#rn i will not be taking constructive criticisms. maybe in the future. but right now??? I'm trying not to be miserable

[tiffanylamps]

🔥🔥🔥🔥 of course, some beyond evil hot takes 🔥🔥🔥🔥 but also, what is some controversial opinion that you have about something entirely mundane :^0

ask me ask me ask me baby (Disclaimer: I started writing this, then had dinner, watched an episode of Bros on Foot, then had a shower and now I'm pretty exhausted (thanks rona + bad health). So my answers may seem a lil disorganised... they most likely are) Oh, gosh. I don't think I have that many opinions that are actually controversial when discussing be. But I shall still give it a go. I going to put a break here 'cause I really didn't know when to shut up. Also, sorry Iva but I feel like my answers are things we've already spoken about. So, I don't think any of this is new information to you 😩 TL;DR: Dong Sik and Joo Won shouldn't be represented by one aspect of their character. They're more complicated than that. (Including a mundane opinion at the end) (please excuse any weird funny business in this post (writing, grammar, spelling, clarity), we're trying our best here at Lamps HQ)

i. We as a fandom baby Dong Sik too much. I love Dong Sik. I adore him. He has seen and experienced far too many traumas, and I want nothing but good things for him in his future. What happened to him and his family when he was 20 was a tragedy that could have been avoided if the system (which should be in place to aid victims) wasn't systemically corrupt. He was beaten by police officers whilst in custody. He was framed and belittled, degraded, and humiliated. (the trauma he experienced is so layered and would take a lifetime for him to unpack and get closure from).

It almost completely ruined his life and future prospects, and it would have been done if Nam Sang Bae hadn't come in with his lvl 100 guilt and tried to make up for his actions. Dong Sik tried to make the best out of the awful circumstances that befell him and I sincerely admire him. Not everyone is as kind and loving as Dong Sik.... But but but... Buuuuut that doesn't absolve him of his actions. He murdered someone with his bare hands and allowed the system that was once put against him to be used in his favour.

Police officers shouldn't be murdering civilians. full stop. Yes, he was emotionally compromised- technically it could be seen as self-defence, but an unconvicted man, a suspect, was murdered and Dong Sik didn't face repercussions. Nam Sang Bae skewed the evidence so Dong Sik didn't get into trouble. Dong Sik took a year (?) off work after that event and to "help" him recover, Sang Bae got Dong Sik transferred to his substation (which Sang Bae had been demoted to as a result of one of his rookies dying on the job. Although, it wasn't deemed much of a punishment considering he was so close to retiring anyway). All the while, Dong Sik feels justified for his actions (as he did when he moved Min Jeong's fingers). (Screenshots from the translated script book/author's notes doc)

I think it's best that when discussing and exploring Dong Sik's character, we remember that he is a man capable of murder. He is a murderer. (Do I blame him for what he did? No, not really. I can see why he did it. Objectively, I fucking love it for the narrative lol). But yeah, he isn't a guiltless sweet baby angel who never did anything wrong in his life. (DISCLAIMER: obviously jokes are just jokes. I love them and I never want them to stop. I am super guilty of participating in this line of joking and I'm not about to stop any time soon. But when discussing DS in serious conversations, we shouldn't erase his history. By doing that, we are devoiding him of agency and retribution (which is one of the main arcs/themes of his character development)).

ii. Joo Won is autistic and people need to stop calling him stupid. I will die on this hill, I don't care. I fully encourage everyone to bully Joo Won, because, well, he fucking deserves it. I know that bullying him is a hilarious love language the fandom has developed and I fully participate in this pastime. I honestly love it. Yes, he has done a lot wrong and shouldn't be absolved of his sins (that being said, we should allow him the space to learn and grow. We should learn to forgive whilst still keeping him and ourselves in check). But where I draw the line is when people outright laugh at his characteristics/actions which are derived from the fact that Joo Won is coded as autistic.

I know not everyone is going to be particularly versed in neurodivergent symptoms and that is completely fine. I even didn't fully clock Joo Won being autistic the first time I watched the show- I "labelled" his actions as a result of one) his obscenely privileged upbringing and two) the fact that he (imo) has some degree of OCD (which is a type of anxiety disorder). Then it hit me one day that he is soooo autistic. A few examples (I'm too ill to list each one or go into full detail): 1- People say that he's a bad detective. Which, ugh. 2- That he should have seen the "obvious" signs that Dong Sik wasn't the killer earlier. This sentiment completely ignores the timeline of the show and the fact that the viewer is provided information that Joo Won doesn't have access to. And it also removes Dong Sik's accountability for being purposely obtuse and antagonistic. 3- the whole (very minor) narrative that joo won is lame because he has terrible people skills (or something along those lines, I can't quite remember the tags I read as it was a while ago). This one, in particular, ties in with Joo Won's autism coding. With a (relatively sound) understanding of what autism looks like in male adults, to me, it would seem that a lot of what Joo Won does (speaking bluntly, getting easily confused when provided a lot of information during an intense situation, overwhelm, struggling to gauge people's emotions/tone, being very black and white, hyper focussing on a topic of interest, struggling to adapt to new social environments, masking, issues with food and sensory stimulation, etc) can be credited to autism. Perhaps I'm connecting dots that don't exist and am projecting an ideal onto his character, but as someone who grew up with multiple friends and family members who are neurodiverse (and is neurodiverse myself), I can see so many similarities between Joo Won's actions, thought processes, and mannerisms to that of a person with autism.

^ (credit) here is an overview of some characteristics of autism in adults (obviously, it's a complex topic which differs from person to person. But I can definitely connect many of these examples to joo won's character and actions). [I feel like I could say a lot more about this subject, but it would be distracting away from the original point. I have thoughts on Joo Won masking and how he struggles to mask around Dong Sik]

How does this relate to Joo Won being "stupid"? One may ask. I will try to explain it as best I can (even though I don't fully have my answer planned out). Labelling Joo Won as stupid, as a stuck-up nepo baby who did nothing for the storyline, or just a useless dolt that needed Dong Sik to spoon-feed him, completely misconstrues the source material. Joo Won is intelligent, hard-working, determined, stubborn, foolish, annoying, pompous, proud, narrow-minded, snobby, short-sighted, dedicated, loyal, loving, persistent, and perceptible to change (and even more than that). We wouldn't have a story if Joo Won was stupid. We wouldn't have a conclusion if Joo Won was stupid. Downplaying Joo Won's intelligence and chalking up his characteristics as something that makes him less-than does a complete disservice to his character as well as his importance within the story. Beyond Evil is a story with TWO leads. It's not the Dong Sik show. I can NEVER subscribe to the act of bringing one character down in order to hold another up. Dong Sik is not this all-seeing, all-knowing, flawless character. If he was, he would have never been framed for murder, he wouldn't have been stuck for 20 years, and he wouldn't have needed help in uncovering the truth. He needed Joo Won (and Ji Hwa, Jae Yi, Jung Je, Ji Hoon, Du Soo, Sang Bae, etc). Without Joo Won, he may have never found out the full truth of what happened to his sister (as how many people in his life had a part to play in the traumas he faced). So, I think it's about time that people start to recognise Joo Won as a neurodivergent character (and stop giving him a hard time for not seeing signs that WE were given), as well as stop downplaying him. Kim Soo Jin, Sim Na Yeon, and Yeo Jin Goo created such a multi-dimensional, complex, flawed character with good and bad qualities, it does a disservice to their creativity and hard work when one belittles Joo Won down to one descriptor. Dong Sik and Joo Won aren't just the idiot and the downtrodden. They're more than that and fan interpretation shouldn't rewrite the facts of the show.

Anyway... there's a point in there somewhere... I think... I have no idea if I managed to construct a reply that makes sense. I don't think I fully relayed all my thoughts on this particular matter, but we live. tbh, I feel very icky when an autistic character gets labelled as stupid or useless. It gets on my nerves and if it wasn't obvious, I am pretty protective of Joo Won (maybe I shouldn't be, but... well... here we are!). Also, as a note: I don't expect anyone to agree with my opinion that Joo Won is autistic. But yeah, I was going to include more "controversial" opinions for be, but I have already said way too much. This post reads like a rant - which it probably is - and I don't want it to ruffle anyone's feathers. It's not an attack, it's just my opinion.

As for the mundane opinion: iii. kiwis are the scum of the fruit world. They're nasty and a lot of effort to eat (considering they don't taste great), and their texture is gross. But I do think their furry shell is pretty neat, even if it makes my skin cruel. (idk why this was the first thing that came to mind lol)

(sorry Iva. Maybe one day I will learn how to give short answers😂🫣)

[caneannabelle]

ok hi guys. it’s been a while. i wrote this analysis back when Mag 187 aka Checking Out aka The One Where Helen Dies first came out and literally ever since i’ve posted it i’ve wanted to redo it because it feels. lacking. listen if there’s one thing i hate it’s incomplete media analysis and i must right my wrongs lest i be forced to look upon myself and crumble from within. that being said, i’ve been putting off this rewrite for a long long time bc Life Gets Weird. tldr this was written over the course of several months so i apologize for inconsistent quality. anyways let’s get into it!

part one: recap!

it’s been a while! let’s just go over what happened. the scene i wanna focus on in particular is this one:

VICTIM

You’ve got to help me!

ARCHIVIST

[Angrily] Don’t touch me!

[THE ARCHIVIST PULLS AWAY, AS THE VICTIM FALLS AND IS CRYING]

HELEN

Oopsie. Not so easy, is it? Keeping up your humanity?

(187).

that being said i’m gonna be kind of all over the place but! i do think that’s a good jumping off point.

part two (part one): disparaging everyone’s problematic fav

in my original post my point was that in reflexively reacting to a victim with disgust and anger jon inadvertently reveals the nature of his dedication to helping victims as ego driven, especially because this line is directly preceded by him asserting his moral high ground over helen as being a “protector” as opposed to her indulgence in destruction. what i’m saying is homeboy has a savior complex. honestly there’s a lot of evidence to support that claim but i think the most obvious example would be jordan kennedy. like.

JORDAN

…Yeah. But wrong. Sick.

What did you do to me?

ARCHIVIST

I helped you.

JORDAN

Helped me? I don’t feel right, I, I just – Ah! No I don’t – argh! I don’t want this!

(184). to be clear it’s an action with a good intent! he just wants to help someone who once helped him! BUT it also demonstrates a lack of conscious empathy. i feel like i don’t have to argue this since jordan Literally vocally said he didn’t want this several times throughout the scene but the point remains that while jon’s intent is good the actual application of his saviourism removes the autonomy of those he affects. i’m not gonna touch on the “is it objectively immoral to become an oppressor for the sake of self preservation while existing within an extreme system in which all are oppressed regardless of your individual status” query mostly because i do not have the brainpower available rn to come to my own conclusion about systems of power and the way they’re represented in tma (which is a whole other rant tbh) but jon DOES rob jordan of the ability to come to his own conclusion in this debate and make his own choice, thereby removing his autonomy. you know. autonomy. free will. the thing that is central to jon’s internal conflicts. huh.

anyways i NEED to stress that i’m not saying that he’s the same as jonah or the web or even annabelle (although annabelle is a victim. no i don’t take constructive criticism). i just want to point out that his actions reflect a lack of understanding. while he’s able to empathize with the pain others experience and is eternally hyper- aware of it he is unable to view that pain through any lense besides his own and uses it in his cycle of self pity and blame, minimizing it at any point possible in the quickest way and Not prioritizing the wishes of the victim but instead the efficiency in decreasing his own guilt. anyways back to 187- both the victim and jordan are treated as props by jon (and helen) and once they serve their purpose in reaffirming the two’s sense of self are cast aside and ignored. ok from here i’m gonna get conceptual and self indulgent bc it’s my analysis and i get to bring up vague convoluted philosophy.

part two (part two): part two

let’s talk about the distortion for a sec. i refuse to believe helen and michael were both completely gone and it was just the distortion piloting their visage, mostly because… like that’s not what the text would indicate

HELEN

Michael isn’t me. Not now.

ARCHIVIST

What happened?

HELEN

He got… distracted. Let feelings that shouldn’t have been his overwhelm me.

Lost my way.

(101). it’s heavily implied that there was SOME remainder of michael in there, even if the being wasn’t him. maybe i’m way off base here but the way i interpreted the implosion of michael was that it was driven by his inability to maintain the repressed resentment and anger he had for gertrude. like it’s pretty clear that some warped version of michael’s feelings were trapped inside of the distortion and i’d go as far as to say that they were integral to his formation as it. i’m gonna operate on the assumption that michael and helen are two separate beings here for a sec even though we know they’re not. As opposed to michael’s resentment for the archivist, helen actively sought refuge in the institute and from the small amount we saw of her Pre-Distortion it seems like her paranoia is internally directed. i think you could even say that while michael was caught in an eternal battle with the concept of connection, helen is caught in a battle with the concept of self. the point is that she thinks of jon in a less “The Archivist” sense and more as just That Guy who she had an intense connection with that one time.

ARCHIVIST

So… S-so what do you want?

HELEN

I don’t know. Helen liked you, so… there’s a lot to consider. But I will help you leave.

(101). i would also like to point out that helen’s emergence as the distortion coincides with jon coming to terms with his identity as the archivist. parallels, baby! SO helen is a newly formed being that is grappling with the concept of her own existence and jon is reevaluating his understanding of identity as he comes to terms with the fact that he is turning into the thing he’s fighting against and this is all happening at the same time. live laugh love. stay with me here, i promise i’ll get back to 187. Throughout seasons 4 and 5 helen attempts to validate her own moral decisions via jon who she once saw herself in. conversely, jon sees both an image of what he could become AND arguably a representation of his past failure in her.

ARCHIVIST

It did. I think… I mean, you remember how I was back then, how paranoid. The Not!Sasha was there, and I could sense something wasn’t right, but I just couldn’t place it. It left me a suspicious wreck. Then when Helen Richardson came in, it seemed like… she was in the same place I was, but worse, further along. I thought, maybe if I could help her, that would mean… maybe I wasn’t beyond help?

(188). helen and jon lie at opposite ends of the same spectrum. both of them derive pleasure from the suffering of others

HELEN

Oh, John! This existence can be wonderful, if you just let it.

ARCHIVIST

[Sadly] I know.

(187). needless to say that a LOT of jon's arc and the themes surrounding him focus on the concept of autonomy and addiction and i think it'd be fair to say that this component is an aspect of that. repressing these qualities is both a way of reaffirming his control and also just.. him trying to be what he perceives as Good, and season 5 is the point at which this comes to the forefront of his character- particularly the line between what is intrinsic and what he truly has control over. a battle of the concept of the self, if you will. while the two share similar traits, jon is intensely moralistic while helen indulges in a twisted sense of hedonism and both are fueled by an inability to expand their viewpoint. helen fully immerses herself within these qualities and intentionally blinds herself to any concepts of morality (indulgence), and jon actively pushes back on this as hard as he can and follows black and white moral framework (repression). this means that in order for their relationship to function he must either accept her, choosing to let go in his personal battle with autonomy OR she must break out of her worldview and conform to standards of human morality which goes against her own nature.

part three: questions i do not have the answer to

so. what does it all mean. WELL. 187 is the boiling point of all this tension. we know that helen relies on jon to validate her sense of self and we know that jon sees himself in helen, both past and present

HELEN

But that doesn’t make any sense. You barely met her. You had half an hour together, and she spent most of that ranting about mazes! She was positively delirious with paranoia!

ARCHIVIST

True. But as you’ll recall, I was pretty paranoid myself at that point.

HELEN

So what? You saw yourself in her? A sad reflection? A possible future?

(187). I’d argue that 187 is demonstrative of jon’s inability to either fall into complete indulgence in intrinsic values that lack moral validity vs. maintain and image of self that does not conflict with the values he attempts to uphold in order to find internal satisfaction and yes both of those concepts are inherently egocentric as he bases his moral judgement on what he can justify to himself instead of what can be calculated via empathy. however. paired with the alternative (helen). is that BAD. is it inherently selfish to do what you perceive as good in order to feed your own savior complex? and if so, is it inherently selfish to indulge in destructive qualities as to not delude yourself? is honesty vs deception a black and white question? if not, where does helen even fall? in not deluding herself does she achieve a moral high ground? IS she deluding herself by denying the potential to be facetiously benevolent at the detriment of both her personal enjoyment and her honesty? does helen even posses the capability to repress her violent qualities? if she doesn't, does she have any autonomy? if she and jon are both inherently selfish and intentionally resistant to introspection, what makes them different? i do not have answers but i do think the text is meant to invoke these questions. i mean,

MICHAEL (STATEMENT)

There was a great evil, she said, and Michael was going to help her fight it. Am I evil, Archivist? Is a thing evil when it simply obeys its own nature? When it embodies its nature? When that nature is created by those which revile it? Perhaps Gertrude believed so. Michael certainly did. He believed everything she told him.

(101).

part 5: conclusion

so once again. what does it all mean. well! even post helen’s death jon continues to fight for autonomy and preserve his moral worldview so. i think that probably indicates something good.

MARTIN

Huh. She couldn’t help what she was, I guess.

ARCHIVIST

She didn’t even try.

(188). i honestly don’t have a thesis i just find it incredibly interesting how the themes surrounding these two intersect and play off of each other. anyways looping back to 187 i do think in a broad sense jon killing helen is representative of him choosing to stick by his convictions and keep fighting. i don’t have any good way to end this but thanks for sticking around during my self indulgent rambling!