#no thought is evil. no fiction is evil. there is only our actions and what we choose to do in this world

[sagechan]

"timeskip zuk/aang only cuz atla zuk/aang is problematic" take my hand. listen to me. it's not real. they're not real. nothing is problematic in fiction until you make it so. it just Exists. it just is. you can ship whatever you want. you can do anything forever. go frolic in a field and don't worry what an imaginary jury of tiktokers will say about you behind your back. they aren't real either.

[askew-d]

Hello again....if you don't mind me asking, can I ask your top 5 (or top 3) favorite characters from MDZS? And why you loved them? And your top 5 favorite moments from the novel? Sorry if you've answered this question before....Thanks....

sure! its no trouble at all. sorry i am embarassingly late and thank you for the question, i loved making this list :)

1. wei wuxian, our selfless yiling laozu

alright, you can call me cliché, everyone loves him, right? but kendrick lamar said it’s all about love and hate in the game so let me tell you, i love this man. i love the way that he walks, the way that he kills, the way that he dresses, the way that he mocks others, the way that he protect those he loves, the way he’s unbearably and so utterly good to the core (no irony or pun intended), regardless of everything he’s been through. because let’s come clean: other characters, such as xue yang and meng yao, did have their reasons to be evil, i comprehend them! i validate their motives to be who they are, but it does not, for the love of god, excuses their actions.

and that’s the thing! because wei wuxian has been though hell and back, way worse than them, yet he chose to continue doing good things. it’s just who he is (unbelievable, right?). he is, essentialy, someone who pursues justice. he sought revenge for what he suffered, that he rightly did, but he didn’t lash out on innocent cultivators who had nothing to do with his injuries. and the amount of strength, resilience, kindness and sheer wisdom that resides in this makes my admiration for him grow as deep as the ocean. he’s the ultimate main character of every fictional world. no one’s doing tragedy, revenge, inteligence, selflessness, love and being a troublemaker like him, ok. he’s one for the history books. and with that we go to:

2. lan wangji, our beloved hanguang-jun

i said this before, but i will say it again: i feel like wei wuxian might kill me every time i go around saying ‘lan zhan’ or even start worshipping him too much. however, who wouldn’t worship him? he’s a god among humans; a superhero in a novel about cultivators. if wei wuxian’s considered by some an antihero, he’s the true, righteous captain america right here. and it’s not just the looks, he’s a whole package: a terrific father, a dedicated brother and nephew, an esteemed cultivator, a marvellous husband and a fair human being.

most of all, i dearly love him for the fact that he’s been loving wei wuxian since the beginning and never let that go. this man fought for his love like no one else did. he remembered wei wuxian when no one else did. he tried and tried, for him. he waited thirteen years, for him. in fact, if wei wuxian had never returned, he’d just have been waiting and waiting, living his life in grief, watching the moonlight alone…… but that’s a thought for another moment.

the amount of love this man carries is unbearable, really. it’s who he is too. and i also adore the fact that he has a lot of personas: he’s a serious senior for the disciples, a feral animal in bed, silly in some moments and painfully romantic in others. he’s just unreal!

3. lan jingyi, the most atypical lan that has ever lanned

if this boy was in the modern times, im sure i would make friends with him. hes everyones spirit inside this story. he is one of hell of a representation: he can judge, yell, put some sense into other peoples minds, act even more senseless and tell truths without caring for the consequences (and then crying when faced with the punishment of headstands). and the best part of all: he is, oddly, a lan! i love him! best boy ever (alright, perhaps after lan sizhui, but i relate to jingyi harder).

put him in a modern school. can you disagree with me that he would be the one student lurking in the far away desks acting all angelic when the teacher comes close only to act like a little devil, screaming, laughing loudly and hiding food in his backpack during activities? can you disagree with me that he would be the one to run and jump like a maniac when its time for p.e class and sleep out of boredom when the teacher starts explaining serious stuff? can you disagree with me he would pretend to enact the rules only to receive bad grades and pull the most stupid facades to hide it from his parents?

in some ways, he does have similarities with wei wuxian. but wei wuxian is a genius who wouldnt even go to class when he didnt want to, sleep instead of play-pretend and even so receive the best grades ever, annoying everyone. theres this difference. but lan jingyi isnt a genius, he is just one of us. and i love him for it.

4. wen qing, my beautiful doctor

wen qing, my beloved, you didnt deserve that backlash.... this woman deserved to have a happy family, alright. she deserved a little bit of happiness! she deserved to have her brother with her! she deserved to be well and to not have suffered so badly just because of her surname. if there is one thing i agree with (and i dont remember exactly who said it, but it was from twitter), is that the girls from mdzs are underrated, underappreciated and deserved tons more love. but anyway, let us mention wen qing!

this woman protected wei wuxian and jiang cheng, did a procedure to give jiang cheng a golden core, never killed anyone, ran from fighting in the war against innocent people because she does not share these wicked principles, and still ended up watching her family get tortured, his brother dead and was burned alive. the sheer cruelty of what they put her (and them) through is unbelievable. i wanted her to have a lovely family and to continue being a great friend to wei wuxian, seriously, they were such a great duo. i cannot get tired of aus in which they are rommates or something! she is usually sarcastic, fierce, bossy and so responsible. how could someone not like her?

5. a-qing, the girl who went to her limits and beyond

this girl went over the limits of heaven and hell, in fact. i love her determination and how clever she is! look at how long she managed to trick xue yang! who else who could that? i believe not even wei wuxian could have topped it. she deserved to continue living within that world with xiao xingchen. i also cannot avoid to point out that she was not a cultivator. she was a simple girl, left to struggle in the streets, who still achieved what she achieved. she lived with an esteemed rogue cultivator, manipulated one of the most essential antagonists, returned as a ghost to protect people from this specific antagonist, used a lot of her spiritual strenght to show wei wuxian the truth, continued to give wei wuxian and hanguang-jun directions to find xue yang, and received many support, compliments and faith from the main group of our story.

personally, i cannot think of another female character in the story who did more than her. wen qing did a lot, sure, but she came from a big sect. jiang yanli too. mianmian was a cultivator too. a-qing was not, and nonetheless, this girl rocks! unbelievable. if i went through what she did, i would have lost all will to persist long ago. that is another thing mdzs brought me: the perspective that, even when you are kind and did nothing wrong, you might still have tragedies happen to you. people will die anyway. including you. kindness is important, and sometimes it may save you, but sometimes it may also cause you harm. are you strong enough to have all the kindness and all that tragedy and still endure?

because a-qing, wei wuxian and so many of them did.

well, now onto my favorite parts from the novel! i will try and make this quicker. haha, lets go.

when wei wuxian and lan wangji were stuck (stuck? not actually, i believe, wei wuxian caused it) in that farm and our main character just simply laid on top of lan wangji. and he still dared... to call himself.... not a cut-sleeve. yeah, sure, bro, no homo and all that. and thats definitely not a boner beneath your clothes, huh.

when wei wuxian starts falling real hard and he wonders if he will ever be able to sleep in a bed without lan wangji again, and later on after they have sex, he f i n a l l y realizes that there is no wei wuxian without lan wangji. in a dramatic mood, even. like, seriously, dude?? what a way to pine, but ok. go get your man or something, we all waiting for it.

every extra. i just... love every bit from the extra.

in the scene where lan wangji is drunk and they start playing hide-and-seek. and lan wangji just hides himself behind smth. and shows only a bit of his face. he nods, pouts, begs with his face to continue. i died right there.

the confession. the confession. the tear. the confession. the shock from everyone else. the 'hug me tighter!' after. the confession. the hug. THE CONFESSION.

hahaha i admit it, for me everything is about them. is it not about them? you cannot tell me otherwise. i love wangxian with all my heart. also, your asks are all lovely, i love them, feel free to always send whatever you want :) hope you have a great day and week ahead of you.

[architectureandfilmblog]

The villa of Commandant Höss: a "paradise" which shared a wall with Auschwitz.

ARCHITECTURE OF GENOCIDE: THE ZONE OF INTEREST (2023)

Before I saw this film, I'd assumed that it would illustrate the way architecture can be used to facilitate denial or self-deception. Like PARASITE (2019), in which one - in that case wholly fictional - family creates a lavish domestic retreat from which they can't see the overcrowding, poverty and suffering that surrounds them. But although Hedwig Höss speaks of planting vines to cover the wall they share with Auschwitz, there's no pretending this neighbour isn't there. The Höss's live in a pristine 1937 villa, with a manicured garden where they have parties and their children swim in a pool, and this juxtaposition is chilling. But they can still see the chimneys, and hear the screams, and nobody is denying what's next door.

This is one of the most horrifying movies I've seen, and that's due to the banality of the domestic scenes. We aren't watching a stereotypically deranged mass murderer, or even a psychopathic commandant at work inside the camp. Instead we see a comfortable house, a beautiful garden, two parents who love one another and their children. And who've somehow been able to assimilate the fact that millions are being murdered behind their garden wall.

The film is based loosely on a novel, but also on research into the lives of the real Höss's. A replica was built of their villa and garden, only metres from where the real home still stands. It's suggested that the real Rudolf and Hedwig considered themselves homesteaders, reclaiming rural territory for the 'master race', as was the Nazi ideal. In the film, Hedwig repeatedly emphasises the role of building and grounds as a status symbol. Their villa had been taken from its Polish owners and architecturally altered to fit the Höss's image. Most of the items inside would have been plundered from Jewish homes, and others, such as stools, and the wheelbarrow full of smaller seized items, would have been custom-made by prisoners. This isnt a home that is genteel in spite of the camp next door. On the contrary, everything about it, down to the fur coat on Hedwig's back, exists as a result of persecution and genocide.

The Zone was an exclusion area of over 40 sq. km around the camp, created after Poles and Jews were expelled from nearby villages. It's jarring how idyllic it appears in the film, with meadows, birdsong, a gently babbling river. While obviously not as horrifying as human apathy, the indifference of a place to the evil it houses is disconcerting, especially if you're in a profession like architecture or urban design, where places are thought to be somehow expressive of what occurs within them. We do see the horror occasionally seep beyond camp walls - a practiced scramble to leave sun loungers as crematoria smoke seeps into the garden, a wash of ash infiltrating the picturesque river.

It's likely that the filmmakers were using the extreme example of this family to remind us of our own ability to become apathetic and desensitised to the suffering of strangers, particularly when we feel our personal safety and comfort may be threatened. (Current campaigns to essentially criminalise poverty in the form of homelessness in certain cities, come to mind). Obviously the murder of millions is an evil on a completely different scale, and I have to believe that 99% of us wouldnt be capable of the Höss's actions, but it's a chilling and worthwhile reminder nonetheless.

[cannedwyrms]

Spoilers for shadow of the erdtree, but...

I NEED to talk about Marika, okay?

In the base game, I thought she was interesting, don't get me wrong, but the amount of DEPTH SOTE gives her is INCREDIBLE.

The first time I got to the Shaman Village, I instantly knew she was going up on my Good Antagonist List™ immediately.

And, because of that, I wanted to have another ramble about her, as is becoming customary for this blog.

So, let's go over what exactly we learned about Marika and what this informs us about her character.

I think the Shaman Village really takes center stage here. The music, the item descriptions, it all combines to paint a gentler, more human image of Marika. In the base game, she was more like a god (which made sense seeing as she was one), but we see a more human side of her here.

So, the Shaman Village. It's the place where Marika grew up, her home. Unfortunately for her, shaman bodies are apparently quite good for putting into big jars, which was something the Hornsent loved to do. We've all seen it before, right? I mean, we've all seen a zealous religious society commit atrocities against an underclass in fiction, not the jar thing.

And the Hornsent are a zealous religious society. They used the bodies of shamen in jars to make saints. Which sounds like complete nonsense, I know, but that's just elden ring lore babey.

Anyway, it's my personal headcannon, if not outright fact, that the Hornsent's persecution of Marika's people is what led her down the path of becoming a god. Like Miquella, she wanted to make the world a gentler place. Unlike Miquella, though, she only wanted to make it gentler for her people.

In short, it's my belief that Marika became a god in large part to inact revenge on the hornsent.

Okay, pause. I know Elden Ring Lore is like, a big deal and all, and anything I say is basically unfounded on everything except intuition, my own personal interpretations, and because I believe my theories fit thematically within the wider narrative, but just stay with me on this, alright? I think there's a real undertone of misogyny in the fanbase, and sometimes that can color interpretations of certain characters even unintentionally. Marika has gotten this treatment worse than most, I think, because she is a prominent woman who does morally questionable things. Beyond the inherent misogyny, though, I've noticed that a lot of people interpret Marika's actions very uncharitably. Anyways, all that to say, this is my post, and I care more about everything working together thematically than digging deep into the depths of the lore to find out that "oh, actually Scrupulous the Untested mentioned this flower, which represents pure evil, and he was talking about Marika when he did," or whatever. A strawman? Perhaps, but you get my point. Still, I'll try to remain true to my understanding of the lore, but I'm bound to make mistakes. I'm not an expert. Sorry for the long aside, I just felt these were important points that wouldn't fit in elsewhere.

So, I believe Marika sought godhood partly to punish the Hornsent, although I won't pretend to understand her full motivations.

I believe this is what Ymir was referring to when he said "I fear that you have borne witness to the whole of it. The conceits - the hypocrisy - of the world built upon the Erdtree. The follies of man. Their bitter suffering. Is there no hope for redemption? The answer, sadly, is clear. There never was any hope. They were each of them defective. Unhinged, from the start. Marika herself. And the fingers that guided her. And this is what troubles me. No matter our efforts, if the roots are rotten, then we have little recourse."

My interpretation of this is that Marika's intentions for godhood were impure. She wasn't seeking to improve things, just punish the ones who wronged her people. Thus, her reign was doomed from the start.

Now, let's get into what really sold me on Marika as a character.

There are, to my knowledge, two items you can find in the Shaman Village.

The Minor Erdtree incantation, and the Golden Braid talisman. Let's take a look at the flavortext for these two items and see what we can glean, starting with the Minor Erdtree.

"Marika bathed the village of her home in gold, knowing full well that there was no one to heal."

So, by the time she returned to her village, everyone was already dead. How devastated must Marika have felt, to return from claiming godhood and revenge, only to find that there was no one left to avenge. She was alone.

Here's the text we get from the golden braid:

"A braid of golden hair, cut loose. Queen Marika's offering to the Grandmother. Boosts holy damage negation by the utmost. What was her prayer? Her wish, her confession? There is no one left to answer, and Marika never returned home again."

Man, reading that, with the shaman village music in the background, just thinking about a young Marika resolving herself to become a god, to save her village and people from the Hornsent, the anger she must have felt, the fear and solemn resignation of her goal, only to return again to find herself alone. What was her wish? What did she leave behind in her village? We'll never know, because Marika is alone. Her people are gone. In the end, she couldn't save them.

Is it really any wonder that she eventually began to doubt the very order she had founded?

But now let's talk about some other aspects of Marika's character that the dlc reveals.

Namely, her Omen sons.

Imagine how Marika must have felt, looking down at her newborns to see the very horns that had destroyed her people upon them. It's just so DAMN good, character wise. There must have been so many mixed feelings surrounding them. I wonder if she even felt any love for them at all when she saw those horns. Like, I don't know, obviously, but I imagine she felt conflicted. She didn't outright kill them, which is good, but she did leave them chained in a sewer for most of their lives, so yeah not great.

But that's what I love about her character. Elden ring, in a lot of ways, is about how victims can become victimizers. How, in pursuit of noble goals, or revenge, you can lose yourself and become just as bad or worse than the people you set out to punish. That's Marika's character. That's why she's part of the List™.

Because Marika started out as someone angry at the systems that oppressed her and sought to change them. She was the hero of the story, in the beginning. But, in pursuit of her goal, she lost herself and became a bit of a monster.

SOTE, to me, revealed that Elden Ring's story is one of complete moral grey. Everyone is working towards a cause that they believe in, including you. The ends justify the means for you, even if it means striking down a mostly innocent grieving woman, hunting your fellow tarnished, or turning on the ones who trusted you and called you a compatriot. Ranni, Miquella, Radahn, Fia, D, Godrick, Malenia, Leda, Ansbach, Thiollier, Gideon, this applies to everyone.

The same goes for Marika. In trying to punish the hornsent and build a better future for herself and her people, she lost her people and eventually succombed to her worst tendencies.

That's why St. Trina pleads with you to stop Miquella. Because to become a god is to sacrifice everything that makes you human.

Marika took that sacrife willingly, in order to punish the ones who hurt her, and in the end, that's what broke her.

I think she recognized this, and that's why she set the stage for you to become Lord. In the chance that someone might do better than her, make the world a gentler place, not for a god, not for ambition or power, not in revenge or anger, but im compassion. Whether or not that's how you choose to rule is, of course, up to you, but I like to imagine that Marika, after everything, found something to hope for again.

Okay, that's the end of my thoughts. Was any of that true to the lore? Who cares. It's how I like to interpret what we were given about Marika. If I'm wrong, then whatever. I'll still be right in my heart.

Alright, bye. Go play shadow of the erdtree, or watch someone else play it at the very least. Next time, I might talk about Miquella, or maybe Leda and her allies.

Someday I'll be brave enough to talk about Agent Black. Someday. But that would maybe turn into a full ten page essay about why Iconoclasts is so very good and I'm not sure the two people who care about what I say here are ready for that.

Okay bye.

A brief adendum to this post:

Because I was analyzing Marika from a literary perspective, focusing on the sympathetic angle SOTE added to her character, I realize I forgot something important, so let me say it now:

Marika's persecution does in no way justify her genocide of the hornsent.

That idea kind of got lost in the shuffle, but it's definitely an important aspect of her character. She's an antagonistic force in the world who has done some very awful things to further her goals, more so than any other antagonist in Elden Ring. Her tragic past only adds dimension to her character, not an excuse for the atrocities she comits.

Okay, bye again.

[coffeenonsense]

I usually try to stay in my lane most of the time (mostly bc I am far too old for fandom drama) but what the hell, it's friday, let's put that lit degree to use:

the way people are playing morality politics with fiction is really starting to genuinely irk me and I think some of the responses to ascended astarion are a perfect example of why this type of thinking is actually hugely detrimental to one's ability to meaningfully engage with fiction and also to the future of art.

astarion is one of the most well-written complex characters I've seen in recent years bar none (and I'm clearly not alone given the explosion of his personal fandom lol) and he has a truly compelling, emotionally resonant character arc whether you ascend him or not

If you keep him a spawn, you get a deeply touching, realistic character's journey to healing and personal growth where he learns who he is after the experience of his trauma and depending on the player's choice, explores his relationship to sex, romance and intimacy

If you ascend astarion, you get an equally emotional and well-rounded character arc where he chooses the power that allows him to have the desperate freedom and safety he's wanted, but in the process eschews any hope of real healing or personal development, and again, depending on the player's choices, restarts the cycle of abuse by taking cazador's place.

These options offer vastly different paths for the character and experiences for the player, but while yes, ascended astarion is the evil ending, and yes, ascending astarion is a tragedy, and a fucking incredible one (not only do you have astarion reigniting a circle of abuse but you have the narrative weight of KNOWING he could have actually overcome his trauma...hats off to the bg3 team tbh) but that does not mean ascending astarion MAKES YOU AS THE PLAYER EVIL

Ascend astarion because you love tragic story arcs, ascend him because you want to indulge in a master/slave vampire fantasy, don't ascend him because you want a healing character journey, don't ascend him because you want a sweet romance; all of these choices carry the same moral weight for the player, which is to say, none, because they are an exploration of fiction.

I know I'm saying this to the villain fucker website but it bears repeating; just because someone wants to engage with evil, fucked up characters or content does not mean they support evil acts in their real life, and furthermore, exploring dark, taboo or tragic concepts safely is part of what fiction is for. It enables us to look at those things from a distance, work through difficult feelings and develop greater understanding of what makes our fellow humans tick — and before you get it twisted there's also no moral issue with exploring fucked up media bc you're horny or just, because. You can take it as seriously (or as sexily) as you want.

It's starting to really concern me how many people not only do not get, but are violently opposed to this concept, because equating what someone likes in fiction with their real life moral code and actions is an incredibly dangerous and let's be honest, immature way of thinking that not only stunts your ability to engage with fiction but ironically, hampers your ability to deal with complicated issues and emotions in real life.

I don't know what's driving this trend (though purity culture is certainly playing a role) but it's definitely something that's not just impacting individuals but contributing to the commercialization of art, where we get games and stories and tv shows and books that regurgitate the same safe, mass marketable plotlines and character archetypes over and over and over again so corporations can squeeze out as much profit as possible.

Anyway, remember kids: There's no such thing as thought crime, reaching for morally pure unproblematic media is directly contributing to the death of art, and this is why funding the humanities is important.

[fictionkinfessions]

This might seem in relation to the recent proship post but it isn't, it just happened to remind me to say this</3 To the proship community, especially our friends, thank you so much for giving us a safe space. You've made it so incredibly easy for us to just exist, and to talk about our sources and our source memories without any judgment, even the ones of us who don't feel regret or guilt or disgust towards our actions. You've treated our persecutors like friends even when they got nasty, and you've comforted them when they did feel upset about their sources. I know none of this is entirely in relation to your anti-harassment stances towards fiction, but that has definitely helped us feel safer around you because you ALSO allowed us to cope. You've allowed us the freedom to cope in a way that we, for a small while, thought was "bad" or "evil", only to find out that it was the literal best thing for us, and has helped us immensely with our intrusive thoughts, trauma, and even our depression among other things. We are also just so glad we've met some of you as friends, because some of you are honestly the best people we've ever met, even the ones of you we no longer talk with. You've been a shockingly big part in keeping us away from our suicidal thoughts and ideologies, and given us a safe space to vent about these things where we know you will never judge us for what we say or do.

Thank you, genuinely, for being one of the many communities that have given us so much help in our lives, especially with our mental issues.

x

[bleue-flora]

There has been a lot of discussion regarding c!Quackity, c!Tommy and c!Dream recently, a good portion stemming from the recent video circling around, where it is depicted that c!Tommy not only knew of c!Quackity’s torture but approved.

But while I could write an essay about it (ok yea I did…but) instead I want to shift the focus a bit, away from the same debates we keep having year after year. Because I think we’ve become too focused on the characters themselves over the audience's perception of them and too focused on morality, justification, and right and wrong in a story where everyone is morally questionable. Because at the end of the day it isn’t whether c!Dream or c!Tommy were actually right or justified, it is about - Who you root for and why. It is about (you) the audience's perception of the characters, not the characters’ perceptions of each other. Sure, c!Tommy himself feels justified in hurting c!Dream but do you believe he was.

With that thought in mind I found myself reading a 24 page research paper last night on a psychological study that looked at: What an audience defines as the hero and villain, Why they are naturally pulled to like certain characters and hate others, and What is the audience’s classification of morality in regard to the characters of fiction, where the conditions of morality are often not defined. One of the things shown in the data and line up to real life is that at the end of the day, heroes and villains are not defined on true purity and morality itself. If they were, action heroes and anti-heroes wouldn’t be successful and enticing. And yet, anti-heroes are some of the most beloved characters. In fact, I for one am typically drawn to violent anti-heroes, some of which are the heroes despite being perhaps sadistic murderers and torturers. But if the audience doesn’t simply define hero and villain as ‘good’ and ‘evil’ then what is pulling us toward taking one side over the other?

The answer is actually more complex than you might think. According to this paper, the first thing taken into consideration in a viewer’s appeal or unappeal of a character has to do with what the viewer considers “appropriate behavior.” Simply put, “appropriateness” is basically a social judgment which serves to approve or disapprove of a character’s behavior. This can be based on many things, such as cultural norms, societal code of conduct, your personal morals or experiences. And I think this is key, because I for one see stealing and griefing when I play Minecraft as seriously hurtful things to do (even though you can always rebuild). To the point that if you blow up the house I spent hours building or take my items it can ruin the fun for me entirely. So my definition of the appropriateness of such behavior might differ from people who take those things much more light-heartedly, causing me to disapprove of c!Tommy more than they would for that behavior.

Even further, when it comes to determining their appropriateness of behavior as in whether we tend to approve or disapprove of them we can look at moral domains, which spark our moral intuition instead of simply categorizing everything into ‘good’ or ‘bad’ since not even our subconscious brain is always so black and white. In the research I read, they looked at two sets of domains (aka sets of relating attributes used to measure and compare): The person-perception domains of Warmth (tolerant, friendly, warm, polite, gentle, trustworthy), Competence (intelligence, cleverness, opposite of stupidity, efficiency) and Duplicity (mad, tormented, violent, and tragic), which help to measure our perception of morality in characters as well as the five moral domains of MFT - harm/care (concerned with the suffering of others and empathy), fairness/reciprocity (related to justice), authority/respect (related to hierarchy and dominance), ingroup/loyalty (common good and punitiveness toward outsiders), purity/sanctity (concerned with contamination). According to the research behind these domains, we, the viewer, evaluate characters immediately and without cognitive deliberation. In other words, when characters fulfill domains it sticks with us and when they violate domains it can send out major red flags to us as soon as it happens without us thinking about it, not later in more considerate retrospect. So then, it makes sense that now as we debate we struggle to find common ground because our judgment was made ages ago and it's hard to reason with our already defined moral intuition.

As such, since I started getting into the dsmp first by watching all of the recordings of previous streams in order in this one playlist then going onto watching all of the blueberrytv videos (at the time of course), which edit the streams to allow you to see things from multiple perspectives. Therefore, I watched things from the very beginning, back when it was just c!George and c!Dream goofing off and dying in the nether. So, my intuitive judgment of c!Dream involves him building the community house, always trying to keep the peace between his friends, exploring the world so he can bring back all the types for wood for people to build with, building the prime path to connect everyone's houses together to make for easier travel, rebuilding Tubbo’s house after c!Tommy burned it down, helping c!Ponk when people kept burning down his house. These are just some of the moments I suspect helped to form my evaluation of him. Showing him as being very empathetic and caring, being loyal to his friends and accepting of new people, being a mediator and trying to keep things fair between his friends, fulfilling at least 3 (since he kinda is the authority that is hard to classify) of the moral domains. The streams also depicted the characteristics with warmth as well as competence and intelligence. So immediately my perceptive moral intuition deemed him the hero. As he fulfilled the warmth and competence domains of the one method and most of the domains of the other method without violating them in an obvious enough manner for me to remember at this moment (These are by no means the only reasons why I’d be inclined to root for c!Dream but that's beside the point).

On the other hand, my introduction to c!Tommy was him immediately breaking the three rules, by going around taking down donator’s signs, griefing, stealing, claiming things and property as his, trying to kill people until he ends up being banned. So he hurt others and causes harm, he is invited to join and have fun but fails to reciprocate that by going about and messing things up, he immediately disrespects everyone and defies authority by breaking the rules, hard to say on loyalty though (as mentioned above) him burning down c!Tubbo’s, his best friend, house doesn’t give me the impression of loyalty, concerning purity he scams and lies, is obsessed (though hardly the only one) with male genitalia (which I personally find unsavory) and is disrespectful towards women so definitely failing in the purity and sanctity domain as well. In regards to warmth, I wouldn’t say so, nor particularly competent, though certainly meeting the more violent and aggressive elements of duplicity. So in other words, in just his first few streams he has violated every moral domain, while also not meeting the warmth or competence but meeting duplicity. So immediately my impression of him is to dislike and disprove as my moral intuition labels him as a villain.

In other words, perhaps our affinity for characters and perception of their morality has less to do with actual legal or other measurements of morality but more of what our initial impression was that formed our judgment from the very start. Because at the end of the day, I feel like the discussion needs to be less about whether this character or that character is ‘good’ or ‘bad’ because their motivation or trauma justifies their behavior and more about what qualities do you appreciate about the character. At the end of the day, it's fiction and you should be able to love or hate whatever character you want regardless of morality or right & wrong. It’s your opinion and I don’t see other fandoms shaming and bashing other people for liking a certain character that others dislike and/or the protagonist dislikes meaning therefore they are bad so how can you like them. But in the same way, I should also be able to hate a character without being bashed for not being empathetic to their trauma… Anyways I think the idea that we all see characters as justified and innocent in our own way is cool, especially in respect to the dsmp which is told from all angles, and that’s what I set out to learn more about and share with you. Hopefully, you have enjoyed my findings and I made sense (…..and if it didn’t, you are always welcome to ask or add on :D), sorry for the length I’m beginning to realize conciseness is not my strong suit…

I hope with this interesting angle, we can lean away from discussions on legal, moral, crime, trauma and more towards questions of preference and characteristics and personal perception - Why do you root for them? What was your introduction to the characters? How do you think that impacted your viewpoint on the story? Has your viewpoint ever changed? What do you think helped define your definition of ‘appropriateness’?… etc <3 <3

[acourtofthought]

I'd love to hear your take on the frankly alarming degree to which e/riels seem to perceive Elain as if she were real person who needs all this protection and defence from """antis""" (adding three quotes on that because I find the term hilarious, honestly). Maybe it's just what the algorithm is showing me but it seems to me that this rampant, aggressive, near feral attitude of e/riels trying to prove they're the only ones who care about Elain and everyone else is, in their eyes, almost an evil caricature out to hate on her is so prevalent these days? I see plenty of rational ones too, but the vocal ones (that I see) seem to have lost their grip on reality vs fiction.

It's always "we care what Elain wants and Elucien's don't" isn't it?

So what they're saying is they are happy for Elain's character to end up with a guy who hasn't thought of a future with her beyond his sexual fantasies, called her a mistake before Rhys even spoke to him, can't admit to being over the female he loved for centuries, doesn't think Elain can handle the trove, gave her zero credit for her part in the war and felt a spark in his chest over the thought of another females joy simply because "it's what she wants" (though we actually don't have canon evidence that what Elain wanted from Az was anything more than a hookup).

These are books so what she wants honestly doesn't matter because her arc isn't over and SJM has the final say on what she wants (something that she has proven to have no issues changing up for her FMC) but say she was a real person. Say your best friend wanted a guy who felt better after spending time with a different girl, who wanted a guy who didn't think of a future with her beyond a night of hooking up, and they'd be completely supportive of that simply because "it's what she wants"?

My sister WANTED to stay married to a guy who was verbally abusive because she has low self esteem issues. While we accepted that it was her life and therefore she made her own choices we weren't required to be excited about it. We were allowed to see how unhappy the situation made her despite her inability to leave at the time, we were allowed to acknowledge how bad he was for her. We were allowed to hope that someday she'd meet someone who was better for her.

To me it's a very immature frame of mind to think that the people who care for you, truly care for you (and are not just motivated by their own desires) need to be happy with what you want when those people often are able to view how those things are unhealthy for you. We are at times our own worst enemy and when we're struggling with things like trauma we don't always make the best decisions. Elucien's are able to spot this behavior in Elain right now especially when she herself confirmed in SF that she still has trauma despite her attempts at find some sort of purpose in the NC. We are able to clearly see how she's choosing to avoid her real problems in favor of fixating on something that gives her a shot of dopamine which, while understandable after great change and loss, is not the way to go about having real character growth.

Does Mor not also have purpose in the NC? But is Mor making the best decisions for her own personal life at this point in the series? The same can be said of Elain's character.

We've all witnessed how Sarah writes a FMC wanting one guy only to start the deterioration of his character so that her eventually wanting another makes sense to us.

Feyre loved Tamlin to the point she was willing to die for him in book 1 but the author hammered home the red flags in book 2 paving the way for Rhys.

Aelin loved Chaol in book 2 of the TOG series only to for Sarah to write his later actions as being something she was unable to forgive, paving the way for her to eventually fall for Rowan (after having no romantic interest in him at the start).

Lucien was introduced as a possible love interest for Elain when the author mated them in book 2 (a very simple fact that proves that if they do end up together Sarah went the route of what SHE wanted and not fanservice since mates getting together is the hallmark of a fated mates author). But instead of ruining Lucien as a possible love interest for Elain, instead of writing him as doing something problematic that makes us understand why he's not the guy for Elain, she has continually written him to be supportive of what she wants, going out of his way to do what is best for her, has him acknowledge her bravery in the war, has him meet her father and realize what a good man he was, has him stare at Elain and only Elain with longing two years after their bond snapped. A lot like what we saw with Rhys for Feyre or Cassian for Nesta, where they longed for the females despite them pushing them away.

If Sarah did not want Elucien's to have hope that they might overcome any current obstacles she would have gone out of her way to show us exactly why he's not the right guy for Elain despite what anti's claim Elain wants right now. Because again, what Elain wants can change and precedence shows us what a FMC wants often does. Not to mention we don't know the exact reasons Elain has withdrawn from Lucien meaning there might be some deeply meaningful explanation for it in the same way we saw with Nesta for Cassian.

You know whose character she did begin to tarnish though? Az when it comes to Elain. He looked sweet towards her in ACOWAR and FAS but in SF he was petty, childish, jealous. He went off half-cocked at how he'd easily defeat Lucien (who is most certainly a future HL and by default will automatically have more power than Az will ever have once his powers manifest, Lucien who controlled the fiercest warrior of the Illyrians with a single word), she wrote him as never once acknowledging how Elain also saved him in the war, how she saved Cassian and Nesta during the war, how she saved Briar during the war. Sarah wrote Az has never having thought of a future with Elain beyond his sexual fantasies. She wrote Az very quickly moving past the events of Solstice with Elain and showing admiration for another female, believing in that females ability to take care of herself, having that female spark something in is chest that is a thing of secret lovely beauty.

It's fine if some people still like the idea of Az and Elain but let's not fool ourselves, it's clear that the author is not writing Az as being the good guy when it comes to her. She gave him the Tamlin treatment when it comes to Elain and we all know what that spells out.

I think the most amusing thing for me will be hearing what anti's have to say when / if Elucien is written as endgame after years of telling us that we don't care for Elain. When the author herself decides Lucien is the best thing for her, when the author herself decides to have them fall in love, when the author herself has left us those clues all along, are they going to accuse the fated mates author who created this world and these characters of not caring about a character they themselves had zero part in bringing to life?

[peoplesrazor]

Going to address this a bit, but in a limited fashion as I have not played the game myself. @crimsonender is a fan and has a post directly explaining why Ashley was on his list here.

As Crim says, Ashley is sold for organ harvesting and left to starve. She and her brother are struggling to survive and seek vengeance against their parents. Would that make them a villain with a point? In another narrative it may not, in this one, it does. At the very least, one could argue either way.

And this is what makes narratives like this interesting. It's what makes them fun to talk about. It's at the heart of what makes a game like this compelling.

Lily's narrow view of what counts as a "villain with a point." kills this dialogue. There is no room for nuance. She can't see that sometimes a villain is only a villain in the story they're in, and may actually be the hero in another.

My example would be Belos from The Owl House. He actually thinks he is the hero and if a few things were different, just one or two, he would be. If the witches on the Boiling Isles were evil and if they could come to the human realm, then Ol' Phil would be right in his thoughts, wouldn't he?

Though, not necessarily his actions. If he still became a false ruler; still ran a fascists nanny-state; still petrified his opponents and still sent people to the conformatorium for being different. Well, then he'd be a villain with a point, wouldn't he?

There'd be Belos did nothing wrong videos and long essays and articles examining his actions. There'd be reddit and blog posts exclaiming "I like his take on killing evil witches, but imprisoning the girl who writes slash fiction about food is going to far."

I, personally, like Belos as a villain just as he is. I like that the more layers we uncovered, the worse he got. I feel it was perfect for the story Owl House was going for and it's theme of acceptance. There didn't have to be a lot of nuance to him, because the nuance came in the world he came from and the world he ended up trying to destroy.

We may have our preferences. We may enjoy the mustache-twirly, kicking puppies and stealing from orphan types. We may like the nuanced, complicated backstory, villain has a point type.

What we like most though, is a villain that fits the story.

[siriuslyobsessedwithfiction]

Realizing a widely popular historical fiction/modernist novel (in 20th century) had a political figure fighting for freedom of his people, more influential forces wanting him and his people to lose autonomy, a borderline fanatic head of the church interfering in political affairs, a young woman who has special connection with animals and particularly deer getting caught in-between conflicts, an old spellcaster who has lived many lives with different identities who keeps secrets, and a civil war. Why does this remind me of Shadow and Bone trilogy...🤔

Only in this book, the man who fought for freedom of his people for years is not framed as an absolute villain, even though he led a battle because he wanted to pursue a woman. But rather, the narrative acknowledges he was a brave man who served his people since he was thirteen and fought countless battles for his country. And that such responsibility is heavy, and even he was human, wanting a connection. Although, his actions aren't excused, no one says it was right of him to go to such lengths for a woman and to maim her lover. His end is still tragic. But it doesn't feel like a disservice to his character because people know the good he did and acknowledge it. He showed more mercy at first than his enemies deserved. He had friends who were good people and loved him. Even people who hated him for personal reasons said it was better for him to rule than to start a war and get someone far less competent in charge, which would leave them vulnerable to foreign enemies.

But what does the Darkling from Shadow and Bone get? His centuries of work erased, his name being more demonized than ever and eternity of suffering. LB could either make him an actual villain, or let him be a morally grey tragic character. Instead, he got tossed between both of those and then got blamed for everything that went wrong ever. While the rapist King got a nice retirement and the leader of the witchhunters who was actively committing genocide is spared because he was only the product of the system, apparently.

"Aleksander had marched south with the king’s soldiers, and when they’d faced the Shu in the field, he’d unleashed darkness upon their opponents, blinding them where they stood. Ravka’s forces had won the day. But when Yevgeni had offered Aleksander his reward, he had refused the king’s gold. “There are others like me, Grisha, living in hiding. Give me leave to offer them sanctuary here and I will build you an army the likes of which the world has never seen.”

“He … he said that Darklings are born without souls. That only something truly evil could have created the Shadow Fold.”

"Not everyone thought like Eva or the old serf, but I’d been in the First Army long enough to know that most ordinary soldiers didn’t trust Grisha and felt no allegiance to the Darkling."

"I've committed many sins, Pippa, as a king and a man. I carried almost all the virtues and all the defects of my people. I was bold and faint-hearted. I set at nought the Byzantine Emperor but was afraid of snakes. I was conceited, heartless and loathsome, but I never betrayed my people, Pippa. Our misfortune is the same now: among us, the traitors outnumbered the loyal ones. I know very well, even in my army, half of them were bought by the Byzantines, and half by the Sarkinos. When the people have so many traitors at home, even Alexander the Great cannot defeat the enemy. If the nobles had not deserted me at Basian, I would have defeated Basil Caesar there too, you know. If the whole nation doesn't want to win, Alexander Macedonian can't help either, Pippa, because cowards and emissaries have never won anywhere. I gave my childhood and my youth to Georgia, but the Kartlels called me "the Abkhazian," and by the Abkhazians I was considered to be a Kartalinian spy, I who was a Bagration, a Laz."

"I rarely saw the Darkling, and when I did it was from a distance, coming or going, deep in conversation with Ivan or the King’s military advisers. I learned from the other Grisha that he wasn’t often at the Little Palace, but spent most of his time traveling between the Fold and the northern border, or south to where Shu Han raiding parties were attacking settlements before winter set in. Hundreds of Grisha were stationed throughout Ravka, and he was responsible for all of them."

"The King is a child. But you've made him a very happy child."

"I was slowed down by the squabbling of the nobles and the commanders, Pippa. Every scoundrel in us longs for nobility, every bastard - to be a commander.

No one knew his name to curse or extol, so I spoke it softly, beneath my breath. “Aleksander,” I whispered. A boy’s name, given up. Almost forgotten.

"He took off his clothes and was surprised when he saw a body marked by wounds, some old, some newer. A completely young man's body."

"It was a gravedigger who dared to confront the truth first, once everyone had left: "Not even in death has King Giorgi had any luck."

[mdhwrites]

how do you know a character is too far gone to be redeemed? I know it's partially based on the work itself and what rules it establishes, for one work blowing up planets is something you can work hard on redeeming yourself from and another will have small scale bullying be considered murder and how much we sympathize with the character committing the acts but I know it's more complicated than that. How far is too far?

So you essentially pointed out the problem with even asking this question. Whether a redemption works or not is entirely context dependent, even down to the person viewing it. Like if one person believes in excuses X, Y, and Z for redemptions but another only believes in A, B, and C then these two people are going to have vastly different opinions on what too far is. One might be that any murderer is irredeemable. One might make it that you cannot be redeemed if you kill innocents. Another might have it be that it's only once you do it with malice.

So... What does an author do about this? Well for me, I think the question is less "What line is crossed where they can't be redeemed?" and more "Where is the line where I'm writing someone who is nuanced to someone who is a caricature for this setting?" So long as evil is not all they are, redemption to someone is likely to be possible and you can breadcrumb the way to that redemption. Once you have someone who kicks a child over, takes their candy and lights them on fire while gleefully laughing, you have probably dropped any pretense. Even Unikitty, a show who's boundaries are almost non-existent, has Master Frown still do mostly things that are annoying instead of actively cruel so that he is still redeemable because genuine cruelty might be where that's starting to go too far, even as he laughs in glee at making people, well... Frown.

In a romantic story, it'd be the moment when a character fakes the fact that one of the love interests is cheating on the other because they are doing something anyone would know is wrong and would only be done by someone with zero human empathy. In a martial art's movie, it's the asshole who pulls a gun during what is supposed to be a fair fight. It's the mafia stooge who targets family. Stuff that any sane, normal human being would feel revulsion at even the act of doing it... They do it without caring. If they feel remorse, are pressured to do it, etc. like that, or even did it long ago but have changed since then, they can still be redeemed but when you have them, in the present, without a second thought, perform actions that anyone would tell them they're a monster for... Yeah, no one in your setting is going to let them be redeemed short of a heroic sacrifice.

Because that last line is the important one. What can a character get away with before the people in the setting themselves would consider them some sort of monster? Because your story is playing by its own setting, logic and ideals and so the irredeemable characters in that story have to actively go against those, not just our modern ideas of right and wrong because, you know... Fiction. It's not our world.

And as a writer, that's what you need to focus on. If you want to redeem a character, you have to make it so that whatever they did CAN be forgiven in story. The act they commit to try and make up for what they did before has to somehow be equal or even bigger than what they did previously. This is also why there is a point at which death is the only way for them to make up for what they did because they have been so horrendous by the rules of the story that only the ultimate sacrifice can even attempt to balance the scales.

So long story short: Don't worry about what your audience will find acceptable. Remember that for a redemption to work, it must be believable in universe and that will shift between stories, or even between chapters, and that that's what's important. Those are the people the character wronged after all, not the reader. See you next tale.

======+++++======

I have a public Discord for any and all who want to join!

I also have an Amazon page for all of my original works in various forms of character focused romances from cute, teenage romance to erotica series of my past. I have an Ao3 for my fanfiction projects as well if that catches your fancy instead. If you want to hang out with me, I stream from time to time and love to chat with chat.

A Twitter you can follow too

And a Kofi if you like what I do and want to help out with the fact that disability doesn’t pay much.

[illiteratebf]

shoutout to pro/comshippers with aspd

ive been wanting to make a post like this for a while but have been putting it off. i usually just stick to posting about my selfships and nothing else but this is something ive seen no one else acknowledge so im gonna do it myself.

shoutout to psychopaths/sociopaths who use fiction as a means to live out their violent and/or immoral fantasies. shout out to my fellow ASPDer's who dont feel any empathy and lack a moral compass.

morality and ethics for a lot of us feels like a set of arbitrary rules to memorize and live by. i often compare it to a math equation. youre taught it from a young age, you memorize it, you utilise it in your day to day life, but you have no emotional attachment or passion for it the way others do. it was entirely made up by other people and the only reason you follow it is because there will be consequences if you dont. it kind of feels like playing along with a child's game of pretend, who will throw a tantrum if you dont want to keep playing. this gets tiring.

fiction doesnt have any of those rules so we can go hog wild. its awesome. a lot of people hear "proshipping to cope" and only think of people working through trauma. this is a huge part of the proshipper community. however, some people also use fiction to cope in a different way.

im what a lot of people would describe as inherently evil. when a person says "some people are just born evil" theyre talking about me. (of course, i dont believe in "good" and "evil", im speaking from society's perspective)

my point is, there's a lot of focus on "your thoughts dont make you a bad person, your actions do" in the proship community which i agree with. people should be judged by their real life actions and not what they write. but i believe we should also acknowledged that some of us dont care about being good people. some of us actually like thinking of ourselves as bad and evil people.

some of us keep our violence to fiction only because we dont want to get in trouble for it in real life, and thats okay. because at the end of the day we arent doing anything wrong.

[jkl-fff]

Silly Game Time: When would you say a villain becomes irredeemable?

Short Answer: Never.

Long Answer: It depends on the story, the storyteller, and the themes being explored.

***Rant Incoming***

Fandom discourse around this particular trope (and that's all character redemption is: one specific kind of trope that can be handled an infinite number of ways) kinda baffles me lately. It often seems to assume that all stories are required to impart moral instruction that follows a formula of reward and punishment for characters' virtues and vices; that characters must be reducible to people who are ultimately good or evil, who must then receive their aforementioned reward or punishment accordingly. A very puritan worldview (ugh!). Everything must be black or white, it implicitly asserts; everything must fit into what not-so-coincidentally is a very christian paradigm. It's one of the many taints of so-called purity culture, I reckon.

Also, it's intellectually simplistic and philosophically stultifying (the world and fiction both have nuance, writers and readers shouldn't have to limit our thought processes christian doctrine). Worst of all, though, it's usually straight-up boring. If I wanted to be told how to act (in this case, how to write my stories) or how to think (in this case, how to read other people's stories), I'd go to church, thanks.

Stories can pose moral questions or assert moral messages, sure, but their purpose is fundamentally *to entertain* by recounting a sequence of events and the development of characters. In other words, stories *entertain* by recounting a plot. As such, the worst thing a story can be is boring. And there's a lot of entertainment value to be had in a redemption plot. Imagine a villain changing, coming to regret their actions, suffering remorse for and the consequences of their villainy, trying to be better and do better, grappling with the question of if that's even possible after all they've done, agonizing over how to repair the damage they've caused and how to carry on when repair is impossible. Sounds pretty entertaining to me (or at least it has the potential to be so). Saying a villain is irredeemable, however, is to say that this interesting-sounding redemption plot can't ever happen, and therefore other more formulaic plots must happen instead.

Like I said earlier, it depends on the story, the storyteller, and the themes in the story. Genre conventions can really come into play here, too, because certain genres tend not to have room to explore redemption as a theme (it's just not a subject those kinds of stories can handle adroitly) whereas other genres are practically built for it. Fantasy usually has it both present and important (Star Wars and Steven Universe both feature it prominently), but gritty spy thrillers typically don't.

Anyway, I think that's enough for now. Thanks for coming to my rant, and remember: There's no such thing as a bad trope, only bad writing that doesn't use the trope in a skillful way.

[chronostachyon]

As someone who's not a professional therapist but has had to develop a deep understanding of psychology in order to figure out my own issues, I kind of wish I could sit down with J. R. R. Tolkien about how much of himself he poured into Eä, and how guilty he felt about having the hubris to write down his own little imitation of what he imagined the Christian God's forging of reality must have been like. To put words in Eru Ilúvatar's mouth, when Eru Ilúvatar is very much a likeness of Tolkien's own God.

On the surface you can easily see that he identifies quite a bit with Gandalf, Aragorn, and especially and most openly Beren. But if you read between the lines -- of the story of the Ainulindalë, with Melkor's arrogant dissonance, and of the forging of the dwarves by Aulë, whose actions clearly meant to be compared and contrasted with Melkor's -- I think the beings that Tolkien identified with deep down were Melkor and the Maiar of Aulë who defected to him (especially Sauron and Saruman). He saw himself as harboring a piece of Satan within himself, and could not forgive himself for it, and therefore could not see a path of redemption and forgiveness for them.

I don't think it's a shock to say that I see Tolkien as (a) being autistic, in that noticeable way that makes one feel like a social outcast for liking weird things and being upset that so many ordinary things "don't make sense", and (b) that he suffered from severe PTSD, which may well have preceded his time in the WWI trenches based on the depth of his self-loathing.

Aulë was Tolkien's idea of a "good autist": creative, excited about the possibilities of complex things built from simple ones, but humble and subservient to his own Creator. Melkor was a "bad autist": creative, but wants to be in control so everything can meet his personal definition of order, jealous of God for having abilities that he does not but lacking the humility to admit it and therefore refusing subservience to the inherently superior being, as the "natural order" dictates.

I think, if you plopped me down in Hobbiton a few weeks before Bilbo's 111th birthday, I could actually talk Sauron into redemption and the War of the Ring could be entirely avoided. Part of that is my own PTSD fawning response at work, I'm sure, as I'm always on the lookout for how to "fix" fictional bullies, but I see something in how Saruman looks at Sauron, and how Sauron looks at Melkor, and how Melkor looks at Eru, that I could call out and make explicit and force Sauron to confront about himself. I think I understand Sauron's will well enough that I could sit down with the Ring and have a conversation with it, maybe to one day reunite it with Sauron so he could be made whole again.

I see this in Sauron because I see it in Tolkien because I see it in myself: the thing I find hateful about Eä is that I hate all imbalances of power. They are inherently unfair. Melkor, Sauron, and Saruman each sought to wrest power from a tyrant, but thought only of having that power for themselves, rather than seeing the symmetry of the situation and realizing that power over others is inherently evil.

Tolkien could never openly admit this, perhaps not even to himself, because it's pretty explicitly blasphemous. It implies that the standard Catholic theodicy of Free Will is hollow; that God was evil all along and that the serpent in Eden spoke the truth, and that God was never anything more than a petty tyrant undeserving of worship.

But there's also something Tolkien's faith kind of got a little bit right: redemption. The sin of Saruman and Sauron and Melkor and Eru is the sin of the Christian God, but sin is not a permanent taint so much as it's the harm we do to others, and if we stop hurting others and start considering their well-being in our actions -- especially their autonomy and self-determination -- then that sin will fade from the world with time and patience.

In the end, Tolkien wasn't wrong about preferring Aulë over Melkor for his humility, but he was wrong about the purpose of humility and why it's a virtue. Humility isn't servility or obedience; it's acknowledgement that one does not and can not understand everything that is. Humility is a virtue because each and every living being is the only expert in the world about that particular being's actual lived experiences, no matter how much broader your experiences may be than theirs. The real fantasy of Christianity is the fantasy that God knows more about your life and how you feel about it than you do, which is a lot less lonely and scary than the truth: you are the only person in the world who can make your choices for you.

[onceuponapuffin]

Metatron Meta

Okay, so first of all let’s get a few things straight: I do not like the Metatron. I hate his big dumb floaty face, and these thoughts of mine in no way, shape, or form are meant to imply otherwise. He is perfectly responsible for his own actions and behaviours and is deserving of all resulting consequences. This is not a defense, excuse, or justification for any of his bullshit.

Got it? Are we clear? Yes? Yes.

So from here on out, will you promise to take a few minutes to hear me out, and then a few more to sit and actually think about what I’m saying? Okay, good, I trust you.

Here’s what happened: One night I was indulging in a stress-relief, fan-fiction-type, self-insert fantasy where I get to tell the Metatron exactly what I think of him straight to his dumb face, and as I’m imagining this conversation, a lightbulb goes off. He feels threatened by Aziraphale and Crowley.

Feeling threatened is a defensive reaction; he’s afraid. And so the question became the following: What could the Metatron, the most powerful angel in Heaven, be afraid of?

Come, walk with me.

The only being I can possibly imagine that the Metatron would actually be afraid of is God, but more specifically, afraid of upsetting or disappointing Her.

People have generally come to the consensus that God hasn’t been around for a while. Anytime anyone wants to talk to God, they talk to the Metatron. Anytime they’re given instructions, it comes from the Metatron. The lack of God’s narration in Season 2 seems to support this conclusion.

As far as I’ve seen, people have been happy enough to leave it here: God’s not actually calling the shots anymore, oh that evil Metatron grabbing at power, Metatron is playing God and doing terrible things.

I haven’t seen anyone – not one person (and if there is someone else who’s asked, please forgive me – it’s entirely because I haven’t come across your work) – say “If God hasn’t been around for a while, what does that mean for Metatron?”

Think about it – his whole existence, his whole purpose, is to talk to God and relay Her instructions to the rest of the angels. If his purpose and reason for existence has disappeared...I mean how would you feel?

Let’s not forget that Metatron is an angel. He was created to be a being of literal love and joy and light. He loves God and loves his job as Her voice – and she disappeared a while ago and hasn’t come back.

Let me say that one more time to make sure it gets through – THE CENTRE OF HIS EXISTENCE LEFT AND HASN’T COME BACK.

Are you with me? Good, because we’re going deeper.

Okay so let’s suppose that the last time Metatron heard anything from God direct was, say, Job. Sometime after Job, God disappears. Metatron, worried (and smarter than the other angels) goes back through the files, and notices a few things: the children are the same, the plan was disrupted. Also Crowley and Aziraphale are there.

(Right now, our beloved husbands are just a footnote, but keep this in the back of your mind for later.)

 For now, Metatron realizes that God’s plan for the bet wasn’t carried out properly. Right now, Metatron – a being of purity and love and light, whose Most Precious Thing is his connection to God – thinks he has messed up.

Maybe he expects to Fall. Maybe he lives in terrible, shaking fear that God will be angry with him for a bit. Maybe what he doesn’t expect is the Silent Treatment. And maybe what he doesn’t expect, then, is for it to last. He doesn’t expect the radio silence. He’s been ghosted by the being he loves most.

Alright, he figures, he hasn’t Fallen so the Almighty can’t be THAT angry with him. All he needs to do is go back do doing things RIGHT. He just needs to do the best job he can and God will forgive him and come back and talk to him again. He just needs to do a Good Job. He just needs to Do Everything Right. He needs to follow The Plan, as he knows it, and if he does it well enough, She will come back to him. His existence, his purpose, depends on it. And so, nothing can get in the way.

He can NOT let ANYTHING get in the way of The Plan.

So he keeps up appearances. He can’t let anyone know that God isn’t around. Who knows what kind of chaos that might occur? (And chaos is certainly not what God wants.)

He sees Crowley and Aziraphale avert the First Apocalypse (and this is where something perks up in his memory), but no matter because The Plan includes a clause for The Second Coming. Then their miracle together gets his attention.

Oh no, he thinks, this is what messed up my life the first time. Not again, I’m so close. I’m so close to getting Her to love me again.

And so he separates them.

You see, the thing about abuse is that it’s a cycle. The abuse that Metatron is imposing on Aziraphale and Crowley comes from somewhere I think. Everything in Heaven was created to be for the sake of Love. Maybe She left hoping that it would encourage the angels to love the universe as She does – take away the distraction, so to speak. Maybe God realized that Love isn’t enough and Nope’d  out, but whatever happened, when She left it royally fucked up everything.

Metatron has been desperately trying to Do A Good Job so that God will give him a CRUMB of affection, and that attitude has trickled down until all of Heaven runs on it.

If you haven’t ever lived like that, you might not realize the way it warps you. The way that getting that affection becomes all-encompassing; the way you keep collecting crumbs, thinking you can make a whole cake.

I don’t have sympathy for the Metatron. Regardless of what has happened in our lives, we are in full control of what we do and how we do it. He has let his love for God warp him into something that he wasn’t supposed to be. He’s become driven by obsession, while convincing himself it’s love. The way I see it, he’s come to a point of selfishness. His desire has warped him into the antithesis of what God made him to be, and I hope that comes back around to bite him.

[just-a-carrot]

Had the chance to sit down and play the new installment (that makes it sound like an appliance... OW: Smart Fridge Edition) and it's so viscerally raw and human. The whole game is, but wow. My favorite genre of fiction is fantasy, for being able to see a creator and their world as 'look at a life these people are living and the world they're living in'. A world surreal, fantastic, and all too easy to think about what it would be like if it was real-- acting like it is real with dreams of dragons and elves. Our Wonderland goes beyond that, in a way few other fantasy stories I've read have. It's not the fantasy of magical beings living in a sprawling, epic world; it's not the fantasy of a gigantic battle of good versus evil-- the fantasy comes in when the cast thinks their lives should be just like the tales of knights and glory. The fantasy is just humans trying their darndest, despite it all. Hoping for a better world. Which wouldn't be so worth commenting on if not for the execution. Every emotion, every action-- beat-by-beat it's gripping and a perfect sell into the world. Playing the finale elicited some feelings and memories I had forgotten about. The sense of turning on the GameCube late at night, going to play Mario Sunshine. Long road trips immersed in the scenery of forest and buffalo, after having spent hours staring at cities. Getting up to dumb hijinks with people I'd only know for a few days. Staring out into the open ocean upon a swing. I'm not sure why it brought those out, but I think it's because of how human the game is, it gets you to think. It got me to think, anyways. Anywho, thank you for an amazing experience Carrot. I hope you have a good rest, and that my thoughts are written here somewhat coherently. If not, I'll summarize: DAMN GOOD GAME. DAMN GOOD STORY. DAMN GOOD ART. DAMN GOOD.

SOB

i don't know how to respond to this... this is incredibly sweet and thoughtful and i'm not sure i have the eloquence currently to type up and actually decent response 🥺💦

but i can definitely feel in my heart what you mean. even if it's not necessarily the exact same emotions or in the exact same way, especially as the creator rather than the experiencer in this case. but like. OW has always filled me with those types of nostalgic feelings as well. maybe it's because at its core, its about these types of fundamental happinesses. and these fundamental relationships we form as kids. and perhaps also simply because so much of the OW cast's pasts and experiences draw so heavily from my own, so it becomes almost as though i'm looking back into my own past through some kind of slightly warped threshold or something

stuff like the final scene in the field for instance was inspired by a scene in majora's mask, which is something i used to play with my sister. we would talk the characters aloud and make up our own stories rather than what they were actually saying (usually really ridiculous and stupid stuff lakdsfjad) or make silly radio plays where we recorded ourselves acting our chars from the game. also a lot of the references both in and outside of the game (like in my non-in-game art and such) was inspired by my own memories. so thinking about the game often makes these additional nostalgic coils drift up through my own memories

at any rate, i can't be sure that's the exact type of same feelings you're talking about, but... i feel like i understand the vibe of what you're saying at least

AND OFC I'M JUST REALLY HAPPY YOU ENJOYED THE ENDING DLKJALDSKJFASD

i still can't believe it's really over. and i mean sure it's not OVER over because i still have plans for other stuff with the chars and even the revamp which would include still working on stuff for the main game. but nothing will ever be the same for me as working on this game itself. and i'm really so grateful for everyone who's joined me in this journey because i'm not sure i would have made it to the end without all of you 💦

but i digress. thank you for this lovely message and for attempting to write up your thoughts lsakjdfasd it really means a lot!! 💕