#the world is allowed morally gray characters

[ky-landfill]

He thinks of Jason constantly. When he’s working in the prison kitchen. When he’s lying awake at night in his cell. When a thunderstorm crashes against the roof of the prison, and all he can think of is Jason running to the window, fearless, to watch the storm in all its fury and wonder raging on the other side of the glass.

[musical-chick-13]

Best predictor of whether or not I will like a female character is if I can go on the TvTropes ymmv page for the work she appears in and see discussions about whether she's sympathetic and complicated or Actually Just A Bitch. That's when you know the character is good.

[memoriescut]

fandom calling pudding selfish for what she did at the end of wci don't understand the nuances of being an absolute gaslight gatekeep girlboss who can't help but be messy to further the plot

[overdecorated-furniture]

Dead Parents - How to avoid them.

We are all very familiar with the notion of dead parents in fiction. For example, Harry Potter’s parents are dead before the first book even starts. Or in Portrait of Dorian Gray, the protagonist is brought up by an absentee and very neglectful grandfather. It’s a trope used again and again. And it does kind of work. It certainly allows your young protagonists the opportunity to gain agency and find their own way in the adventure thrown at them. But it’s also rather predictable. As a reader, we don’t sympathise as much because it’s such a used trope.

So, here are some of my thoughts about how to avoid the dead parents trope, and still propel your characters into the action.

Kill Someone Else.

I know, violence isn’t supposed to be the answer. But characters don’t only have close relationships with their parents. If your plot centres around a revenge quest for a dead loved one, it doesn’t have to be a parent.

Siblings who got caught in the crossfire trying to protect your MC, or an aunt/uncle they were close to being poisoned works just as well. Best friends are also a useful source of grief, and the fact it’s someone outside the family perhaps gives your MC more of a push. Equally, a significant other may work, although that is a used trope too. It might even just be a beloved pet.

Use their Morals.

People in the real world do not simply act out of revenge for the death of a loved one. Character morals can be just as powerful a motive for action, and Young people in particular are just beginning to discover what matters to them, and so it feels at its most important.

Perhaps your MC feels that the magic system in your fantasy world does not allow for people with disabilities to have access, and so uses that as their springboard. Or in an apocalypse setting, the desire to protect fellow humans against a threat may act as the MC’s launch pad for setting up a safe base somewhere. Concerns over equality, safety, climate change, government choices and even things as small as how cereal is marketed can motivate a character into changing their world/current situation.

Create Conflict.

Arguments, breakups, scrappy fistfights with someone in a back alley. Conflict is one of the spokes of a story, as it creates opportunities for moving the plot forward, and can hold the characters back from achieving their aims. Using this to start your character’s story arc makes for an explosive scene, and allows immediate sympathy with the situation they are in. Everyone argues, has had someone they care about walk out of their lives, or has at least been punched, so the familiarity of a minor but important conflict helps the reader associate with the character, as well as setting up any skills the character has or may need in order to defeat the foe at the climax of the story.

Parental Encouragement.

In a good family situation, parents will want to support their children and young people in achieving their goals. And the same can be true in stories. Perhaps your character wants to learn to play hockey, for example. Their parents can very easily encourage them to join a practice group, help them buy kit, and encourage them to play in matches. Having a supportive adult can mean as much to an MC as having said support removed, and although this doesn’t work for epic fantasy revenge quests, it does create a welcoming atmosphere for a reader.

Those are the main ones I can think of off the top of my head. Do add in comments/tags any you know of!

Happy writing!🌿

[amuseoffyre]

With Black Sails being back in streaming in some areas, I'm imagining how much it would infuriate the current slew of people who are convinced that watching morally gray/bad characters makes you as a viewer a morally gray/bad person.

Our leading man straight up beats someone to death with a cannon ball in the first couple of episodes and kills many many many people while acting out of grief, loss, remorse and rage. Also, he is baby and cries in his cabin.

One of our leading lady abandons and double-crosses her lovers (both male and female) out of her desire to do what she believes is the right thing to keep their world alive and running, trading, bartering and fighting every step of the way.

And the best part is that none of these characters start out this way. We have so many idealists. The hopeful ones who want the better world, but the better world isn't something 'civilisation' will allow them to have and the carnage comes when they try and change things. It's a scream against the injustices of the world that pushes people to desperate measures to hold onto and protect what little they have.

This is how they survive. They paint the world full of shadows and then tell their children to stay close to the light. Their light. Their reasons. Their judgments. Because in the darkness, there be dragons. But it isn't true. We can prove that it isn't true. In the dark there is discovery. There is possibility. There is freedom in the dark once someone has illuminated it.

Everyone else is ruthless, survivalist, determined to do whatever they have to in order to get what they want/need. People make horrible decisions out of desperation and because there's literally no other choice. And there are consequences. Each action causes ripples in the canon pool. No decision, no matter how reckless/hopeless/desperately made, comes without repercussions.

Unlike so many series, what happens in the episodes before directly impacts how the events that follow play out. Action and reaction. It's a narrative that begins long before we join the story and, when we leave it, it's a narrative that will continue long afterwards. It's a bloody, chaotic, glorious and devastating would-be revolution.

In case I hadn't mentioned it, I adore this show with every fibre of my being. It is packed with so many layers and so much nuance and history and phenomenal character arcs.

[peachdues]

the older I get, the more appreciation I have for morally gray female MCs.

I’m so tired that the men get a pass to do extremely questionable shit and still get to avoid the label of being a “bad” or “toxic” character but god forbid a woman exist in any gray. She either must be as pure as driven snow or a villain (who isn’t allowed any redemption arc and in fact must be sexualized and then killed by the hero).

The world does not exist in black and white. Let women in literature exist in shades of gray.

[stinkypire]

my frustration with the bsd fandom is that their bias hatred towards mori causes them to be stubborn in not analyzing mori's character at all. yes, he has done bad shit, but 80% of the characters has as well. bsd is a morally gray world. they simplify him to "pedo sadist that fiddles children" like just wtf. the sa dazai headcanon and theories spread around and shown in the fics are just so disgusting and triggering. you're taking such an intersting, mysterious, and well written character and painting him as the source of every problem in the BSD universe (basically making him a scapegoat). it's illogical and stupid. you're allowed to dislike characters, just appreciate how well written they are and don't simplify them down/mischaracterize them due to your contempt towards them.

[tinned-beef]

Allison Hargreeves is being unfairly vilified?

Allison Hargreeves as in 'SA'd Luther' Allison Hargreeves? Allison Hargreeves as in 'confirmed Viktor's worst ongoing fears and anxieties just because Viktor was grieving his friend/stepson and it annoyed her' Allison Hargreeves? Allison Hargreeves 'contributed to the deaths of two of her siblings' Allison Hargreeves? Allison Hargreeves 'nothing anyone else has lost over the course of this nightmare matters as much as what I lost so I'm gonna fuck everything up potentially irreparably' Allison Hargreeves?

That Allison Hargreeves? I mean don't get me wrong I like her but she's very much a villain right now. She's an interesting villain, a compelling villain, a better villain than Reggie since we actually know wtf her problem is and we wish things hadn't turned out this way. But a villain all the same.

i don't think allison is a villain. at best, i'd say she's an antihero. at worst, she was a catalyst for viktor's arc in season three.

i would like to start by saying that i'm not defending allison's actions. i think what she did was wrong. however, i don't think she deserves all the hate that she's gotten. she's a character that is very morally gray, and people continue to paint her in solely black or white.

what i try to convey in this... very long post is that there's a reason for what allison does in season three. the question of if she’s a villain or not can be debated, but i believe that the reasons for her actions don’t make her a villain.

a big reason why the umbrella academy is such an incredible show is that all the umbrellas are flawed and nuanced, and despite it all they love. all of the umbrellas have their faults, and allison is no different.

in season three allison has lost all hope. she thinks she will never see her child again, her husband is dead, the world is ending, and to her it seems like her siblings don't give a shit. amidst all the chaos and the whirlwind of her life, she needs something that she's used to. something she knows how to navigate.

so she turns to luther. and she gets the comfort she's looking for but it's not right.

allison and luther's relationship is something that has been a topic of many debates in this fandom. i don't really want to get into it right now, but they've always been a person of comfort to each other. allison wants to feel loved and cared for, and she thinks she can get that comfort from luther.

allison is naturally selfish. she's used to getting what she wants. she's used to having the world at her fingertips. and yet almost everything she's held close to her heart has been ripped away from her. and she's never getting it back.

in season three she falls back onto her old habits, rumoring people left and right with no consideration for others. it makes sense because it's the only way she knows how to get what she wants.

and then she rumors luther. she doesn't want to lose him either, and she thinks that he's choosing sloane over her (which is true, but she thinks he's leaving forever. she thinks she'll lose him too). but she almost instantly realizes what she's done, almost instantly tries to take it away.

as for her relationship with viktor, that's another can of worms. in season one, allison is the only one really trying to mend that relationship with viktor. but it's a rocky road. allison snaps at viktor, viktor snaps at allison. these two have had tension from the very start. eventually, that bond had to snap.

at the start of season three, viktor is the only one that really tries to help allison. he stands up for her, and comforts her after she returns from la. but by episode three allison is so consumed by her grief that she's already clashing with viktor.

and when harlan makes an appearance, it just gets worse. harlan is like a son to viktor. someone viktor can care for. and when viktor turns that care and attention away from allison and instead towards harlan, it hurts. why is viktor allowed to have his child when allison will never get to see claire again?

in season three luther tells viktor that allison has “always been good to you (viktor)”. but there comes a point where your love and gratitude towards someone can morph into bitterness and hate.

the reason i say allison is a catalyst for viktor in season three is because the writers needed someone to contest his ideas. someone that will create a struggle for viktor that he will ultimately come out of with a new lesson learned. and allison is a great contender for that position. the show needs conflict in order to have an engaging story at all, and tense relationships between the siblings can be seen throughout all three seasons. (luther and diego in season one, ben and klaus in season two)

as for the deaths of her siblings, do you really think she wanted that to happen? she doesn’t want to lose any more people, that’s the main driver of her character shift in this season.

allison turns towards reginald because she sees it as the only option left. klaus does the same thing, so why is it any different when allison does it? she didn’t know her siblings would die in the process.

allison isn’t even the only sibling that has contributed to a sibling’s (almost) death. viktor slashes her throat in season one, ben sacrifices himself to save the world, and luther willingly walks into the room to talk to reginald. how is that allison’s fault?

i think this is also why five gives his talk to viktor, not allison. he understands what allison is going through on some level, understands the despair of losing those who are close to you. understands being willing to do anything to get them back. even though he quite loudly disagrees with allison making a deal with reginald, it's because he knows she's getting tricked. reginald never had their best interests at heart.

they’ve all lost people, and they all react to that loss in different ways. in season 1, when diego finds that patch was killed, he instantly wants to go for revenge. he plans on going after hazel and cha cha but five inevitably talks him out of it.

allison doesn’t have that influence. in fact, diego suggests to instead let that grief out through anger. i don’t think it was a very good solution in the end.

and despite all that, she wants to redeem herself. she tries to tell viktor the truth, she admits that she made the plan for all of them. she kills reginald and she’s the one that pushes the button at the end of season three. there’s so much left that we don’t know. did allison know what would happen when she pressed the button? did she know what reginald’s real plan was?

but in the end, allison is the reality of a person who has lost those who are closest to her. it’s probably the best job the writers have done while showing trauma and grief. i don’t think allison is a villain, and i think that accusing her of solely caring about herself is unfair.

[berlingotesque]

What are your ships for Batim? :D

VERY GOOD QUESTION- I know my answer should be rather straightforward but I feel I have to put some context to my answers since they may seem contradictory/paradoxical otherwise, so bear with me-

Sammy x Norman : Well. I think that one was pretty obvious, anyone who's seen more than 3 of my posts knows that I'd die for these two. They're just so PERFECT for each other, from their complementary personalities to the fact that their relationship allows us to delve deeper into batim's historical and social context. Sammy and Norman have one of the few relationships that develop the most during the game's lore : Norman originally complains vehemently about Sammy's frenetic behavior, only to end up lamenting to Buddy and Dot how 'Sammy isn't the same anymore'. What's interesting about this statement is that he says it in relation to Sammy's strange behavior : clearly, the two men have grown close enough for Norman to differentiate Sammy's extravagant habits from his ink-influenced behavior.

Furthermore, Sammy is a very gray character morally, a perfectionist who is extremely socially maladjusted (surely due to the fact that he's coded on the spectrum and autism wasn't properly diagnosed at the time), naturally ostracizing him. For his part, Norman comes from a rural background (which surely earns him the animosity of the people at the studio, given the historical context and the fact that he could very well be poc) and also seems ill at ease socially : to me, it's fascinating to see two characters excluded from their peers because of differences they can't change (being autistic or poc and gay) getting closer to each other, to the point where Sammy, who is deeply misanthropic, naturally compliments Norman by describing him as very bright. To me, Norman is the perfect partner for Sammy : ready to apprehend him as he is, since he's completely free of social conventions, without taking any shits from him.

I think Sammy and Norman can really get the best out of each other, during a historical period when being different was strongly proscribed. I think I'd have trouble enjoying Batim as much without their dynamic at its heart (considering how narratively rich it is) : Norman is Henry's confidant, Sammy is Joey's, both remain morally gray deuteragonists fundamentally opposed to the ink machine, while remaining fascinated by its powers. And who wouldn't love a good old enemies to lovers ending tragically with the unwitting murder of one by the other ? After all, Norman's main flaw is that he's too curious for his own good, and it was Sammy who inevitably led him to his doom..

Allison x Tom : what more can I add. She's everything. He's just Tom. I've always been drawn to characters/ships with a vibe completely opposite to the vibe of the work they originally came from, and the 'turning poison into positivity' energy that Tom and Allison bring to Batim has always fascinated me. In a world as tragic as their own, I find it touching to see these two find beauty in all the ugliness and manage to ask themselves 'what if we were happy after all ?' It's really striking and brings a narrative richness to the work, since they directly mirror what failed with Sammy and Susie : Allison is perfect, but that was never what was at stake in Tom's eyes. Tom was looking for humanity, not perfection, and he managed to go beyond the image of the muse to discover a friend, unlike Sammy with Susie. They're literally Romeo and Juliet but, well... Not dead.

Joey x Henry/Henry x Linda : oh boy. These three... Let me get it straight right away : Henry and Linda are perfect for each other. She's exactly what he needs to be happy : she's present, patient. There's no denying that he loves her immensely. But Joey... oh Joey is undoubtedly Henry's soul mate. The subtlety is that Joey can't bring him the stable happiness Linda can : Joey tugs at him, pushes him over the edge. He knows exactly what to do to push him beyond his own limits. The love Joey offers Henry is an uncomfortable but unconditional one, one that would allow Henry to go beyond what he thinks he's capable of achieving because no one knows Henry better than Joey ! And let's be honest, Batim only exists because Joey refuses to move on, to live his dream without Henry in it. He's stuck in unrequited love and refuses to learn to live with it. And that's the tragedy of this trio : Henry sincerely loves Linda but is truly himself with Joey, which prevents him from hating OR loving him (And Joey exploits this information by remaining extremely toxic and convincing himself that he can wear him down lmao). Henry is stuck with this dilemma : Existing peacefully with Linda or living painfully with Joey. And that's why I love the dynamic of this love triangle : because there are no solutions that will satisfy everyone.

Joey x Sammy : okay, don’t get me wrong : these two are HORRIBLE for each other. Does Sammy periodically want to quit just to piss Joey off? Yes. Isn't Joey's fascination with Sammy intimately tied to his refusal to forget Henry, who was a genius like Sammy? Yes. Nevertheless, it's impossible for me to read The Illusion of Living without feeling embarrassed and like I'm reading Joey's diary : whether you ship them or not, Joey is practically canonically smitten with Sammy. I sincerely don't think Joey and Sammy can sustain a healthy relationship with each other, but oh boy, surely that won't stop me from exploiting their bizarre obsessive love-hate relationship, where it's hard to determine whether they're going to throw hands or make out.

[holden-norgorov]

"What are The Hunger Games for?" An essay on the fans' puzzling response to Snow.

This is basically my take on the entire TBOSAS discourse. [Warning: this will be long.]

The assertion that showing why a villain makes villainous choices (and why often from the villain’s POV they get reframed as morally good or right choices, so as to allow him to justify himself or self-excuse his own behavior to carry them out) is somehow “problematic” because it runs the risk of legitimizing his evilness or even praising it as a valid and commendable response to the world is by itself insulting and implicitly insinuates the idea that good and evil are not choices every human being makes, but rather independent constants that have nothing to do with each individual’s autonomy – when in fact the whole point of the book is that good and evil much closely resemble multiple differential functions whose variables can be extremely varied in both nature and number. In the case of Snow alone we already have: childhood trauma about the war, physiological trauma about starvation and malnutrition, staunch supremacist and totalitarian upbringing from Crassus and Grandma’am, poverty and scarcity that culminated in some kind of block or impairment in his physical growth and development during his teenage years and that most likely forever altered his metabolic and neurological processes to a significant degree, philosophical and ideological indoctrination from Dr. Gaul, social and economical collapse of his family’s wealth and reputation combined with the need and pressure to keep up appearances, etc. Claiming that Snow’s ultimately sick moral compass cannot derive from any of this is like claiming that nothing we experience in our formative years bears any role in shaping and defining who we become and what kind of choices we end up making.

That of Choice is, in my opinion, one of the most important themes of the book, and we really get a sense of this in the way Snow’s kills progress through the story, and particularly in how every next kill he engages in is the result of less independent variables that find themselves out of Snow’s direct control:

Bobbin; killed in straightforward self-defense after Snow is forced by Gaul to enter the Arena.

Mayfair; killed not in a life-or-death situation, but as a consequence of her threat to have both Lucy Gray and him hanged (so, this time the threat of creating a life-or-death situation is sufficient to provoke the same response).

Sejanus; killed as a result of a variety of fairly complicated variables, with most of them being directly dependent on Snow’s sphere of influence, intentions and interests, and deriving from what he deems as more important or morally correct for himself or what he believes in.

Highbottom; killed in cold-blooded cruelty and premeditation, with the murder being exclusively motivated by a desire to carry out evil without remorse, as Snow has finally reached the same conclusion Dr. Gaul was so eager to instill in him by appealing to his emotional attachment to his past and to his ambitions (which in turn stemmed from the traumas he went through), which is that every human being is actually evil at its core, and that the world is made up of victors who can exert evil with impunity and losers who just become victims of it.

Obviously Collins is not stupid and knows perfectly well that there are predispositions (also, if not mostly, genetically inherited, because at birth we all get handed a deck of cards we don’t choose and just have to learn to handle and master, whether we like it or not) that may make someone more inclined to do good or commit evil (Snow is indeed described from the start with narcissistic traits and sociopathic tendencies, but these seeds of his character get nurtured and watered instead of sublimated and eradicated because of what happens to him and the choices he’s pressured to make or deliberately chooses to carry out as a response to his circumstances), but I absolutely disagree with the kind of interpretation according to which the prequel demonstrates that Snow was always “destined” to be a villain because he was rotten right from his mother’s womb, just because it seems to me that there’s this giant terror in indulging the question “oh my God, what if evil is always a choice?” as it could be seen as an attempt to legitimize or excuse Snow’s behavior as an adult, when in fact, as far as I’m concerned, if would do nothing but condemn him doubly.

Essentially, claiming that Snow is a villain because he has always been evil and could have not been anything different literally provides ground to justify his actions behind the idea that he really didn’t have any other choice, and that everything he did was just the result of his villainous nature. This is exactly the same kind of thinking Dr. Gaul is able to inculcate in him, and that he exploits to be able to sleep at night knowing what he chooses to do during the day. The book obviously states the exact opposite, and in order to do so it has to argue that yes, Snow is a human being with the same moral layers and the same innate capability to be good and virtuous that everybody else has, but he has constantly rejected every chance he had to embark on a different path than the one he ended up travelling. Showing that Snow, the Villain, was made and not born DOESN’T mean that the author is justifying the character or that she’s patronizingly saying to us “oh poor soul, you better weep for him because he was a misunderstood victim of the system, etc” as I’ve seen so many fans argue since the novel was released back in 2020. It actually means that the character gets condemned twice by the narrative because he’s ultimately the conscious product of himself and the way he chose to respond to the world – and yes, that also includes to personal injustices and blinding traumas he experienced as a kid and didn’t deserve, and to circumstances that, as opposed to make him sympathetic to fellow victims who went through similar or comparable experiences, shaped him into someone who denies (or more likely, convinces himself of the impossibility) that human beings can even be genuinely sympathetic to each other in the first place.

Moreover, since I’m already on the subject, I’d like to add a little consideration regarding the fact that, if all of this about Snow’s character escaped so many people, then I’m not positive that the full political and philosophical message of the novel has been adequately understood by the fanbase, or that Collins’ brilliant idea underneath it has been adequately appreciated in its genius. The movie more or less manages to give it justice, but not completely. Because the book basically tells you: okay, The Hunger Games are the product of a school project by two drunk students, but they have been set up by a sadist (Dr. Gaul) and kept alive for 75 years by her pupil who she shaped in her likeness (Snow). Both Gaul and Snow argue that The Hunger Games exist to preserve all humanity (the so-called overarching order of things), and the reasoning they provide behind this conviction of theirs is very mechanistic, almost mathematical, stemming from naked economics and scarcity at least as much as, if not more than, existential considerations on the flaws of human nature. Gaul says, and Snow repeats: human beings are instinctively wired to be evil. This is testified by the fact that human beings, much like every other living beings, are dominated by a survival instinct that is capable of turning them into predators in order to avoid or preempt the risk of becoming preys. The possibility to become prey is a realistic prospect that the human being assesses and that, according to Dr. Gaul, demonstrates the inherent distrustful nature of Man (you don’t trust others not to kill you, as soon as you know they have the chance to and have to weigh that chance with the preservation of their own life). So, the notable conditions at the so-called “natural state” (civilization disappears in the Arena because the tributes are purposefully stripped of it) support the Hobbesian “homo homini lupus” view of humankind. Immediate consequence: if the species is to survive in any way, a means to control this primitive impulse towards self-destruction has to be devised (by the way, it’s interesting to me that Katniss herself also concludes that the human species gravitates towards that very thing at the end of Mockingjay, right after both Coin and Snow are dead). This impulse requires, so to speak, to be “parametrized”. So yes, Gaul says, and Snow repeats, that the world is nothing but a battlefield where a constant fight between people who are driven by this self-destructive impulse is carried out, and that whichever artificial construction built upon that impulse can only serve the purpose of obfuscating or hiding it, and therefore making us forget “who we really are”. So, this would apparently be what The Hunger Games are for: to remind us of who we are at the natural state, and therefore of what we need to keep human nature under control. And the movie (more or less) communicates this successfully.

But there’s actually a subtler layer to this. Because in the book Dr. Gaul even argues that, if the world itself is an enlarged Arena, if mankind is instinctively wired to self-destruct, and if peace is impossible, then The Hunger Games are not only a useful solution: they are a noble solution. Because their purpose is not to punish the defeated of a settled war. It’s to contain the scope of a war that hasn’t yet ended, and will never end. Even the conflict between the Capitol and the districts isn’t actually over: it’s just routinely ritualized, televised and sold as entertainment to the masses. And it’s much more convenient for everyone that a war taking place in the real Arena (the world) is contained in its catastrophic effects by periodically absorbing them in a highly supervised representation of a warlike conflict confined to a small, parametrized ground, which is much easier to control and leads to the loss of fewer human lives overall and the waste of fewer resources (let’s always keep in mind that Panem is a post-apocalyptic state). The genius behind the idea of The Hunger Games lies in this: in the ability, from those who have the upper ground, to believably reframe them as a noble management strategy for a problem that is actually without solution, but whose total control is of utmost importance.

All of this obviously applies IF one moves from the idea that human beings are innately evil. But the saga shows countless times, both in the original trilogy and in this prequel, that this is not the case, and therefore that The Hunger Games cannot be justified by any means, and are nothing more than a barbarity. And yet, Collins’ ability to pull you into the thoughts and meanderings of a sadist whose conclusions mostly derive from her own prejudices (which she takes as axiomatic) in order to make you understand why and how The Hunger Games have come into existence and have been gradually accepted by the dominant society is astounding and nothing short of genius. And this is also why I think TBOSAS was a necessary addition to write, as it basically fills a gap left by the original trilogy. You read the trilogy and you are left thinking “okay but Capitol City is beyond unrealistic because only a society made up of psychopaths could tolerate such an inhumane instrument”. Then you read the prologue and you understand that Capitol City’s point of view (deeply sick, but now scarily comprehensible) is that The Hunger Games, in the face of a deeply flawed human nature dominated by survival instinct and self-destructive impulses, are merely a strategic device whose ultimate function is to preserve civilization (by “parametrizing” the scope and development of a never-ending war) and allow the ruling class to maintain enough resources to keep the government afloat (thereby proving successful in contrasting the hegemony of the “natural state”).

Now, if I also deeply believed in this worldview and had been convinced since birth of its validity, and I belonged to the winning faction of a post-apocalyptic society that’s been relentlessly torn apart by war, I don’t know if I would see the apparent callousness of The Hunger Games as such an absurd price to pay in order to maintain what, according to what has been taught to me, is the only order capable of assuring the survival of the entire human species. As ugly and uncomfortable as it is, it’s still a political and philosophical dilemma that whoever is in charge of government and is responsible for keeping the whole country of Panem alive and functioning is obligated to face, whether willingly or not. So here we come to the typical leitmotiv of how power inevitably corrupts, but dealt with much more interestingly and thoroughly than how it’s conventionally explored in these kinds of stories.

All of this to say that, if we move from the assumption that to “humanize” Snow is to legitimize his evilness, and that he has engaged in all these monstruous acts purely because he was a monster through and through from the start, then we are playing right into Dr. Gaul’s hands and supporting her own thesis, as we are reducing the human experience to some kind of conflict between victors and losers whose nature is already predisposed and independent from the choices they make, and not only that: we are implicitly supporting the existence of punitive instruments like The Hunger Games. Because, if I take for valid that someone can be born evil and never escape this ontological condition, no matter what he does or doesn’t do, what prevents me from inferring that this may be the case for other people as well (or for everyone, even) and that something about human nature has to be fundamentally wrong? What prevents me from concluding that punitive or corrective methods to keep at least these unredeemable, inherently corrupt individuals under control should be established, and that to do so is a moral good? What prevents me from justifying the validity of barbaric, inhumane strategies detrimental to the fundamental rights of people in order to confront what I perceive to be as morally sound and perfectly justified needs because they are grounded on beliefs I think are true, or I’ve been sold as such?

A lot of still existing ideologies originate from specific beliefs about the intrinsic nature of certain groups of people in order to reach conclusions that appear to be legitimate for whoever embraces them but that in reality are actually horrendous and disgusting, which historically can lead (and in some cases have already led) to the establishment of sociopolitical systems characterized by such a disconcerting inhumanity as to be horrifying. And yet those were and are real people, with a personal moral conscience, that were and are able to do this (and still sleep at night) because so confidently self-assured to be right thinking “yes, those people are inherently subhuman/inferior/defective/violent/uncivilized and that’s because it’s their own nature, so I’m fully justified in the measures I take against them, no matter how dehumanizing they might be”.

Snow wasn’t a monster from the start. He chose to become a monster because he chose to believe Dr. Gaul when she said to him “any and all atrocities you might commit are not actually your own fault, because evil is inherent in all of us and coincides with our natural state, which means we can exploit it to impose what we deem as the most beneficial kind of control and order so as to save humanity from itself”.

And it’s in the climactic scene with Lucy Gray that every thematic knot is finally unraveled and Snow concludes (rather, chooses to conclude) that Dr. Gaul is right. Indeed, as soon as Lucy Gray realizes she’s now the only obstacle in the way separating Snow from gaining back the wealth and prestige of his family’s old name, she chooses to prioritize her own safety to the idea of trusting him or even giving him the benefit of the doubt, and quickly puts herself out of his reach to observe his next course of action from a comfortable distance, minimizing the risk of becoming prey. She fears he intends to kill her, so she grabs a knife and gains the upper ground, placing herself out of his sight. But from Snow’s internal monologue we know that at first his actual intentions are really just to speak with her, and doesn’t seem willing to hurt her at all. It’s the fact that he is still holding the rifle while making these internal considerations that ultimately prompts Lucy Gray to feel threatened, and therefore distrustful of him. So she hides and places a snake under the orange scarf, knowing he would be drown to it. She picks a non-venomous kind, because her intention is NOT to kill him, but to prevent him from killing her, which is what she thinks he is planning to do. She wants to neutralize him, or induce him to give up. And it’s, ironically, that very gesture that finally plants in Snow the idea of killing her, because he believes that she has tried to kill him and therefore that she wants him dead. The entire scene is genial because it’s a small-scale reproduction of a typical Hunger Games edition, where the theme I was talking about before comes to the fore-front: it’s the mere suspect, or the fear of turning into prey that urges someone to become predator. You don’t need to actually be a prey, you just have to believe you might become one. She fears he wants to kill her when he just wants to talk to her, so she sets up a trap for him: he misunderstands the trap as attempted murder, and reframes as self-defense his subsequent decision to try to kill her before she kills him. It’s a downward spiral of madness that Snow falls victim to that finally legitimizes, in his eyes, what Dr. Gaul has been telling him, because he sees that reflected both in his own behavior and in what he thinks is Lucy Gray’s behavior as well here: the survival instinct makes human beings evil at the natural state, so it has to be the role of civilization to keep this tendency towards self-destruction in check by constantly reminding people of what they actually are, bare of all their superficial artifices. Therefore, The Hunger Games are an instrument of civility.

From Snow’s point of view, he just wanted to talk to Lucy Gray in a civilized manner, but she hid in the forest to set a trap for him and tried to kill him with a snake out of the fear that he was going to abandon her and travel back to District 12. From Lucy Gray’s point of view, she sought refuge away from him to save her own skin and tried to neutralize a lethal attack with the hopes that a non-venomous snake bite could prove successful in disincentivizing his intention to shoot at her. Both misunderstood the ally-opponent by listening to their own instincts thus determining in the ally-opponent the kind of response that could justify their own convictions. Lucy Gray’s destiny is left uncertain, but Snow reenters the district borders having gone through some kind of existential epiphany, and the fundamental detail that the snake was non-venomous doesn’t even cross his mind in its implications and doesn’t seem to put at all into question what he has just concluded, because the actual, true realization he experiences in the forest is first and foremost about himself, and the way his own paranoia has completely validated what Dr. Gaul previously told him about human beings, and even about how Lucy Gray (in his own twisted recollection of events) has finally proved to him that they were not any different after all.

So, once he has chosen to believe that Lucy Gray was out to kill him, the circumstantial fact that the snake was non-venomous is quickly dismissed by Snow as non-relevant. But the snake being non-venomous is, incidentally, the defining element that finally allows the reader to properly differentiate Lucy Gray from Coriolanus when it comes to the dichotomy the entire novel rests on and that Collins herself has spent the entire story joyfully playing with (serpent/songbird). Because, confined again to the natural state, despite realistically fearing that he was going to kill her, and despite gaining even the upper ground and a significant chance to effectively anticipate him in the act, she ultimately chooses not to kill him. She merely chooses to try to neutralize him to secure a way out of the situation, or to force him to desist from any bad intention he may have in mind. This is not because Lucy Gray is incorruptibly good and Snow is incurably evil (the author strives for this to be particularly clear by reminding us that Lucy Gray still chose to kill inside the Arena even when she might have decided not to, sometimes with slyness and premeditation, prioritizing in that occasion her self-preservation to her moral integrity), but because in this occasion she chooses not to, in order to demonstrate to him the validity of what she had told him before: which is that human beings are not inherently evil, even when stripped of civilization, but that good and evil are always the products of conscious choices. Snow obviously needs to believe the opposite, because he needs to exonerate himself from the consequences of his own deeds and decisions. And Dr. Gaul gives him exactly that. And it’s within this framework that The Hunger Games become a justifiable instrument for the powerful, and for the society that it’s trained to accept and normalize them.

However, Collins’ own thesis is incredibly staunch on this: from Lucy Gray in this very chapter, passing through Reaper refusing Clemensia’s food and slowly dying of starvation to send a message to the Capitol, Lamina mercy-killing Marcus mirroring Cato’s death at the hands of Katniss in the original trilogy, Thresh sparing Katniss’ life as a tribute to Rue, all the rebel victors sacrificing themselves for Katniss and Peeta during the Third Quarter Quell, and arriving to all the oppressed civilians who willingly give up their own life to join forces and sabotage the Capitol’s industries, we are given plenty of demonstrations on how the natural state doesn’t eradicate human’s capability for choice, and how aprioristic thinking on the inherent evilness of our species (or of some subgroups of it) is not only wrong, but also extremely dangerous and easily conducive to the legitimation of barbarity and atrocity.

So no, I don’t agree with the idea that Snow was inevitably destined to be a horrible person because he had actually always been, and I absolutely don’t think Collins’ intention was to tell us this. He starts off the novel showcasing specific predispositions that cause him to oscillate between good and evil several times, and a lot of potential to eventually channel in either direction, but he ultimately makes the choices that he consciously decides to make (sometimes genuinely believing them to be the right or best choices, other times gaslighting himself and us into thinking he thinks that) up until Dr. Gaul offers him on a silver plate the ultimate opportunity to abdicate any and all responsibility on what he has done and what he’s going to do, which by the way stems from the same kind of reasoning behind this interpretation a lot of fans so desperately want to give of Snow (“man is evil by nature, so I’m just acting according to my own nature, and I’m doing it with the goal of safeguarding humanity and for morally positive ends”).

TL; DR: In a nutshell, what I mean is that the entire message of the saga, but especially of this prequel, is that The Hunger Games are an inhumane barbarity because they suppress and deny fundamental human rights behind a false promise to keep humanity safe from a self-derived tendency to devour itself that mankind supposedly strives towards because of its inherent evilness at the natural state. Collins demonstrates that such a promise is false because it’s fallacious, and therefore that The Hunger Games are nothing more than a gratuitous instrument of torture and death, discrediting the Hobbesian hypothesis that human beings descend into evil outside of the borders of civilization. And if that applies to all human beings, then it has to apply to Snow too (or Gaul, or Coin, for what is worth).

[writebackatya]

McDuck Family Members Most Likely to Start Sh*t at Thanksgiving Dinner

Ah Thanksgiving. The holiday celebrated on the 4th Thursday of November (in America that is), one with food, family, and celebrating what we’re thankful for! (Wanna feel bad? Learn about the holiday’s origins!)

And no family is quite as big as the found family from DuckTales; so arguments are bound to happen at a dinner table filled with so many zany characters with interesting pasts and quirks. Let’s honor those who would throw the first punch at a family dinner, shall we?

Bentina Beakley

I wanna cut Beakley some slack. She most likely had a long day before dinner even started what with all the preparations she did for dinner. Not just cooking for 20+ family members plus other side/recurring characters but also the cleaning and presentation

But let’s face it. This woman can be so condescending at times. And judgmental. You just know if someone is showing up to dinner wearing jeans and sweater she’d have something to say about it. And she strikes me as someone who would slam the dishes while cleaning them only for someone to say, “Hey Beakley do you need help with the dishes?” and then she’d be like “No. It’s fine. I got them”

But it’s not fine. Go help her with the dishes. She deserves a break

Dewey Duck

When I was first thinking about this list I originally thought “No way any of the triplets would start anything on Thanksgiving” Huey is a good boy and Louie would definitely take it easy on a day where you’re legally allowed to sit around, be lazy, and eat food. But then I remembered Dewey and how much of a diva he can be

We know Dewey is an entertainer and with everyone coming to dinner, he has a huge “captive” audience that he can perform for. Whether it be an original Thanksgiving song, a one man Dewey show about the first Thanksgiving, a sonnet about a bonnet, or a very special Thanksgiving episode of Dewey Dew-Night; that kid will want all the attention in him. And the very second the spotlight is taken off, oh boy…

Gladstone Gander

Look at this prick. Don’t you wanna slap his face!?!Anyway I love Gladstone Gander, but he’s the kind of family member that just would go on and on about himself and bring every conversation back to him again and how great his life is

That’s great Gladstone. Happy for you, the rest of us have to pay for our sushi but cool. Glad your good luck is really paying off, jerk

But honestly. It’s his tone. It’s the kind of tone that gives off that he knows he’s starting shit but won’t admit it

Goldie O’Gilt

I mean, it’s Goldie. What else can I say?

Gandra Dee

Oh man. There’s so many different ways controversy would start with this morally gray ex-FOWL agent and I’m here for it. Let’s face it, out of all the characters present, Gandra Dee would most likely be the one to bring up the holiday’s horrible origins. If anyone is making it their duty to make a rich white family uncomfortable on Thanksgiving, it’s Gandra Dee

She’d get political and even directly ask Scrooge who exactly he voted for in the past two Presidential elections (he claims to be progressive, but he’s still the richest duck in the world. Just how many tax cuts is this man getting to keep that status?)

Oh and what about the treatment of her overwork and underpaid boyfriend? Why is he still working in the bathroom?

Oddly enough, I can see her and Scrooge bonding over a mutual disdain for Gladstone Gander. What a prick

Kit Cloudkicker

It’s not that exactly what Kit does that’ll start a fight, but what he doesn’t do.

Kit is the kinda guy that was supposed to bring a dessert but totally forgot to pick something up from the bakery so instead he’s stopping at the gas station on the way to dinner to pick up some Twinkies

Kit is the kinda guy that would “take a walk” before dinner and not do anything to hide the scent and now all the kids are wondering how a skunk got inside

Gyro Gearloose

It’s Gyro. Something is bound to piss him off at some point

Doofus Drake

I am so tired of the fandom not including Doofus in this found family (Louie and him made up and are friends now and BOYD is his brother, sorry it’s canon) so he’s here on the list

But he’s still a new addition to this family. And a weirdo and a rich brat with a lot of issues that someone should seriously help him with. He’s gonna make everyone uncomfortable. Is it intentional? Or is he just being Doofus? Who knows

What I do know is this, don’t eat the dish he brought.

Della, Donald, and Scrooge!

The original three!

These three are responsible for splitting up the family in the first place so it’s no surprise that they’re number one on this list!!

Yes they’ve squashed their beef with one another and moved past the Spear of Selene, but they are still themselves

The ones most likely to start shit over the dumbest things

These three are going to be bickering over who should carve the turkey. And the argument will be so loud and hectic that no one will question why a bunch of birds are eating a turkey

Anyway, hope you enjoyed this list. It wasn’t meant to slander any characters, just did it for fun. Happy Thursday everyone.

[ae-neon]

Finally picked ccity back up and the humans are conscripted for mandatory military service to hunt and kill other humans fighting for the freedom of all humans

And those who don't wanna?

But the Asteri's threat remained: Should any refuse, their lives would be forfeit. And then the lives of their families. Any survivors would be slaves...

Every single thing we learn about how the humans live makes Bryce, and Danika, and everyone since the whole fucking cast is Vanir worse and worse, like just very unlikeable and vile people from a moral standpoint

Of course, that wouldn't be an issue if sjm allowed the world and it's characters to be morally gray but then she loves to virtue signal the "good guys" having moral superiority to the baddies

She should have just left morality out of their motivations, because as it is now she's gonna have to have the characters go through serious introspection about the caste system and their roles in it to redeem them according to her own moral standard

And I honestly don't think she's a gonna, never mind being a dedicated enough writer to be able to take her characters on that journey (in a believable way)

[the-banana-0verlord]

Bear with me cause I'm gonna go on a rant that will probably be a bit incoherent but I'm brainrotting rn

so this concerns the webtoon community(although it's probably a widespread phenomenon in fandom) but

Y'all love complex and morally gray female characters(or even just characters of every gender) until they are complex and morally gray

I've seen a lot about this especially for Annabel Lee from Nevermore so I won't touch upon her case in this rant but the point still stands for her go read analysises.

so today i'm gonna be discussing Rastha, also known as Trashta:

I haven't read up to much after the remarrying of Navier but I feel like my point still stands. Also spoilers

Imo, Rashta is a complex and sympathetic villain. She grew up as a slave and believed her child was dead (child who was a also later used as leverage to blackmail her.) It's logical she tries to up the ranks to never live as miserably like this. She's a product of unfortunate circumstances. I do not think she's in the right, but that's kind of the whole point of her character to be the antagonist.

Also, she didn't want to be Navier's ennemy at first??? She wanted to live in a world where she was happy and that's valid. (Navier's reaction was also valid mind you.) She acted like she was indifferent to her first baby's fate yet she let herself be blackmailed because she DID care for it. She goes throught emotions and layers and that makes her complex.

Yet despite being sympathetic and half of the bad things in the webtoon happening not being her fault, she's the most hated character.

I hate Sovieshit and her blackmailer much more. Sovieshit was really using double standard against Navier like "oh yeah i'm allowed to have a mistress and divorce you just cause I feel like it and i'm using you for my own benefit but don't you go remarrying yourself or having a lover you're mine >:((((". Sovieshit is borderline a mysogynist (he only wants a delicate woman he can control to do as he pleases) but no Rashta is the real horrible villain we must demonize her.

Now her blackmailer(i forgot his name but if you read the webtoon you know who he is). Most of it his fault. He is using and ataking advantage of Rastha who wnats nothing else than to be free. Sovieshit is painted as a bit sympathetic(wrongly might i add) but this guy is just plain evil. But he's not more hated than Rastha????

I'm not defending her actions I just want people to see further than their noses and realize that characters can be good without being good people.

Now even if i see it more for female characters this is real for male characters too but kinda in the opposite route? Like in twisted wonderland, the characters are MADE to be villains yet people smooth them over as poor little meows meows and babygirls. It's funny as a joke but it erases their entire personnality and complexity, while morally gray female characters get demonized for having the same grayness.(Also i'd like to add that Vil schoenheit, a feminine male characters gets also demonized like female characters so i'm starting to see a pattern here.) So double standard much?

in short, don't say you like complex and morally grey characters if you can't handle them correctly. They deserve better than you

[innocentimouto]

Positive ways to explore Jet

The Older Sibling

Him being very good with kids. Not to the point of shielding kids entirely from war because...war. Also him taking the role of the adult to the point he ignores a lot of his emotional needs and possible ways he could be wrong. Swearing to protect kids under his care at all costs.

Jet walking into a village and seeing some kids suffering and wanting to help, but if it would endanger the kids he already has with him, he won't risk it.

Jet actually falling for Katara and the Freedom Fighters noticing and wondering if he'll back out from the plan and Smellerbee getting angry and Jet promising that they always come first even though he likes Katara.

(I said positive, not healthy)

Not having faith in the Avatar

What's his view on Aang? Is he a kid to him, or does being the Avatar make him an exception?

For someone constantly painted as an extremist by the fandom, he's not interested in getting Appa to help them or in the fact that Aang's the Avatar. None of the kids are excited about it either. Book 1 had a lot of characters treat Aang differently just because he was the Avatar, whether positively or negatively.

Jet didn't care. There has to be many people who gave up hope on the Avatar. What did they go through? Did they lose hope or did their parents lose hope and so the novelty of the Avatar was never passed on to them?

Exploring that along with Aang's heavy weight of having to save the world and then learning some people gave up hope and the guilt he could internalize from that.

Also Aang bringing hope to people! Aang trying to get Jet to be a kid like he did to Katara. Aang's habit of having fun and bringing joy to others.

Fine with being a villain

I'm interested in the idea that Jet could recognize how bad it is to hurt innocent people and children but seeing no other way to save the kids and himself. Jet ignoring the wrongness of his actions until confronted again and again and then he snaps that it's war, who actually believes anyone isn't getting their hands dirty. War isn't a cute little hero story where you have the power and luxury to always do the right thing.

Jet never allowing himself to sit with his thoughts because then he'll look at the kids around him and then look at himself and then look at how much land his people lost and wonder if he will ever recognize himself again, wonder if it's gotten to a point that he can't remember who he was before the war destroyed his home.

Freedom Fighters not being manipulated

Tired of the gang take. He's 16. He's in the same boat as them. Develop the Freedom Fighters more and their relationship with Jet. Show their reasons for hating the Fire Nation. Jet thought Sokka would understand his actions. There's no way he then assumed the people he lived with wouldn't. The Freedom Fighters knew what they were doing.

Well knew to the point that Jet knew, which is to say traumatized children in war.

Give reasons for why these kids didn't choose to live in other villages. Trauma. Talk about the trauma. They weren't kids playing at being vigilantes under some brainwashing cult leader. They lived in trees, near a village that we still don't know if it was occupied or taken over. Trees. Imagine the winters. How many of them died from the elements? How dangerous was it to simply stay in a village instead?

Have the Freedom Fighters be morally gray too. The show could have used more of what could cause kids to ever do something so extreme something something tragedy of war something something judge the victims less than the perpetrators.

Fascination with waterbending or bending in general

Just sleeping on Hakoda adopting Jet. Or just Jet forming a relationship with any Water Tribe people. The Fire Nation tried to wipe out firebenders, and Katara survived against all odds. Even if we didn't have his quick thinking over how bending could work, out of pure spite he may just be interested in waterbending or airbending.

Maybe have him work with benders. Another contrast to Sokka who disliked bending in the beginning but could still find ways for it to be useful while Jet is fascinated by bending and also good at utilizing it.

Loss of culture

Contrast how much Katara strives to preserve and talk about her culture while Jet forgot everything. The idea is so foreign to him that he questions why it would even be important. Que Katara passionately talking about how it's their identity and a way they're connected to their people which inevitably leads to Jet understanding this is another thing the Fire Nation took from him, which he subconsciously always understood.

And then we have Jet, Katara, and Aang and conversations about importance of culture

Earth Kingdom Nonbenders (and Haru)

I've posted this before, but have Jet, Haru, Teo, Jin, Song and maybe some Freedom Fighters band together. Explore their different traumas and personalities. Will Jet take the leader role? How will Jet and Song feel being the only two without fathers?

Will Song's soft approach to everything rub Haru or Jet the wrong way? Does Jin remember the war or was she brainwashed? Will Teo hide how his father helped the army? Will anyone pick up on the fact that teasing Haru for his bending is triggering?

Having Jet in a group where he isn't the automatic leader seems like new territory and a good way to explore his character.

Also have Jet befriend and clash with people he's not directly responsible for.

[andromeda-grace]

Writeblr Introduction

Hi, I’m Andromeda (she/they). I am returning to Writeblr and decided to start a new blog for my WIPs and writing updates! I want to use this blog to shout out other Writeblrs, make posts about my current WIPs, and experiences in publishing. I mostly write original fiction but write fanfic when the inspiration strikes. I love Writeblr games and asks!

This blog is a safe space for all identities, gender & sexuality, neurodivergence, race, and religion. I do my best with content and trigger warnings.

My Writing: Genre and Representation

I love horror, sci-fi, and fairy tales 

I don’t enjoy romance (if it’s only the pursuit and drama), but I love writing nuanced love stories where people communicate well and put effort into building relationships

Lots of queerness and queer relationships

BIPOC main characters

Neurodivergence- shout out to the undiagnosed ADHD queens, the anxiety, and masking/coping behaviors

Trauma, out of context, is seen as personality

Smut- sex is a part of life and it’s fun to write. Get down, make mistakes, get messy. My sex scenes aren’t just conventionally attractive people putting on a show. I emphasize body diversity, complexities of gender identity, and emotional state

Tropes:

Found Family

Villains

Redemption- working to be a better person, even when it’s hard

Poly-Amory- we often have more than one close friendship, and have variety and nuance in those different relationships, so the same thing goes for romance

Morally gray/Feral girls- women have so much responsibility put on them for the emotional wellbeing of others, but what if they aren’t capable of that? (think Broad City/ Bottoms)

Finished works:

The Devil You Know- short story- Out now! Find your copy here

Genre: horror, vampires, fairytale

Vibe: The Green Knight x The Witch

Anya has built a quiet life for herself, trusted as the village healer as long as she keeps her magic hidden. All of that changes when a strange traveler arrives at her doorstep. The man looks human, but Anya senses an old and powerful magic within him. Intrigued, she allows Owen inside. He claims to have been an apprentice to a witch, and Anya, despite her suspicions, finds him to be a kindred spirit. They begin a romance, both finding comfort in one another.

Their peace is broken when a family comes to Anya in crisis. Their child has been cursed, and is transforming into a monster. Desperate to save the boy, Anya asks Owen for help. He can grant her the power to break the spell, but it requires blood and forbidden rites. Knowing that she can’t break the curse alone, Anya faces a choice with deadly consequences.

WIPs:

Bubblegum Capital

Genre: Queer Cyberpunk

Vibe: 1984 x Legally Blonde

Novaczek is on the brink of fame. They’re an amateur gamer about to break into the pro leagues. But their dreams are crushed when work denies them time off for the championship.

Novaczek decides to play on shift and is caught. Everything comes crashing down. They find themselves at rock bottom having lost their job, company housing, and girlfriend all at once.

In a world where your value is measured by your social ranking, Novaczek has to claw themselves back up, hustling for money and favors from friends. As they work their way back up the ranks they discover an underbelly where nothing and no-one are what they appear to be.

Love, Asunder

Genre: Gay Vampires, Family Saga

Vibe: 1917 x Hellboy

James Townsend was supposed to be starting his new life, an American abroad, with a Fellowship at Oxford University. All of that changes when Germany marches on Paris. James can’t remain in the classroom while teachers and students leave their desks for the battlefield. So James enlists as a volunteer ambulance driver on the Front. The days stretch long with violence and misery, but he finds purpose and friendships in the trenches. 

Then he meets a man, a smuggler providing supplies and information to the Allies. Etienne is so different from the soldiers, bright and charming. They begin a secret romance, disappearing together when they can, and writing letters in between. 

An opportunity comes to meet in Paris, and James is overwhelmed at the opportunity to spend time with Etienne in the City of Love. Free to spend their days together, James quickly discovers just how much Etienne has been hiding from him, and enters a world of magic, beauty, and death. 

Tropes and fun stuff:

Butch witches

Femme werewolves

Playing the vampire tropes straight

Magical Underground

Found Family

Bio-Family responsibilities

Many, Many different kinds of love

I'll be sharing moodboards and snippets along the way! Looking forward to learning more about the other talented Writeblrs out here!

tagging: @hillnerd-art @suffrajett @starknstarwars @em-dashes @blind-the-winds @leave-her-a-tome @athenswrites

[cycat4077]

Good stories have 3 types of characters. The characters who represent what we should strive to be. The characters who represent the people who are incapable of change. And the characters with the potential to change.

This literary device has fascinated me since I was a high school student reading "In the Heat of the Night". It was then that I realized that some characters are like "Sam Wood"; they start life off with prejudices but have the potential to change their way of thinking and become better individuals.

I have carried this with me ever since, trying to see the humanity in everyone and trying to first understand the cause of someone's actions before jumping to conclusions. 

This does not mean that I condone crimes or racism or prejudices of any sort. People should be held accountable for their actions. Period. However, I also try to uphold an optimistic view of the world and hope that with proper information and facts, those with that potential are able to change in time.

Part of why I enjoyed Fargo season 5 so much was because the characters were complex. No one was perfect. Everyone was fallable.

More specifically, we had several characters who represented the values we should strive for in ourselves: Dot, Witt, Wayne, and Indira. These characters showed us their humanity and willingness to put others before themselves.

We also had characters who represented those who cannot change: Roy and Odin are but two examples. These characters represent those whose view of the world is so twisted that they do not possess the humanity to ever change.

But we also had characters who represented those with the potential to change: Gator, Lorraine, and even Ole Munch. Each started the season set in their ways. They only had one goal in mind but through the events that happened, either to them or to someone close to them, they found it inside themselves to see their world differently; to consider the world from someone else's point of view and how their actions could affect it. In Ole Munch's case, it was the kindness and forgiveness offered by Dot that gives him his path forward. For Lorraine, it was the solidarity of being a woman, and seeing the abuse Dot suffered that allowed her a change of heart. And for Gator, it was his blindness that finally set him free of trying to be like his father.

These characterizations were intentional and, matter-of-factly, a product of excellent writing. 

In my Tumblr world, I like to dive deeper than the good vs evil we see on the surface and try to understand the characters' motivations and trajectories. It just so happened that an actor that I respect was playing one of these morally gray characters. This is why my focus on Gator was so heavy. I enjoyed trying to understand his character and appreciated the way Joe Keery was able to depict it on screen.

I have been raised to see the world from others' point of view before I make conclusions about who they are and how they act. I try to look for the humanity in everyone, even if it may not be immediately apparent.

Tumblr is also my safe space. It is a place I have turned to for 13 years to express my love of fandom and to connect with others who share this excitement. If I have ever made anyone uncomfortable on here, I apologize. It was never my intention. Politics has no place on my blog, and it never will. This is my safe space for enjoying fandom away from real life. I will not judge other Tumblr users, and I expect the same in return. After all, every single one of us is fallable in some way. We can all grow and be better, and my choices, both online and in real life, will always be made with others in mind. 

Tumblr is not a place for judgment before we get to know others. It is a place to respectfully share our love of fandoms without the fear of that judgment or of being labeled. It is a place to support one another. This is how I have, and always will, conduct myself while on this site, and I appreciate all the lovely people I have met along the way. ❤️