#putting this in tags bc i dont feel like it adds onto the original post its just my thoughts

[ferretwhomst]

thinking so hard abt how belos and odalia played similar roles in hunter and amity's lives

they're pathetic excuses for parental figures, bringing up children and expecting them to live up to their own personal "blueprints" for them, stripping them of their autonomy in different ways.

in hunter's case, he's forced to be belos' idealized version of caleb without even knowing it. the golden guard's uniform has stayed mostly the same through time, which shows us that belos doesn't see them as individuals who deserve to be recognized as such, moreso as expendable objects. this one betrayed me? this one failed the task i assigned? no problem! i'll just kill them and make a new one. plus, hunter unknowingly faces additional pressure due to the fact that he looks more like caleb than the other grimwalkers.

in amity's case, odalia is obviously trying to turn her into a mini-version of herself. she takes away mostly everything that makes amity similar to her dad- she forces her to dye her hair the same mint green color, she puts more pressure on amity to perform well than the twins (which leads her to grow resentful towards them, which in turn allows for odalia to control them more easily. divide and rule and all that) and don't even get me started on how deeply invasive that whole amulet business was.

then there's shots like THIS featuring the Shoulder Touch of Manipulation TM

which just... parallel each other so eerily. i can't stop thinking abt it. both belos and odalia are behaving as if they're acting in hunter and amity's best interests when really they're only using them for their own selfish motives (the whole "i can't let the same happen to you" thing from belos as if he isn't willing to murder hunter the second he begins to deviate from his will, and odalia cutting amity off from all positive outside influences- ie anyone who could empower her, anyone who could make amity believe that she deserves better than how her parents treat her- under the pretence of "protecting" her). i'm eating drywall right now.

[rabbityshen]

a post got me thinking abt this (and i didnt wanna add to the notes plus it is a bit on the mean side) on the one hand, i think some ppl can be kind of mean abt "tropes" as a lens of talking abt fiction. ppl having fun is fine. i have fun. it can feel like "ugh you're not taking fiction seriously" vibes, which i think is good to keep in check as that sentiment can poison the well and put ppl on defense which i dont think is conducive. i also think it can be condescending to presume "you only talk abt x in y way which means you're incapable of discussing x (or anything else) in z way."

on the other hand, i do find tropes, and in this case i mean the more modern rendition of "ao3 tags" as i saw someone phrase it as, just personally v confusing and limiting. i understand what tropes are but they're vague in the same way genre is, but unlike genre, are looser and more emotionally tilted in a way that can limit discussion. i mean, i do find it useful sometimes, like i do have trope preferences certainly and i think that's fun to talk abt in a "what do i get out of this" way in a general sense. but besides the obvious problem of not all fiction necessarily having or fitting these tropes (esp since they're predominantly romance oriented), or suiting even the common tone of such discussion, i just dont find tropes particularly illuminating when discussion often boils down to "i love this/i hate this" in emotionally hyperbolic ways. it also just doesnt fit discussion of stories that arent invested in pleasant or fun emotional catharsis, let alone stories that aren't linear or are more experimental in structure. (and also like, if u get why applying tvtropes, which at least isnt romance-centric, onto all fiction can be kinda cringey and just v limiting, then it also applies here.)

even when it comes to my preferences, it can rly vary depending on the execution of the story itself, whether im reading amateur fanfic or pro published original fiction, or anything else. for example, i would say i like enemies to lovers, but this doesnt mean im inclined to like every rendition of it (i disliked rey and kylo's arc, i liked catra and adora's arc). even when im casually reading fanfic, im not gonna read every enemies to lovers ship. i am moderately picky and very lazy!

and at least enemies to lovers describes a relationship arc that can encompass an entire narrative. "sharing a bed" is a scene prompt? it's fine but means nothing to me. if a story sucks to me then no i wont like it, if a story is good to me then yeah i'll like it. i cant rly say if i "like" that trope in isolation bc i've seen shitty versions, fun versions, boring versions, etc.

and then top of this, sometimes ppl have v specific ideas of what tropes mean. back to enemies to lovers, i've seen ppl use it to refer to intense mutual antagonism that ties into the entire plot or just moderate stakes act 1 romcom personality clash/bickering that eases into real friendship by act 2. i can sure propose my own definition but it does seem like it's more charged to whatever someone's own personal preferences are than any kind of meaningful analysis or categorization.

i guess what im getting at is "tropes" seem to invoke the idea of specificity w/o really engaging w/ it or w/ clarity. i think obv if you are talking abt trends or patterns across fiction, you will generalize. but there are usually reference point bc the analysis comes out of the engagement w/ fiction first. often tropes are invoked in a way where there is no reference point, or it's imagined (or assumed) to an unhelpful degree, and then is applied as it's concrete and objective bc the trope itself exists within a vacuum.

ultimately tho this mode of discourse is mostly harmless if somewhat annoying. i have no idea if this is true to "real life" or whatever that means lol