considerable hand in! Sonic—while recognising that the train is more advanced than other badniks, exhibiting personhood and consciousness—still has the sole objective of destroying the train. Everyone shines and, granted, the format has it so that Sonic doesn't really appear till the end, but he's characterised pitch-perfectly there, instilling so much hope and forward momentum not only in his gameplay but in the heart of the player. Honestly, his late contribution arguably echoes Sonic X, where he often disappears or does his own thing, too

Even in a game or storytelling format where he should be front and centre, you could even explore some big themes with Sonic precisely because of his mental and emotional fortitude! The Storybook Series are so stellar in this regard—you got Sonic helping out Shahra, domestic abuse victim, on dealing with sadness, and him helping Merlina with existentialism and death of all the fucking things. And he doesn't flap his lips about it; he shows it through his actions. He's the protagonist but not in a traditional sense—he's the support and passing through and being unfathomably fuckin cool about it. Any lessons he ends up teaching you is not because he's out to teach you—it's because he's just living his own way and, wouldn't you know it, you just happened to be around for the ride

Conclusion

I'm not excited about IDW Sonic being considered canon because he comes off as an overeager philosopher's take on him when game Sonic is fuckin goated with the sauce. Though the story ideas and arcs in IDW seem cool, Sonic is the heart of the series, and if he's off, then the whole thing ends up a little wonky for my tastes.

To be clear, I don't have issues with different iterations of Sonic as some blanket rule—if the writers do the work to establish why and in what ways Sonic in a particular story is different, then that's just plain fun. Movie Sonic, Sonic Prime, and Sonic Boom are all examples of that. But, above all, the kind of Sonic I adore (and there are in fact many kinds) is the one who you meet and your life is irrevocably changed for the better as he hangs out for a while but never for long. In pivotal moments in the comics, IDW Sonic misses the mark on that for me

Though Sonic Team are making clear moves to integrate all the iterations of Sonic as canon regardless. I do wonder if that, as a move in itself, is the meta-narrative equivalent of Sonic Team changing game-mechanic tacks every game after '06 and Unleashed—a well-intentioned but misguided way to try to appease everyone which I've always thought is the most anti-Sonic thing you can do, but that's just the mascot problem in corporate as opposed to story form.

I was fine with Sonic Twitter just saying 'Everything is canon' as a non-starter – I'll just see how they do what they're intending to do and if I don't like it, then I always got an AO3 account handy

[grendelsmom]

Thinking about Alicent’s and Cole’s relationship and how enjoyably fucked up it is.

I see Cole very much as someone who is devoted to the vows and rules of his world. That is why Rhaenyra’s rejection breaks him the way it does. By sleeping with her he disregards his own vows as a Kingsguard both to be celibate and protect the royal family. (By taking Rhaenyra’s virginty he brings her into imense danger due to the deeply patriarchal world they live in.) The only way he could fit his actions into his world view and come to terms with them is by fullfilling another knightly ideal - that of chivalric romance. (Although, traditional chivalric romance between a knight and a lady is often defined by the deep and more important unfufilled longing between them.) Taking Rhaenyra away from the court and potential ruin is, in a way, also saving Rhaenyra - as a knight saves a lady. Not to mention that it follows the rules of a deeply romantic story - two star-crossed lovers giving up everything to be together.

And that’s why Rhaenyra’s rejection of his offer of cinnamon and oranges breaks him the way it does. Because it is also a rejection of every vow and rule Cole follows. It means that he has failed as a Kingsguard, because he failed his vows, and now he also can no longer follow the other knightly/romantic ideals that would allow him to come to peace with his actions. This is where, I think, Cole is at his lowest. He has failed his beliefs and sees no chance for redemption. Full of guilt, self-pity and hatred for those who fail his moral code but have no qualms about it, it leads to him acting out in disturbing bursts of violence.

(Btw this is not a damnation of Rhaenyra’s action, specifically her rejection of Cole. I don’t condem women, even fictional ones, for the (sexual) partners they consensually choose or don’t choose.)

In comes Alicent and her promise of redemption. I think Cole probably saw her as a respectable and highly moral figure even before their interaction in the godswood - otherwise I personally doubt it would have had the same affect on him. She saves him. Both his life and his soul. I think in that moment she really became the image of the mother to him. Like I truly think that to Cole Alicent is a face of his god(s). And I can’t help but think about how glorification is just as dehumanising as demonisation. To Cole Alicent cannot have flaws, she cannot fail, because she cannot be human. How could a human redem him? Forgive him for what he has done? How could a human save him the way he felt saved?

In my reading of the character he definitely loves her. In a kind of religious, almost possessed way. Which is one of the reason why I don’t see a (sexual) relationship between them as a possibility. Not only would it mean sulling his Kingsguard vows yet again, but Cole is a deeply patriachal man: A woman choosing a sexual partner outside of her marriage is not a (moral/ethical) option in patriarchy. No matter how abusive that marriage is. And Alicent choosing to pursue a relationship with him would forever destroy his image of her as a perfect embodiment of moral virtues and the bringer of his (moral) redemption.

In a way Cole has reached “the perfect knightly ideal”. He’s keeping his vows, stuck in the perfect chivalric romance pining after a lady that can never openly return his affection, fighting for a “true and just” cause in her name.

[anghraine]

Not to way-overthink this or anything, but I feel like D&D alignment works best in terms of temperament rather than necessarily conduct. This is especially the case for the Lawful<-->Neutral<-->Chaotic axis.

It's interesting because I think this is generally accepted for the Evil alignments. It's really common to characterize Lawful Evil, say, with the example of a villain who may not care about specific regions' literal laws, but who generally adheres to a strict, clearly defined code of some kind that they're genuinely committed to and don't want to stray from.

Even if they end up in a situation where they have to choose between forwarding their evil plots or sticking to their code, and even if they reluctantly choose evil over the code, they're still essentially Lawful by disposition. It's wanting to follow The Rules (even if The Rules are self-imposed rather than societal structures) that aligns them with Law.

On the flip side, a Neutral Good character might end up following external rule systems because those particular rules don't get in the way of their moral purpose, or might sometimes even advance it, but not because they've actually internalized the rules or care all that much about them. It may be coincidental, or a matter of convenience. That doesn't make them Lawful. But if they're forced to choose between moral vision and personal or societal rules, they'd choose their morals without qualms—it's barely even a choice, really.

Even a Chaotic character doesn't morph into Lawful every time they happen to obey a law that isn't in their way. It's their temperament that is basically antagonistic towards Law, but that doesn't have to mean Chaotic Stupid in behavior.

Often, though, the idea that Lawful Evil can be evil with a strict personal code doesn't extend to Lawful Good having the capacity for good+a strict personal code, rather than outwards adherence to external laws and rules. But a Lawful Good character can do their damnedest to stick to a strict system of rules and order, even if nobody else agrees with them about it, and even if they consider specific external systems illegitimate. Not every revolutionary is Chaotic or even Neutral, and not every rule-abiding citizen of a corrupt government is truly Lawful.

I think there's also the idea that a Lawful Good character has to choose law (whether literal or a smaller-scale rule system) over morality when push comes to shove, or they're not truly Lawful, while this is typically not the case for Lawful Evil. But Lawful characters don't have to always pick the Lawful option when forced to choose, and aren't any more definitionally Lawful Stupid than Chaotic characters are Chaotic Stupid. A Lawful Good character is no less good than they are lawful.

In my last campaign, I got away with playing a Lawful Good warlock who refused to lie unless mind-controlled, but was willing to kill if she considered it just, or in the service of building a more just social order. At one point she calmly told her human bff's flawed love interest that if he did wrong by her friend again, justice would find him. He turned out to also be a Lawful Good warlock and actually respected her more for this, both because of her loyalty to her friend and her commitment to justice, and he ended up as a lifelong bro to my character ("lifelong" being 130 more years, so their relationship as surrogate siblings actually survived her bff/his wife by a very long time).

At another point, my character defended her friend's pursuit of vengeance against a colonizer as fundamentally just and likely a net good for the world, and therefore morally acceptable. The DM (rightly IMO, obviously) considered this consistent with her Lawful Good alignment and actually gave me inspiration for handling it in what he considered an interesting way. Lawful doesn't have to be this one size fits all characters box.

[defiedlife]

meta + dr. ratio cause im self-indulgent jenna

send  [ META ] + a word / phrase / person / etc for a headcanon.

To Aventurine, Ratio is someone he cares for deeply whether it's platonic or romantic. They're colleagues and partners despite working in entirely different departments (and factions, technically) and he wouldn't have it any other way. As risky as his methodology was, one of his proudest achievements to date is forming that partnership. (Quick side note: this is canon; it's in the ANAN interview.)

He's seen many people put Ratio on a pedestal for outstanding academic achievements, and he agrees that those are admirable, to be sure. He's even a little envious, as Ratio clearly had an abundance of opportunity and privilege while growing up where Aventurine himself had little to none. He doesn't blame the good doctor, though; it's no one's fault that they were raised in very different circumstances. That's just fate toying with them both.

However, the value he sees in Ratio and what draws him to the scholar to such an extent is the sheer humanity that he can see with one glance. Ratio's primary philosophy is that knowledge should be shared by and accessible to all, and as someone who grew up without so much as a single book to read, Aventurine admires that desire and generosity immensely. It means a lot to him to know someone whom would readily help tutor and mentor another person in a situation similar to what his younger self experienced.

Ratio's blunt and abrasive personality doesn't matter to him. Sure, it stings at times, but he's heard far worse in the past. Plus, he's experienced first-hand that if Ratio truly crosses a line and gets called on it, a sincere apology will follow—a first, compared to what Aventurine has dealt with before. What really matters is that he looks at Ratio and sees a doctor who seeks to cure ignorance, injury, and illness alike, along with a strong moral code that most in the IPC would sooner scoff at than praise. He sees a man that he admires and trusts—even with his life.

Conversely, this also means that he would gladly protect Ratio with his life without a second thought. In his opinion, the world needs more people like Veritas Ratio.

Their work together on Penacony only served to reinforce his trust. Although Ratio "betrayed" him, that was the plan from the very beginning, which means that Ratio never really betrayed him at all. He counted on Ratio to play a role, and the doctor did so flawlessly. It was impressive—the finest performance Aventurine has ever seen besides his own, and he couldn't be more grateful.

All of the above applies whether platonic or romantic; shipping or not, and whether my Aventurine and any given Ratio muse have interacted before or not.

Now, to address the more romantic side of things with your Ratio specifically—

Aventurine just...wants him to open up more. That's it. That's all he wants. He knows Veritas loves him. He's heard the words said before, and he knows them to be true. The problem is that even though he knows it's true, he still has to stand by and watch Veritas struggle to reconcile with those feelings. It breaks his heart, but he's not going anywhere. If he did, he'd lose the most important person in his life.

He can't risk that for anything in the world, even if the alternative hurts too.

Instead, he just hopes he can get through to Veritas one day. He wants to hear a sincere "I love you" without the assistance of him forcibly (though with consent) lowering Veritas' inhibitions. He will always, always love Veritas to the end of the universe and back, and will always be grateful for everything Veritas has done for him from the first moment they met in the IPC infirmary. But it still hurts.

He can search for the "I love you"s in the little smiles he sees sometimes, or the rare moments that he manages to steal a kiss or hug. He sees it in the way Ratio worries over him and lectures him on being more careful. Such moments are sweet, but needing to search and always pay attention to the finer details every single time is tiring. Whenever he hits a low point mentally, it's enough to make him second-guess whether or not Veritas' feelings are even real.

The minimal affection (or denial of it entirely) and non-committal attitude are soul-crushing when he's so desperate to be loved, and he doesn't know what more he can do to change that. He knows they can trust each other, and his life will always be safe in Veritas' hands. He just wants his heart to feel safe too, and he keeps wondering if that's too much to ask.

[ll-underestimated-ll]

Answering Everything in the: Edgy/misc OC ask meme ᕕ( ᐛ )ᕗ

1. What memory would your OC rather just forget?

He'd prefer to forget his nightmares simply for the simplicity of being able to tell what he really has done apart from them with greater ease.

2. What's something about your OC that people wouldn't expect just from looking at them?

For mortals - the extent of his influence and power. It's simply not something expected from some average looking teen/'very babyfaced short business guy'.

For other vampires - the fact he's stepped away from the path of humanity entirely. Sure the greyish parlour of his skin and sense of deathly tiredness may clue them into the way he's at least low on it but when combined with his jovial demeaner and lively body language he comes across as having maintained a connection to the living that other kindred his age often lack.

3. What is your OC's fatal flaw? Are they aware of this flaw

He has a self-destructive impulsive streak and he's very aware of it. It's come with dying without finishing brain development. It's somewhat balanced out with his paranoid indecisiveness.

4. When scared, does your OC fight, flee, freeze or fawn?

It will vary depending on the cause of his fear. Fawn has for a very long time, talking in the centuries, been his default when it comes to dealing with others. But flee or fight follow closely in second. Can't always jump to a fight. Can't always run away. Can't do nothing. So- fawn.

5. How far is your OC willing to go to get what they want?

Leo, for a long time, has adhered to the train of thought that anything and everything is fair game if it leads to the desired outcome. It does not matter how reprehensible the act is in his eyes or the eyes of others - if it achieves the goals that have been set out then those that have been harmed are simply unfortunate casualties in the grand game of the universe.

Besides, he thinks to himself, - If he was unwilling to commit to such an actions, than those that were would have an upper hand over him.

As it stands the most significant thing he has an unwillingness to do is forfeit his position. Followed by throwing aside the Twins. He cares for them greatly... and they're far to useful.

6. How easily could your OC be convinced to do something that goes against their moral compass?

Have a direct path towards something for him to gain.

Take for example the fact the fact he does not wish to see children harmed, yet he killed & embraced Danny at the drop of a hat because he made a suitable decoy so he could feign his death (at least that was his intention).

7. What's one way your OC has changed since you first came up with them?

Choice of weaponry. He used to be very gun focused (he still likes and collects them) but now he leans towards swords.

Also - when I first created him as an SPC I was still very very new to vtm (I still feel I am) and my notes for him in the games discord channel was the following:

'The Prince. Venture. Became the current prince in 1980. Imagine Five from Umbrella academy. Currently the second oldest kindred in the city (despite looking to be a teenager). Has a slightly abrasive relationship with his clan fellows in the city due to claims of him having a somewhat lax attitude.'

8. Would your OC ostensibly be able to get away with murder?

Yes. Ths boy can do so many murders. A significant part of his job is to cover them up after all.

9. Do you have a specific lyric or quote which you associate with your OC?

His playlist has over 100 songs on it but no specific one jumps to mind. Here's the colour coded spreadsheet of the songs on it.

And once again I'm pulling out this song in particular for anyone that's scrolled far enough in this post

10. What's an AU that would be interesting to explore with your OC?

One AU I have in my head that I keep repeatedly returning to in my head is the improbable situation of 'what would happen if all vampires abruptly woke up alive again one day' and the fallout that follows from that. It makes for an incredibly stressful time for him and going over how he responds to finally getting to grow up is interesting to me.

11. What is your OC's weapon of choice? Have they ever actually used it?

Good ol' reliable blade. More specifically he favours side-swords and rapier like weapons. I talked about it in this ask response.

12. Is your OC self-destructive? In what ways?

Because Leo sees what happens to him as inconsequential so long as he gets out the other end alive having achieved his goals he has put himself through a lot of traumatic situations and dismisses the mental strain that he is putting himself through when he commits himself to scenarios which are retraumatizing.

Aside from this he creates problems for himself on a semi-frequent basis. Which is likely the lessor evil.

13. If you met your OC, would the two of you get along?

We would get along because he's a chameleon that endeavours to get along with everyone. But he would see me as being frightfully lazy and undriven. Lacking in passion, too timid to get anything done, and therefore - disposable. I am the low willpower ghoul he possesses to do things out around town from time to time.

14. How does your OC want to be seen by other characters?

He wishes to be respected, liked, and induce some semblance of fear. He wants to to be the Friendly Neighbourhood Prince, who's approachable and as trustable as a Camarilla Prince to be. Even towards sabbat and hunters his preference is to be seen as someone that can be at least respected as a foe despite his goofy antics but he's well aware that given some of his antics on here he's unlikely to see that.

15. Does your OC have a faceclaim? If so, who?

Yes and no? He has strayed away from his Five clone origin and while the vibes for appearance are still similar it's not 100% right? This is my curse. Never shall I have a real person faceclaim and go 'Yes. Them. 100%'. The same way in which not all picrews feel as close as others.

16. What is your OC's pain tolerance like?

He's maxed up fortitude as high as he can for his generation. It makes him fairly numb and his pain tolerance rather high. At least in the moment. Once there is downtime he's going to whine about bumping into a table if given the opportunity.

17. What is the worst thing you have put your OC through story-wise?

I could say a lot of things here, I have dragged this boy through absolute hell and often leave things only vague or alluded to cos it's a case of me with my criminology degree going 'he would of probably seen this sort of thing... but I don't want to explicitly write it out for personal comfort'.

But... I think the fact that Leo maintains the distinct memory from his mortal life of being feverish from the plague and looking to the side to see his fathers deceased face blindly staring back at him has to be the cruellest thing I've burdened him with.

18. Is your OC more cold and detached or up close and personal?

Depends on who's interacting with him. If he wants you to like him he's going to act close and personal but he's really rather detached. Can't not be able to discard someone at the drop of a hat.

19. How does your OC behave when enraged?

Tense if the person on the receiving end of his anger is lucky and he does not wish to kill them. But he can become incredibly violent at the drop of a hat if he's pissed off. He is the start consuming flesh off his target in anger without being in fury frenzy. At least he'd claim he wasn't in it.

20. Does your OC have a tendency to get jealous? If so, how does this manifest?

He does. It's why he harks on yearn-posting for example. For the most part it's something he can shrug off but when it is something he feels he can be petty about he will attempt to find ways to throw as many spanners in the works as he can. (e.g. Were anyone to attempt to pursue Thea romantically they'd suddenly wonder why their life is falling apart.)

21. Does your OC have any illnesses or disorders? How do they handle it?

None that manage to be evident through the filter of vampirism. Were he alive however he does have some scarring of his lungs which would become an issue during times of physical exertion.

22. What character alignment would you consider your OC to be?

Neutral Evil.

23. What emotion is the hardest for your OC to process? How about express?

Honestly, really unsure what one it'd be. He's more introspective than me and has greater manipulative knowledge of how to ID then mess with emotions so I'd presume he has an okay grasp of things. Look, I ain't been to therapy. I dunno what emotions are y'all.

24. What is an alternative life path your OC might have gone down?

Dead. Either sickness, starvation, or execution. Unless we're making an AU where he's born in the modern world. If his sire hadn't intervened in his life he would of been caught out at some point. So, I guess if he hadn't stolen clothes and gone to that gathering that'd be the alternate path.

25. How different would their life be if they'd made those decisions?

Dead before 20.

26. What is your favorite thing about your OC?

I like that because he's always putting on at least some kind of act that I can sweep my inconsistent characterisation and stupidity under the rug as him just messing around. He takes a lot of weight off.

[waywardfeathered]

KNOWING YOUR PARTNER WELL CAN POTENTIALLY MAKE WRITING TOGETHER A LOT EASIER. REPOST.

name. Havu.

pronouns. they/them

preference  of  communication. Discord. My handle is in my rules! Tumblr IM box is difficult for me, but if you prefer that, I will also communicate there.

name  of  muse. Castiel, or in non-canon human verses, Castiel "Cas" Krushnic.

rp  experience  /  how  long. On tumblr since 2013, before that mostly one-on-one in private since around 2006.

best  experience. No one best experience, but in general muses connecting. Like when you end up building dynamics and storylines that take on life of their own, when there is something coherent between muses no matter the nature of it, when you connect enough ooc that you mutually appreciate each other even if it's just in the form of liking each other's dash game posts or whatnot.

rp  pet  peeves  /  dealbreakers. Harrassing people for fictional content no matter how problematic you believe it to be, posting/sharing callouts over fictional content (honestly this counts as harrassment and bullying), policing what fictional themes other people are "allowed" to write of any kind (a polite "don't follow me if you write gore/smut/coffee shop aus/abuse/anything" is fine and not harrassment or policing), individual urls on DNI lists, bigoted beliefs/behaviour.

fluff,  angst,  or  smut. angst, smut, and fluff, in that order. I will write pretty much any genre, but I do tend to love writing angst or angst-adjacent themes more than something entirely happy even though I will gladly do the latter as well. I like writing smut, and am open to writing it without us needing to be friends or close ooc; I only am not comfortable writing smut with muns under 21.

plots  or  memes. Both! Let's say that I am more likely to do better with at least some vague plotting, something to write towards or based on, even if it's a one-line simple idea. However. I will happily wing things as well.

long  or  short  replies.  I prefer 2-4 paragraphs per response. Longer tends to get hard for me. Shorter tends to get too short to say enough. But, I am happy to do single para or novella. I firmly believe that matching length is bullshit and that it's natural for reply length to fluctuate, exposition and such might naturally make a reply novella while action or muses having a conversation where they keep responding to each other works better with just a couple of paragraphs if not less, because I find it awkward to kind of... interject in between, with a reply, and it starts to easily feel like I'm writing three threads in one go with longer form dialogue/reaction heavy threads.

best  time  to  write. No specific time. I do best if I have a sleep schedule, but other than that, I'm on disability and not restricted to time tables through a job or anything that sort.

are  you  like  your  muse. Not very. I relate to a lot of Cas's experiences in how I've been controlled and abused, and I share many quirks with him (he's very autistic coded and I'm autistic), but in general we're super different people. He's much more self-sacrificing and emotion driven, where I'm a lot more self-preserving and analytical; he views life through his heart and I look at everything analytically and don't tend to feel very deeply emotionally. He has strong moral convictions; I of course have my opinions of right/wrong, but I tend to juggle multiple points of view at once and have no issue going against my own morals on a lot of things. He has a very intuitive way of his opinions, feelings, and the universe and such, like of course he contemplates such things a lot, and he has a lot of self-doubt, but it's very different from the way I operate from a set of a logical framework that I am constantly adjusting with new factual information and where he wishes to be steady-footed on his beliefs and sense of self etc I am naturally always in flux and analysing and comparing and going down rabbit-holes of what ifs. He is good at being practical and taking action, I am really passive and impractical.

tagged by: @collidingxworlds, thank you! tagging: @solheimisms, @righteouslysin, @normaltothemax, @detectiveconnor, @lovepurposed & anyone who wants to!

[kunikinnie]

Hello:D can I request Sigma, Tecchou and Jōuno dad hcs?

a/n: I honestly have NO idea if these are in character, but I want to believe they are :') Link to the same prompt for Akutagawa, Dazai, and Chuuya here

warnings: some profanity

being dads

featuring: Sigma, Tecchou, Jouno

Sigma

"Everyone, stay calm!!" but internally is very not calm

He tries to maintain this "I've got this all under control, don't worry" facade just as he would at work, but since this is a more personal thing for him you can see "I'M VERY WORRIED" written all over his face

He wants only the best for his kids so he tries his absolute best

Like, he agonizes over the smallest things. Type of clothes, type of bed, type of food, etc.

But someone still needs to guide him every now and then since Sigma doesn't really know what being a dad means to begin with

That doesn't deter him tho. It makes him even more determined to give his children the best lives he could give them

One minor problem with that tho is that he is gullible to what his kids say lol

100% teasable and 100% adorable

He's the least "scary" among the three listed here when he gets angry, even if he is the "nicest" (he just doesn't have that viciousness in him even if the person he was confronting was literally about to kill his kids)

Tries to maintain a balance between playtime and work/study

I think he's the most chill about education, but he would definitely prefer it if they took it seriously

(don't ask him for help though he might not know the answers either)

When it comes to advice though, he gives good ones (although they can be quite general) and doesn't hesitate to help his kids navigate through their own existential troubles

He's probably the most chill when it comes to his kids' love life

He trusts them enough to know whom to be with and if necessary, when to break things off with them

But if it's a liiiittle too much for them, then he won't hesitate to "help"

Jouno Saigiku

Definitely leaning on the stricter side of things

He prefers if his kids would be a little more controllable

Which means that "bad influences" specifically Tecchou are kept as far away from them as possible

I don't think he'll let them live a sheltered life tho they need to learn the realities of life and the nature of people early on

But then again, proper guidance is key

I wouldn't say he'd have a moral code he'd want to instill in them, but certain values must be taken to heart (such as honesty - he KNOWS if they're lying and he detests it most if they do)

Jouno has quite the sharp tongue, but since becoming a father himself he has learned to choose his words better and soften his tone

But if someone tries to hurt his children? His cold sadistic will definitely dominate without him trying to hold back

I think his strengths as a father shine most once his children are of considerable age (young children just irritate him or confuse him)

Then again, some adults act like toddlers and unfortunately Jouno has a lot of experience on that field

Because of his sensitivity, he will do his best to make sure things are as "normal" in the house as possible: no strong or weird smells, no screaming or blasting loud music even if they're in their own rooms, no following Teccho's recipes or food combinations (dear God just not the last one, please)

But if somehow they don't listen no matter how many times he tries, once he has accepted his fate he will just give in lol

When it comes to school, he expects them to at least maintain a certain percentage (a bit above "just passing" is fine for him)

He won't shy away from an ass-whooping (whether literal or otherwise) if any one of them neglect their schooling

Oh he's DEFINITELY the "bullshit radar" when it comes to his kids' dating life

"Stop dating this person they don't actually like you" and stuff. Very blunt, but he doesn't mind if they feel terrible now than ten times worse later

Suehiro Tecchou

He's sweet but lost 80% of the time (or is he? that is a mystery)

I honestly think that Jouno would end up being "that uncle everyone can depend on" simply because this man's so damn unpredictable

But don't be fooled. Somehow, he still has everything under control (even more so than the previous two)

He's super nice and loves making his children happy. As long as it doesn't hurt anyone and doesn't violate the law, then everything gets a pass from him

Like, think of the chill dad. Now make him ten times chiller. That's Tecchou

Ofc when he's serious, he's hella frickin serious

Definitely teaches them the value of justice and the like - he's the most adamant about it within the Hunting Dogs, after all

Linked to the "serious" things is school. He doesn't mind if his kids don't excel academically, but they should still do their best and learn as was the goal of giving them an education

I honestly think kids (especially the younger ones) love him so much. Jouno could never understand why

He's just great at playing with them, you know

I also see him as the type to unintentionally embarrass his kids. Goes to PTA and stuff wearing the strangest graphic t-shirts (without understanding what's written on it) or cheers them on with a sparkly signboard (which he made himself, ofc)

He really means well. He just doesn't know it's weird

This also means that if any of his kids enter into a relationship, their partner must be able to tolerate (or better, get along) with Tecchou lol (not because he's trying to be intimidating, but he wants to find another kiddo to bond with)

He's a super nice and supportive father so they have nothing to worry about - except if he finds out they hurt his kids in any way, shape, or form. He wouldn't do anything too rash or terrible, but it's terrifying enough for his victim to repent for the next four future lives

[variousqueerthings]

Oh No, the sparkling pillar of goodness that is BJ Hunnicutt has revealed himself to be human after all!

I am trying to see how I feel about the episode where he cheats on Peggy (I think it’s very firmly hinted that he had sex and didn’t just accept a kiss from nurse Donovan)

I think on the one hand I like that he’s flawed. I like that Hawkeye now knows he’s flawed and that there was almost an element of “no, you can’t be flawed, you’re the best guy there is!” in how Hawkeye felt about it all. He didn’t protest anyone else cheating on their wives, notably Trapper, but he made a point out of telling BJ that he’s loyal to Peggy before BJ has even realised he might be attracted to Donovan and not purely altruistic in his comforting her about her crumbling marriage

He also goes on a full-on awkward ramble the day after it happens and has to excuse himself, which is very different from his usual reliance on words to carry him through Situations and keeping himself emotionally removed via said words

And then, of course, the Vow. Which I feel like as much as it is done in a funny way, I imagine Hawkeye would want to make sure BJ enforces. There’s an element of “BJ is the best of us” in how Hawkeye treats him and he refuses to let go of that just because he makes a mistake. There’s also possibly a certain wish to protect Peggy from having to deal with the consequences of BJs mistakes

Lastly I like that Donovan was incredibly pragmatic about it. She needed comfort because her marriage had fallen to pieces (and her husband had cheated), BJ provided it, she’s very grateful, now he needs to stop treating her weirdly. She doesn’t judge BJ, but recognises it was a strange situation and it won’t happen again -- nor does she want it to. She’s not treated simplistically

On the other hand, I feel like there should be some longterm follow-through on this, and I’m not sure that there will be, so I’m thinking I’d need to fill in some gaps/create some missing scenes to make it work overall. Otherwise it’s just “here’s the episode where BJ’s taken down a peg, and moving on!” which doesn’t really do his ongoing character-development proper service (I note this may be the first proper BJ-centric episode, but he’s not really allowed much voice in why he’s doing what he’s doing)

It feels like something that’s just a bit too big to cover in a single episode, especially with BJ, who before this was presented as someone who’d never cheat on his wife, while being not-naive to how other men and women might in a situation like this -- he wasn’t going in blind. Why Donovan, a character we don’t know? Why now? I don’t buy that she specifically attracts him, so much as her needing his help and comfort attracts him [inserts my hunnihawk agenda here, because you know who else needs his help and comfort???]

I also could buy him not letting on how lonely he feels and how much he needs to be needed/wanted to stave off that loneliness -- but here I’m already moving into doing what I said I’d have to do to make the episode work: giving it more context on BJ’s side that isn’t explicit in the episode (to be fair, I think I’m on the right track with this)

I think that’s what I would have wanted more of to make it really work for me -- BJ’s side of things. I know exactly why Donovan is drawn to him, and I know/can see why Hawkeye reacts like he does, but I need more BJ perspective. And I  really want to see this affecting him longterm. No way a single Vow, no matter how well-phrased, is going to permanently make him feel alright about this, that’s a guy with a strict code of morality right there!

Ultimately I think it opens some interesting doors for exploration that may not be entered on the show itself, but certainly have me readjust how BJ-as-character is growing in my mind

Also I literally wrote a few episodes ago how I was waiting for BJ to break and this is kind of a quiet version of that. The more I think about it, the sadder I feel, so mission accomplished.

And if they don’t show us BJ feeling awful about it moving forwards, then I will create scenarios myself!

(oh look I wrote myself into a conclusion)

[ruby-whistler]

the difference between static and dynamic characters on the dream smp

Hi, hello, it's Ruby, back with another PSA because this fandom (specifically the people on Twitter) keeps getting worse.

/dsmp /rp

Recently, people started claiming c!Techno was boring because he never had any character development.

Now, this may come as a surprise to some of you, but if you in any capacity decide to study the ins and outs of creative writing, you'd learn that characters don't need to have character development to be compelling, loved by the audience, and have a complex personality.

This is what is called a static character. Not to be confused with flat characters. What's the difference?

Most articles seem to agree on this;

"Static characters should not be confused or mixed up with flat, one-dimensional characters. Though neither changes as the story progresses, if a character remains unchanged, it does not mean that he is one-dimensional like a flat character. A static character can be perfectly interesting, like Sherlock Holmes, who is completely ingenious, eccentric, and sometimes jerky. He never changes, but the audience still loves him. Thus, a static character could be the protagonist too, and a flat character, on the other hand, only plays a side role in the story." - ( link to definition )

Static characters are ones that don't experience any personal growth during the span of the story. They're often used in writing, because they're realistic and can be interesting if well-written. This article provides examples such as the aforementioned Sherlock Holmes, Captain America from The Avengers, and TommyInnit from the Drea- [gunshots]

But in all seriousness, c!Tommy is very easily a static character; a lot of the criticism of his character is about the fact that he doesn't change. He does gain experience and new relationships, he does suffer and becomes more and more traumatized, he does make choices out of impulse or emotion, but none of that is character development - he never overcomes his character flaws, including selfishness, stubbornness, and a lack of compassion or empathy for others. And I do not blame him for it as a person, and I do not consider him a badly-written character, even if he's a little frustrating to watch sometimes.

c!Tommy has two main reasons why he remains a static character.

a) he doesn't live in a constructive environment

It is normal for boys Tommy's age to be low on empathy. It's completely normal for them to be chaotic, immature pricks, because that is part of their growth. All of this would be just fine if c!Tommy was growing up in a highschool; however, he in actuality grew up on a land ruled by politics, wars and conflict.

I do not like using the age excuse, because I do not believe it makes his bad choices any more justified, but it's easy to realize why him being in such a position could stunt his personal growth.

At that age, you need guidance, whether it be from teachers, parents, or whatever other figures you're able to find around you. Usually, it is not difficult to find good people to look up to in today's world, but for c!Tommy, that isn't true.

In the pre-L'Manberg, post-Tommy era, there was moderate peace. Yes, there were conflicts, but none of them were damaging in the long term for anyone involved, and they were chaotic scuffles more than fights of ideals.

Once c!Wilbur came along, c!Tommy latched onto him. We all know how that went.

None of the adults Tommy had looked up to were in any capacity helpful to him growing or becoming a better person. He helped lead a revolution to help Wilbur gain power, he was lead to help Wilbur lead and unfair election, and witnessed the breakdown of the man he trusted shortly after. He was subjected to emotional manipulation by Dream, and then came to the wrong person for help. None of these things are reasons for positive change.

b) it's his major character flaw

Even in the few chances he had at genuine change, at forgiveness, at letting go, all provided by the environment or people around him, he didn't take them. Tommy doesn't like change, he fights it, and that is why he always loses. He doesn't want to change for the better, and he despises himself when he changes for the worse.

He looks for peace in a lack of activity, growth, or development. He searches for happiness in not letting go of the past, but hanging onto it for dear life, terrified that the people around him might change because he doesn't want to. And that is why, as long as he keeps this mindset, he'll never find it.

While other characters, such as Tubbo, Dream, Wilbur or Quackity seek to change the world around them, for the better or the worse, to rewind or to progress, and are willing to change themselves accordingly, Tommy does the opposite, because his biggest fear is people drifting apart and leaving him behind.

Let's get back to the point, then; what makes Technoblade a static character, and a good one at that?

His motivation is simple; he is a lawful character who sticks to his morals through thick and thin, follows a strict inner code, and is loyal to people above all.

On top of that, he is given no reason to change his morals.

No one's arguments against c!Techno have ever made much sense, let's be honest, and ever since he'd entered the server, Techno's been proven right over and over and over again.

He saw Wilbur face the consequences of having power over other people and then losing it, seeing the influence of corruption on the man he worked with. He was forced by the government to kill another person, to kill an ally, to kill an innocent. He was betrayed and used by the Pogtopian revolution, which knowingly kept things from Techno and fought to seize power, rather than destroy it. He was unfairly executed without a trial by corrupt politicians just absolutely demolishing the Geneva convention, holy crap people call Techno a war criminal, just in that one stream New L'Manberg commited so many war crimes-

Point stands that people say one thing and then do the other. Talk of freedom and then force people to do things (and no, forcing people not to force other people to do things doesn't count nor does it make Techno a hypocrite, get a better argument). Techno was never manipulated or swayed to someone's side against his ideals because he's not a man of words; he believes in what he sees, not what people tell him, especially since he's been repeatedly lied to.

That is the first thing a good static character needs; a strong motivation. Through everything that's happened, I'd say without a doubt that Technoblade has the strongest motivation out of everyone, which is to emancipate people from the tyranny of their rulers - not just sing about it and then establish a dictatorship - but to in fact do it, no matter the cost.

He's a very Paragon-type character, which is a common type of static; his moral code is too strong to allow emotional change.

Another thing a static character needs is personality. And Techno - if you watch his streams, not just others' perspectives - has a lot of that. From his bond with Phil and Ranboo to fondness of animals to sense of humour, the character is entertaining to watch and follow. You know what to expect of him, you know he won't betray, and that despite the flaws he has he will not let personal issues hold him back. He wins because he trains, and he puts hours into pulling crazy stunts, and he's persistent - it's satisfying for the people watching his perspective to see his efforts pay off.

His interactions with others are characterized by an attempt at kindness, no matter how many times he might fail at separating his personal life from the ideals he's pursuing.

And that is compelling! To draw parallels to Tommy again, the kid has so much personality that other characters could borrow from him and he'd still be fun to watch!

Neither Tommy nor Techno are flat characters, and I think that is the mistake a lot of people make when misinterpreting both the characters; Tommy and Techno are amazing examples of great static characters in fiction, and I'd like to applaud cc!Tommy and cc!Techno for being brilliant writers.

[vrishchikawrites]

Wen Zhuliu and Wei Wuxian were meant to be thematic foils to each other

Wen Zhuliu is Wen Chao's scarily competent servant. He is always by his side, obeying his every whim, regardless of how stupid or immortal his orders are. He is a lot braver, smarter and more competent than Wen Chao, but absolutely obedient because of a dept he owes Wen Ruohan. 

At his death scene, Wei Wuxian straight up asked him why should other people pay for his dept, i.e. that no matter how great his dept was he was still in the wrong for following Wen Ruohan's and Wen Chao's cruel and unjust orders. Then. JC appears and kills him and JC stans call the scene iconic and how badass JC is, completely. missing. the. point. The point wasn't to establish how badass JC, WWX or LWJ were, at least not the main point. MXTX uses this last conversation between WWX and WZL to further establish WWX moral character. She makes it clear as day, WWX has a firm idea of right and wrong and he wouldn't go against that even if JFM or in this case, JC. I could even call it foreshadowing. When I first joined the fandom I couldn't believe people thought WWX had somehow done something wrong rescuing people from what is essentially a death camp and yet still thought of this scene as awesome and badass. 

And in the end, WZL very existence is so he can be a thematic foil to WWX. He is WC bodyguard, but there was no reason for MXTX to write a specific person guarding him. It's not like we are ever told the names of members of JZX retinue or NHS or... you get the point. The GC loss was trickier but it could just as well be a poison Wen clan has. No actual need for a core melting hand. Or WZL could be one of WRH sons or nephews, an actual family member delighting in cruelty instead of an obedient servant following orders. He was specifically set up to be compared to WWX and that last piece of dialogue between the two was MXTX making it pretty clear whose moral code and actions are right.

---

Agreed. I have long since believed this to be the case. There are just too many parallels between WZL and WWX for it to no be deliberate.

Another thing to note - WZL took up the Wen name. WWX insists of being known as his parents' son. He keeps the name and remains Wei Wuxian throughout the book.

That also shows a big difference between their character.

[raayllum]

claudiez, an explanation

Introduction

On the surface, Ezran and Claudia are both very similar and incredibly different characters. They are both the younger sibling with a powerful father and older brother, buckling under the weight of their family’s legacy and following in their father’s footsteps that they alone must uniquely shoulder. Yes, Callum is a prince - but Ezran is the next king. Yes, Soren yearns for Viren’s approval - but he is not a Dark Mage, slowly purposefully destroying his own body for Viren’s plans. 

Moreover, Claudia and Ezran are tied together by their passivity and kindness. Claudia can be cruel and thoughtless, but she does have a (loose) moral code and a kind streak to her. She, normally, doesn’t want to hurt people - or those she considers people, anyway - and Ezran doesn’t want to hurt anyone, showing loss and sympathy even for Viren in 3x09. 

They are also incredibly different. Claudia chops magical creatures into pieces for her spells with zero remorse. Ezran can talk to magical creatures and bonds with them intensely. Ezran has empathy for just about everyone and everything, and Claudia’s turns on and off like a switch if something gets in the way of her ultimate goal of keeping her family together (or pleasing her father). 

Yet it is because of all of this — the narrative weight they hold, their similarities, and their differences — that make Ezran and Claudia uniquely situated to one another as a fascinating ship dynamic in the future.

Disclaimer: None of this meta is me positing that there are current romantic feelings between either of them in canon (there isn’t) or that their dynamic isn’t platonic. It also isn’t saying that I think they will be canon (they definitely won’t, for numerous reasons). This meta is simply an explanation of what I think is fascinating about their current dynamic, and the potential it has in a post-canon, fanon future over a decade down the line. Okay? Okay.

So without further ado, let’s talk about Claudia/Ezran. 

Family Parallels & Narrative

As previously mentioned, Ezran and Claudia occupy parallel narrative positions. They are both younger siblings and follow more directly in their fathers’ paths than their older brothers. Ezran never knew his mother, but Claudia is haunted by the loss of hers. Ezran becomes a king much like his father, but also decides to grow behind who Harrow was: “I don’t want to be that kind of king,” as he can acknowledge that his father was a good man and a good king, but a deeply flawed one. Claudia, in many ways, also surpasses her father’s level of skill as a dark mage, yet falls further and struggles even more than Viren does: “But I don’t understand, the switching spell would save [Harrow’s] life. Why would he say no?”

These paths lead them to collide in contrast twice, near the start of their arcs in s3 and near the end, as they fulfill each of the roles their family has passed down to them, Soren acting in defense of the True King. 

These collisions are steeped in irony and development for reasons we’ll get to a little bit later, but keep it in the back of your mind for now.

Moreover, it is possible that they are the descendants of the Orphan Queen — who was linked to Aaravos, likely, and somehow got his Key — and one of the first dark mages, Ziard, who received gifts from Aaravos.

No matter which way you slice it, Claudia and Ezran carry a narrative weight that Soren and Callum have largely unburdened themselves from by becoming detached almost completely from the expectations of their families; Soren as a loyal crownguard even as it turns him against his family, and Callum largely shedding the trappings of prince-hood to pursue mage-hood. 

Viren attempted to use Soren as a pawn, but he left and liberated himself. Claudia stayed and was used further. Another parallel between her and Ezran, specifically in regards to Viren, is how the dark mage attempts to use each of them as pawns, and the different ways they cope with making choices. If you’re interested in a more in depth exploration of this topic, check out my meta Claudia, Ezran, & Choices :: A Comparison Meta (s2 & s3).

Viren — with help from others in Katolis — is able to back Ezran and Claudia into corners. He tells his daughter to choose the egg over her own brother, yet Claudia does the opposite when the time comes in 2x07. Viren forces Ezran in between a rock and a hard place, manipulating the boy partially into choosing the third option of abdication. 

But, if we’re going to talk about Narrative and parallels, we have to talk about the parallels that Claudiez has with Rayllum.

Rayllum Parallels

There are two main parallels that Claudiez has with Rayllum. Beyond the fact that Rayla&Claudia are very strong foils for each other, Claudia and Ezran mirror the thematic completion that Callum and Rayla have, in addition to having parallels with their arcs across all three seasons. 

To begin, I’ll explain what I mean by my first point. I’ve touched on this before in previous posts, but Callum and Rayla are the embodiment of what each character needs to learn. Callum is very open and needs to find a way to protect who he loves and grow in confidence; Rayla is a capable protector, but unsure of what she’s fighting for and she needs to learn how to open up. They naturally grow and learn from each other, simultaneously accepting one another just as they are while also radically, positively, transforming one another.

And the same can be said for Claudiez, as just like the roles Rayllum occupies for each other — instigating Rayla’s journey for figuring out who she wants to protect being inspired by Callum (1x02—2x07) and Callum’s mage arc being set off by Rayla (1x03—2x09/3x09) — Claudia and Ezran are also each other’s Agents of Narrative Change.

Claudia’s arc is officially set off in 1x03 when Ezran specifically discovers the egg and then chooses to listen to Rayla over her. Her arc from that point onwards is dealing with the repercussions, ultimately, of Ezran’s actions first and foremost. Claudia has to get the egg back and redeem herself to her father, and Ezran is the narrative wedge consistently driving her to lose more and more of herself. It’s not just that she betrayed Callum that causes her to lose him as a friend, it’s also that she put Ezran in danger. Claudia never doubts her father in season two, but it’s clear in season three that she struggles with what he’s done to Ezran and struggles with what she’s done, too.

Claudia is also the lynchpin in Ezran’s biggest internal arc of choosing to go home in 2x09. Claudia (and Callum) are the ones who inspire him to go back, even if he’s facing something he’s not ready for — and even if at first, he can’t understand how anyone could leave their family. 

Ezran draws both inspiration and comfort from Claudia, and perspective. He sees that she was told what to do, rather than make a choice, and to go where she was needed the most in the eyes of her mother. Ezran then realizes that he can’t be passive in the same way, and makes an active choice to go where he’s needed the most, too: home. 

As I’ve already mentioned, Ezran is the embodiment of everything Claudia needs to learn, and Claudia is in many ways the warning sign of what Ezran could become if he relies on his passivity. 

The second core parallel is what got me onto a ship in the first place, which is the interplay and parallels between Ezran and Callum’s arcs with grief in season two. Claudia tells Callum the truth in 2x02, in which breaks down in tears and after a brief disagreement in the following episode, seeks comfort in Rayla’s arms over the girl he’s known his whole life. Likewise, Rayla is there and as his closest friend after his brother, Ezran should by all means go to her. Instead, he breaks down in tears and ends up stumbling across Claudia. In spite of the fact she’s more or less become his enemy, Claudia is the one there for him the first time he grieves his father. 2x02 and 2x08 even end similarly, with Rayla and Claudia coming across each prince and being a bit unsure of what’s going to happen from there on out, and their reconciliation scene in the following episode ending in a hug, before Callum and Ezran choose to trust and help Rayla and Claudia respectively (Callum goes along with her illusionist plan, and Ezran helps Claudia find milkfruit). 

Again, that’s not to say that Claudiez is intended to be romantic in any way — it’s not, and TDP is a celebration of all different types of love. Familial-platonic-romantic parallels and relationships between characters are often contrasted (Viren and Harrow with Harrow and Sarai, Claudia and Soren with Callum and Rayla in 2x08, Callum and Rayla with Callum and Sarai in 2x09, etc). But there are also parallels drawn between canonical romantic couples in the show — the Rayllum and Lain/Tiadrin parallel handholds in 3x08 for example, or Harrow and Callum watching Sarai and Rayla leave in 2x06 and 2x07 respectively — and multiple interpretations of a relationship are Fun. Sue me. Or cry with me. Whichever floats your boat.

Other interesting Rayllum parallels include the beginning of their arc matches up with the ending of Claudiez’s first arc, with Rayla threatening Callum’s life and his brother intervening in 1x02. This scene is mirrored in 3x09 with Claudia (technically) threatening Ezran’s life and Soren stepping in. Just food for thought. 

But, now that we have the parallels largely out of the way, let’s talk about why Claudiez suit one another in regards to

Personality

For anything I ship that I’d like to be endgame, there are three main things I have to take into consideration: shared values/goals, personality, and narrative weight. This is why there are some couples that have a decent amount of narrative weight, but I can’t get behind them because I don’t think their personalities mesh, or vice versa, where I think they’re cute and work well together, but there isn’t enough of a narrative, transformative pull to them in canon to really draw me in. 

But as I’ve already talked about the parallels, I want to start by saying that one of the really cool things about Claudiez is that, even at this point in canon, they do have shared values in common. Although so much of their ship is predicated on years far past what canon could possibly cover and on Claudia having a redemption arc, there’s a key value they do share that is incredibly important for any ship involving Ezran in particular: they both see the throne the exact same way.

Claudia’s loyalty is an incredibly valuable trait in a relationship, once she figures out who to be loyal to. Moreover, she may be able to see clearly through manipulative politics in the future and be a loyal protector of Ezran politically, after everything she’s learned. It would pair well with Ezran’s determined idealism as he works to make their world a better place, as she would understand the demands of kingship but also support him through it.

There’s also the fact that they have a shared sense of goofiness and like to be mischievous without malicious intent. 

Claudia and Ezran also bring out new sides to one another as well. For example, Claudia has a smug streak with everyone else in her life that she’s close to: her brother, Callum, and her father. 

When Claudia is uncertain around her father, it is because he is heading down an increasingly unhealthy path. Meanwhile, Ezran is the one person that Claudia feels a healthy aspect of uncertainty around, and it can teach her how to exist in a new capacity she’s unfamiliar with. Her view on Ezran is already changing and evolving in ways that aren’t happening with anyone else. 

Ezran is also shown to be more thoughtful of Claudia’s possible feelings than even Callum, as he remembers what her headspace might be while Callum is too distracted by his appearance / crush.

Ezran and Claudia also have a surprisingly intense emotional connection in spite of their scarcity of screentime. 

Ezran’s deep sense of compassion and forgiveness is also useful for Claudia, offering olive branches over the course of the show, but that doesn’t mean he won’t hold her accountable. In many ways, Ezran is the only person who does, in a way that’s actually communicative and leads to partial reconciliation, rather than residing just in mistrust or anger the way that Callum and Rayla do.

There are a few reasons for this, I think. The first is that Ezran is one of two people who saw Claudia prioritize her brother over her mission in 2x07. He is Hope and Faith embodied in the narrative of the show, his horizons broadened by his empathy and belief in second chances, as well as the pointlessness of unnecessary violence. 

Ezran is the only person other than Soren that Claudia is willingly vulnerable in front of about her own issues (which can’t be said for her relationship with Callum). She’s also shown to be better equipped at taking care of Ezran emotionally than she is for Callum, where she fumbles a bit. Unlike on her and Callum’s date where he compliments her and Claudia doesn’t say anything back, her and Ezran’s conversation is entirely reciprocal in sharing and supporting each other through their hurt.

Claudia is also the only one to not only believe Ezran right away about his gift, but to guess (rightly) that he has it. Callum and Rayla (and Ellis) either don’t really believe him, or have to be convinced, leaving Ezran to feel even lonelier about something that already set him apart and made him feel different.

[1x09 vs 2x09]

They share lingering looks as Ezran ultimately gives her another chance in season three. Ezran still believes in her even after the battle and everything has gone terribly wrong.

(Quietly plugs in this parallel as well.)

And I think there’s a few reasons for that. Some is what I’ve already mentioned, of Ezran’s forgiveness and empathy being that large and stretching that wide. He and Claudia have also made it clear they are care about each other, as Claudia is the only one other than Callum and Rayla to call him Ez, and their bond is tested to the distress of both of them in 3x02: “Ezran please, we talked about this—” / “I’m sorry.” 

But more than that is arguably the scene where Claudia is at her most genuine in the whole show, and it’s with Ezran, and him alone.

Claudia has already gotten what she ‘needs’ out of Ezran, and so she is apologizing purely because she wants to. She acknowledges the way he may be feeling, offers zero excuses, and is surprised when Ezran responds to her in good faith. Even after everything, he still trusts, believes in, and (platonically) loves her, and she isn’t sure what to do at first with his show of good will. He’s seen all of her up to this point — her betrayal, her love for her brother, her kindness and the comfort she’s offered him — and still sees her as worthy. And more than that, he already knows all of this, and tells her so. 

It’s going to mean all the more to her later on in the series, when Ezran will likely be one of the only people who still believes she has the capacity to grow and change for the better. With Ezran, Claudia wouldn’t be seeking absolution from a third party she never hurt, nor would she be in a relationship with someone who would always, to a degree, hold her past against her the way Callum or Rayla would. Ezran sees all of her — and he likes her anyway, just as Claudia has a unique viewpoint into his being as well. 

There’s also some real poetic justice in, by becoming Ezran’s queen, Claudia ends up on the throne her father coveted so desperately, but upon the Narrative he was so greatly opposed to. Not out of Strength, but from a Narrative of literal Love, built on forgiveness and vulnerability with the one character who lives that path more than anyone. The king and his high mage, united at long last, well suited and well balanced, growing up in every way that matters to face what they aren’t ready for, together. 

Other Misc Things:

There are also parallels that Claudia’s relationship with Ezran has between her relationship with Callum, for example:

So despite knowing Callum from a very young age as well, if she doesn’t view him as a little brother, then why should she see Ezran that way? Which is as good a segue, probably, as we’re going to get to the next section, which is how Claudia/Ezran being in a relationship would affect their family members.

One of the appeals of Claudia staying in the castle with Ezran is that she’d be close to her brother, and Soren would likely be thrilled about two of his favourite people ever getting together. He knows their individual and joint history and that they would take care of each other. It would mean Claudia’s been able to grow and let go a lot of her guilt and that Ezran is making choices for himself, independently of what anyone else thinks, and the the royal family that Soren is sworn to protect and that his own blood family will be one in the same. He’d never have to choose, again. 

However, to say that Callum would have an averse reaction to the news is an understatement, and this is one of my favourite facets of the ship. He and Ezran could really duke it out, Ezran possibly even pulling rank as prince, and Callum struggling to reconcile a lot of difficult feelings he still has regarding everything between himself and Claudia, from broken hearts to bitter enemies to accepting allies, but trusting her with his baby brother’s heart? Being forced to recognize Ez is an adult who doesn’t need his approval? It would force the boys to grow up a lot and ultimately end up in a better place, but it would take a lot of time. Callum’s reaction is also one of the things that might make Claudia hesitant about having a relationship with Ezran in the first place, as we know she understands and respects the relationship the two brothers hold.

This is where Rayla would come in. I’ve talked before about Rayla having parallels to both Soren and Claudia, and the unique understanding she could bring to the table. In this scenario, she’d be intervening not only to try and keep Callum from falling apart, but also on behalf of Ezran, who is like a little brother to her. She’d be the perfect halfway point of getting the boys to reconcile, while understanding why Callum is so against it, and it would likely bring her and Claudia closer, as Claudia would understand what Rayla had done for her and Ezran in spite of the girls’ complicated history. 

One more final, somewhat unrelated note: Ezran and Claudia are cat people. If Ezran was five years older, this would be flirty. Don’t at me, you know I’m right. 

(In other words, Claudia has a ferocious beastly side, and Ezran can tame it. Or, as one of my favourite poems has said: 

why is it always the woman who has to see past the beast in the man? why does she always have to clean his wounds, even after he has damaged her beyond repair? why is it always the man who is worthy of forgiveness for being a monster? I want to see the beast in the beauty. the half smile, half snarl. the unapologetic anger. I would like to see the man forgive the monster. to see her, blood and all, and love her anyway.

beauty and the beast | Caitlyn S. )

Conclusion

Claudiez isn’t going to be everyone’s cup of tea, but it is mine post-canon, 10+ years down the line in the character’s lives. I hope this meta could help explain why I like these two so much and everything they have to offer as a ship even if it hasn’t made you ship them. Thank you for reading and I hope you enjoyed!

—Dragons Out

[hrtiu]

Why The Believer is my favorite episode of The Mandalorian

There are a lot of unforgettable moments in The Mandalorian. Maybe your favorite episode is the season 2 finale, with those iconic Chanel boots. Maybe your favorite episode is The Jedi, with Ahsoka and her Thrawn teaser. Maybe your favorite episode is the finale of season 1, with IG-11′s sacrifice. All valid choices! But my favorite episode is S2E15: The Believer, and I’ll tell you why.

From the very first episode, Din’s relationship with being Mandalorian and the Code is framed as religious. He kneels in front of the forge while the Armorer makes his pauldron, he speaks formally to her, and lays the beskar and the payment for his last bounty out like an offering. 

It’s also not difficult to see parallels between covering your face and some real-life religious tenets (though these are imperfect parallels and be careful how you use them). As someone who follows a specific dress code due to my faith, I definitely immediately related to Din as a religious person.

Din’s devotion to his faith is, for the most part, positively framed in the show. The Creed’s emphasis on protecting and raising foundlings is a large part of why Din decides to rescue Grogu from the Imperials. In the prisonbreak episode, Xi’an suggests that it might be his Code that has made Din soft. In S1E4, Omera is tremendously respectful of Din’s faith even when it means he has to turn down her affection.

 His devotion to the Creed is what sets him apart from other bounty hunters. Sure, he’s a brutal, harsh man more than capable of violence, but he also has a strict code of conduct by which he lives his life.

Then we reach Chapter 6,  an episode that felt painfully familiar to myself and many other people of faith, I’m sure. The way Mayfeld asks Xi’an if Din ever takes his helmet off, as if Din isn’t right there in front of him. The way Xi’an mockingly parrots, “This is the Way.”

My situation obviously isn’t exactly the same as Din’s, but these scenes remind me of the prying questions, the teasing pressure to break my religious commitments, the mocking of beliefs I hold sacred. It really hit home.

Then things get complicated in season 2 when we find out that other Mandalorians consider Din and the Death Watch a cult.

I appreciated this in the sense that it demonstrates the wide variety of beliefs even within the same religion--but at the same time it had me worried. Was this going to be yet another “losing my religion” story? Was this going to be a tale of disillusionment and breaking free of Din’s restrictive past? I’ve seen a lot of stories like that before, and I was hoping to see something different.

Even before Din meets Bo-Katan, we see him gradually softening his adherence to the Code. He starts off meeting Cobb Vanth by challenging him to essentially a battle to the death for wearing Mandalorian armor, then cooperates for the rest of the episode with him to defeat the Crate Dragon. They part ways as friends.

In S2E6, Din is upset when Boba first demands the Mandalorian armor, but he’s not very difficult to convince to accept Boba as the owner of the armor after they fight together.

As a viewer who loves baby Yoda, we’re happy to see him make exceptions to keep Grogu safe. But as a person of faith, I was a little worried about where this might be headed and how it might undermine what I saw as a very positive message in season one. Then we get to Season 2, Episode 7: The Believer.

Right off the bat, Din sees himself forced to stretch the limits of his adherence to the Code in this episode. He goes with Mayfeld into the Imperial facility, covering his face with the helmet of an Imperial driver. Mayfeld immediately picks up on the inconsistency.

He picks right back up with the mockery and not-so-subtle digs.

Then we get a bit of a peak into where Mayfeld’s derision is really coming from. Yes, Mayfeld is speaking aloud the insecurities that Din is facing himself--the doubts about whether it actually means anything to live by his Code, the question of if his chosen way of life actually makes any difference. But Mayfeld is also revealing the source of his own derision as well.

See how the focus switches to Mayfeld? How his voice gets soft and he’s looking off into the distance? This is a man who is talking to himself. This is a man who’s trying to convince himself that every bad thing he’s done in his past is fine because everyone is equally guilty.

When faced with the terminal that requires a facial scan, Mayfeld actually tries to protect Din in his own small way by not even asking him to scan his face.

Mayfeld then hesitates to help Din when Din’s having a hard time with the terminal. He peeks in on Din, and you get the sense that he’s actually hesitant to disrespect Din’s code by looking at his face. Of course, when Din is confronted by the Imperial officer, Mayfeld steps in to help.

Then they talk with the Imperial officer who actually believes what Mayfeld acted like he believed before. That they’re all the same. That all moral codes--or lack thereof--are equally flawed and that therefore nothing matters. This is when we see the guilt that Mayfeld has been trying to hide all this time--the guilt that Din and his strict Code constantly remind him of.

This is the moment that has been haunting Mayfeld--one of perhaps many atrocities that weigh heavy on his soul. And as a viewer you can see how differently this event sit on his heart versus how it sits on the officer’s heart.

This is very reminiscent of what Mayfeld said earlier in the episode, but we can see that this officer genuinely believes it, while Mayfeld does not.

And this is where Mayfeld reaches his breaking point, where he can’t keep pretending that he doesn’t care or that everyone is equally bad.

And this is when Mayfeld turns from critic into ally and protector. He respects Din’s integrity, he understands that being imperfect doesn’t mean it’s not worth it. And this is what I was so happy to see. I was afraid that as soon as Din took his helmet off, the story would suggest that he’d finally seen the light and broken free of his restrictive Code. And yes, Din is likely going to be more liberal with his adherence to the Code in the future. We see this when he takes his helmet off in the next episode to say goodbye to Grogu. But he isn’t throwing it away.

So what’s the message of The Believer? To me it’s that faith is messy. Faith often involves evolution. In fact, faith generally requires evolution. But just because you mess up, just because you’re a hypocrite, just because you can’t always live up to your ideals, doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t have them.

And we can separate this from faith, too, if you want. Think about what’s right and wrong, examine the way you live your life, develop a moral code. It won’t necessarily be perfect, and you won’t always live by it, but at least you’ll have something. It’s always better to try than to give up.

And in Mayfeld’s immortal words: