#on the topic of Neil

[arttsuka]

People need to stop blaming 'parasocial relationships' when it's revealed to the public that a famous person has done something controversial (or even a crime) and the public is upset. 'I can't believe xxx did that!' doesn't always mean that the person who said it has a parasocial relationship with xxx. Usually it's just our faith in humanity, we want to believe that everyone has some basic human decency (especially someone we might admire) and it's only natural to be disappointed when we learn they're a bad person.

[bauliya]

Can I just say in six weeks when Neil Gaiman pulls the Johnny Depp DARVO playbook and sues his victims and claims they abused him and he has proof, all these “no one wrote good omens” and “separate the art from the artist” and “it’s my comfort fandom” assholes are going to come on here and make posts about they always knew he was the victim actually and people don’t care about men being abused and feminism is about gender equality and if you don’t support Neil Gaiman you’re trash and everyone owes him an apology???? because they’re absolutely going to do that. complete with corny fanart of aziraphale and crowley hugging him or some shit.

[emry-stars-art]

Jellyfish, specifically JellyNeil has no concept of gender nor does it remotely care about its gender until a very specific series of events

Find the mer au masterpost here 💕

[murderofsomeone]

nature tapes and I am become christmas aren't included because they are eps, not albums

[hmmm-shesucks]

One of the Foxes makes the mistake of asking Kevin how often he thinks about the Roman Empire to which he responds, “I’m glad you asked.” And then makes the whole team sit through a two hour PowerPoint presentation. He makes them take notes and gives a pop quiz after. Everyone fails. Kevin is disappointed.

[briony-poisoned]

I believe the victims and Neil Gaiman is quite clearly a predator, but it is absolutely bonkers that the podcast breaking this story is hosted by Boris Johnson’s fucking sister. What is even going on in the UK

[kidspawn]

you said you were taking requests for character/media analysis so here is my humble request: a while ago you wrote a post about different characters and the ways they get mischaracterised and i read it all and it was all super interesting, and at the end you said you could have gone on about neil josten. so my request is that i would love to know your thoughts on neil and how he gets mischaracterised by the fandom

Oh wow! Thank you for this ask, because it's definitely an interesting one! I am always always always open for character discussion and differing opinions, as well as being not normal™ about media - which is my designation in fandom spaces as is late. Meaning I think way too much and way too hard about the most insignificant of details.

So, when I made that statement about Neil Josten, it was made in the context of me having not read All For the Game or really interacting with AFTG fandom since around... I want to say 2018. And if there's anything to say about 2018 fandoms, it's that mischaracterization was rampant, especially with queer characters. I think characterization of Neil has improved. Exponentially. So, this is more an overview of trends. Fandom, especially in terms of characterization, has stepped back to allow nuance - which is a blessing, really, because every time a character with nuanced and interesting character traits is reduced to a single recurring trope I die a little inside. My soul shrivels like a prune and I want to scream. I will say it's not... really an issue anymore? (I'm back in fandom, btw. That statement was actually about Tik Tok and how atrocious they are at handling characterizations. And how funny it is to think about 2016-2020 fandom characterization where everyone is either cinnamon role or unapologetic sinner.)

Neil Josten suffers from the same issue that, interestingly, Wylan suffers from in SOC fandom. Which is that people don't want to believe a person can be two things. That Neil can be earnest and loving and care about people, while also being capable of, say, ordering a hit out on somebody and remaining cool and calm in face of crisis. Which is an interesting trait of his. Inside Neil's head, he's analytical, judgemental, and distrustful. He's quick to dislike people, or tell himself to dislike others. He's evasive and anxious and terrific at concealing it. He loves, and he loves selectively and deeply and in varying shades. He also hates and disdains and forms grudges he cannot move on from. (I want to compare him to a fox, who shows great loyalty to those close to their hearts, while maintaining healthy distance and mistrust of strangers. I also compare him to a raven, who remembers those who have hurt them, and remember those who have done them well.) He's more sentimental than he'd ever admit (I think of his mother, Jean, Kevin, and Andrew first and foremost. Because he exhibits a great deal of affection, but doesn't always disclose it to the reader.), and he's vindictive. He's in incredible control of his emotions, and I think it weighs on him to be so restrained all the time. He wants freedom, and was taught freedom is being unattached and free floating - when freedom is, in my opinion, Exy and his own choice to stay and pick a family. He wants to run, and escape, and he wants to stay. He is sweet, and thoughtful, and viciously cold and calculating. There's a balance, and it's all to do with trust and vulnerability. (I actually think it's important to consider his relationship with his mother, who he exhibits a detached affection for? He's taught to separate himself from sentimentality early on in the series, but he retains a warmth and love in the way he speaks of and misses her. I'd argue he is the same with Kevin.)

What does this have to do with Wylan? Well, as I pointed out in the post you're referring to (which I need to either delete and rewrite or edit, because lord have my views changed. That was a notes app essay and I did not think it through or check my sources.), Wylan in earlier days of Six of Crows fandom was not given opportunity to be a multifaceted character. He was either "soft sweet sunshine boy" (Wylan Van Sunshine!!) or "mini Kaz." There was no middle ground. Which erased the most fascinating parts of Wylan's characterization. Which is that he can be both, can be the somewhat naive merchling AND be incredibly cunning and meticulous. He could have been Kaz, sure, but the circumstances he was found in - and how he was raised - do not make him like Kaz. And there's an intentional parallel between the two. That Wylan was granted the support and resources necessary from the Crows to stay soft, to stay kind, etc. And it isn't a diminishing of his character to do this. It's an active point being made that Kaz is guiding Wylan to develop in a way he never had the chance to. I won't go much into it, but the sentiment here is: erasing the multifaceted parts of this character ruins what makes the character (and the significance of his dynamics) so interesting.

So, Neil Josten. His personality is a product of his environment. He's a walking survival instinct, the flight response incarnate. Evade, evade, evade. And this warring principle of Neil's - his instinct to run, his desire to stay - is crucial to his early turmoil in the story. We, as the readers, are asked to consider what Neil wants, and what Neil is trained and conditioned to do. And Neil has been trained to be isolated, and fiercely loyal to himself (and his mother) in order to survive. And these two warring desires make Neil a gripping protagonist.

When one side is reduced, or erased, or shoved aside to make Neil one dimensional (so, either a soft, sad boy or a murderous and bloodthirsty menace) it in turn reduces the aspects of Neil that make him fascinating. It cheapens the moments when he's vulnerable and affectionate with others to make him like that all the time. And when we reduce this softer side of Neil, we lose the war he fights to avoid becoming his father. Because he veers into his instinct on occasion, having been raised to respond how his mother or father would act, but his journey is doing what Neil would do. How would Neil react? Does he run, like his mother? Does he power play, like his father? Or does he protect the people closest to him with the ferocity of a creature raised to stick with their pack? All of Neil's "violent" actions are borne from protective instinct. And that is the two sides of Neil converging. He takes a hit out on someone who has hurt someone he cares about, who reminds him of someone who has hurt someone he loves. I think, objectively, that Neil considering this a love language is actually insight into how he was raised and conditioned to view love. And his dynamic with Andrew, one of a fierce protectiveness and codependency, correlates with how Neil perceives love and family. And how his intention are so valuable here. His thought processes matter. And yes, I think it detracts from why Andriel as a ship is so important, because they love each other and they look out for each other. They give each other a home and someone to look out for. And the same with the Foxes. They've given Neil a home, a family, and they look out for him. And Neil, a child raised to be loyal to the very end, in turn looks out for them.

I really hope I am clarifying more so why I find mischaracterizations that strip both sides of Neil so frustrating. I could go on and on about how one queer man in a ship is made into the "omg what a soft little sad boy who needs to be protected omggggg" (a particularly grating quality I'm glad fandom has started to leave behind), and if he isn't the twee little twink he's the big bad coldblooded killer. And I'm not saying Neil is okay to kill people (though, I'd argue killing a rapist is okay, actually, a net positive, and we should do it more.), that he is in the right, nor am I saying he is one hundred percent just killing out of the good of his heart. But he is showing kindness in the way he was taught to? (And Andrew does the same, btw.) Reducing the warmer sides of Neil (which shows around Matt or Andrew or Kevin, etc) takes away from his growth as a protagonist, and reducing the less palatable parts of him makes us think it takes a single fucking year to undo years and years of being taught fight or flight as a response to every scenario.

Like I said, this happens a lot less in fandom, and I actually really appreciate that AFTG fandom has the ability to grasp that these characters have to be multi-dimensional to work and be compelling. My gripe with Neil is my gripe with the typical mischaracterizations that happen to queer men in popular mlm ships. With Neil, it's diminished since I was actively in AFTG fandom - and I've only recently gotten very very into it again. I cannot stress enough I was into this series in high school, and I've been on tumblr for well over a decade. I've tracked how fandom has changed, and I've engaged in some of these behaviors myself. (I love tracking fandom trends, btw. It speaks to the social aspects of fandom on a level that scratches my brain. It's the sociologist in me.)

(I do have a bone to pick with the dismissal of Neil being explicitly demisexual, but that's not a tumblr issue. That's why I came back to tumblr, because I was exhausted trying to remind people Neil is demisexual. But tumblr is good.)

I won't pretend to be an expert on Neil, so take this with a grain of salt and understand it's my interpretation of him. I find taking pieces of characters away to make them morally perfect very frustrating, and I find taking grey morality from characters more so frustrating. That's more my gripe and issue.

Anyway, I hope this answered that question? It's a more grand issue than just Neil, and my specific Neil issue revolves around how rancid Tik Tok is for fandom interaction (whole other problem), but Neil on tumblr is appreciated at this moment in time and I don't see egregious mischaracterization with him as often anymore.

[advluv4life]

"Don't ask questions you already know the answer to."

I'm dying. Andrew's killing me. This is killing me. Oh my god. Why did I think of this quote right now? I'm going to keel over from this quote. I'm in love with them.

what would I give you? anything. I would do anything. anything. for a car? nothing. for you? I would do anything. I would do anything.

I'm dying because this is all that is playing in my head right now. These two are literally everything to me.

[the-judicial-assistants-notebook]

whatever you do, don't think about how lana saw herself in edgeworth, ok? don't think about how she wanted to distance herself from him the moment they met because he could possibly see through the sl-9 plan and ruin everything, but she couldn't because he was kind, if not a little awkward, to her terrified sister in a case where everyone else's only concern was securing a conviction. don't think about how she brought ema to the prosecutor's office (because she damn well wasn't going to let her sister face this alone) with her hackles raised and her defences bolstered because she'd heard about the "demon prosecutor" and his ways just to realise he's nothing but a young man, trying his best to survive under the weight of his mentor's shadow and ensure justice is served by whatever means he can. don't think about how she felt later, when she was under gant's thumb and knew for a fact that all those rumours surrounding von karma's perfect record were, in fact, true and that he was using edgeworth's faith in him to fulfill his own goals. don't think about how she felt when she had to begin doing the same. or what must have gone through her head when she entered her office one morning to find a case approval form waiting for her on her desk: the state v. miles edgeworth. don't think about how she knew, once she saw the name of the prosecutor assigned to his case, that she was signing his death warrant. don't imagine what she rehearsed saying to his sister or her realisation, after his miraculous survival, why he had been so understanding of her own. don't wonder, as she did, ineffectually, if it was his competence or her fondness for him that led to his car and knife being chosen to cover goodman's murder — a second attempt at his permanent removal — and whether it was affection or guilt that made her stand by the corpse, waiting readily to be caught in his stead. don't think about how she finds out, eventually, that he is gone, in a jail cell so far from remorse, gratitude and closure that she can only sit and turn in her head distorted thoughts about luck and fortuitous third chances. don't.

[liaisun]

kevin (standing in front of doorway): i'm not letting u through

neil (imitates a truck backing up): beep beep beep beep beep beep beep beep beep beep beep beep beep b

kevin: oh my god fine just go

[kiwiaok]

yes, neil doesn’t shy away from andrew’s past since he knows abuse too and we all know it and love it, but I want neil that just selfishly, morbidly wants to know every little thing about andrew. every bad memory, all unfiltered abuse included.

neil that wants to know what was andrew’s routine after being raped. that wants to know if andrew ever had to feed himself rotting food bc his foster parents didn’t care to provide fresh one. he wants to know if andrew let blood drip down his arm when he hurt himself or if he quickly wiped it off. he wants to know how many shards of glass were imbedded in andrew’s skin after the accident with tilda.

he doesn’t really offer comfort when he’s offered those truths bc andrew doesn’t want it and what is comfort worth for men like them anyway. and he never asks for those truths – he’d never take them without being given them freely. but he collects them like one would collect marbles: to have them, to hold them, to look at them, to keep them forever

[awesam-sauce]

modern dating culture actually sucks. write a poem about me. write me love letters. do not ask me for my snap let me rest my head on your shoulder!!!!!!

[daddyduncan69]

One of my recent posts got a few comments about media literacy being dead and Neil being an unreliable narrator so I want to clear some things up.

Firstly, media literacy isn't dead becuase it cannot die. Also, I am not a big fan of fear mongering. Humans have always sought to understand and communicate with each other about the things we create. It is a skill that can be taught and should be practiced. There is no one right way to do it. And, while I think the education system fails so many of us (something something to make us easier to control something something), I also think that there are tons of resources to help us learn without the need for an official "teacher". So, instead of pessimistically saying is it "dead" (especially on someone's textual analysis post, like... are you saying I prove it's dead becuase I don't have media literacy? are you agreeing with me and therefore proving yourself wrong? do I not count for some reason? i don't think I get it), engage in discourse about media that you love. And I mean actual discourse, not just fighting on social media about whether or not everyone should "like" your favorite character. Ask yourself "what is the effect of this rhetorical device in the text?" "is the text trying to make me like or not like this character? is it working, why or why not," (do not ask "why did the author do this?" because that is not relevant nor are you a mind reader). Take free online Literature classes from colleges that help you learn how to analyze. Invite others to do it with you. Join or start a book club. Engage in various types of media, not just YA, fantasy, fiction, etc. Consider kindly rebutting or offering a counter point to other people's interpretations, bringing actual textual evidence to back up your points. Use Google Scholar to access free scholarly articles to see academic prospectives on various medias that are not just from social media or blogs. Your local library may even have subscriptions to paid sights like JSTOR or collections of essays that would let you access articles that are otherwise behind a paywall. All of these things can help improve your own media literacy and, in turn, will help improve the media literacy of the people around you.

Secondly, the point of my other post was NOT that Neil is an unreliable narrator. I've seen a lot of people make this claim so I wanted to chime in. Unreliable narrators are marked by a few characteristics, some of which are exaggeration, detachment from reality, naivety, and deception of the reader. I don't believe Neil falls into any of these categories. I would be open to arguments that claim he does, but it would be hard to sway me because I can't find any textual evidence to support it. This is an important distinction to me because the larger claim I make in that post is that ALL narration, 1st person, 3rd person, omniscient, limited, etc is biased- all of it. It is CRUCIAL as readers to identify a narrators biases and consider the text through that lens. If you aren't practicing doing that (or only doing it when the narrator is "unreliable") you can easily fall into the trap of saying "well Neil says Kevin is a coward so he is", which is obviously an issue in the grand scheme of textual analysis. However, you can also easily fall into the trap of saying "Neil is an unreliable narrator because he is wrong about things/lies to people/has trauma so you can't trust him". I believe that Neil tells us as the reader the truth in his narration almost 100% of the time, Neil just lies to the other characters 24/7. So, as readers we should take what he says in his internal monologue at face value but question the motives behind his dialogue with other characters.

Anyway, that was a long winded, probably boring monologue about critical textual analysis. I devote maybe 16 out of my 18 waking hours to thinking about this, so thanks for hanging in there to read it all. I just care so deeply that we as a culture continue to grow these skills without shaming those who haven't had the same opportunities to learn how to do it or making the act of learning how to feel hopeless or doomed.

[kevindayscrown]

Something, something, people reading aftg only for the gay couple, getting attached only to that gay couple, not bothering to go in depth with anything else, something something, now they hate TSC because it's not about that specific gay couple, something something

[sneakyfox55]

To The Moon Beach Ep spoilers

just. just. thinking about the fact Beach Episode implies the rest of the games were all in Eva's memory this entire time. she's reliving it all so she can get to this point on the beach with Neil. all so she can live in a memory with a him that in reality has already been long gone. hhhhhhh

[stabbyfoxandrew]

@ my mafia front restaurant readers: do we think kevin would let neil deflect like that... i'm trying to decide if he answers or not lol