#like its the same attitude as ''this makes me uncomfortable. it must be morally evil.'' no matter what that may be

[vaugarde]

gonna say something that's probably gonna piss some people off.

"media literacy is dead" discourse has gotten to the point where i think some of yall are only a few steps removed from "we can't let our kids watch spongebob, it might turn them gay" parents

[ninjastormhawkkat]

Morally Gray AU: Miss Powers and Kid Math

I had not covered these two for my Morally Gray Wordgirl au. I did not do this at first because I did not realize how much these interactions will change for this au. I didn’t think I need to write them down, but as I am getting to my Mousegirl Au, I realized that I needed to cover these two for my au because unlike my Alliance Swap and Becky Boxleitner au’s, Wordgirl’s interaction with Miss Powers is completely different from canon. 

Miss Powers: So basically their meeting and interaction is the same, the difference in this au is that Wordgirl catches on how Miss Powers uses words to hurt the villains. Now Becky becomes protective because no one, especially the villains, need to be treated like that. I said in my other Morally Gray au posts that Wordgirl is more sympathetic to the villains this time since being raised by one. The dilemma for her here is that Miss Powers claims to be a great hero and teacher of heroes and Becky is interested in learning from her because she wants to be a better people to protect the city and help everybody out. She sorta gives Miss Powers a few one too many chances trying to convince her to be a little nicer to the Villains. Becky realizes that not everyone shares her values, but that doesn’t mean you have to treat people differently base on whether their heroes or villains. Miss Powers does most of the bullying and tries to get Becky in on it, but Becky rather stands off to the side feeling really uncomfortable about the whole thing and trying to figure out how to solve the issues. (She’s a 10 and a half year old trying to make adult decisions!) Wordgirl does hang back and apologize/comforts the villains when they are hurt by Miss Powers, They try to convince her she is bad news and needs to be stopped. Wordgirl makes excuses such as “she doesn’t know how things work on Earth” or “Just give me a little time to make her nicer.” Becky is ready to throw hands when she sees how Miss Powers threatens her dad because no one hurts her family. After that, everything else happens like canon with some changes:

1. Becky does not develop a bad attitude because of Miss Powers influence, she just develops a lot of anxiety and has issues trusting her own judgement.

2. Spoiler for my Becky Boxleitner au as well: Miss Powers when mishandling Two Brains, sees a picture of Becky fall out of his pocket. Miss Powers starts tormenting Two Brains and threatening with the idea of possibly harming Becky since her reasoning is that Becky must be a villain since her dad is one. This really gets Two Brains and he tries to fight back or bargain with having to eat no cheese for the rest of his life because he is more terrified of losing his daughter than the possibility of a world without cheese. Two Brains begs Wordgirl, before he is taken off, to find Becky and hide her from Miss Powers. At the end of each version, there is an emotional reunion between Becky and Two Brains. 

3. When Becky is defeated by Miss Powers the first time, she feels guilty over being to trusting of Miss Powers and not listening to the others that she was trouble. She also feels guilty over not doing more to stop Miss Powers from being mean even though she herself was not sure what to do at those moments with only thoughts of comforting the villains afterwards.

4. In the final battle with Miss Powers, Becky let’s a little more of her villainous morals out there which greatly frustrates the evil alien. Miss Powers tries to hurt Becky by saying something along the lines of, “You won’t be a great hero if you act like a villain!” and Becky retorts that “I may not be, but I will be a better hero than you!”

Kid Math: So its basically a lot similar to canon with the added changes of Rex being in shock that Becky’s dad is a super villain. The funny thing I added for both this and the bb (becky boxleitner au) is that upon learning that Dr. Two Brains is Becky’s dad, he goes through a ‘windows.exe has stopped working, please reboot’ moment because he has a hard time grasping that villains and heroes can live together as families because he always thought that they were enemies fighting each other all the time. Kid Math does question why Becky is more sympathetic to the villains and more lenient with them. Becky explains thats how she is due to being raised by a super villain her whole life, and that the main reason she became a hero was to protect innocent lives. Becky explains to Rex that she knows her methods aren’t popular among most heroes but she is comfortable with that lifestyle. She tells Rex that it is okay to find his own morals to practice with his heroic actions and it doesn’t matter if he follows Becky’s style or not. The rest of the episode pretty much happens the same with the end featuring Kid Math thanking Becky for her teachings and telling her he will try to find his own path of heroics, but he may practice some of her methods towards his future villains because it seem friendly and fun to get along with villains despite being on opposite side. A funny joke at the end is that Kid Math wonders if he can find his own villain father to help teach him some villain tactics which makes Wordgirl giggle (even though she figures that not all villains may be approachable to teaching heroes like her dad). Huggy just face palms in frustration and thinks, “Welp, this generation of heroes is ruined.”

So yeah, that’s what I have, If you guys have any questions or want to ask how other characters fit in my au, please reply in my section of share what you want to see box, or comment on post if you prefer. 

[impalementation]

spike, angel, buffy & romanticism: part 4

part 1: “When you kiss me I want to die”: Angel and the high school seasons

part 2: “Love isn’t brains, children”: Enter Spike as the id

part 3: “Something effulgent”: Season five and the construction of Spike the romantic

* 

“But I can’t fool myself. Or Spike, for some reason.”: Buffy and Spike as a blended self

Before I get into seasons six and seven, it’s worth asking: why would the show do all of this? Why would it spend all of this time developing a supporting villain and joke id character? Why would it give him a romantic arc? I see people say that the writers only gave Spike these storylines because he was popular or they wanted to keep him around, but even that being the case, there was no need to give him the specific arc that they did. It’s more than possible to read meaning into the story that they chose from the array of possible options. 

Here is the thing about the id. It’s not actually something separate from you. It’s not a ravenous monster you can blame your weaknesses on while remaining pure and dignified. The id is part of you. The immediate and enduring appeal of Spike is, I suspect, strongly influenced by the fact that the things the id wants are so very human and sympathetic. His foibles and mistakes are often painfully familiar, even exaggerated through vampirism as they are. In fact, it’s precisely because Spike is allowed to show a full range of reactions to love, because the writing is under less pressure for him to do the “right” or dignified thing, that he can at times be compelling in ways other characters can’t. If Spike just did nasty things, his appeal wouldn’t be much more complicated than the appeal of Angelus, who people tend to like as a villain or storyline rather than as a relatable character. But Spike doesn’t want to dismember nuns or construct elaborate murder tableaux. He wants familiar things like love, identity and meaning, even if the ways he goes about getting them can reflect people’s worst impulses. 

Which brings us to Buffy, and Buffy’s story about growing up. Buffy is Buffy’s show, which means that every writing choice tends to revolve around her arc in one way or another. And this goes for Spike’s storyline even more than most. In the final three seasons of the show, the writing finally engages with how inextricable the id--and all of its impulsive, inarticulate romantic desires--really is from a person’s self. So instead of keeping Spike at a comfortable distance, both Buffy and the writing begin to take him seriously. They begin to invite him in.

Starting in season five, it’s telling how frequently Buffy herself projects on Spike, rather than just the writing setting them up as mirrors. She tells him that he’s the “only one strong enough” to protect her family, and later assigns Dawn specifically to his protection. In “Spiral” she describes him as “the only one besides me that has any chance of protecting Dawn.” This is a very intimate role that she otherwise only assigns to herself (and which is not really based on pure practicality, considering that she’ll later describe Willow as her “big gun”--yet never gives Willow the task of protecting Dawn). She tells him that he cannot love, which is the thing she fears most about herself. Her protests that Spike is a vampire, and thus cannot express or want human things like love, mirror her lamentations that as the Slayer, she cannot have a normal life.

From the Gilliland Gothic double essay:

More than any of her other lovers, Buffy and Spike overlap one another so often that at times their character arcs become nearly indistinguishable. With Angel, Buffy traveled a parallel path in attempting to master self-control. With Riley, her journey ultimately took her in the opposite direction. With Spike, Buffy’s journey is most closely shadowed, in that her interactions with him in many ways can be seen as metaphors for her feelings about herself.

So now Spike is multiple things. On the one hand, he’s the soulless id he’s been since season two. His vampiric behavior represents a morally uninhibited way of reacting to romantic frustrations, among other things. But on the other hand, his vampirism now also marks him as like Buffy, not merely her opposite.* Nor is he only her mirror in the realm of romantic love. The part of him that is a vampire is the part of him that is supernatural (ie, Romantically larger-than-life), that sets him apart from regular people, and dictates how he can and cannot behave. Just like Buffy’s slayerness. His vampirism is what makes him capable of protecting Dawn, while also making him (supposedly, according to Buffy) incapable of human feeling--again, just like Buffy’s slayerness. Instead of Buffy’s Slayer side being aligned with Angelus, who was an unmitigated evil, it becomes aligned with Spike, who is something more complicated. 

*(Though it must be noted that this was a process that began in season four, with the show aligning Spike with the Scoobies by making him a victim of the Initiative. Spike being supernatural suddenly marks him as non-normative, just like the Scoobies, in contrast to the institutional conformity that the Initiative represents. The evolution towards treating the Romantic supernatural as something positive and associated with identity plays a key role in transitioning the show to the more complicated attitudes of the last three seasons.)

This shift in the show’s attitudes towards the id affects how Spike is used. In “Blood Ties” for example, Spike assists Dawn in breaking into the Magic Shop and in “Forever” he helps Dawn resurrect her and Buffy’s mother. In both cases, Spike could be read as embodying impulsive behavior that Buffy is supposed to be better than. Yet both cases specifically involve Spike helping Dawn, who is repeatedly portrayed as Buffy’s human side. As Buffy says in “The Gift”: “[Dawn]’s more than [my sister]. She’s me. The monks made her out of me. [...] Dawn is a part of me. The only part that I--”. In other words, Buffy’s id becomes closely tied to her humanity, even going so far as to become its safeguard. “Blood Ties” ends with Buffy affirming her connection to Dawn, which Spike’s rule-breaking directly enabled, and “Forever” ends with Buffy acknowledging how desperately she wants her mother back too, and becoming closer to Dawn as a result. (Compare to “Lovers Walk”, where Buffy acknowledging her id results in her breaking away from Angel, not drawing closer to anyone). Or in “Intervention”, Spike building the Buffybot directly parallels Buffy’s own anxieties about what she thinks she should be. She thinks she’s losing her ability to love, and that effusive fakery is her only recourse (as she said in “I Was Made to Love You”: “Maybe I could change. [...] I could spend less time slaying, I could laugh at his jokes. I mean men like that right? The joke laughing at?”), a fear that even has some merit, given that her friends cannot tell her and the bot apart. Instead of Buffy and Spike having separate arcs in the episode, Spike learning the difference between real and fake dovetails with Buffy’s own relationship to her realness and fakeness. It turns out that neither of them want a bot version of Buffy. They want real emotion, things like sacrifice and heartfelt gratitude. If even Buffy’s id would let itself be killed for Dawn, then maybe she has nothing to fear from herself. Maybe there is some beauty in the emotional part of her nature that she thinks she must repress.

In other words, part of the writing (and Buffy) fully engaging with romanticism and the id, means engaging with the ways they can be bad and good. There’s this weird thing that happens with Spike as soon as he falls in love with Buffy, where suddenly his actions are more uncomfortable, and to many, off-putting, because their object is Buffy (instead of another vampire like Harmony or Drusilla, who either enjoy the same vampiric things he does, or the audience might be inclined to see as a moral nonentity regardless). His comic id quality becomes somewhat darker and more serious, almost like the way Angel’s early season two darkness becomes more serious after he loses his soul. But at the same time, Spike’s actions are also more intriguing, sympathetic, and even noble...because their object is Buffy. It makes no sense that a soulless vampire should not only fall in love with the Slayer, but genuinely attempt to transform himself into someone worthy of her love. And yet that’s exactly what Buffy inspires him to do. By loving Buffy Spike’s dual nature, and the dual nature of his romanticism, is thrown into relief: it’s something that can be selfish and creepy, yes, but also something that hints at the idea that real romanticism does exist. Something worth feeling romantically about does exist. Thus the writing can at once criticize, say, the way the chivalric mindset conflates love and suffering, while also suggesting that there are kinds of love it’s worth being transformed by. (Meanwhile, Spike’s fumbling bewilderment over how to love Buffy, and what the rules of loving people correctly even are, creates a human middle ground between monstrousness and heroism). By leaning into the way that Buffy and Spike have been used as mirrors for three seasons, and introducing the mythology-bending idea of Spike being in love with Buffy, the writing is able to fully engage with this complicated, contradictory nature of love and romance.

All of which is to say. Spike becomes a potential love interest, and is given a convoluted inner conflict between monstrousness, humanity and heroism, in precisely the season in which Buffy begins to reckon with her own inner conflict between her darker impulses, her human reality, and her supernatural role. It’s no coincidence that season five opens with Dracula, an icon of romantic vampire mythology, tempting Buffy with darkness and promising her insight into her nature. Or that a vampire kidnaps Dawn--again, her human half--in the next episode. Or that the season’s antagonist is a super-strong blonde woman who wants to destroy Dawn instead of protect her. Or that she says goodbye to Riley, the boyfriend who embodied her hopes for a more normative way of being (notice how Riley is progressively destabilized by everything non-normative about Buffy’s life, and provokes those anxieties Buffy expresses in “I Was Made to Love You”). Over and over in season five, Buffy fears that her Slayer half is cold, destructive, and otherwise dangerous. That these Romantic things like gods and vampires have it in for Buffy’s vulnerable humanity. Yet Buffy’s vampire id simultaneously gives lie to these fears by proving itself capable of heroism and genuine human feeling.

In other words, Spike becomes a potential love interest in a season that treats the Romantic--ie the grand and mythical--as something more than just an attractive lie to be disabused of. Rather, the question that season five seems to posit to me, and which will not be fully answered until the end of season seven, is this: once you do clear away the attractive lies, once you accept the hard realities, once you’ve seen the darkest underbellies, what are the things that are left that are truly grand and beautiful? What are the stories that are really worth telling, and the heroes that are really worth having?

And the show asks and answers these questions on both a very personal level, and a more meta, systemic level. On the personal level, Buffy and Spike are forced to confront their illusions not just about the world, but about themselves. They are made to ask themselves what constitutes a heroic role or a demonic weakness, versus basic, unromantic humanity. And on the meta level, the show asks questions about our expectations for how both love stories and chosen hero stories are supposed to go.

part 5: “Everything used to be so clear”: Season six and the agony of the real

[ganymedesclock]

Very great analysis on how bleak the cycle can be. What’s your take on how the cycle works regarding other villains, like Vaati, or Majora?

So I know you asked about the cycle in-universe, led here I would guess from this post, but there’s a noteworthy followup I made in that vein here, and that’s important context to how I feel about a lot of the Zelda rogues’ gallery.

Because the thing is, if you go looking for qualities to hate, you’ll always find them.

Ghirahim invades Link’s space in a way that feels- to me- very gay panic. He talks in luscious detail about wanting to do violence onto Link’s person. He threatens to run through his subordinates.

Zant creeps on Midna at a major part. And, Zant’s very easy for me to relate to and want to defend, because the big other thing used to make Zant seem “scary and off-putting” is his literal autistic meltdowns. They may not be called that by name, but Zant thrashing, bending weirdly, the noises he makes and slamming his head on the floor when frustrated and overwhelmed, as an autistic person, I recognize intimately. I can’t even say it’s that much of a caricature of stimming and meltdowns.

Vaati kidnaps “beautiful maidens”. We’re given plenty of reasons to hate them.

My beef is, a lot of these issues feel petty- not in their in-universe damage done, but petty in a writing sense. 

Hearing that Ghirahim controls the bokoblins through threat of force is basically meaningless. We can’t really be all up in arms that Ghirahim is threatening to stab bokoblins because in that cutscene alone we tear them apart en masse ourselves. We can have the excuse that they’re our Enemies, but they’re Ghirahim’s subordinates, but really, how much of an excuse is that? Yes, there’s a difference between stabbing enemies and stabbing allies, but The Legend of Zelda is not a work that has any kind of moral high ground to point fingers about dehumanizing people. We’re not even dignified a response from the Bokoblins. You could omit Ghirahim’s threat entirely and nothing about that scene’s weight or context would change.

Zant getting uncomfortably up in Midna’s space is just supposed to be a cruelty that make us feel more justified when Zant dies in a comparatively graphic and painful-looking manner. They are not used as meaningful characterizing moments. It doesn’t illustrate that Zant wields cultural power over Midna, because in their dynamic, both make clear that Midna was the favored one- she was chosen to rule- while criticizing Zelda, she alludes to having a life of luxury herself (since she’s projecting her own issues onto Zelda in that scene) while Zant at least perceives himself as having lived a tortured life and Midna doesn’t contradict him or call him a liar, merely insists that he was power hungry and that’s why “everyone” felt justified turning away from him.

It doesn’t indicate Zant really wants Midna because it seems to just exist as an opportunity to set up Zant attacking her for siding with the light world. It doesn’t even really indicate Midna’s character growth because she doesn’t seem to seriously consider Zant’s words and she never suggests in the past she might’ve gone along with him.

The thing about The Cycle and it’s cruelty is that it’s something that exists halfway in and halfway out of the fourth wall. Hyrule can’t stay at peace. It can’t be stable and happy. It has to be imperiled because they want to keep making games.

The villains in the Zelda series are created to fill a role. They’re boss fights. In that sense, they’re trophy bucks to be hunted down for our entertainment. You could arguably say the same thing about any video game boss, but, I would argue, a well-written game gives you reasons to find opposing this character meaningful.

The Zelda series does not do this.

The Zelda series mostly gives you some cheap heat excuses and a lot of vague words about how someone is Evil or Diabolical. Next time you fire up a Zelda game, just, stop and pay attention to the cutscenes and look at just how much of a given character’s crimes are: 1. vague, 2. only ever stated by other characters who already hate that character, 3. make no sense as a strategic move unless you intuit or assume a lot of information the game never tells you.

It’s really easy to assume in the average game that Ganondorf- or Vaati, or Skull Kid, or Zant, or Ghirahim- is running wild killing people and burning the countryside. But if you actually look at it, there doesn’t seem to be a clear thesis to who’s hurt and who isn’t.

Why do the Zora get frozen? Why is Valoo’s tail attacked? Why does Zant attack Hyrule’s light spirits but doesn’t seem to spread the twilight to Snowpeak or the Gerudo Desert when they’re seemingly unprotected?

So the end result is you get split one of two ways. You either trust the Experience of the game- that tells you the entire countryside is suffering because of Vaati- and thus, you come up with explanations and cruel attitudes Vaati has that clearly explain all of his behavior- or you don’t, and then you sit there going “man Ezlo I know you’re salty over being turned into a hat and all, but isn’t it a little fucked up that you’re this willing to talk about your underage orphan apprentice like maybe it was an inevitability he’d go mad with power and there’s nothing to do but forge a sword and kill him?”

The game wants you to assume there’s no way to talk down or negotiate with any of these people. It tells you that there will be Dire Consequences if this person’s actions are not stopped.

But Vaati’s a child who wants power and doesn’t even seem to have a clear thesis of what he’s doing with it besides that he just vaguely wants to be ‘in charge’. 

But Ghirahim seems to have never thought of himself as anything but an instrument and his parting comments to Link suggest that he is only, just, starting to actually feel any real standout emotion towards him beyond annoyance, and that emotion is not rage or revulsion but curiosity. He only really acts out of loyalty to an entity that on-screen, hurts him and literally dehumanizes him- turns him into an immobile object. Something we’re told is a tragedy when it happens to Fi.

But Zant talks at great length about how miserable he was, and Midna insinuates “everyone” hated him and thought he was shifty and untrustworthy, and in his own memories, he was sobbing alone and immediately latched onto and literally worshiped Ganondorf, for... telling him he was important and offering to give him power.

Much is made of Skull Kid’s loneliness and ultimately they’re just a kid, go easy on them, they were tempted by Majora- but we have no idea what Majora itself is, besides that they’re a mask, and in the entirety of Majora’s Mask, many discussions are made about how masks are the product of spirits filled with regret, and one must work with them to bring them peace- and Majora itself speaks in a childish manner.

Chancellor Cole, you can argue, even looks more like a “real evil” in that he’s a scheming bureaucrat who uses his position as a respected adult to talk over and endanger Zelda and Link, and even he’s thrown away by Malladus when the latter needs a free body.

The most in-universe explanation, going by just what Nintendo’s official lore tells us, is that Demise’s hatred seeks a suitable vessel, and Ganondorf is just its ‘favorite’, and it’ll happily latch onto anybody else in a position to screw over the heroes. But that raises a lot of questions and leaves a lot of things unaddressed.

So it comes down to a question of, what do we decide here that we trust? How many of these guys would stay enemies if we had any capacity to talk to them and understand their problems? So many of these guys feel like they’re trapped or hurting or miserable or just had a completely unspecified “hunger for power” because that sounds threatening, but the people who desperately want to feel strong are usually people who, for some reason or another, feel denied, repressed, or looked down on.

Basically, the characterization is vague, and mostly, we’re assured they’re evil by other people in the game. To me, this comes across untrustworthy, especially when, in effect, a lot of these characters talk or act like they were (or are shown to be) wronged somehow, and when the game seems to act as if your only options are “let them do whatever they want” and “kill them where they stand” with a clear insinuation that the murder is the right and proper choice.

Which is kinda the whole problem. The average Zelda game spends however much time it dedicates to the main villain, trying to tell you to kill them. This is at odds with Link as someone who engages with and helps a lot of people. And often “however much time it dedicates to the main villain” is not that much time at all! You’re often just, like. having a fun little happy adventure with a scattered handful of interjections of “so everything is the fault of this one guy, and, uh, you should stab them.”

[pass-the-bechdel]

Dollhouse season one full review

How many episodes pass the Bechdel test?

92.3% (twelve of thirteen).

What is the average percentage per episode of female characters with names and lines?

46.83%

How many episodes have a cast that is at least 40% female?

Nine, over half (six of those were 50%+, one of them 60%).

How many episodes have a cast that is less than 20% female?

Zero.

How many female characters (with names and lines) are there?

Twenty-eight. Thirteen who appeared in more than one episode, six who appeared in at least half the episodes, and one who appeared in every episode.

How many male characters (with names and lines) are there?

Forty-two. Eleven who appeared in more than one episode, five who appeared in at least half the episodes, and three who appeared in every episode.

Positive Content Status:

Not good at all. The series is rife with violence against women and involves sexual assault on a constant basis, with acknowledgment or exploration of such inclusions intermittent and interlaced with excuses. Needless to say, it never even gets close to flirting with an above-average content rating (average rating of 2.76).

General Season Quality:

A mess. There are elements of good things here, and some episodes that utilise that potential, but mostly this is a show that doesn’t seem to know what it wants to do or how far it really wants to pursue its own promises, and it is full of dead air and extremely questionable storytelling, wrapped around one of the least-dynamic lead characters I’ve ever seen. It’s a recipe for failure, and a disappointing one at that, because done right, this could have been truly amazing.

MORE INFO (and potential spoilers) under the cut:

Let’s nail down how consent works, because it might be the most important issue at the heart of this show that the writers just don’t seem to understand: consent is not a binding contract. Real consent is 

1. ongoing (may be revoked at any time if the individual in question wishes; must be re-established or renegotiated if the circumstances originally consented to change)

2. enthusiastic (if the individual becomes uncertain/uncomfortable with conditions, actions must halt until consent has been renegotiated and re-established)

3. informed (an individual cannot consent to terms that are obfuscated or omitted; consent gained through lies or trickery is not consent at all), and

4. willing (coerced consent - whether through threats, ultimatums, manipulation, or other means - is not real consent. If the individual is placed in a position where declining is not a viable safe option, they cannot give consent).

Pretty clear-cut, really. With that in mind, the only way that the Dollhouse could operate in an ethical manner would be if the dolls were genuine volunteers who were restored to their original personalities after every engagement, so that they could consider the requirements of each job as they arose and pick and choose which ones they were comfortable fulfilling; it would then also require that their imprinted personality include strict parameters agreed to beforehand to preserve their ability to revoke consent if their boundaries are violated. Of course, there would still be LOADS of ways for the technology to be abused, but that’s an irrelevant discussion in context, because that’s not how the Dollhouse operates. Many of the dolls are not willing participants from the outset, but even if they are, after being stripped of their personalities and memories they lose the power to make informed choices and their enthusiasm is all programmed in, and it’s irrelevant anyway because they are not presented the opportunity to give or deny consent in their ongoing situation. Whether or not the dolls can consent is not up for debate: by definition, plain and simple, they cannot. To suggest otherwise is kinda the same thing as when people say that marital rape isn’t a real thing, as if signing a marriage contract permits your spouse to override your bodily autonomy anytime they want. Consent can be fickle, subjective, and highly conditional, and those are all good things because they protect the basic human right to personal sovereignty. Consent is not a binding contract. 

Despite occasionally throwing around lines about how ‘you can’t consent to being a slave!’, the show doesn’t want to commit to the idea that the dolls are, unequivocally, being abused, and the failure to be morally assertive on that point leads to some seriously reprehensible presentations, most notably in terms of rape. The oft-repeated lofty idea behind what (theoretically) makes the Dollhouse ‘good’ is that they give people ‘what they need’, which mostly means fulfilling sexual fantasies. Naturally, this makes all of the Dollhouse clients who acquire a doll for sexual purposes, rapists. They know that’s what they’re getting into, too, they know that they’re paying big bank to have a person brainwashed into fulfilling their desires, which by definition means that the person is being denied the capability to give consent. This isn’t a naughty secret being hidden from the client; it’s a known factor which they’ve decided they don’t care about. They’re ok with taking advantage of this person in order to fulfill their ‘need’. Thus, the fact that Joel Miner just wants to play house with an imprinted version of his dead wife is not cute or romantic, it’s still rape, but the show doesn’t treat it that way: it’s directly handled like we’re supposed to be happy that he gets what he wants, in the same episode as the writing finally bothers to dabble vaguely in the concept of consent issues after it turns out that Sierra has been raped by her handler (while NOT imprinted to think she wants it). Thus, the episode in question draws a straight parallel between the idea that there’s ‘real rape’ (what Hearn does), and then there’s innocent wish fulfillment (what Miner and anyone else who bothers to have their victim programmed first does), and we shouldn’t conflate the two. Except, obviously, we should conflate the two. Both are rape. There’s not a moral grey-scale here, that’s like arguing that if you drug someone first so that they can’t resist, that’s less assaultive than if they were cognizant enough to struggle. Both are rape, both disregard the bodily autonomy of the victim and deny them the right of choice. ‘But I really miss my dead wife!’ doesn’t make it better, and it certainly doesn’t make it ok. And giving people ‘what they need’ at the expense of others is not virtuous - especially when you factor in the price tag attached to a made-to-order sex slave.

The above-referenced episode is one of the most egregious examples of this at play, but it’s a recurrent issue throughout the series, and not one that’s gonna go away. The story is not interested in analysing the fact that DeWitt has repeatedly raped Victor; her conflict about the issue revolves around the feeling that she - like the other Dollhouse clients - is pathetic for ‘needing’ programmed service. And while Ballard expresses misgivings about the idea of raping Mellie, he still does it, repeatedly, and there’s no condemnation from the narrative; we’re supposed to see this as a complication to Ballard’s moral compunctions, that he’s confronted with shades of grey in the black-and-white world he had imagined, but there are no shades of grey. You knowingly committed rape. More than once. The first time they had sex, when he didn’t know she was a doll? THAT is something Ballard can feel conflicted about, because he didn’t do it knowingly, he was not able to make an informed decision, his own ability to consent was impaired and he’s entitled to feel abused by the Dollhouse machinations that put him in that position. THAT is legitimate conflicted emotion. Going “fuck you, Dollhouse, you want to send me a sex slave, I’m gonna take out my conflicted emotions ON HER through what I readily recognise as rape”, that’s...not something a character can do and then still hang around on the show representing any kind of morality. That’s not even anti-hero material, that’s villainy, and if we respond to Hearn’s crimes by snapping his neck against a coffee table, why is Ballard still roaming around feeling righteous? The show is so sketchy on morality, it doesn’t even present Ballard’s attitudes as self-delusions, it isn’t exploring his descent into evil. Even from the first episode, it was unclear where the story really sat with Ballard, seeming simultaneously aware of the fact that he’s not as pure and heroic as he imagined himself, but also never pursuing the idea of exploring a more complex moral reality. If ‘now he’s a rapist but he feels bad about it (but not bad enough to NOT DO IT IN THE FIRST PLACE)’ is supposed to suffice as ‘deconstruction’, boy howdy, I got news. You can’t even pretend to deconstruct anything if you’re too busy equivocating to have an opinion in the first place.

I’ve used this word so much already in relation to this show that it’s starting to lose its meaning, but what Dollhouse really suffers from is a misogyny problem. I touched on it already in the episode ‘Omega’ when I talked about how Alpha’s ruminations on the nature of the self/consciousness/etc are undercut by the intense misogyny of his character and story, because his presence in the narrative and his impact on other characters is so heavily tied up in the violent expression of his misogyny that there’s no room for a clear-minded discussion of anything else, and in truth the entire series suffers from the same affliction. Misogyny is so ubiquitous in the story at the same time as being so rarely acknowledged that they can’t engage meaningful thematic discussions about anything else; misogyny is the elephant in the room, and so much space is being dedicated to it, there’s nowhere to squeeze anything else in edge-wise. The refusal to acknowledge the clear-cut nature of consent and thereby the inherent sexual assault built into the frame work of the narrative is part of this, but it also represents an insidious division between ‘real misogyny’ and the various kinds that the show doesn’t want us to acknowledge, the many and sundry equivocations it is entertaining in order to avoid having a moral backbone. Alpha literally slicing up women’s faces is ‘real misogyny’ (by the writers’ definition), and a character like Nolan putting Sierra in the Dollhouse so that he can have force her to have sex with him is ‘real misogyny’ (quite contradictory since Nolan still has his doll programmed to want him, just like all the other clients; apparently it’s only rape if the perpetrator is a mustache-twirling cackling supervillain type). Tanaka slinging off about ‘whores’ is ‘real misogyny’ that Ballard can take umbrage with, but Ballard’s infantalising obsession with calling women ‘girls’? We’re not batting an eye. The fact that Echo is repeatedly engaged by one Matt Cargill, whose rape sexual fantasy is all about teaching a ditzy inexperienced girl new things? Cute! Echo being violently beaten in more than three-quarters of the episodes this season, sometimes multiple times per episode? Eh, that’s normal. That’s normal writing. 

The ‘real misogyny’ is the stuff that the writing deems worthy of being called out, and like with the issue of creating a false grey-scale to excuse ‘softer’ rape crimes, this creates a situation in which more low-key misogyny can skate by unchecked because we’re being encouraged to view it comparatively, instead of objectively. If you’re talking about a violent serial rapist and you say “he calls women ‘girls’ all the time, too!”, it sounds like you’re being silly, because hello, there are much bigger problems to talk about. On the other hand, if you don’t sit around making softening comparisons, you can actually talk about how women being infantalised by men is a big problem that is part of a larger tapestry of misogyny, especially disturbing for the intersection with sexualisation (HUGELY at play with the dolls in their ‘doll state’), and relevant to the discussion of pedophilia (which, incidentally, the show featured TWICE in just thirteen episodes, but without any kind of exploration or commentary that would suggest an actual reason beyond the voyeuristic fetishisation of sexual violence which is this show’s bread and butter). Because the misogyny problem on this show is so all-encompassing (along with the rape-apologist grey morality, it is built into the framework of the series itself), the fact that it is never acknowledged and brought into the thematic conversation of the story blows a hole out the side of the writers’ ability to have any kind of sophisticated conversation about the morality of their subject matter: the combination of oblivious sexism and wanton avoidance leaves the moral compass of the story...nonexistent, really, smashed to pieces and rendered useless. It’s like they didn’t want to have to talk about the morality of the Dollhouse at all, they just wanted the narrative conceit of programmable people and the opportunity to indulge various objectifying fetishes, but since that’s not how storytelling works they figured they’d ramp up the ambiguity and pass off the lack of nuanced discussion as ‘shades of grey’, despite how inappropriate that is with sex trafficking. Thus, you get a show which treats “but if the perpetrator is sad, is it really rape?” like that’s a legitimate question.

Honestly, we could unpack this show forever, because all of it needs unpacking, because it’s riddled and stained irrevocably with garbage in a way that is pervasive and complicated, but I’m gonna let this lie for now. We’ll talk about it all more as season two unfolds, and when I review that season’s developments and eventually, the full series (save me). There’s loads of stuff that I didn’t even touch yet, so at least I know I won’t be starved for content. I did know that, coming in, I knew it’d be an unhappy mess. The one thing that really surprised me about season one is how little the narrative actually discussed its own invoked themes, I thought they did better than that - perhaps season two will fill that void a bit. Maybe Echo will get hit in the fucking face less, too. I’m not gonna bet on that. After all, what would this show be without women turned into sex objects and then violently punished for it? Well. For starters, it would be better.

[tumblunni]

Random list of still WIP npc charries I need to make for this game, yo

* Mayor Grandma The Ultimate

Not actually anyone’s grandma but like... Everyone’s Grandma. That whole ‘village elder as a goddamn force of nature’ kind of character. She’s the Big Good. She’s this tiny unassuming gran who had a history as a legendary hero and is now the super amazing mayor who can solve goddamn anything and defeat any threat against the village and just... HOLDS US ALL WITH HER GRUMPY LOVE I’m imagining her like the protagonist’s gran in The Wee Free Men, or Granny Weatherwax from other discworld books, or the grandma from Summer Wars, or the grandma from Jade Cocoon 1 who even turned out to be literally the deity of badass grandmas who came down into mortal form to slap the shit out of some fools. (The “grim midwife of life and death” is a really fucking badass title)

Anyway she isn’t actually technically the ‘mayor’, she’s just like.. village elder under old country rules, but Regis is the duke that was sent down to Officially be ruler of this province. Officially. It’s just that absolutely everyone knows that the duke is just a figurehead and Ancient Powerful Gran Of The Old Ways is the real power behind this well-oiled machine of a town. Even Regis knows, lol! The previous duke was a total asshole that got served a slice of humble pie by gran and they were fighting at every turn, but now Regis and Mortimer are the Comparatively Less Stuck Up Noblefolks and the town is better off for it. Still, even if Regis isn’t evil like his brother, he’s still a bit foppish and occasionally stupid about what it actually takes to run a town. So they do come into conflict sometimes, but mostly its like BFFs quarrelling instead of the old Shephard Grandma Brings The Wrath of The Heavens Upon Rich Man No Matter How Many Rich Man Guards He Has, Seriously We Found One Of Them Upside Down On Top Of The Roof How Did That Even Happen

And then also i think that she might have a larger role in Blair’s plot cos Blair is kinda like the new Village Hero In Training. But she’s INTENSELY reluctant about it! Not cos she doesn’t like being buff as fuck and punching through walls, but because she doesn’t think she could ever be better than supergran. Cos like.. “yeah I’ve got the muscles but I don’t have the brains, how could I ever cope without you?” She gets really fucking sad at the very idea that supergran might be retiring, and like.. might die someday. So it’s someone who’s clearly qualified for the role repeatedly rejecting it and bringing up more and more perfectionist excuses why she isn’t ready yet, just because she cares so much for her mentor figure and wishes she could fight the tide of time. And that’s how Blair became the Miss Perfect rival type character, and why she’s so humble and oblivious of her own strengths. Also I think this same plot would have links to mortimer and sorrel too, because there was An Event that happened 15 years ago that was what caused mayorgran to start feeling as if she’d hit her limits and the town needs a new Hero. Apparantly ~something~ happened that was like.. the one time mayorgran ever found a problem she couldn’t solve. And also at that time mortimer and sorrel used to be childhood friends, since they’re cousins, but suddenly sorrel’s mum fell in status amoung the noble family and there was a huge upheaval of the town’s status quo. What exactly is this mystery...?

ALSO! she must have a big hat i just want her to have a really big hat (mayorgran, not sorrel, she’s fine with her medium hat)

* Sorrel’s mum

(and Regis’s sister and Morty’s aunt. It IS cousins when someone’s the son of your mum’s sibling, right? I can’t remember all the rules for first removed and stuff...)

Generic Mom. She’s just so NICE! Isn’t she nice? Don’t you agree? For some reason she had a falling out with Duke Regis in the past, and now she lives in comparative poverty and like.. no press statement has ever been released on WHY this happened, and everyone’s become rather distrustful of Regis because of it. What exactly is going on?

I kinda wanted to leave it vague at just this, cos you can’t exactly talk about her at all without spoiers. So yeah the next paragraph is gonna not reveal exactly what happened in that backstory, but it’ll talk about this character’s personality and what it.. actually is, I guess..??

SO...

...

...

A kind of over the top cloyingly “nice” person who really isn’t. A bit of Umbridge and a bit of an overbearing soccer mom. Like.. at first you’ll be wondering ‘why is Sorrel so self hatey when her mom is so nice to her’ but then it becomes clear that’s not what’s really happening. Mom only supports when you act how she wants you to, its a classic ‘living through your children’ situation where she pushes her kid way too far to achieve some goals they never wanted in the first place. And she’s a bit of a moral crusader, like she’s just.. SO convinced that she is ‘nice’, and that if she just acts ‘polite’ and ‘mumsy’ and cute and harmless and follows all the feminine stereotypes it balances out any horribly not nice things she does. Because she’s ‘not that kind of person’. Anything she does is good because she’s good, yknow? And anything Sorrel does is bad if it shows any sort of personality outside of what her mum has so kindly picked out for her, I mean why would you be so selfish, seriously! She kinda always lives like that, seething with resentment and selfish desire and looking for excuses she can use to paint someone as Bad so she is Justified in feeling superior to them and/or ruining their life. And her Nice facade covers up a lot of rather bigoted attitudes she holds, in addition to all the abusiveness. Ones that can be far more insidious cos she delivers them in such a Nice way and appeals to Logic and Compromise and oh but You Know, Everyone Knows, Isn’t It Just Natural And Biological, look at them getting Emotional. She’s very much the archetypical horrid nobleman that we were all so grateful that Regis wasn’t. Except she’s also way more devious and able to hide it beneath a relateable facade, so she can get these stupid naive townsfolk to do stuff that only makes life harder for themselves for the sake of like.. mythical trickle-down benefits that don’t actually exist. And oh, Sorrel, you know you could pass so well for a good Narcian lady if you dyed your hair, you know? Not like Regis’s filthy child. (She says, even though she also married a foreigner, just one from a majority white country...)

Basically she’s just gonna be a detestable monster, and the only pure evil person in the plot. And even more evil because she does such a good job hiding it, and has been able to spread her toxic influence to so many victims undetected for so long. Cos seriously, the story starts off with her being treated as a martyr and people clamouring to replace Regis with her, and it’s just gonna be So Damn Uncomfortable in retrospect when you do a second playthrough and see even Sorrel’s friends completely oblivious to her mum’s evilness. (″Friends? Honey, you don’t HAVE friends. Well, who do you need except little old me?”)

Also I was thinking randomly as a subplot there could be a thing that her mum was in charge of the town library once, and her planned renovations fell through and now the town doesn’t have a library at all, just this big abandoned building and The Enduring Shame. It’d be a good example of how she handles things, cos this is an Enduring Shame for Sorrel and not her. from Sorrel’s perspective she thinks that her mother trusted her with a big responsibility and she fucked it up and thus deserves the scorn. But really her mum just threw a sinking ship at her so she could take the blame, and then was all like “OH THE POOR GIRL IT WAS JUST TOO MUCH RESPONSIBILITY, PLEASE DON’T BLAME HER”. Spreading all these negative rumours to encourage Sorrel to never try and be independant ever again, but in a sneaky reverse psychology way so she could still look like a loving mother. But anyway this is how Sorrel ended up running a Secret Underground Library, her one form of rebellion against her mother’s control. She rescued as many books as she could when the library went under, and now she keeps them all crammed in her room and tries to spread them around without leaving any threads back to her. Cos she knows that her mum is super trusted, and that even good people can’t be trusted to keep secrets from her, and nobody would believe her if she tried to explain why it needs to be secret. So instead she just plays it off as if she’s just another person receiving books from the ghost library, and she’s totally searching for an answer to this mystery too, honest! It’d be a sign that you reached high friendship level with her when she’s like.. able to believe that you’d believe her if she told you her mum abuses her. And the first step of that is ‘hey remember that library we were questing for? its literally under my bed.’ Welcomes you to the secret trapdoor book heaven and you have a strangely romantic evening going OOOOMG FIRST EDITION TOLKEINS (or whatever the equivelant is in this universe XD) But it probably still takes her a while after that to open up about exactly why the library has to be secret, and to come to terms with the fact that she really doesn’t deserve how her mother treats her. So I’d definately give you an opportunity here to Fuck Up Massively by telling the mum about the library, yup. Gotta torment the player every now and again! XD ...but I mean if you’re reading this you know all the spoilrs so you’ll be fine, lol

* Quincy’s grandma (or possibly grand aunt?)

A stern and super professional businesswoman who has a bit of a quarrel with him over how exactly to balance profit vs like.. morality. She’s not a BAD person, her business isn’t so profit-heavy that its like all the actual atrocities you see in mega corporations nowadays. But she’s very distant from her customer base and also from what it’s even like to be poor. And she doesn’t believe that such minor things to improve the shopping experience would like.. actually change anything. What is ‘brand loyalty’?! What is this principle that if people are able to live more comfortably they’ll be able to spend more money on luxuries?? She used to be less greedygrump once, but she gets more jaded every year and keeps bumping money higher and higher up her priority list, abandoning things that used to seem important. And similarly she’s become super ‘I don’t need anyone, I’m better off being alone’, and developed this strained relationship with her grand-nephew. I think maybe I could add another layer of sad to this, woo! I think she raised Quincy alone after his parents were Giant Assholes and ran off. Probably stole a bunch of the family money, probably left her with a failing business that they’d ruined with all their selfish decisions over the years, and an angry mob out for blood against the brand name. And Quincy was very sickly as a kid, so she had to work a lot, leading to the distant relationship and obsession with profit. But she’s become so obsessed and paranoid of losing her money even after it became less of a death sentence, and she just keeps working super hard even though now she has time to spend with her family. And she gets scared seeing Quincy grow up cos she remembers how his parents turned into absolute monsters when she used to trust them so much. Being distant is better than getting hurt again... and god damn why does he have his mother’s eyes...

So yeah, they’re a bit estranged, and you can potentially help with that, woo! But mostly during the main game you’ll just hear about her cos everyone is like ‘oh, are you from [grauntie’s brand name]? why don’t you have this thing, she always has it’ and Quincy is like ‘no, this is my own store.. we’re a small business.. but umm, we’re cheaper..’ He’s trying to step out from under her shadow and prove that her philosophy is wrong, so maybe he can bring back the loving grauntie that he remembers from his childhood. i think maybe the ending could be that she turns up to inspect his new shop and they have some sort of merchant showdown and like... even if Quincy loses he still ends up proving her wrong because she sees just how much everyone in this town cares about him and how he’s improved various parts of their life by bringing access to these imported goods and just generally being a supportive community member. Maybe there are some things more important than profit...

Oh and also I think she was the one responsible for helping out Blair and Dionne when they were running from their abusive parents, and that’s why the two of them are the most friendly with Quincy at the start of the game. They hadn’t seen each other since they were kids, and Blair is kinda like I Owe You A Blood Debt, Is There Anyone You Need Me To Stab Grauntie looks back on this as a moment of weakness tho, and that’s why she stopped keeping in touch with them, she’s embarassed she used to be so sentimental. Cos like.. she spent so much money helping set up these girls with their own house and she lost out on a business opportunity (it was a property she originally purchased to turn into a franchise store) She can’t stop thinking about how tight the funds were around that time and how if she messed up she could have lost her own kid for the sake of helping some other kids... But then she turns up in town and its like Oh No I Walked Down The Street By Accident *gets buried in blair hugs* And she can’t stop crying seeing how much they grew up, and then they’re all like “we’ve been trying to send you a cut of the cafe profits for the last seven years!” and she’s like “NOOOOO, KEEP IT” *even more embarassed at doing even more irrational sympathetic actions*

Also possibly she could get a crush on mayor grandma cos they are both grumpy badasses of opposite? Strength gran vs wisdom gran!

+++

so yeh i made a bunch of grans/demigrans of various kinds, and now I am thankfully satisfied with this story’s gremp quotient