#the most redeemable characters from the boys would be the most irredeemable character of any other show

[flower-boi16]

My opinion on Stolas might be a bit different from most people who openly voiced their hatred towards him.

Honestly I wouldn't say he's evil, but I also won't say he's a saint either. The guy just honestly needs a bit of a wake up call that yeah, he kind of was looking down on Blitz by calling him his little imp plaything and what happened in Ozzie's. To truly think about how the way he treated him and being called those things would lead Blitz to thinking that he doesn't love him.

And to be blunt... it seems more like he in love with falling in love. Let me in explain. The guy was trapped in an unhappy marriage where the only light in it was his daughter, so of course he might wanna look for an escape of sorts. Something akin to a knight in shining armor saving a princess from an evil witch, taking her on his steed and living happily ever after.

But the problem here that in pursuit of that fantasy, he's also neglecting Octavia. So what I'm hoping for is for the call out to come from her and that would be the breaking point for Stolas, that he really wasn't the innocent party in this as he thought to be and take the steps to truly improve and find a way to make it up to Blitz.

The thing is, that is exactly what Season 1 was trying to do. Season 1 Stolas was a man who made many mistakes that ended up hurting others, he was consumed by his own lustful desires and in the process he hurt the ones he cared about.

Part of what makes Loo Loo Land such a fantastic episode is that Stolas goes through some level of character development in that episode; he realizes that he made a mistake that hurt his daughter and, he decides to fix it by taking her to a place that she likes, even if he probably doesn't care for it.

It shows that he has more dimension beyond being a horny twink. Season 1 knew that Stolas wasn't a great person but it still gave him redeeming qualities to make him at least reedamable. I don't Season 2 Stolas (as a person) is irredeemable, but Season 2 really took everything that made Stolas interesting and threw it out the window.

The fundemental problem with how Season 2 is handling Stolas is the season's insistance of painting him as the vitcim in every situation he's in; I've said this many times before but it bares repeating; anyone who was hurt by Stolas' past actions is demonized by the narrative. Stella is turned into a one-dimensional bitch so Stolas cheating on her could make him look sympathetic. Octavia is told to cut her father some slack because he's "trying his best" even when the series shows us the exact opposite. And Blitz is told that he just hates Stolas for being a prince and is frammed as jaded and biased by the narrative even when he has no reason to think Stolas loves him given everything Stolas did to him in Season 1.

Every problem Stolas has as a character began in The Circus, where it decides to add in that "Stolas just wanted genuine affection and thought he had that with Blitz" thing, which came out of nowhere and directly contradicts what Season 1 first established, it's such a weird change in his character and feels completely different to what Season 1 gave us. It's a retcon because it doesn't line up with what was set up in the first season.

And this, in a vaccume, isn't even a terrible idea for a character, it could be interesting on it's own, but it contridicts what was previously established and turns Stolas into an UwU soft sad boy.

I don't really think that they are going to call Stolas out, at all. From what I've heard there are leaks that say that Octavia was tricked by Andre and Stella into hating Stolas, so he is now being frammed as a victim again.

Stolas had the groundwork for being the best character in the show but bad writting turned him into the worst. And at this point I don't think there's any fixing him at this point, it'll just come across and as too little too late.

[merirat]

They're never going to do anything like this in Hazbin Hotel because they've only got eight episodes per season, but I would be mightily impressed if they dove into the grey space of redemption.

I mean, the initial conceit of the show as set out by the pilot was Charlie's view of redemption (possible) vs Alastor's (impossible).

Season one proved that Charlie was right, even if the characters themselves don't know it yet, so what is the new conceit? That everyone can be redeemed vs only some can be redeemed? Is self-sacrifice required?

To flip that coin on its side: Is it possible to be redeemed by becoming completely irredeemable?

We're going to run with Alastor for this example, because of course we are.

Does he want to be redeemed? I think that's unlikely. He's amoral at best and can do pretty much anything he wants in Hell.

Still, it's possible. It's been stated that he's a bit of a mama's boy. If she was in Hell, he would have found her by now, so he might want to reach Heaven to see her again. Or fears her seeing what he is...

So Alastor doesn't want [or tells himself he doesn't want] to be redeemed and thinks it's impossible [or tells himself it's impossible]. Finding out about Sir Pentious means nothing. He was misclassified. Exceptions prove the rule.

And he's not wrong. Pentious seems like a "fallen into the wrong crowd" kinda guy. He repented the things he did. He atoned for them. He was absolved.

Alastor doesn't regret anything. He killed people when he was alive and probably killed them again in Hell for good measure. And then ate their liver. Because fuck those guys.

They are dead and double-dead. You can't atone for that.

But...

He isn't active. He's reactive.

He makes deals by responding to the chaos of Hell rather than creating it. He seems to acquire power just to keep others from having it and holding it over him.

He's an Overlord with no authority. He doesn't have a territory. He doesn't control a district. He has the radio waves, but they're inherent to his nature. It's not like commanding a slew of sinners.

He has power he doesn't wield. Which is to say, he doesn't throw his weight around to throw his weight around. He took down Overlords? Well... did they meet the criteria? He's a serial killer. He has a victim profile. He doesn't go after people on a whim, otherwise he would have eaten Susan by now.

Sir Pentious? Came at him. Vox? Same deal. Loan sharks? Attacked his place of residence. Exorcists? See both of the above... and his first act in that fight was to produce a shield, mitigating damage to the other hotel residents.

Ignoring his breakdown about almost dying for others for the moment, Alastor has been consistently described as terrible — and is definitely manipulative and deceitful — but has proven willing to pull all stops for the things that are important to him. Even if, to his horror, those things turn out to be other sinners.

So what does any of this have to do with the price of cabbage?

Alastor is, shall we say, living in Interesting Times™. There's an almost constant threat to his ecosystem: Heaven, Vox, whatever bullshit caused him to broker a deal. I don't think it's beyond the scope of his personality to do anything and everything to preserve what he feels he needs. Up to and including the vilest, most heinous, offensive to Creation itself strategy that comes down the pike.

Consume the core of the threat and be forever tainted? Sure.

Become a living cage for the essence of Evil itself? You bet.

Fuse himself to the very nature of Hell so that he can never leave? Wasn't planning to anyway.

Fight God and eat the heart of the Almighty if he wins? Fire up the barbeque.

In short, become so horribly corrupted that he's barely a shell of humanity, let alone redeemable, and in doing so save every soul in both Heaven and Hell?

What the hell do you do with a shining beacon of depravity?

[deadbeat-motel]

Just saw and commented on your new sinner designs, LOVE them all so much!

I do have to ask because your Deadbeat Motel lives rent-free in my head at this point, already a much better execution than HH IMO. Would Charlie and Valerie be tryna redeem Crymini, Sir Pentious and Cherri Bomb- and possibly Husk and Nifty- or would their main focus of redemption still just be Angel Dust?

And one more question, does our silly awkward transmasc anglerfish king Baxter come into this story at all?

Ah! I'm really happy to hear that since I've been using this as an exercise in writing and character-building. Plus It's genuinely the only way I'm able to enjoy HH as I'm fixing so many big issues that I have about it wasting the potential of some genuinely amazing and creative concepts. (AngelDust, Charlie and Nifty come into mind)

Also, I'm really glad you asked (since looking at my schedule, it might take me a while to finish everyone's rewrites and redesigns) So here's the answer to your question (and a sprinkle of trivia about Deadbeat Motel):

Charlie, Redemption and the Sinners:

Charlie and Valerie will be focusing on redeeming Every sinner of the motel, including Alastor (who in this rewrite, is not a patron of the hotel but a powerful overlord who was roped into this project because of Lilith's meddling).

The sinners and Valerie all have varying degrees of faith in this project (A little spoiler-y but who cares, I'm not making an Amazon show.): > Valerie is in this project because she too wants to know if there is a chance for a sinner (maybe even her) can find some way to become good enough to be accepted in heaven. Despite having been taught to know that the answer is "no.", Charlie has taught her to believe in what others think is impossible. > Angel Dust is honestly only here because it's the first place that feels safe for him. He doesn't believe it's possible to redeem him but he's happy enough to have a place that Val can't find some way to ruin. > Despite his pessimistic outlook, there's a part of him that would want redemption to be possible. His son died fairly young and was in heaven, so far out of his reach. If redemption is possible, then maybe he can see him again. > Nifty is indifferent, to her, it was all grown-up talk she wasn't interested in. Redemption? Blegh, if it was a boy, it would most certainly be one she would stray away from. > Cherri Bomb doesn't care about redemption and frankly thinks it's impossible, she's just here because no other Women Group wants her and this is the only one that wants to accept her that has only 3 men. Even if it's possible, she doubts that the people she hurt want to forgive her. > Crymini doesn't even fully understand why she's here and hates hell. She's just in this project because she thinks she deserves to be up there in heaven. She doesn't believe she needs to do any kind of redeeming. > Alastor has absolutely no faith in the project and that he can be redeemed, he thinks it a waste of time as he knows that even certain people belong in hell (Overlords like himself for example. Humans who earned that spot in hell for their Heinous sins while they were alive.) He's only here because he struck a deal with Lilith to look after Charlie. > Pentious...... I'm still working on her

If I had to rank them from Most redeemable to irredeemable, It'd be: Crymini -> Husk -> Pentious -> Nifty -> Angel Dust -> CherriBomb -> Alastor

Oh! and to be true to the name, they are actually running a small motel instead of the grand hotel we see in the show proper. It makes it feel a lot more tight-knit.

Baxter:

To be real honest with you, I have no idea how to write Baxter into this since There's not much I know of the guy and I try to not have duplicates in this rewrite. The mad scientist role already belongs to Pentious. I might make him Pentious' partner in crime, and possibly make Cherri Bomb feel somewhat threatened that some person may have her snake's heart before she does.

Also, Baxter is the one character I might not want to redesign because miraculously, this is the first Vivziepop design that I have absolutely no problems with. I don't even mind the little bowler hat. It's absolutely adorable!

[myths-tournaments]

Awful Characters Round 1 Part 4 (1/8)

Propaganda under the cut!

BELOS

So, he is a horrible person, I will not deny it, he willing went into a realm of demons, ignored any possible chance that his upbringing as a witch hunter could be wrong (different from his brother Caleb), and had a years-long plan to commit genocide to every witch, palisman and living being in the Boiling Isles. I'm not going to say he's a "misunderstood poor babygirl". But the fandom just completely HATES anyone who ever sees Belos as anything other than an irredeemable monster! I personally really like his character, he's a really compelling villain, who (despite the haters saying otherwise) has a nuanced underdeveloped backstory of how he was raised on the witch-hunt era, and the betrayal he felt when he saw his brother abandoning everything they stood for as witch-hunters for Evelyn, the witch Caleb fell in love with. He clearly regrets killing Caleb since he makes MULTIPLE grimwalkers of him to try to keep Caleb with him, he's haunted by Caleb's ghost, the moment he saw Hunter (his most recent grimwalker) with Willow, his first reaction is screaming Caleb's name, he is way more than just "evil incarnate" (which is one of the problems I see in the finale of the series, but that's another story). Does this means I think he should be redeemed? No, of course not. But I don't blame the people who do, it could be an interesting plotline outside of canon, and I have seen some good ideas for how this could work! BUT HERE COMES THE FANDOM… I don't know specifically about Twitter users (deleted my account years ago, Goddess bless), but people hate Belos so passionately on Tumblr and Reddit and in YouTube videos that I would be surprised if Twitter of all places was more open to people loving Belos. I decided to search and check some places and I found people on the anti belos tag here on Tumblr that were calling people who wanted a Belos redemption or made Belos Redemption AUs literally ABUSE APOLOGISTS, I wish I was kidding! There's posts of people just liking Belos in general filled to the brim with hate in the notes. Again, I get people not liking Belos, he is a genocidal tyrant (not fascist because not every totalitarian character is fascist), but nothing excuse this amount of hate because of a FICTIONAL WITCH-HUNTER!

he is the worst guy one could ever imagine honestly like he’s literally a fascist so uh he really doesn’t have any redeeming qualities as a person. but as a character? oh boy. he’s soooooo interesting like. he makes you wonder what’s going on inside his head AFTER the episode where you see what’s going on inside his head. and the caleb ghost scene. oh my GOD the caleb ghost scene

NANAMI

Literally killed a kitten and yet is so iconic you can’t not love her

[settsplitt]

Hey, may I ask why you disliked The Kite Runner? No hate, I‘m just genuinely curious 🙌🏻

Hello anon! Thank you so much for asking, I love talking about my opinions, and oh boy, do i have Opinions on this book.

I should preface this by saying, it's been three? four? years since i read this book, so i don't remember all the details of what exactly i did and didn't like about it. I have a bad memory for books i like, even worse for ones i dislike. I've reviewed it a bit for this, but i'm still a bit fuzzy on the details!

So first, I want to start with my critique of the actual text:

I generally dislike the prose. There are occasional moments of competence, but i would say its a general weakness of the book. I dislike the dialogue as well. I don't think its a particularly well written book.

There are redeeming aspects, though, for the first two general sections. I particularly like the relationship between the main character and his father. I think the portrayal of a pre-soviet-invasion Afghanistan is well done and feels very grounded in reality. (I, however am not Afghani, nor was i alive in the 70s. It could be a load of horse shit.)

I am not surprised that these aspects of the book are well executed; It seems these sections are almost completely inspired by the authors own personal experiences, and the translation of experience to the page is competently done. I remember when I first read this book I was, for the most part, genuinely liking it for the first two sections!

The problem with this book is that it goes completely off the rails 200 pages in.

(this is where i'll drop a content warning for: mentions of violence, SA, and pedophilia...among other things. proceed with caution)

Like, suddenly everything is comically, exaggeratedly black and white and, in my opinion, overly gruesome. The reader becomes so bombarded by scenes of taliban induced misery, public stonings, child prostitution, bombed out orphanages, that everything just starts to lose its effectiveness. The select scenes of violence from the first section of the book get completely left behind and forgotten.

The worst part of this section is, by far, the villian. He is so ridiculously evil it makes me angry. I genuinely cannot imagine what line of thought could have led to the creation of this character. He is a half-white, nazi-praising, psychopathic heroin using pedophile taliban leader. He's also the main character's childhood bully, and the perpetrator of a sexual assualt on the main characters best friend, which serves as the source of the main characters internal conflict throughout the whole book.

This is a bad character. Obviously, he is evil, but I think it's bad that this character is evil. It absolutely destroys the authors credibility as a serious storyteller and destroys any chance this story could have had of serving some sort of larger purpose. In fact, it leads it down a different, much worse path instead. This leads me, conveniently, into my next point:

So, this book came out in 2003, two years into the United States' 20 year occupation of Afghanistan, and approx. one month out from The US' invasion of Iraq and overthrow of Saddam Hussein and the Iraqi government. Basically, America was in desperate want for art that would make it feel better about its ongoing horrorshow.

I have no doubt that the praise this book recieved when it came out, including from first lady laura bush herself, is intrinsically linked to its portrayal of the evil of the taliban. I think if the last section of the book wasn't included it wouldn't have been anywhere near as successful.

This is not to say the taliban is not evil; I just think its incredibly stupid to portray this through a psychopathically evil character, and incrediby convenient to make him an irredeemable evil pedophile nazi. It avoids any ounce of nuance that could come from portraying this "other" as anything more than deplorable and fundamentally nonhuman.

(for some reason it makes me think of the period of time in the 2010s when ISIS members were on twitter. How terrible it was to be confronted with the reality that people who do terrible things, believe terrible things, and believe them righteously, use twitter just like you. If only Hosseini had played more with this concept. alas.)

The worst part is, it presents all of these things through the view of someone who (suppposedly) has connection and insight into the country (Hosseini had not visited Afghanistan in 26 years at the time of the book's publication), legitimizing this perspective to an audience that conveniently doesn't have any better frame of reference.

Thus, American readers get to read this book, with its tragic portrayal of the afghan people and its portrayal of the taliban through this evil half nazi cartoon villian, and feel comforted about 100k+ troops in Afghanistan, about wedding air strikes, and by extension, about approx half a million civilian deaths in Iraq. Because americans are stupid like that.

Anyway, yeah. This leads me to the conclusion that, intentiionally or not, it functions as a piece of propoganda meant to manufacture consent for America's wars in the middle east.

Also its not a very good book.

[funkylittledemon]

Love the boys fandom all the characters are horrible people and yet somehow there's still disc horse about which characters you can like

[neapolinyan]

basically if the last post didn’t give it away i am by no means a volo apologist, but i absolutely want to take steps to balance out his character more than the fandom does, which is basically stopping at taking his hatred for the player right at postgame and dragging it across his entire character without putting thoughts into his earlygame.

he’s absolutely done some things that are most likely irredeemable - like, considering the time period he’s in, word getting out that he angered dialga and palkia would ABSOLUTELY get him exiled from basically everywhere. the clans wouldn’t take him in (unless you like appraisalshipping then well. get it i guess /J) and i doubt most towns and such would forgive him either. even if it’s not a case of angering a precious god, he still put lives in danger and created a HUGE amount of work and trouble for the galaxy expedition team. basically, the man’s life is OVER in-verse if word of his actions were to get out. yeah, you can redeem him all you want, but there’s no recovering from that without moving to another region and forging a new identity from scratch.

i’m solidly of the opinion that volo’s a man driven insane by curiosity. he’s got trauma under his belt, he says it himself, and he wants answers. the fact that a kid with basically zero issues, zero need to discover and to know, has the blessing he’s been begging for his entire life easily pushes him over the edge, because why do they deserve it? what did they do?

and, that being said, i don’t like the idea that he’s always been a two-faced, slimy bastard without an ounce of respect or care for anyone. his team says enough, i’ve already made that post about his friendship pokemon, but i refuse to believe that he’s always had that malice.

he may have trust issues from his past, a hatred for the god that rejected him, you know. that’s all fair and justified! but it rubs me the wrong way when people say he’s been out to get you from the beginning.

he’s a nice guy that gives you items for free before you’re even on his radar because your first battle with him is right before your trial for the survey corps. you know, way before you’ve made a name for yourself other than “the kid that dropped out of the sky”. ingo did the exact same, has an affinity for pokemon, the works, and volo doesn’t hold any ill-will towards that guy. he gives you potions, and says he’s investing in his own fortunes. he calls you his favourite customer when you can’t even buy from him until the end of the game. he only begins to work against you once he knows what you’re really capable of, and that gets his mind going - warped by the sudden change of a child falling from the sky, a prodigy in every sense of the word, and undoing all the work he’s put into luring arceus out from hiding. 

tldr. volo’s not a precious do-no-harm little pretty boy, but he’s not been a terrible guy from the beginning - that’s clear from how he battles the protagonist before they’re even the star of the survey corps and before they’ve even considered quelling a single noble. that whole mess hadn’t even started yet, and the protagonist was nowhere near catching volo’s attention.

he’s a nice man who enjoys battling, gives you freebies with zero reasoning other than “investment” into someone he knows nothing about. it’s kindness, just like he shows his pokemon. he’s got some baggage, but it’s on the down-low and smoothed out by his ruin-searching hobbies.

the malice that you see in him in postgame is built up from knowing he’s been wholly, clearly rejected by his life’s work. his life’s work, that’s been carelessly handed off to a child who never even needed it.  

[thepersona]

Extraordinary Attorney Woo: Thoughts on episodes 13-14 (spoilers!)

Another bittersweet week with lots to unpack. Spoiler alert!

Let's start with the first hot topic, the redemption arc of everyone's favorite trash boy Kwon Min-woo. I will preface this part of my critique by stating the following:

Redeemable characters are great and can even be some of the best in any story. The best redemption arcs are plotted and hinted at over the course of the show and not sprung upon the audience towards the end.

At the same time, it's ok to have irredeemable characters in any story.

The fact is humans go both ways in that they can be stubborn in some ways yet open to change in others. But within the confines of a story, it all boils down to good storytelling, pacing, and execution.

Considering the format of the show - 16, 60 to 70-minute episodes - this has to be planned from the get-go and not decided in the middle especially because of a potential, and increasingly likely, season 2.

In short, I am iffy about this development.

I don't want to shoot the writers down just because we didn't see signs of Min-woo's potential for kindness in the first half of the show, but I can't be 100% optimistic about his seemingly shrinking devil horns in Su-yeon's presence. We know he's been smitten with her ever since she flipped her hair near the end of ep 9 but I don't think the show is shallow enough for him to change his ways over just that. It's not far-fetched to think he's feigning interest in her because of who her father is.

Instead, I'm counting on his characterization since the beginning of the show. Min-woo's most realistic and most consistent trait is that he's attracted to power. The motivation may not be as clear cut as the familial/financial difficulties he mentioned in ep 13, but whatever it is, he latches on to people with power with the hopes of getting in on some of the action. And if he can't succeed with the first person, he moves onto the next. Most notably, Attorney Jung made it clear that he didn't share his cutthroat ideals, not even his basic understanding of meritocracy. So, he went through the client in ep 5 and eventually, Tae Su-mi once he had what he thought was his golden ticket to Taesan.

But do you really think CEO Tae would let him get away with blackmailing her in her own office? And judging by the preview to ep 15, his threat is practically void once CEO Han beats him to divulging the info to the press.

This, along with his looming romance with Su-yeon, would put him at the crossroads of his character development. Will he blame Young-woo for his failure? Or will he realize what an ass he has been (seeing the consequences of the reveal) and hesitantly extend kindness to his rival?

Now, I don't expect a huge gesture of an olive branch from him, quite the opposite. Realistically, his pride should still stop him from doing a 180 in the next 10 episodes, let alone 2. But I must admit thinking of the set up in this way isn't half bad. Rushed, yes, but not entirely lazy. We'll have to see on Wednesday.

Moving on to the other hot topic of Jun-ho and Young-woo's break-up. In my previous review (here), I mentioned that a slump of sorts usually takes place following the momentous kiss in most dramas. And this takes shape in one or more of the following ways (verbatim from last week):

The writers give the couple something to disagree on / misunderstand because the honeymoon phase only lasts so long on and off screen.

The writers separate the couple because of a third party (family, love triangle, other).

The writers give the couple something to fix that may not have anything to do with their relationship to give the lovey-dovey stuff a break.

The couple gets boring because the relationship is put on the backburner and the writers are flipping a coin whether to set up a wedding or a breakup. (This is the worst.)

Sure enough, the first three have been realized to some degree, but get this, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Through pain comes growth, so they say, and I like to think this applies to our whale couple, too. Jun-ho has come across several practical challenges being a mainstay in Young-woo's life and he has done beautifully so far. But what's a few months compared to the rest of his life?

This roadblock is one of many that he would realistically have to face with her. Heck, any couple would have issues post-honeymoon stage. Even couples with neurotypical partners aren't always as emotionally well-equipped as Jun-ho (and even Young-woo tbh) to fix them.

I have loved how the show presents Young-woo's empathy and her journey in trying to express herself in a manner that won't be misunderstood. It's a process with a lot of trial and error, and uncomfortable for most because it means being vulnerable in a world that tells you not to be. This is what really made me love Young-woo's character. She experiences the world in ways that I would never understand yet she's still so relatable, not to mention brave and inspiring.

It's so easy to say (as people have done) that she should have told Jun-ho right away about his sister's comments, but it's so much more than that. She realized the burden she has placed and would continue to place on him so the last thing she wanted was to add to his troubles. One can continue to criticize by saying how selfish it was to keep him in the dark like that but one moment of heartbreak is small compared to a lifetime of the loneliness that he might feel by staying with her. In other words, Young-woo was perhaps misguided, but definitely selfless in her decision to set him free.

Critics should take a hint from how the case was resolved in the middle of the break-up:

JH: Remember how the Abbot said that what you see isn't everything?

YW: "What you see isn't everything. Don't be blinded by what you can see. Keep in mind the essence of what lies beyond that."

JH: Yes, that's what the Abbot said.

YW: That's right! I was blinded by what I could see that I forgot the essence of what lies beyond that.

The writer so brilliantly hints that they are both capable of doing just that. Therefore, I'm quite optimistic (though not wanting to jinx it) that Jun-ho and Young-woo are endgame. I'm hoping that her father has something to do with them getting back together once he realizes how much Jun-ho genuinely loves and cares for her.

Now a brief word about Jung Myeong-seok. Last week, we saw him freaking out about a potential attack from a previous client, stressing out about Young-woo's interest in social justice clouding her judgment regarding their case, ultimately coughing up blood at the end of ep 12. We learn a lot about his past and what he sacrificed to get to where he is now. But with his life in danger, it's only logical to ask whether it was all worth it. Young-woo says that it is, and I'm compelled to agree because deep down (again beyond what we see), his honest love for the law is what got him to this point, regardless of his diagnosis.

Based on his actions at the end of ep 14, he would probably adapt by slowly changing how he applies this love, helping more institutions like the temple, much like how the Yangtze River Dolphin adapted to freshwater. Again, I'm also optimistic that he will survive in the finale based on Kang Ki-young's well-deserved skyrocketing popularity. Did I mention his acting was chef's kiss this week? (gif not mine)

At first, I thought this week's case was understandably uninteresting so as not to overshadow the character development in both episodes. But again, taking the Abbot's advice myself, I really appreciate how the writer used elements of this case and setting (the painting, the noodle maker, the road) to tie the main storylines together. I don't want to be overly optimistic about the finale, but the subtlety of the writing this week has renewed my faith in the show's direction. Needless to say, I can't wait to see how this all comes together next week, even though I'm not ready to say goodbye to this beautiful show just yet.

Check out my midseason review (eps 1-8) and last week's review on eps 11-12!

[teaholder]

People for the most part aren’t saying shit like “uwaaaa simon deserved to die because he was irredeemable!” Literally the whole point was that he could have changed and was given multiple opportunities to, but he chose not to. His death isn’t justified, it’s supposed to be fucked up and sad. Grace literally starts sobbing and holding the ashes of her best friend. She WANTED him to change and he ignored her and uhhhh LITERALLY THREW HER OFF THE TRAIN-

Everyone is aware Simon has trauma. But Grace has trauma too and she improved herself. And the reason that people say “Grace did nothing wrong” is because 97% of Simon fans are racist and misogynistic. Blaming all of his shitty behavior on her, saying his behavior was justified because “Grace lied to him” (never mind the fact that she lied to him because she knew that he would have zero problem KILLING A SIX YEAR OLD-), complaining about how Simon didn’t get redeemed in a show about redemption even though Grace is the protagonist of b3 and the whole season was about her redemption. If anyone says something like “fuck Simon and his white boy problems” it’s because we’re fucking tired of black characters getting shit on because everyone favors the white boy instead. There’s also obvious racist coding on him where he he expects Grace to owe him everything and tell him how to behave

I’ll also say the npd incident on Twitter is shitty as fuck, but it wasn’t a confirmation. An ignorant part of the crew said Simon was a narcissist, got called out, and took it back. It’s a huge stretch to say the season was ableist for killing him. Also anyone with any disorder can be shitty and they aren’t exempt from being called out. You can argue that the killing off of Simon was ableist because it implies that he deserved to die for having npd, but I literally covered that point in the beginning by saying his death was never supposed to be deserved

The last thing I’m gonna say is that like. Do people know they can like an antagonist character without trying to justify their actions??? I personally had fun watching Simon be a bastard and that’s why I liked him. Sometimes a character is traumatized but also a bastard that’s fun to hate. That’s the point of most villains

Sayonara

...okay. with all due respect, anon, not only are you wrong; you are also quite literally proving my point. i'll try to keep this as brief as can be, which if i were honest, might not be very brief.

for starters, most of the people who vehemently hate simon– which really consists of a majority of the fandom, let's be honest– reiterate that his "refusal to change," (ie. his refusal to redeem himself) is why he deserved to die. because if grace changed, learned, and grew as a person, he could have, too; however, his perceived refusal to do so makes him somehow worthy of his demise. this mindset, accompanied with some other things i'll be touching on later, makes it evident that there was ableism written into the show with simon's character. however, we can get to that in due time, since i want to respond to some of the other things you brought up first.

i'm well aware that his death is supposed to be fucked up and sad. that being said, his death can be fucked up and sad while also having ableist ideology embedded within it– the ableism is the problem here. also, if it was meant to be so sad, then why did they demonize him to the extent that they did, and why did the audience celebrate his death? all that being said, i will leave the mentions of the ableism for when i get to where you bring it up.

second of all, saying simon was given multiple opportunities to change ignores the fact that without guidance, some people will not be able to change. without a support system, some people will not be able to change. and don't come in here with "grace guided and supported him!" or "grace doesn't owe him any of that!" as if support isn't something almost everyone needs in order to grow; especially support from a friend. as for my first example, she really didn't guide or support him; not in the way he needed to grow as a person. all of his "opportunities" to change were moments where grace ended up lashing out at him for doing something wrong without explaining to him what he was doing that was wrong. she'd simply end up putting distance between them– making simon think she's going to abandon him just like samantha had– or saying something along the lines of "now's not the time, simon." and scolding him; or, at worst, pulling rank on him. people like simon need love and support to grow as people, and of course you're going to want it from someone you admire and trust. literally the only reason grace came to grow was because she was shown love by this little girl and she saw how much the girl– who she believed to be human at the time– loved this denizen as if she were her own mother. that made her realize she was wrong about the denizens.

the only reason it didn't work like that with simon was due to his previous experiences with samantha. telling himself that the denizens didn't have real emotions was the way he coped with the abandonment. calling them "null"s and saying they don't feel anything made it easier for him to accept that he was abandoned, because that'd mean if they did feel something, then samantha just didn't care for him enough. i know we're on the topic of simon and grace, but it's important to touch on at least one of the reasons why simon's "opportunities" to grow weren't really opportunities, since he's so deep in his maladaptive coping mechanisms and disordered thinking processes that it just doesn't occur to him that tuba was actually capable of loving hazel. even right before he killed tuba, he still believed what he believed despite what he knew about her since he just couldn't wrap his mind around a denizen genuinely caring for a person.

thirdly, on your point of him throwing her off the train– i'm not saying he was in the right to do so, because... no, he obviously wasn't. however, he wasn't initially planning on throwing her off after she saved him. it was her saying she doesn't know why she did it– which, again, i don't blame her for; i understand how she feels there, sometimes your gut tells you to do something, and you just do it– that triggered his paranoia, made him fear that if she doesn't know why she saved him then she could easily betray him again. her breaking his trust made it difficult for him to trust her again, even after she saved his life. the moment he realized what he had done, he started crying and regretted it. yes, he was also laughing, but that's not because he found it entertaining that he had [supposedly] killed his friend.

and, yeah, a lot of simon fans have a chance of being racist and/or misogynistic, that's one thing you got right. and i understand the sentiment of saying she did nothing wrong to combat the bigotry towards her; the only problem is she has done wrong, just as much as simon. she's not perfect, either. acting like she's done nothing wrong completely undermines her growth and development.

moving onto my next point, it does bother me a lot that you said she knew simon would have no problem killing a six year old because that's just... not true. simon never showed malicious intent toward hazel, neither before nor after he learns she's a denizen. grace believed simon would kill hazel because, after he killed tuba (which was initially an order from grace, btw) and she discovered hazel is a denizen, hazel was afraid she was next– which makes sense in the mind of this kid who just lost her parental figure and knows simon's distaste towards denizens. simon values grace's opinions, if she had just sat him down and explained things to him before the point where he started harboring resentment towards her (that is, episode 5 and earlier) then he likely would have listened. would he have a difficult time understanding and accepting it? yes. but he wouldn't have killed hazel. he would try to understand because grace mattered that much to him.

obviously she isn't to blame for [most of] simon's harmful actions, but she was one of the most influential figures in his life and quite literally shaped many of his beliefs and world views, along with samantha. she is not responsible for his actions, but it's important to acknowledge her role in all this, since she had a pretty big one.

also, i'm sorry, but him expecting her to owe him everything– since i assume you mean the line in episode 10, where he said that to grace– was a direct parallel to the first episode of book one where grace saved simon from when his harpoon pack broke. he said he owes her one, and she responded with something along the lines of, "you owe me everything." simon expects her to tell him how to behave because she is not only the leader the the apex, but also because he is quite literally dependant on her; she's the only person his age who he can confide in, since there is absolutely no one else their age around them, they are surrounded by kids several years younger than them.

OKAY. now to the ableism discussion. remember when i said i would try to keep this brief? yeah. apparently there wasn't much i could do to make it brief.

while the canonicity of simon's NPD is semi-subjective (i say "semi" because... it was observably written and coded into his character), the clinical narcissist tweets made by lindsay still massively impacted how the fanbase perceives him and that is undoable. also, it's funny that you say "an ignorant part of the crew" when the whole crew has a massive history of ableism; the fact that they got called out and deleting their tweets does not mean that they took it back and changed for the better. it is not a stretch to say the season was ableist for killing him because it quite literally was.

a while back, a friend of mine had called out lindsay's ableism and owen, you know, the creator of infinity train, blocked them for it. then owen proceeded to delete some tweets where he said things about how sociopaths are incapable of change and he wanted simon to be one of those types of characters in order to show that not everyone on the train is good. owen is literally ableist. the "ignorant parts" of the crew is the whole crew. no one took any statements back, they just tried to sweep everything under the rug. owen saying he wanted to make simon like this and then him dying due to his incapability to change is quite literally proof that ableism was written into his character.

and just one question to you. do you have NPD? like, really, do you? because if you don't, it's awfully strange that you're trying to argue that it's not ableism.

and, finally, yes. people do know that. i know that. i like many villains without justifying their actions. do people know that others are allowed to defend the characters they like who are widely hated and misunderstood by the fandom??? i also had fun watching simon be a bastard, but AS SOMEONE WITH NPD, it fucking irks me how you guys treat him. so sorry that i don't tolerate ableism directed towards my very stigmatized disorder! lmao.

[nephilimeq]

Canon reason #2 billion why Scott McCall is a True POS and Teen Wolf's worst character alongside Kate and Gerard Argent: when he told Derek that the hunters "had a reason" to burn his pack and family – including humans and children – alive

Yeah. That.

I am still confused why the writers expected us to like Scott when they wrote him lines like that.

Up until that point, I was understanding Scott's actions--most of the time they were because he was a teenage boy who had his first taste of power and was enjoying using it to his advantage. But then this scene happened, and I lost any interest in his character whatsoever.

Kate and Gerard were purposely written as villains...and the fact that the writers accidentally ended up giving Scott lines that would have sounded like they should have come from one of them really has you wondering if the writers were even paying attention to his character at all, or if maybe we were supposed to hate Scott. Because they didn't even try to give him any redeeming qualities throughout the rest of the series.

Instead, we were fed the narrative of a teenager with supernatural abilities who was obsessed with always being right, never suffering consequences, and always trying to get with the hot girl with power and demeaning her abilities--Allison, Lydia, Kira, Malia. (all of whom were more powerful than Scott in so many ways)

The instant Scott said, "Maybe they had a reason," he lost any credibility as the main character.

Those five words made him irredeemable.

[cosmotheangryrat]

Why I Think 'Billy Stans' Are Irrational And Blind

I am just going to say this right off the bat, I do not give a shit what you headcanon fictional characters to be like. I headcanon all the damn time and that's fine, that's the point of media in the first place.

But one thing that I've seen a bunch of is Billy Stans going around attacking people who say that Billy was a bad person in canon. And I don't think that's right.

First of all, let me state my opinion clearly so that no one is confused.

BILLY IS AND WAS AN ASSHOLE

There, I said it. Now, before you go and attack me in the comments saying that

1. He was abused by his father

2. He did the right thing in the end

and 3. He never actually did anything bad

All of these are points yes (Except the third one) but they do not excuse all the horrible shit he did.

First off let's address point number one, 'He was abused by his father'. This point, in my mind, has the most backing and if Billy didn't also abuse Max, I could see myself using this point. Being abused, especially from a young age, is a horrible situation and I by no means am saying that it had no impact on Billy's actions. What I am saying is that just because he was abused does not give him a get out of jail free card. Being abused is an explanation, not an excuse.

Now, you might say that he didn't know any better because that's what he grew up around. And people who say this forget that he had a mother. He saw how his father's actions affected her. He had a good figure in his life to compare his father too. He wasn't completely alone. Now I'm not saying that this in anyway invalidates the shit he went through, I'm just saying that Billy is not completely isolated. Billy is practically an adult at this point in the story, at some point he has to take accountability for his actions that hurt others.

As someone who is currently going to therapy for childhood trauma, I would never ever talk to my siblings the way Billy does with Max. I would never threaten to run over their friends. I wouldn't run over one of their things just because (Billy ran over Max's skateboard. I didn't catch it at first either, but you can clearly see her taping it back together after she and Billy fought) I wouldn't yell in their face to stop hanging out with a boy (which shows that Billy is also a racist, like its so obvious but I'll get into that later.). I wouldn't burst into a house that they were staying in and push their 12-13 (?) year old friend into a wall and scream in his face. None of that is okay, none of it. That is a fact, not an opinion.

But if for some reason you do think that abuse covers for all of that. Then okay, live your life. Just don't go and attack people for saying otherwise.

Now onto the second point, that he did the right thing in the end therefore all of his previous actions are excused. And to that I say, are you even listening to yourself? Also, I would just like to say that Billy did the bare fucking minimum. 'oMg BiLlY dIdNt SaCrIfIcE a LiTeRaL cHiLd HeS sO nIcE'. Like sure, it was a pretty big deal because he defied the mind flayer and all that but still, the way some people paint it is that he's some amazing person for literally not letting a demon eat a 13-year-old.

(Also, I would like to say that I don't think that Billy is totally irredeemable. Like if he survived the mind flayer I feel like he could have such a good character arc. If he was able to apologize to Max and then help everyone out in the future, I would have been down for that. But no, he got impaled faster than I could say well shucks so rip I guess)

Some people may say that while it didn't totally redeem him it did help his case. And I'm here to say that if you agree with that statement then this post is not about you. This post is for people who say that he was this poor misunderstood saint and then go on to attack other people for bringing up evidence that states otherwise. Like its all fine and dandy to have a different opinion, I don't give a shit, but don't force it down other people throats then get mad when they gag. You are not god's gift, get over yourself.

And if thinking about Billy gets you off then go for it, but don't make me listen or watch or read that shit because its fucking gross (I am also an asexual lesbian so maybe I'm not the best person to comment on sexual attraction towards men but whatever it's my blog and I feel like going off)

I feel like that's a big reason why Billy Stans exist, people think he's hot. Which sure, whatever. Personally, he looks like he would punch me while screaming the f-slur but that's just me. You can think a character is hot while not attacking people who don't (If they attack you though (without prior provocation) then get them bae, no one gets to attack your interests for no reason. Those reasons do include racism, pedophilia, and general shitty behavior like that so yeah. Don't be an asshole and if someone starts it then go off.).

And now the third point, he never actually did anything bad. This point genuinely removes about 36 of my brain cells every time I hear it so let's break down all the shit Billy actually did. Also, all of this is from memory so if I leave a few out sorry. But I really hate watching Billy scenes, he makes me uncomfy.

First of all, in pretty much all of the Max and Billy scenes you can see how upset she is. When he grabs her wrist and yells in her face you can tell she is close to tears. She is upset and scared. Hell, that scene made me upset, and I watched it through a screen. When Lucas showed up to her house and she straight up told him that he shouldn't be there. She knew that Billy was going to hurt him if he saw Lucas. Also, when Billy shows up to Will's house you can tell that she was scared. She was scared that Billy was going to hurt her and her friends. That doesn't exactly scream fond sister/brother relationship to me, hun.

Now, let's address the blatant racism Billy showcases. But, first, I would just like to state that if a person of color says that they don't think Billy was being racist, then respect that. Personally, I do think that he was. But I am just a little white girl on the internet. I am not some commentary god who is always right. But anyway, on to my point.

I swear you'd think that some people didn't hear Billy say, "There are some people you learn to stay away from, and he is one of them" (Loosely paraphrased I'm too lazy to look up the quote) in reference to Lucas. I don't know how that line could be so clear like damn, its right there. Also, when Billy shows up to Will's house, who does he attack first? Lucas.

And some people like to say that oh he was just being protective and to that I say, why wouldn't he go for Steve first? Steve being the most danger to his sister and also the oldest one there. But no, he directly goes for Lucas time and time again. When I first watched the season, I just assumed that it was a known fact, that's how goddamn obvious it is. Like my mother, who grew up conservative and is still semi-conservative, completely agrees with me on this.

Also didn't the Duffers say in an interview that Billy was racist, like they wrote him to be like that? I don't know fam seems kinda sus to me.

(But also remember I am white so take that whole point with a grain of salt. Not trying to talk over POC's and shit. Just stating my points.)

But anyway, there is more shit I could probably bring up but I'm tired. You're probably tired. We're all fucking tired of this shit.

If you made it to this point and want to comment, supporter or not, put a % in your text. I want to see how many of these fuckers read the title and decided to go off :)

Also if you would like to respectfully (Keynote: RESPECTFULLY) argue about the morality of Billy in the comments either with me or someone else you are welcome to. I'm not trying to gatekeep my posts, just don't be an asshole and we good.

Have a nice day, drink water or whatever else the body needs to like function or something. I don't know it seems kinda overrated to me but sure, live your life.

[stupendousfuckcurtain]

Okay so stranger things volume 2 kinda made sense to me while watching it but then I read the most colourful reviews and I'm here to talk about it. I'm mostly gonna talk about the things that I've seen being talked about that frustrate me. Here it goes.(It gets kiiinda long and kinda messy but hopefully it's somewhat understandable)

Will

The whole gay anguish Will has been put through this season honestly HURTS to watch. I don't care if they're using the gay character and stuff but ANY character being put through this kind of psychological pain AFTER already getting traumatized is just. Not it? I enjoyed the angst I'll admit but still they're not living his character up to its potential. Will was the main subject, like the main GOAL in the beginning right. Boi got fucked up in the first season but no you have to keep the connection going someway in season 2 so make him suffer more. FINE. Season two was still okay because there was potential for recovery and it could've been redeemed in season 3 but nope. It did not. What the hell even was season 3 for Will specifically? Season 3 feels like a fever dream not gonna lie but anyway the last two seasons have done NOTHING for Will.

Byler

Season 4 would've been PERFECT for the recovery process to start through Byler and I'm not just saying this because the show needs more positive LGBTQ representation but because it would make 100% sense for the characters and the plot to progress better. Also I feel like a lot of people are just shipping characters for absolutely no reason this season in the name of representation. Like I get shipping my guys but don't say its for the rep if it doesn't make sense. But yeah anyway Will's character has reached a potentially irredeemable point for me. Hopefully it'll SOMEHOW make sense in season 5.

Mileven

Okay so um. I'm a casual viewer I don't really care about the show after a few hours of finishing it BUT this relationship was enough to distress me for two years. I stopped shipping these two after season three tbh and then I come into season four and hEAR MIKE SAYING THAT HIS LIFE FELT LIKE IT STARTED WHEN HE MET ELEVEN WHAT THE HELL. Season 3 was kinda wierd for a few characters, there was such inconsistency with the character writing. Like there are bad characters and then there's bad writing. Mike was a great friend right from season one and suddenly he's a douche who can't see how much his best friend is suffering and literally crying beside him? Does not make sense. This whole relationship or the whole love triangle has been disgusting to see. It just does not make sense. I'm all for characters turning stupid or changing through circumstances but can someone please explain to me how Mike's downfall came to be. He's nothing but a love interest now? Just following around El with Will following him, is that it? Mike's entire focus shifted to eleven this season. Maybe it was because of everyone else was safe and close to him? The story is being made in a way as if Mike has always thought of El as number one priority but he didn't. I don't know it just doesn't feel right.

Characters in general

I don't know know how anyone else interprets the characters and the show in such detail but I feel like they(the writers) are literally reducing the characters to some tropes so that they show this big huge fight between the worlds. The writers are doing a horrible job handling the characters. ESPECIALLY relationships. This show and the fandom are the messiest in ships. I feel like I'm saying controversial stuff right now but eh. For the fans, I'm sorry but steddie being shipped was just a huge ass blow to my face. I could still predict ronance coming but steddie? Hell nah. Where'd people even dig that up from. A little eye contact? we do not need to ship a canonically(or presumed) gay character from every same sex interaction we see. Ronance kinda felt like it'd be cool but they felt more like buddies to me so. I respect the ships but I just haven't seen the content or posts that could convinced that they could have any canon potential. I like my ships a little more canon inspired. So yeah. For the show itself, they've fucked me up by butchering a lot of things this season and relationships is one main point as we've established already. Since I've already typed a paragraph about mileven let's go with something small for Nancy and Steve. No. It just fucks with all the character development Steve's had the past three seasons and just does not make sense. It makes sense that Nancy and Jonathan might not be able to work it out because of the distance and stuff but really? You're gonna make Nancy, the smart confident Nancy, go back to her ex she walked away from? That's just. Mmm mm.

Anyway yeah this was it. Don't think anyone's gonna read this but feels good to type it out. Also if anyone does read this I'm sorry if it has any stuff that doesn't make sense I've completely COMPLETELY forgotten season 3. If anyone doesnt agree or has a different perspective on these things please DM me I'd love to understand better.

[fakesorbet]

okay wait actually ur?? so right?? genuinely curious abt your take on pastry ive always seen her has a very very extreme case of religious trauma [not that that excuses some of the things she does] but also i am looking??? /gen

OHHH I have so many thoughts on pastry cookie and how the fandom sees her and pomegranate

i think we all r aware of pastrys backstory , basically faithful to the order until she faces the tower where she is shown the truth then traumatized .

that backstory is similars to pomegranates !

pommy , like pastry , was faithful to her village and devoted to the tree . i know ovenbreak and crk lore aren’t exact , but pom’s candy lore states

and in addition she was the high priestess , she had a destiny to lead her people and follow the sacred tree

so , my point is pom was / is manipulated by dark enchantress . there is no doubt in that and if u can’t understand that you lack comprehension skills . someone doesn’t immediately go from being a devoted leader to burning their village down .

pommy is also religiously traumatized, to believe in one religion so faithfully u were destined to lead it then learn the awful truth . [ huh wonder who else had that happen to them ]

however , de doesn’t do this to show pom the truth , it’s to manipulate her to joining the cookies of darkness.

Pomegranate shows Pastry the truth to actually show her the falsehood of her religion, something she understands and had to witness. That’s why I say Pomegranate and Pastry have similar backstories , Both are faithful to their religion until they are shown the truth. However, the difference comes from their behavior, which I think isn’t treated fairly by the fandom.

Pastry and Pomegranate are still both being lied to. Both are still under false pretenses and believe in their authority, the Only reason why pastry is seen as more redeemable than pom is because she does show more remorse [ barely ] , and because of her interaction with red velvet.

It’s so annoying [ to me ] how the fandom clings onto the one scene where pastry shows slight hesitation to shooting redvel . Had Pom not stepped in and shown Pastry the truth, pastry would have most likely finished her mission , returned [ maybe regretfully ] back to the order and moved on. While it does show Pastry has more of a chance of escaping the church , whose to say she won’t be like pomegranate and become devoted to dark enchantress ?

In addition, the fandom woobyfies pastry and redvel . like some of u guys cling to ships because of 1 moment [ which is fine , but sometimes it becomes just hypocrisy when u judge other ships / characters ] people make pastry to be this poor victim who doesn’t know the consequences of her actions , when while slightly true , she still is complacent . it’s trauma , she’s being lied to , and the same can be applied to pomegranate. But the fandom treats pom differently because she doesn’t hesitate in her actions , and she isn’t shippable with men .

like i get if u don’t like pom , she is irredeemable and does fucked up things but I think weird y’all completely ignore ones trauma and solely call her derogatory terms like ??? yes trauma doesn’t excuse actions , but you’ll ignore poms and then call dark choco a giant soft boy even tho he was willing to kill kids [ gen ]

also the fact that affogato has no redeemable quality and is selfish , but it’s okay and even ‘ fun ‘ because hes hot gnc man . the same could b said with licorice he has no moments of hesitation and was willing to poison the entire hollyberry princess contest , but because he isn’t a threat it doesn’t matter that he too is morally grey that learns toward black  . And same for other characters with trauma , their actions r excused because of slight moments of what they could be but they still always end back on the villain side .

ANYWAYZ THIS IS SO LONG !!! sorry i have so much i can say and idek if this makes any sense / answered ur question . basically pommy and pastry have similar back story but because pastry gets woobified [ idk how to spell it ] , and is shippable , people forget it was pom who saved redvel .

[ihopeyoubothstaysafefromharm]

Ask game! Share 10 different favorite characters from 10 different pieces of media in no particular order. Then send this to 10 people (anon or not, your choice). Have fun! 💖

I did this yesterday but I got a few more anon ones and also from you and @saintgarbanzo so I decided to do like an unnecessary deep dive into why I love each of the characters I listed.

Draco Malfoy fanon draco is such an excellent example of the ownership readers have over text. Stories are both the smallest unit of life and the biggest most all encompassing serious thing, and that gives readers this extraordinary authority to reject either the author's treatment of a character as a person, who has evolved from a something into a someone, or to reject the story's treatment of a character in the capacity of some benevolent omnipotent force that can pick and choose life's twists and turns. the first drarry fic i read was what we pretend we can't see and that draco is just so immediately redeemed, so fully human and idiosyncratic and such a ridiculous, likeable creature, and that impression of him followed me through everything i've read since. i've dealt with a lot of placed and unplaced guilt and shame in my life, along with this lingering feeling of having done something completely irredeemable and irreversible. i adore how fanon draco shoulders all of that and how he still manages to find a place for himself, how people find a place for him guided by this beacon of his humility and wit. when i buy new shoes i go out and get them dirty right away. i prefer worn in things. like me, like draco some things are better a little dented.

Loki like a lot of people who've ever felt pretty trans and a little feral, and orphaned in any capacity, i've always loved characters who just let themselves get as close to evil and insane as their little heart will allow. i liked loki in the comics and films, but when i started reading fics, i fell in love with this fanon dimension of him that's infinitely exposed, laid bare and waiting for love and approval. that thinks he's unfixable and smarter than anyone, and is taken aback by the effect that mundane delights and mundane heartbreaks have on him. he's also just so...sparkly. like he seems impossible not to love, and he's just tiny and brave and smart and emotional, and so broken that he's ready to resign himself to the worst punishments. but he's a part of a whole, and thor is always going to be there to miss him and love him and save him and be saved by him, and there's something so comforting about a character that can only go so far alone, because they belong to some mighty huddle.

riddler he's a crazy little lonely person who loves words, hates power structures and spends a lot of time on the internet. what's not to love

will and hannibal

i love characters who can do anything. like yes nuance and good writing and complexity are all super sexy and important and What We’re Here For but i just love when one of the characters in a ship is so competent and smart and strong that it’s a little deus ex machina-y. it’s just so charming. like how fanon hannibal is incredibly strong and knows literally everything and can keep fighting if badly injured and has infinite money and resources. it’s just so cool, there’s a child reader in me that gets a huge rush from that certainty that Things Will Probably Work Out because this character is there, no matter how bad it gets. and then in contrast to this extremely exaggerated magical man is an extremely Regular Guy will, who's anything but regular - just cutting and hilarious and insightful and Over It. And despite being shown as this traumatized, snarling little creature, he finds love and chases it literally over a cliff, because there's no tiredness and terror that would be worth losing that spark. it's so romantic. i also like couples who don't need anyone else.

5. Q

smart little gay boy. my favorite thing in fic is how hardworking he is, but also that he's always like... very social and socially apt? like he's the normal person and bond is this feral old cat that he sort of tames? it's so charming

6. crowley from good omens

i fell in love with him when i was 10 and i never stopped loving him. i love characters who fight against their heritage, but what i like in particular is that his life story is the thing i'm always most afraid of - that i've accidentally done a lot of little bad things and that this path can't ever be retraced, that i've sauntered vaguely downwards. which he has, but he discovers that it doesn't matter at all, that it's still you, and your love, wherever you are. i also love people who love deeply and desperately, ted mosby and jim from newsroom and the office and those sorts of people. crowley is one of those.

7. arthur from inception

he's extremely neat and clean and uptight. i don't like a lot of characters like that, they usually piss me off, but there's something so endearing and sometimes a little heartbreaking, how much his fanon interpretations fear disorder and feelings and how he fights against it. my favorite quote from an arthur/eames fic summarizes my love of him very well: ""I've seen things," said Arthur, because the word no made him break out in hives.""

8. jay from okja

i have a weak spot for messianic righteous characters and jay is just such a delightful iteration of one of those. i love that he wears a suit because he represents A Cause, I love that he adheres to a moral code, I love that he's violent in funny ways, and how sincere he is. i love that he protects animals. i've always wanted to have a singular cause. also i'm obsessed with translation and linguistics, and he that he thinks translation is sacred, which just absolutely kills me.

9. cherry from sk8 the infinity

like loki, cherry is a part of a whole. he's also extremely intelligent and it holds him back from certain things, from intimacy and hoping for good things for himself, which i find very touching. also, like hannibal, he's one of those characters that can do anything - his presence is sort of infinitely reassuring. i also love that he's a man with long pink hair, it makes me excited to maybe one day do that.

[fire-flakes]

thinking about the fire teens + ideology again. the thing is that, in terms of content, we don’t know what exactly the fire nation’s official ideology is. we aren’t given their precise justifications for conquest and violence, we don’t know the basis for their perceived superiority, and we don’t even really know why the war started. there are some hints at it in the series (the oath the students recite in “the headband,” azula’s divine right of kings speech), but we never get an in-depth look. and I would argue that we don’t need to, because while the fire nation’s ideological content isn’t clear, its ideological structure is.

the fire nation has been engaged in a continuous war of conquest for almost a century. no one currently alive remembers a time when the country wasn’t at war. it’s an absolute monarchy with a rigidly centralized, authoritarian power structure, and the logic of this structure is refracted throughout the entire society. the fire nation’s state ideology has several characteristics of umberto eco’s ur-fascism (notably 5, 7, and 9-11). it values discipline, obedience, martial talent, the submission of the individual to the national cause, and above all, power. power is self-justifying and also a demonstration of moral value: the fire nation is good because it is powerful, and powerful because it is good. these qualities are innate within societies and people; they cannot be fundamentally changed, and this means that there is a fixed hierarchy of value for both individuals and groups. some societies deserve to dominate, and some deserve to be dominated by other societies. some people are born lucky, and some people are lucky to be born.

and, in terms of zuko and azula especially, you have to consider that they are born into the royal family of this absolute monarchy. this means that a) they’re positioned at the top of the fire nation’s symbolic hierarchy, as people who are meant to rule, dominate, and be obeyed, and b) the center of this system, its highest authority, is their father. there’s a conflation of self-worth with duty and honor, of duty with the subjugation of others, and of familial with political loyalty.

so you have zuko, who understands himself as someone born to rule with all the power and responsibility that entails, but who’s plagued by a sense of inadequacy because he’s never been good enough in the eyes of the only person who matters according to this system. when we meet him, he’s been in exile outside the fire nation for years, but he still adheres rigidly to the logic that led to his banishment. he’s determined to redeem himself, to prove himself worthy on the terms set out for him, at any cost. but that rigidity is underscored by fragility, and zuko’s arc over the course of the series is largely about unraveling this system of values, which culminates when he gets everything he’s supposed to want and rejects it anyway. this is a difficult, complicated process, and not an uninterrupted one. for this development to have real emotional weight, you have to understand zuko as someone who starts out actually wanting those things (status, power, his father’s approval). zuko isn’t a morally pure soft boi: his worldview is fundamentally informed by a violent authoritarian ideology. it takes a long time for him escape from it, and it's going to influence him in underlying ways even after he officially rejects it.

and then you have azula. zuko, according to this system, is defined by failure, but azula is defined even more narrowly by success. azula, when we meet her, is exactly the kind of person authoritarian societies want to produce: strong, brave, strategically brilliant, attuned to her role in society, and completely loyal to the nation and the national cause. and I don’t think any of this is incidental to the question of why azula’s arc ends the way it does. because one of the major themes of a:tla as a show and the fire nation arcs in particular is the fundamental moral and strategic weakness of imperialism. and azula–who is both blameless and not, who was raised with this ideology and (unlike zuko) never had either a reason or much of an opportunity to question it, but who also perpetuated this imperialist system and hurt others in its name–goes down with it. her strengths become weaknesses. she loses her friends because she can’t understand or predict their defiance of the authoritarian framework. and, when her father’s rejection destroys both the illusion of his respect and her idea of herself as someone who wins while other people lose, she has nothing to fall back on. a lot of azula discussion revolves around assigning her individual moral value (good v bad, redeemable v irredeemable), when I think the most interesting way to look at her is as someone shaped by a bad system, whose good qualities are put to bad ends through interaction with that system. azula is a profoundly tragic character, because she never fails the ideal set out for her. instead, the ideal fails her. 

(@autistic-anarchist I started writing this before I saw your reply to my other post but I hope this is interesting to you!)

[hamliet]

The Girl Who Gets to Have It All: Buffy Summers

So with @linkspooky​‘s encouragement, I have binged Buffy the Vampire Slayer and relived my childhood culture. And, it's a 10/10 for me. Not that it doesn't have flaws, but it's genuinely one of the best stories I've seen, with consistent character arcs, powerful themes, and a beautiful message. It's also like... purportedly about vampires and demons and superpowered chosen ones, but it's actually all about humanity.

Buffy was able to be a teenage girl, allowed to like the things teen girls are scorned for (boys, shopping, etc), to be insecure about the thing teenage girls are insecure about (future careers, dating, school, parents), and to be a superhero with its good and its bad aspects. The story wasn’t afraid to call Buffy on her flaws (sometimes she got in a very ‘I am the righteous chosen one’ mode) and to respect and honor each of her desires (to be a good person, to be loved, and more). The story listened to what she wanted and respected her desires, giving her the challenges needed to overcome her flaws while also never teaching her a lesson about wanting bad boys or romance is silly or any manner of dark warnings stories like to throw at teenage girls. 

It respected teenage girls--nerdy girls like Willow, jocks like Buffy, lonely wallflowers with trauma like Dawn, and popular/snobby ones like Cordelia, girls gone wild like Faith. It never once reduced them to the stereotypes that were lurking right there: each character was fully rounded, human, flawed and yet with respected interests and goals. This is so rare for a story that I’m still in awe. 

The story as a whole follows Buffy from 15 to 21, of her as she grows from teenager to adult. She acts like a teenager and grows to act like a young adult, wrestling with loneliness and duty. The adults, like Giles, Joyce, and Jenny, are not perfect either, but neither are they “bad parents” or “bad mentors” necessarily. Joyce in particular says something terrible to Buffy, but she tries to do better, and it’s rare to see a parent in YA stories shown with such nuance. Basically, it wrote the long-lasting adult characters as human beings, too. 

Speaking of growing up, I appreciated how Buffy’s love interests mirrored this. Angel was someone Buffy loved and admired, wanted to be like, but who was always either extreme good or extreme bad, and combined with Buffy’s own tendencies towards black-white thinking, made for a beautiful relationship to help her grow, but didn’t necessarily form a foundation for a long-term partner. Spike, on the other hand... they both saw each other at their worst and were drawn to each other even then, and were inspired to become better because they couldn’t bear to be a person who treated the other person so wrongly. They pushed each other to become the best them they could be, and believed in each other. Also, Spuffy is an enemies to lovers ship for the ages. 

(Also, most of the other ships were well-done or at least can be understood. Riley was very obviously wrong for Buffy which paralleled Harmony and Spike in being 100% wrong for each other. Cordelia and Xander were a fun ship even if we all knew it would never last, and Willow and Oz were beautiful and cute. But Xander and Anya and Willow and Tara? OTPs. As were Giles and Jenny, the librarian and the computer teacher.) 

That said, it’s not a perfect series. No story is. All of the characters and ships had problematic aspects to them worthy of critique, and the writing is very 90s in a lot of ways. It’s a product of its time, and in many ways it’s good society has progressed beyond some of the tropes/metaphors used in the show. In other way, though, the show was ahead of its time, and in a good way it wasn’t bound by the fear of purity policing with its takes on redemption (many characters would never fly today). 

So, in order of seasons ranked from my very favorite to my “still enjoyed it very much” (no season was actually bad, imo), here’s my review. I’ll also review my top 10 villains in the show, because Buffy does villains very well in terms of the redeemable and irredeemable.  

Season 7:  Yep, the final season was my favorite. 

Overall Opinion: Buffy's finale is literally "f*ck them men, our power is ours" and while it seems cheesy it actually works (also, f*ck in both a literal and figurative sense). The series strongly hit all the themes: love as strength, and redemption. Buffy consistently shows love as her strength--*all* kinds of love. Friendship w Willow/Xander, familial with Joyce/Dawn, romantic with Spike/Angel. These types of love are also never pitted against each other as is so often the case in current-day media. It's beautiful. Also, Spike’s confrontation with Wood was so powerful in terms of exploring forgiveness, redemption, and reconciliation: where they overlap and where they don't, and what it means to move forward. 

Unpopular Opinion: I have seen a lot didn’t like the inclusion of Potential Slayers, and while I agree they could have been better incorporated/characterized, it was a great way to show Buffy’s final stage of growing up to be ending her chosen one status and projecting/multiplying her powers over the world. 

Biggest Critique: Kennedy was female Riley--the anti-Tara to Riley’s anti-Angel (by ‘anti’ I mean opposite in every way). Kennedy was annoying and immature. Her role, like Riley’s, was less about exploring her as a character and more about her just being stamped as “love interest: lesbian.” 

Favorite Episodes: Beneath You, Lies My Parents Told Me, Touched, Chosen

Season 6: 

Overall Opinion: I said this on Twitter, but I felt like this was Buffy’s The Last Jedi or Empire Strikes Back moment. It is polarizing and dark, deconstructing the tropes it stands on--but by digging to the core of these tropes, it actually makes what’s good about them shine brighter. Everyone’s enemy was the worst versions of themselves. Giles left Buffy, Willow's struggle to relate to the world led to her trying to destroy it, Buffy hurt everyone through her anger, Xander abandoned Anya at the altar, Spike... yeah. It ages well as an integral part of the story, and the Trio were eerily prophetic. 

Unpopular Opinion: Dawn is a great character with a good arc. A traumatized teen acting out and struggling to come to terms with loss and identity? She wasn’t whiny; she was realistic. 

Biggest Critique: Willow’s addiction coding (I’ll discuss this below) and Seeing Red as an episode. I see the argument for both of its controversial scenes from a narrative perspective: Willow starts the season not grieving Buffy but instead being determined to fix it with magic and needs to learn to grieve, but. Still. Bury your gays is not a good look. For the Spike scene... he conflates sex/passion and violence (”love is blood, children” is something he said way back in season 3), but like Tara’s death, it had more to do with Spike (as Tara’s death did for Willow) than with Buffy’s arc, and as for the actual execution... they really botched that. Did it like... have to go on that long or go that far? No. Also, the framing was good, but inconsistent with the rest of the series (Xander to Buffy in the hyena episode, Faith to Xander and to Riley, etc.) 

Favorite Episodes: Once More With Feeling, Smashed, Grave

Season 3 (tied with Season 5):

Overall Opinion: The opening continuity of Buffy meeting Lily/Anne after saving her life in Season 2 was sweet. The Witchhunt episode had really powerful subtext: stories of deaths that aren’t even true are actually demons that possess the town and convince them to turn against their children in the name of protecting the children. It’s a good commentary on, oh, everything in society. Faith’s character arc was fantastic, and her chemistry with Buffy was off the charts (look, I may be Spuffy all the way, but Fuffy has rights). The finale was satisfying in so many ways, seeing the entire graduating class unite to destroy the Mayor and the school with it, symbolizing Buffy et al’s readiness to move on to college. Oz's relationship with Willow was very sweet and meaningful for a first romance for Willow. 

Unpopular Opinion: I actually don’t really have one. Maybe that the miracle in Amends was earned? I think you can make a decent case that Season 3 is the best written of the seasons, but can only truly be thematically appreciated to its full potential in the light of subsequent seasons (which finish Faith’s arc and deconstruct Buffy’s).  

Biggest Critique: It forgot Buffy killed the hyena guy in Season 1, making her continual insistence that she can’t kill people very ????? 

Favorite Episodes: Lovers Walk, Amends, Graduation Day Part 2 

Season 5, which ties with Season 3:

Overall Opinion: The entire season is about family and what it means, from Tara’s to Buffy’s to the Scoobies. I loved Glory aka Enoshima Junko as the Big Bad, I loved Dawn’s interesting meta commentary on retconning (like, the fact that she’s retconned in matters), and most of my ships are still alive. Joyce’s relationship with Spike is one of the most heartwarming aspects, and Spike’s arc’s desire is clearly highlighted: he wants to be seen as a person. The episodes after Joyce’s death are the most honest portrayals of grief I’ve ever seen, and absolutely brutal to watch. 

Unpopular Opinion: Buffy’s choice at the end seems a deliberate inversion of her choice at the end of Season 2 (sacrifice a loved one to save the world), but it actually isn’t: much like at the end of Season 2 where Buffy skips town because she’s devastated after killing Angel and doesn’t want to sort out being expelled, her mom knowing she’s the slayer, and her own trauma, Buffy’s sacrifice here was as much about her wanting the easy way out of relationships, family, college, etc. as it was about saving Dawn. Buffy’s death is coded as a suicide, which Season 6 emphasizes as well. 

Biggest Critique: Like Season 3, I don’t have a lot to critique here. I wish the suicidal coding had been a little more obvious in Season 5 itself, but also I’m not sure it could have been more obvious; it’s pretty apparent if you pay attention. Maybe also that Buffy and Riley’s relationship failing should have been more squarely blamed on Riley, you know, being insecure and cheating. 

Favorite Episodes: Family, Fool for Love, Intervention. 

Season 2:

Overall Opinion: Heartbreakingly tragic but exciting and revealing at the same time. It asked the viewer interesting questions about redemption and forgiveness and atonement through Angel being honest about his past, and then decided to show us his past now reenacted, challenging us. And still, we saw them save him in a parallel to saving Willow in Season 6 (but Season 2 was tragic because it wasn’t enough, while Season 6 was not). Jenny’s death was agonizing, and the scene were Angel watches Buffy, Willow, and Joyce get the news through the window was powerful. We didn’t have to hear them to get the grief. 

Unpopular Opinion: Jenny’s death isn’t a fridging; it works for her arc too when you consider her history. She worked to save the person whose life she was tasked to ruin, and it cost her her own--yet she still succeeded, because Jenny brought joy and wisdom to the show. Kendra’s death, on the other hand... was because they needed the stakes to be high--but we already knew that before she died. So, her death was useless. 

Biggest Critique: The subtext was Not It. It was essentially “do not have sex. Your older boyfriend will lose his soul, kill your friends, you’ll lose your family, your school, your home, and have to kill your true love or else hell will literally swallow earth.” 

Favorite Episodes: School Hard, Passion, Becoming Part 2.

Season 1:

Overall Opinion: I really liked it; it’s just lower on this list because the others are just better. It’s a great introduction to the series and to its characters, from Giles to Buffy to Willow to Jenny to Cordelia. It has great subtext a lot of the time (for example, Natalie French as She-Mantis is a literal predatory bug who engages in predatory behavior with students). Additionally, it subverts the typical YA trope of two guys and a girl, in which the girl is usually the least interesting character. Buffy and Willow were both fully fledged characters from the beginning with distinct strengths (even before Willow became a witch, as she wasn’t one in season 1 yet), while Xander was the more ordinary of the group. 

Unpopular Opinion/Biggest Critique: Xander’s arc showed its first flaws that unfortunately continued throughout the series: his writing was either very good or very indulgent in ways it never was for other characters.  (cough, the hyena episode, cough, in which he gets to skirt responsibility--and acknowledges that he is skirting it--for something the show will later hold others to account for). Xander’s just kind of inconsistent, which weakened his character over all. (Which is why both his love interests--Cordelia and then ultimately Anya--were good for him: they did not indulge him.) 

Favorite Episode: Witch, Nightmares. 

Season 4:

Overall Opinion: it’s still a good season. It’s a good portrayal of college and the growing pains of branching out, the strains of college growth on relationships (romantic and platonic). It shows us the first hints of Spuffy, giving us some serious Jungian symbolism between Spike and Buffy early on, and does well in establishing Xander/Anya and Willow/Tara as beautiful OTPs. Faith and Buffy’s foiling is fantastic. The Halloween episode was very fun as well. However, it suffers because its Big Bad, Adam, is not all that compelling thematically--yet, he could have been. See, the final battle pulls off the Power of Friendship in a really strong way but notably the season does not end there. Instead, it ends on dreams of each character’s worst fears, continuing what we saw in Nightmares in Season 1. Why? Because it shows us that the characters’ wars aren’t against monsters, but monsters of their own making: their flaws. Adam, as a literal Frankenstein, exemplifies this, but it wasn’t capitalized on as well as it could have been. 

Unpopular Opinion: Beer Bad isn’t a bad episode, at the very least because Buffy gets to punch Parker. It’s not one of the series’ best, obviously, but it does give Buffy an arc in that she gets her daydream of Parker begging her to come back, but she has overcome that desire and her desire for revenge. If we wanna talk about bad subtext in Season 4, Season 2′s Not It sex subtext continues in the Where the Wild Things Are episode in this season; it’s a powerful callout of abusive purity-culture churches, until the fact that the shame creates a literal curse undermines the progressive message it’s supposed to send. Also, the Thanksgiving episode (Pangs) is a nightmare of white guilt and Oh God Shut Up White People. 

Biggest Critique: Riley is awful. Like Kennedy, he had “love interest:normal” stamped on him and that was it. The thing is, he could have worked as an Angel foil, representative of the normal-life aspect of Buffy to Angel’s vampire/supernatural aspect, but the writers never explore this and seemed to even try to back away from that later on. They threw all the romantic cliches at the wall to see what sticks, from klutzy “I dropped my schoolbooks, that’s how we met” to cliché lines that had me rolling my eyes. Do you know how bad a romance has to be to make me dislike romantic tropes? 

Favorite Episodes: Fear Itself, Hush, Restless

Villain rankings: 

Dark Willow, the only villain to be truly sympathetic. While the addiction coding was insensitive and, while unsurprising for its time, aged extremely poorly. That said, Willow’s turn to the dark side after Tara’s death worked well for her character and the story: it was believable and paid off what had been building since Season 1's “Nightmares” episode (Willow’s inferiority complex). 

Glory managed to be genuinely terrifying, and humorous/enjoyable too. Her minions and their numerous nicknames for Glorificus were hilarious, as was her intense vanity. Her merging with Ben--a human being who genuinely wanted to be kind and good--added complexity and tragedy to her role. 

The First. A really good take on Satan. The seventh season as well as the First’s first appearance in season 3′s “Amends” had kind of blatant Christian symbolism, and so the First being essentially Satan works. Their disguising themselves as dead loved ones and the subtle manipulation they used to alienate people was really disturbing and well done. 

The Mayor, who was a terrible person but a truly good father. He provided an interesting contrast to the normal ‘bad dad’ bad guy character, in that he provided Faith exactly what the other characters refused to: he saw the best in her and offered her parental support, while the heroes didn’t and wound up pushing her away. 

The Trio, who were villains ahead of their time: whiny fanboy reddit dudebros, basically. The stakes seemed so much lower than fighting Glory, a literal god, the previous season. But that’s why they worked so well for Season 6′s human themes, and were especially disturbing because we all know people like them. I also appreciated the surprisingly sensitive takes on Jonathan and Andrew, who got to redeem themselves, but Warren did not, and I don’t think he should have either. 

Angelus + Drusilla. I’m ranking them below the Trio because Angelus was just sooooo different from Angel that it was difficult for me to feel the same way for him. He was still Angel, so it wasn’t possible to enjoy his villainy, but he also wasn’t nearly as sympathetic as Dark Willow, had no redeeming qualities like the Mayor, and wasn’t as disturbingly realistic as the Trio. However, the emotional stakes were excellently executed with him as the Big Bad, in that you were never quite sure how to feel and it just plain hurt. Also, Drusilla was a favorite recurring character. She was sympathetic and yet batsh*t enough to be enjoyable as a villain at the same time. 

The Master, who was just completely camp and really worked as an introductory villain. He was scary enough to believe he was a threat, and was funny enough to introduce the series’ humor as well. He was, like Glory, an enjoyable Big Bad. 

The Gentlemen, the one-off villains of Season 4′s Hush who were genuinely terrifying. It’s not as if they got a lot of explanation or any backstory, but they didn’t need it. 

Caleb, the misogynist priest. Fitting with the First’s Christian symbolism, Caleb serving as a spokesperson of all bad religious beliefs felt appropriate. He was also a good foil to Warren--being actually supernaturally powered instead of a wannabe--and to Tara’s family in being full-out evil. I despised him. 

Snyder. Okay Snyder is not a Big Bad like Adam is, but let’s face it: Adam is lame compared to the other villains. But Snyder as a principal? He was so irritating and yet really well used in the series to critique overly strict, hypocritical teachers. Like, we all know teachers like him. I loved to hate him, and his ending was so satisfying.