#tagging this as anti just in case

[lunarspiral1127]

*SPOILERS*

Okay, how is it that when she punched Strange Supreme with all six Infinity stones, her arm isn't burned? She's not wearing the Infinity armor anymore so all that power was concentrated in her fist instead of spread out. Hell, back in GOTG, Quill took the Power stone and he was in pain and he's half celestial. Thanos, Hulk, Tony, they all had their arms and some of their sided burned. How is she okay?! And it can't be because she's a super soldier, cause we've had beings stronger than her get burned by just snapping alone!

*sigh* Anyway, Strange is dead. Apparently, the episode really is using his grief as an excuse for him being this way, and he prevented his demon side to do anything while they were falling and sacrifices himself to bring back his universe, and Christine.....f***ing bullcrap. They really did Strange Supreme dirty in this season. They ruined his character all because they couldn't come up with another multiversal threat? Why couldn't it be Kang the Conquerer?! That would've been so much better. But, nope. It's Strange and he's gone.

Also, can we please stop propping up Captain Carter so much?! We get it, she's awesome, she's bad@$$, but there are other characters who are just as awesome or even more awesome that we should be seeing. I don't care if she's the main character in what's supposed to be an episodic series. Can we just move on from Peggy and focus on someone else for a change?! Yeah, there was Kahhori who was really cool, but Peggy was still the main focus here.

And, Loki's tree at the end. Does this mean that in season 3, it's gonna be Uatu AND Peggy narrating? I really hope not.

[tedkaczynskiofficial]

I love Zutara as much as the next girlie, but I think people romanticizing Zuko catching Azula's lightning in the Final Agni Kai are doing Zuko's character a massive disservice. He would have done that for anyone. Not just anyone in the Gaang, anyone.

He did it for the division he ended up getting burned over. He did it for his subordinate that was going to fall to his death after the ship was struck by lightning. He did it for Lee, when he was kidnapped by Gao. He did it for Iroh, when he confronted his dad and tried to break him out of prison. He did it for the whole Gaang at the Western Air Temple. He did it for Sokka, Suki, and Hakoda at the Boiling Rock.

His whole character revolves around saving everyone else first. Hell, he tried to save Zhao of all people! There's no way that would have gone well for Zuko if Zhao had actually taken his hand. He always does what he thinks is right first before considering his own safety.

Zuko always saves other people. Even if, especially if, he can't save himself.

[ecoterrorist-katara]

the anti-Zutara criticism that “Zutara shippers are teenage girls who only like the ship because they self-insert as Katara” is actually so funny because how does that delegitimize the ship? So…girls who relate to Katara like Zuko, and they think Katara would like Zuko, and that’s bad because…girls are wrong? Girls are shallow? Girls don’t know what’s good for them? Anyway if I were a grown ass man who created a fictional teenage girl that lots of real teenage girls relate to, and these girls believe she would like character B instead of character A, I hope I’d have the humility to say to myself “hmm I wonder why people who relate to this character’s feelings and motivations think she would react this way” instead of jumping straight to “these girls are doomed to like toxic relationships”

(And I know Zutara shippers like the ship for many different reasons, and self-insert is not the most popular by a long shot, I’m just saying that the criticism of self-insert stems from dismissal of what teenage girls like, and that feels kinda misogynistic to me)

[alicent-archive]

Actually it’s so funny to me, because while Daemon absolutely DRAGS his arranged marriage through the mud and openly slanders his wife at ANY opportunity, Rhea just…didn’t gaf about that man AT ALL 😭😭😭.

Girly was riding horses, handling falcons and her own damn business, and remained completely unbothered by Daemon’s deeply unserious antics until the day she died.

[winterinvelaris]

and if i said elain's attraction to azriel is rooted in the fact that she feels less for him than she did for graysen and that makes her feel less guilty about it. what then. and if i also said that elain is avoiding lucien because she feels too much for him and she can't handle that guilt yet. what then. AND IF I SAID THATS EXACTLY WHAT FEYRE DID WITH THE TAMLIN-TARQUIN-RHYSAND SITUATION. WHAT THEN.

[opalsiren]

man the atla finale is still sooooo bittersweet to me. zuko taking a bolt of lightning for katara, she takes down azula and heals him through tears. sokka and suki and toph taking down the airship fleet. aang defeating firelord ozai through conveniently-placed rock chiropractory and a hastily thrown together final twist. sokka and katara being reunited with their dad. ty lee joining the kyoshi warriors. mai and zuko getting back together, for some reason. zuko becomes firelord. toph is also there, but the question of her relationship with her parents continuing remains unanswered. zuko going to confront his father about his mother's whereabouts. iroh opening a tea shop in the city he besieged for a year instead of advising his beloved nephew in his new role as firelord. the final scene is a twelve-year-old tongue kissing a fourteen-year-old, for some reason. truly the epic highs and lows of the atla finale cannot be overstated

[iamnmbr3]

I keep thinking about the fact that hinny is kind of the opposite of drarry in the sense that Harry really shouldn't know that much about Draco but he does, while he should know a lot about Ginny but he doesn't.

Harry and Draco aren't friends and aren't even in the same House but Harry is so attuned to him that he remembers items Draco looked at in a shop more than 4 years previously, knows every detail of his appearance down to the exact shade of his eyes and skin, and can recognize him instantly just by the sound of his footsteps or a glimpse of him from far away. He also knows a lot about Draco's interests and beliefs and can usually tell his exact mood just by a look at his face.

Conversely, Harry and Ginny are in the same House and Harry has also spent every summer since second year living with her, plus holidays during 5th and 6th year. They also start dating in the end of sixth year. Despite this fact Harry has never even been in her room till 7th year and when he goes in, he shows no sign of recognition at the posters he sees there. You'd think, for example, that he would already know that she likes the Harpies and the Weird Sisters and thus think about how of course she has that in her room, or something. Who are her friends? Who knows? Certainly not Harry! What kind of wand does she have? Harry doesn't know. (Even though he does know both of these things about Draco). What does she want to do after graduating? How did she handle the trauma of what happened with Riddle in book 2? Does she have any insights from that that could be helpful? No idea. Harry's doesn't care and isn't interested in finding out.

Honestly, when he thinks of her it's mostly about her physical features. And even then, her eye color only gets mentioned once - in book 7, and we still don't get the specific shade. I'll buy that he feels lust for her. But love? Honestly I find myself once again thinking about the parallels between hinny and ron/lavender.

Consider:

Versus:

Kinda sounds like both the relationships being described are light on the talking side of things...

Also guess what the first thing Harry does after kissing Ginny, the alleged love of his life is? If you guessed "looks lovingly into her eyes" or "says something to her" you'd be wrong. Here's what goes down:

That's right guys, gals and nonbinary pals. He looks right over the top of Ginny's head (and isn't that a metaphor for their relationship right there - he's literally overlooking her to think about other stuff) to check in with Ron. His actual priority - the person whose opinion and regard he actually cares about.

[sapphic-agent]

Let's Talk About How Book 3 Ruined Aang

If you've seen any of my prior ATLA posts, you know that I don't hate Aang. In fact, I quite liked him in Books 1 and 2. He was flawed, as all characters should be, but the show didn't shy away from those flaws or justify them. He was called out for burning Katara and rushing his firebending, Sokka and Katara were rightfully upset when he hid Hakoda's letter, he willingly owns up to the fact that his actions helped drive Toph away, and his entire arc after losing Appa and finding hope again in The Serpent's Path was beautifully done.

(Hell, even in The Great Divide Katara says what Aang did was wrong and he agrees. It's played for comedy, but the show still makes the effort to point out that what he did wasn't the right thing to do. You're just meant to understand that he was fed up and acted off of that)

Those flaws and mistakes were addressed and improved upon and helped Aang to grow as a character.

But for some reason, that aspect of Aang's character was completely flipped in Book 3.

The best examples of this are in both TDBS and EIP. Both the show and the fandom are too quick to brush off that Aang kissed Katara twice without her consent, one of which after she explicitly said she was confused about her feelings.

(And yes, she is angry in response and Aang calls himself an idiot. But after this, it isn't really addressed. They go on like nothing happened for the rest of the episode. Aang's lamentation comes from screwing things up with her romantically, not that he violated boundaries)

The show never really addressed why what he did was wrong. Not only because he wasn't given consent, but also because both times he isn't thinking about what Katara wants. In both instances, Aang is only thinking about himself and his feelings. This is something that persists through a lot of the third book. And by Sozin's Comet it ultimately ruins any character development he had built up in the second book.

One thing I feel was completely disregarded was the concept of having to let go of Katara in order to master the Avatar State.

For me, the implication wasn't that he had to give up love or happiness necessarily. He was emotionally attached to and reliant on Katara, to the point where she was needed to stop him from hurting everyone around him and himself. This is obviously detrimental to his functionality as the Avatar. And the point of him "letting her go" wasn't that he had to stop caring about her, it was that his emotional dependency on her was stopping him from being the Avatar he needed to be and that was what needed to be fixed. I don't even think it's about the Avatar State itself, it's about being able to keep your emotions and duty as the Avatar separate.

(If you look at Roku, he loved and had a wife. It wasn't his love for her that messed everything up, it was his attachment to Sozin. He wasn't able to let Sozin go and not only did he lose his life for it, the world suffered for it. It's the unhealthy attachments that seem to be detrimental, not love itself)

And Aang realizes that in the catacombs, which is how he's able to easily enter the Avatar State and seemingly control it. He let Katara go.

So then why does it seem like his attachment to Katara is not only stronger, but worse in mannerism? He liked Katara in Books 1 and 2- obviously- but he was never overly jealous of Jet or Haru. He only makes one harmless comment in Book 2 when Sokka suggests Katara kiss Jet.

But suddenly he's insanely jealous of Zuko (to the point of getting frustrated with Katara over it), off the basis of the actions of actors in a clearly misrepresentative play. Katara showed a lot more interest in Jet and Aang was completely fine with it.

(Speaking of EIP, Aang's reaction to being played by a woman was interesting. He wore a flower crown in The Cave of Two Lovers. He wove Katara a flower necklace. He wore Kyoshi's clothes and makeup and made a funny girl voice. He willingly responded to Twinkle Toes and had no issue being called that. And for some reason he's genuinely upset about being played by a woman? Aang in Books 1 and 2 would have laughed and enjoyed the show like Toph did. His aversion to feminity felt vastly out of character)

I guess my point is, why did that change? Why was Aang letting go of Katara suddenly irrelevant to the Avatar State? It felt like him letting go was supposed to be a major part of his development. Why did that stop?

Myself and many others have talked about The Southern Raiders. The jist of my thought process about it is his assumption that he knew what was best for Katara. And the episode doesn't really call out why he was wrong. Maybe sparing Yon Rha was better for Katara, maybe it wasn't (the only one who's allowed to make that choice is her). Pushing forgiveness? That was wrong. But the episode has Zuko say that Aang was right when the course of action Katara took wasn't what Aang suggested.

Katara's lesson here was that killing him wouldn't bring back her mother or mend the pain she was going through and that Yon Rha wasn't worth the effort. That's what she realizes. Not that she needed to embrace forgiveness. How could she ever forgive that? The episode saying Aang was right wasn't true. Yes she forgives Zuko, but that wasn't what Aang was talking about. He was specifically talking about Yon Rha.

And that was wrong. Aang can choose the path of forgiveness, that's fine. That's his choice. But dismissing Katara's trauma in favor of his morals and upbringing wasn't okay.

I know it sounds like this is just bashing Kataang. But it's not simply because I don't like Kataang, in my opinion it brings down Aang's character too, not just Katara's. But let's steer away from Kataang and Katara for a minute.

The one thing that solidifies Aang's character being ruined in Book 3 for me is the fact that he- at the end of the story- does the same thing he did in the beginning.

He runs away when things get hard.

Aang couldn't make the choice between his duty and his morals. So he ran. Maybe it wasn't intentional, but subconsciously he wanted an out. And this is really disappointing when one of the things he was firm about in Book 2 was not running anymore. His character went backwards here and that's not even getting into the real issue in Sozin's Comet.

There's been contention about the Lion Turtle intervention. For many- including myself- it's very deus ex machina to save Aang from having to make a hard decision. And that in turn doesn't reflect kindly on his character.

Everyone- Sokka, Zuko, Roku, Kyoshi, Kuruk, and Yangchen (who was another Airbender and was raised with the same beliefs he was and would understand which was the whole point of him talking to her)- told him he had to kill Ozai. They all told him it was the only way. And he refused to listen to any of them, rotating through his past lives until he was given the answer he wanted.

And before anyone says that I'm bashing Aang for following his culture, I'm not. Ending the war peacefully, in my opinion, wasn't the problem. In a way, I think it allowed the world to heal properly. However, that doesn't make up for the fact that Aang refused to make a choice and face the consequences of that choice. Instead, he's given an out at the very last second.

Even if he couldn't kill Ozai and someone else had to deliver the final blow, that would have been better than the Lion Turtle showing up and giving him a power no one's ever had before. It would have been a good compromise, he doesn't have to have blood directly on his hands but what needs to be done needs to still get done. It would also show that being the Avatar isn't a burden he has to bear alone. That when things get hard, he can't run away but he can rely on the people closest to him to help him through hard decisions.

All these issues aren't necessarily a problem with Aang. Aang prior to Book 3 didn't have most of these problems. This is a problem with the way he was handled

[kinaaaard]

not to be petty or bemoan what should be a ostensibly ignored talking point but it is kind of ridiculous that so many of the anti-tommy people (mostly on twitter) harp on about how they don’t find lou to be attractive (to paraphrase some of the gentler sentiments passed around).

which, fine, YOU don’t have to find him attractive. that’s your prerogative! but your favorite tv character does find him attractive, which is what….matters. it feels indicative of a larger issue that….shipping folks need both sides of their ship to be CW-looking men. non-threatening with gentler features, model-tuned and effete. in the larger scheme of things, lou is VERY attractive. but when it comes to shipping fictional characters, they need to have softer, more affable features — almost like they need to appeal purely to a certain subsection of the female gaze! which is ridiculous.

lou is a man, LOOKS like a traditionally masculine man. which is part of the reason buck likes tommy so much. which is not to say that any other actor isn’t that (traditionally masculine, esp while playing a gay character) but once it breaches outside their accepted barriers of what a….shippable man should look like, it comes off as spiteful and childish, and ultimately, a deviation of what the “aesthetically pleasing” presentation of what a gay couple should look like. I don’t know lmfao i’m just really peeved at the people going after lou’s looks.

[bluuscreen]

That is what a proshipper is though - ship and let ship and not judging or harrassing people who like fiction even if you find it disturbing or disgusting. So if you see something you dislike just scroll away. Proshippers get a bad rep because of antis who think all proshippers are pedophiles.

i guess i’m specifically talking about people who wear it like a badge and only wanna piss off “antis” rather than create or support works purely for the artistic value of it and safe exploration of taboo topics that you can do in fiction. like that’s what i mean by labelling yourself by what fiction you prefer—why does it matter? why do you feel the need to tell people that, when you can just like what you like and not like what you don’t?

me not wanting to watch game of thrones because of the incest and sexual assault doesn’t make me an antishipper any more than watching it and enjoying that those aspects are included [for whatever reason] makes someone a proshipper, it’s just a fucking show. some people are made uncomfortable by phantom of the opera because of the age gap and power dynamic between the phantom and christine, but it’s my favourite musical. that doesn’t make me a proshipper. they’re almost meaningless words and people can just Have Preferences without it having to be their whole personality

[sunfyrisms]

baela and rhaena i’m so sorry. y’all deserve better than your mom dying a horrible death, your dad fucking and marrying his niece immediately after your said mom’s funeral, and being a glorified cheerleader and babysitter for your dad’s niece. respectively. like oh my god.

[wishesofeternity]

I find it so very convenient that Nettles’ appalling erasure in HOTD S2 means that the showrunners probably won’t have to confront the fact that Rhaenyra – who they have textually glorified as divinely ordained to rule and the 'rightful' heir to the throne – was canonically a racist, entitled piece of shit who tried to sabotage and murder her own ally purely out of spite and jealousy.

[sneezypeasy]

Why I Deliberately Avoided the "Colonizer" Argument in my Zutara Thesis - and Why I'll Continue to Avoid it Forever

This is a question that occasionally comes up under my Zutara video essay, because somehow in 2 hours worth of content I still didn't manage to address everything (lol.) But this argument specifically is one I made a point of avoiding entirely, and there are some slightly complicated reasons behind that. I figure I'll write them all out here.

From a surface-level perspective, Zuko's whole arc, his raison d'etre, is to be a de-colonizer. Zuko's redemption arc is kinda all about being a de-colonizer, and his redemption arc is probably like the most talked about plot point of ATLA, so from a basic media literacy standpoint, the whole argument is unsound in the first place, and on that basis alone I find it childish to even entertain as an argument worth engaging with, to be honest.

(At least one person in my comments pointed out that if any ship's "political implications" are problematic in some way, it really ought to be Maiko, as Mai herself is never shown or suggested to be a strong candidate for being a de-colonizing co-ruler alongside Zuko. If anything her attitudes towards lording over servants/underlings would make her… a less than suitable choice for this role, but I digress.)

But the reason I avoided rebutting this particular argument in my video goes deeper than that. From what I've observed of fandom discourse, I find that the colonizer argument is usually an attempt to smear the ship as "problematic" - i.e., this ship is an immoral dynamic, which would make it problematic to depict as canon (and by extension, if you ship it regardless, you're probably problematic yourself.)

And here is where I end up taking a stand that differentiates me from the more authoritarian sectors of fandom.

I'm not here to be the fandom morality police. When it comes to lit crit, I'm really just here to talk about good vs. bad writing. (And when I say "good", I mean structurally sound, thematically cohesive, etc; works that are well-written - I don't mean works that are morally virtuous. More on this in a minute.) So the whole colonizer angle isn't something I'm interested in discussing, for the same reason that I actually avoided discussing Katara "mothering" Aang or the "problematic" aspects of the Kataang ship (such as how he kissed her twice without her consent). My whole entire sections on "Kataang bad" or "Maiko bad" in my 2 hour video was specifically, "how are they written in a way that did a disservice to the story", and "how making them false leads would have created valuable meaning". I deliberately avoided making an argument that consisted purely of, "here's how Kataang/Maiko toxic and Zutara wholesome, hence Zutara superiority, the end".

Why am I not willing to be the fandom morality police? Two reasons:

I don't really have a refined take on these subjects anyway. Unless a piece of literature or art happens to touch on a particular issue that resonates with me personally, the moral value of art is something that doesn't usually spark my interest, so I rarely have much to say on it to begin with. On the whole "colonizer ship" subject specifically, other people who have more passion and knowledge than me on the topic can (and have) put their arguments into words far better than I ever could. I'm more than happy to defer to their take(s), because honestly, they can do these subjects justice in a way I can't. Passing the mic over to someone else is the most responsible thing I can do here, lol. But more importantly:

I reject the conflation of literary merit with moral virtue. It is my opinion that a good story well-told is not always, and does not have to be, a story free from moral vices/questionable themes. In my opinion, there are good problematic stories and bad "pure" stories and literally everything in between. To go one step further, I believe that there are ways that a romance can come off "icky", and then there are ways that it might actually be bad for the story, and meming/shitposting aside, the fact that these two things don't always neatly align is not only a truth I recognise about art but also one of those truths that makes art incredibly interesting to me! So on the one hand, I don't think it is either fair or accurate to conflate literary "goodness" with moral "goodness". On a more serious note, I not only find this type of conflation unfair/inaccurate, I also find it potentially dangerous - and this is why I am really critical of this mindset beyond just disagreeing with it factually. What I see is that people who espouse this rhetoric tend to encourage (or even personally engage in) wilful blindness one way or the other, because ultimately, viewing art through these lens ends up boxing all art into either "morally permissible" or "morally impermissible" categories, and shames anyone enjoying art in the "morally impermissible" box. Unfortunately, I see a lot of people responding to this by A) making excuses for art that they guiltily love despite its problematic elements and/or B) denying the value of any art that they are unable to defend as free from moral wickedness.

Now, I'm not saying that media shouldn't be critiqued on its moral virtue. I actually think morally critiquing art has its place, and assuming it's being done in good faith, it absolutely should be done, and probably even more often than it is now.

Because here's the truth: Sometimes, a story can be really good. Sometimes, you can have a genuinely amazing story with well developed characters and powerful themes that resonate deeply with anyone who reads it. Sometimes, a story can be all of these things - and still be problematic.*

(Or, sometimes a story can be all of those things, and still be written by a problematic author.)

That's why I say, when people conflate moral art with good art, they become blind to the possibility that the art they like being potentially immoral (or vice versa). If only "bad art" is immoral, how can the art that tells the story hitting all the right beats and with perfect rhythm and emotional depth, be ever problematic?

(And how can the art I love, be ever problematic?)

This is why I reject the idea that literary merit = moral virtue (or vice versa) - because I do care about holding art accountable. Even the art that is "good art". Actually, especially the art that is "good art". Especially the art that is well loved and respected and appreciated. The failure to distinguish literary critique from moral critique bothers me on a personal level because I think that conflating the two results in the detriment of both - the latter being the most concerning to me, actually.

So while I respect the inherent value of moral criticism, I'm really not a fan of any argument that presents moral criticism as equivalent to literary criticism, and I will call that out when I see it. And from what I've observed, a lot of the "but Zutara is a colonizer ship" tries to do exactly that, which is why I find it a dishonest and frankly harmful media analysis framework to begin with.

But even when it is done in good faith, moral criticism of art is also just something I personally am neither interested nor good at talking about, and I prefer to talk about the things that I am interested and good at talking about.

(And some people are genuinely good at tackling the moral side of things! I mean, I for one really enjoyed Lindsay Ellis's take on Rent contextualising it within the broader political landscape at the time to show how it's not the progressive queer story it might otherwise appear to be. Moral critique has value, and has its place, and there are definitely circumstances where it can lead to societal progress. Just because I'm not personally interested in addressing it doesn't mean nobody else can do it let alone that nobody else should do it, but also, just because it can and should be done, doesn't mean that it's the only "one true way" to approach lit crit by anyone ever. You know, sometimes... two things… can be true… at once?)

Anyway, if anyone reading this far has recognised that this is basically a variant of the proship vs. antiship debate, you're right, it is. And on that note, I'm just going to leave some links here. I've said about as much as I'm willing/able to say on this subject, but in case anyone is interested in delving deeper into the philosophy behind my convictions, including why I believe leftist authoritarian rhetoric is harmful, and why the whole "but it would be problematic in real life" is an anti-ship argument that doesn't always hold up to scrutiny, I highly recommend these posts/threads:

In general this blog is pretty solid; I agree with almost all of their takes - though they focus more specifically on fanfic/fanart than mainstream media, and I think quite a lot of their arguments are at least somewhat appropriate to extrapolate to mainstream media as well.

I also strongly recommend Bob Altemeyer's book "The Authoritarians" which the author, a verified giga chad, actually made free to download as a pdf, here. His work focuses primarily on right-wing authoritarians, but a lot of his research and conclusions are, you guessed it, applicable to left-wing authoritarians also.

And if you're an anti yourself, welp, you won't find support from me here. This is not an anti-ship safe space, sorrynotsorry 👆

In conclusion, honestly any "but Zutara is problematic" argument is one I'm likely to consider unsound to begin with, let alone the "Zutara is a colonizer ship" argument - but even if it wasn't, it's not something I'm interested in discussing, even if I recognise there are contexts where these discussions have value. I resent the idea that just because I have refined opinions on one aspect of a discussion means I must have (and be willing to preach) refined opinions on all aspects of said discussion. (I don't mean to sound reproachful here - actually the vast majority of the comments I get on my video/tumblr are really sweet and respectful, but I do get a handful of silly comments here and there and I'm at the point where I do feel like this is something worth saying.) Anyway, I'm quite happy to defer to other analysts who have the passion and knowledge to give complicated topics the justice they deserve. All I request is that care is taken not to conflate literary criticism with moral criticism to the detriment of both - and I think it's important to acknowledge when that is indeed happening. And respectfully, don't expect me to give my own take on the matter when other people are already willing and able to put their thoughts into words so much better than me. Peace ✌

*P.S. This works for real life too, by the way. There are people out there who are genuinely not only charming and likeable, but also generous, charitable and warm to the vast majority of the people they know. They may also be amazing at their work, and if they have a job that involves saving lives like firefighting or surgery or w.e, they may even be the reason dozens of people are still alive today. They may honestly do a lot of things you'd have to concede are "good" deeds.

They may be all of these things, and still be someone's abuser. 🙃

Two things can be true at once. It's important never to forget that.

[leportraitducadavre]

Edo-Tensei implies the sacrifice of a living human being for their body to become the vessel of the soul they're trying to bring back. What this author means is that Sasuke and Sakura are willing to perform inhumane acts to "see each other again".

The jutsu was created by Tobirama, someone Sasuke despises.

This is the same jutsu Orochimaru, whom Sakura admitted to hating as he "took Sasuke away from Konoha", used; why would she willingly use a jutsu from his book?

The caster has complete control of the person they summon, the person that was "revived" has no real volition of their own. Obito, who used to love Rin, never even entertained the idea of summoning her (and thus, controlling her), what a disgusting thing to do to someone you "love".

This is the same man who canonically has the chance to see his wife whenever he pleases, yet he doesn't, why on earth would he revive her? Why wouldn't he revive Itachi, Mikoto, or Fugaku for that matter?

Sakura has little to no knowledge of füinjutsu, let alone enough chakra to perform something like this.

Sasuke having a "moment" with Itachi doesn't translate to him actually liking the technique.

"Sasuke and Sakura are only thinking of a possibility" is just as awful as performing it; they're willing to do such a monstrous thing to others to fulfill their selfish wishes. The fact that they didn't do it isn't because they aren't prone to do so, but because they didn't have to, as both are still alive.

Edo-tensei is not romantic, at all. It's one of the worst techniques ever invented as it was devised to seek control over powerful (deceased) shinobi to use their souls/techniques as tools of military power. The person revived has no control over their actions, so they see themselves committing acts they might not agree with because the person who summoned them wanted their strength. Its origin was about complete control of a human being (humiliation likely plays a part, as having no control over your body yet having your mind intact is the ultimate form of torture), the possession of the power of others, and the ultimate tool as those revived receive no real damage as they respawn.

Edit to add: This line was, in fact, in Sasuke Retsuden (in the manga adaptation Sasuke never actually confirmed this, as it was Sakura who replied for him -lol-). Jun Esaka just butchered the entirety of Sasuke's characterization, this woman was paid to write a SasuSaku story and couldn't even bother to understand and respect the characters' original personality, having to modify everything about them and using their trauma as a "romantic device" to show "how much Sasuke and Sakura love each other". I have no respect for her as an author, at least, not as an author inside the Narutoverse.

[aeolusinthesky]

love danny phantom, mlb, and dc, but somehow not the crossovers? idk why. you would think id find it the best of both/all worlds but i just cant get behind the oversaturation of the crossovers in fanfic, probably because so much of what makes the originals so interesting gets lost in translation. this holds true for so many elements in these three seperate things, but mostly its the fanonization of the batfam and particularly tim drake that turns me off. the way fanon sees tim has truly turned me off the character

[kelzen]