#these acts should not be committed upon real people

[riggadybambdoondah]

The perpetual dichotomy of "I want people to be good and do good things" and "I want to read about characters committing horrific acts" does things to my soul that I can't seem to articulate

[akutasoda]

hello, may I request jing yuan with a teen!reader who is jealous of yanqing? - they are around the same age as him, a new cloud knight who is an orphan, they try really hard to get the generals attention, even making him tea, buying presents etc. they want to be like yanqing, and are a bit jealous of the relationship with jy and yanqing, so they always try to prove themselves, even sacrificing food and sleep for their training, and are reckless during missions (bonus points if yanqing or jing yuan is present at the mission, they would literally fight until they pass out)

to prove oneself worthy

synopsis - all you ever wanted was somebody to pay attention to you and the one person that does so is already doing so to somebody else

includes - jing yuan ft yanqing - all platonic

warnings - gn!reader, orphan reader, slight angst, fluff, sacrificing food and sleep?, passing out?, jealousy, wc - 1.6k

taglist - @teddirika

you're parents weren't around. it was a simple fact, whether they had simply disappeared or died was unknown to you. all you ever knew was that you had no outstanding memories of them and that they certainly weren't atound anymore. this fact made it so you couldn't really care less for where they were or what had happened to them, they were rarely a thought that crossed your mind.

an orphan roaming around the streets of the luofu would bring attention, especially when you were resorting to any means necessary to survive and get by. petty thefts and minor acts of aggression were regular occurrences in your day to day live, cultivating a set of skills that aided in your fight for survival - including swift escapes from the cloud knights. an honest part of yourself really believed that you'd be a theif your entire life but a silver haired general thought otherwise.

jing yuan had become aware of the young one evading capture and committing very basic and mainly harmless crimes, how could he not? a part of him could sympathise with your situation, he understood that it was clearly your only mean of survival and so he didn't think that someone with their whole life ahead of them should be confined to the four walls of prison. your skills were impressive, there was a reason you hadn't been caught yet, so jing yuan thought that with the right guidance you would become a fine knight.

he would set out to find you himself, to personally extend his offer and hr wouldn't force you. if you declined then he had no choice but to arrest you himself and so he could only hope that you would see what he was trying to do and accept the offer. luckily for the both of you, you took up his offer. you understood that this would be the better way to pay for your crimes and would help you build a better future for yourself - earning back the trust of the luofu citizens you stole from.

what became pretty apparent very quickly was your unconscious growing attachment to the general. in between your training you would seek out jing yuan and if he wasn't busy you'd stick by his side. jing yuan was always incredibly busy and so you always tried to garner what spare attention he had left and demonstrate to him that his faith in you had not been misplaced - even going as far to bring him legally obtained presents.jing yuan was the only person to ever give you some kind of hope, somebody who believed you could be more than a street thief. it was evident that you would eant to thank him in some way, prove that his help would not go wasted.

jealousy was a vile emotion that made prople do horrendous things, it could break people apart and even force someone's hand to do something vile and unforgivable. you were no stranger to taking to underhanded tactics and resorting to frowned upon actions, so in any scenario you wouldn't have an issue with jealousy. this time it was different. you had been introduced to yanqing and saw him quite often, he was jing yuan's retainer afterall. there was something about him that just made you jealous.

you soon realised that it was his closeness to the general paired with his skills as a swordsman. yanqing had everything you could ever want. he had the generals attention, he had impeccable skills with a sword and he even was a capable knight without one and that made a vile anger boil inside you. but you wouldn't act on your jealousy. if you did you knew that jing yuan would be disappointed in you, he probably wouldn't want to ever look at you again and you would've proved to be a waste of his efforts. so you opted for a slow fix to your jealousy, working day in and day out to improve your skills to prove that you could be better than yanqing.

practically every minute of your day was spent with a sword in your hand, eventually coming to tell yourself that you weren't doing enough. you had managed to best every cloud knight more than once and decided that they simply weren't going to help you anymore, so you started sneaking away. in the dead of knight you'd head to mara-struck areas and defeat them - you didn't care that you lost out on your sleep. meals soon became irrelevant aswell, only ever stopping for a snack when you physically couldn't continue no more. you told yourself that it would all pay off in the end.

jing yuan noticed your absence pretty quickly, especially when even the other cloud knights would start claiming they hadn't seen you for days. a small part of him wondered if you were slipping back into your habits for stealing but he didn't want to think you would. he started piecing things together when he would see how fatigued you look and would try and question you when he was informed of how often your weary body would end up in lady bailu's care. he would ask bailu and she would tell him how your body would often not have enough nutrients to function properly and that your sleep was limited. jing yuan tried to confront you multiple times but you always weakly pushed him away and told him that you just wanted to train more.

he started sending yanqing on missions with you to keep an eye on you but you didn't take it that way, to you it was a dig in the face. to you jing yuan no longer saw you as a capable fighter and was trying to get you replaced on your missions. you wouldn't let that happen. unfortunately due to the lack of sleep and prioer nutrients in your body, your thoughts clouded over and so all your fights became clumsy attempts to wield a sword. reckless actions would be taken and eventually you'd pass out with too many unnecessary cuts, only slightly mitigated by the fact yanqing was there but you pushed him away from helping.

yanqing would soon find himself carrying your unconscious body back to luofu's infirmary's and lady bailu would have to be called in as the other healers simply couldn't fathom your injuries. jing yuan would also be contacted and would be there as soon as he could. each time you'd wake back up, wearily push everyone away and leave before any asked you anything. the next time anyone would see you would be in the same scenario - you passed out on a mission being dragged back to the infirmary.

jing yuan began to worry. each and every time you looked worse and worse but bailu always said the same things about exhaustion and lack of nutrients. jing yuan knew you were purposefully skipping meals and sleep in the name of training but he didn't understand why. he had a small inkling that it was to do with yanqing but he refused to believe you would resort to such extremes over something like this. eventually he had enough, when you woke up again from passing out on a mission he stopped you from leaving and told you dead straight that he was withdrawing you from your duties and that you were going to stay under care in the infirmary.

you were broken by the news. you had worked all day and night to get better at being a cloud knight, to beat yanqing and know all your hard work was to go waste because jing yuan didn't want you on duty anymore. you insisted that you were fine and didn't need this but it became very clear that jing yuan was not going to budge from his decision. however you simply wouldn't listen and would still sneak away from the infirmary to train out of bounds with the mara-struck.

the general had enough of your reckless behaviour. he understood that you were trying to improve as a knight but you're quest to do so had made you weaker and farther away from your personal goal. jing yuan personally pushed aside his duties to seek you out when the infirmary had told him you were missing and when he found you it wasn't a new sight. he watched with a saddened expression as you sloppily and recklessly took down the enemy, he winced when he saw your body hit the ground after you finished. you were out cold again, the general carried you back to the infirmary. this time he waited, waited until you regained conscious and made sure you wouldn't run away.

he confronted you as it pained him to see your talent go to waste and it hurt him to see how you treated yourself in the name of training. eventually he managed to weed the reasons for your behaviour out of you and due to your sheer exhaustion you couldn't help but start allowing tears to slowly escape and roll down your face. in this moment of weakness, jing yuan saw the child he found originally and offered a hug. one you gratefully took.

[psychotrenny]

When Liberals describe a piece of media dealing with contemporary war or politics as being "Morally Ambiguous" they mean nearly always mean that it questions the specific decisions of those in power, not the basic ideological assumptions that their power rests upon. Like it's always "Was it a good idea to invade this tyrannical terrorist shithole in order to spread freedom and democracy?" or "Is it okay to torture evil terrorists shitheads to save people from their oppression", never questioning whether the US actually are protecting the innocent and spreading prosperity or if their enemies really are straightforwardly sadistic oppressors. It may question whether the US is acting like a good guy, but it always affirms that the US inherently is good or at least has the greatest capacity to be. Even in Liberal media where the doesn't come off looking the best, they still make sure to present their enemies as even worse. Not to mention the way that any atrocities the US does commit are presented as either mistakes, malicious perversions of the system (probably orchestrated by enemy infiltrators anyway) or tragic but necessary evils. Meanwhile the atrocities committed by their foes are the proof of their innate evil and strong necessity of stopping them; this is the basis of that whole discussion around whether terrible means should be adopted to achieve the noble end of defeating these villains.

And like a story apparently "isn't making a political statement" when it doesn't give a clear answer on these terms, but the terms themselves are never up for discussion. Like I heard someone call Call of Duty: Modern Warfare "apolitical" because it neither justifies nor condemns stuff like those SAS soldiers torturing Arabs and killing sleeping or unarmed Russians (leaving it for the player to decide oooooooooh sooooo deep), as though its choice of antagonists and decision to present them as unambiguously evil isn't a statement in of itself. And like its choice to give Soviet imagery to the Russian Ultranationlists is apparently just a silly oversight (like ooooh real Ultranationalists hate those Soviet lefties hahaha) that says nothing at all about the creator's view of international politics and anti-US ideologies.

As far as your average Liberal is concerned, media contains political statements are when a character turns directly to the camera and says "This thing is good/bad". Anything else is deep stuff that makes you think and lets you come to your own conclusions. Just play the game, don't worry about who set the rules

[lemonhemlock]

i just think it's ironic how critical stark fans are of the targaryens like robb and dany are veryyy similar and the first men are colonizers too lol

i think robb should be criticised more for his lack of policies and political foresight and planning when it comes to his independence project, but robb did not resort to sacrificing people to acquire fire-breathing monsters or to torturing people to get his way. he didn't set out to conquer lands. he became king in the north and king of the trident not because he conquered the north or the riverlands, but because they pledged themselves to him. there IS a difference between them

you can agree with northern independence or not but the reason robb called his banners and rose up in the first place was because the de-facto monarch was unjustly imprisoning his father, then executed him without a fair trial, thus breaking the feudal contract (coincidentally, the same reason the targaryens were rightfully deposed). then ofc came stannis' letter casting doubt on joffrey's paternity

honestly a fair line of questioning that might even betray authorial bias is, in a series that puts so much emphasis on the dangers of magic and the HIGH price associated with it, why does robb (and the rest of the starks) get the luxury of being soul-bonded to a magical fierce beast (that comes to them without making any nefarious trade), but dany can only access dragons via committing horrifying acts? imo this could very well be a weak point in the thematic consistency of the series

as for the first men, yes, they were colonizers. so were the andals. they are also dead. the process of ethnogenesis (an often violent process, yes) resulted in the westerosi people. what are they to do about it now? they're just regular people living their lives, not wanting to be brutalized, too, by other foreign invaders like dany will bring, not wanting to fight in any more pointless wars.

is that not a valid request or desire they might have for themselves or do they have to pay indefinitely for the crimes of their ancestors by having the same thing done to them?* does it just go from invasion to invasion until the end of time? is colonization or conquest ok to do indefinitely because they have historical precedent? when does it stop?

from the westerosi point of view, the children of the forest don't even exist anymore, so even paying reparations is out of the question. though, who knows, maybe the series finale will address the issue of reconciliation, since WE know the children of the forest are still out and about

*and, before targstans come out of the woodwork, no, i do not hold dany accountable for things her ancestors did, i hold her accountable for the things SHE did. is it her fault her father became a tyrant? no. but her dynasty got rightfully deposed and that's that (see this post for a more in-depth answer: yes, even ~medieval political theorists believed there are conditions in which a population can rightfully rid themselves of tyrannical rule).

is that fair for dany on an individual level? well, how do you define 'fair'? is it fair that feudal lords own all the land and hoard the resources? or, better yet, why do you define "fair" only in relation to nobles, their wants and desires, the real or perceived injustices visited upon them. i understand that the series is high-born-focused escapism, ultimately, and that it won't end in this radical re-ordering of society or in a leveling of privileges across social spheres, but, for real, sometimes what's "good" for your favourite high-born character isn't good for the smallfolk! that's a basic enough idea we can stick to

[michirukaioureincarnate]

You know, with discussions of Neil Gaiman and all the disappoinment that's followed, especially of his admirers that are struggling with him not being the basic decent human being we expected and believed him to be, there's a lot of inner reflection that needs to be done to prevent more heart ache.

Not only that, but this is a wake up call to stop putting human beings on a pedestal. No one is above causing harm. Not you, not your mom, not anyone. Especially men. I don't know if this is just my way of thinking, but every single man is a potential s*x *ff*nd*r.

It's not a generaliziation, but an indisputable pattern after years of social, biological, political, and systemic conditioning. It's not a matter of if, but when, and sometimes the when never comes because the man luckily dies without tainting his slate. And if he does commit the crime, he's more likely to get away with it than his victim ever is of healing from it. The richer he is, the easier it is, but even men without power and resources get off with a slap on the wrist.

But that isn't really the point, and bear with me as I try to articulate myself through the nausea I'm feeling since stumbling upon the recent news. If you're hurt, disappointed, confused, and struggling with it because you have so much love for this man and his works: good.

You're not brushing it off. You're not acting like it's okay. If you're finding ways to justify your love for his art amidst the small voice of guilt in your chest, it's because you're a human being who, at your core, acknowledges that you don't agree with what he did. If there's an iota of fear that you may harbor the same negative qualities he does that compelled him to act so heinously, no you don't.

Before Gaiman was ousted as a predator, you knew him as a creative, a visionary, whatever positive perspective you had of him, and you wanted to admire that. Undeniably, Gaiman's a wonderful storyteller AND a s*x *ff*nd*r. The latter doesn't negate the former. But it's possible that it may have dictated some of his creative choices.

But how would you know which ones? You're not him, and you're someone who is self-aware and accountable enough to not do what he did when he hurt someone.

On that note: you are not him. You don't know him personally, neither does he know you personally. There's nothing to defend about him, because he's not yours to defend. His works aren't yours to defend.

That's his job.

Have some emotional boundaries and decenter yourselves from his life so that you're able to swallow the truth of the matter: that Gaiman's hurt real people who have to live with lifelong emotional and even physcial scars.

His actions have nothing to do with you as a fan or admirer, and the least you can do is withdraw your support until he, by some miracle, proves himself innocent and regains your trust.

YOU, as the consumer, are the prize here, not him. Have some standards for yourselves, my goodness. YOU, as a human being, are a completely separate entity from him and his actions. Gaiman would be nothing without those who actively decided on giving his works a shot.

And his ideas, whether you decide to continue consuming them or not, do not completely belong to him. Artists channel inspirations of life as they go through it, inspired by people they meet and events that happen to them, most of these things being external factors that are open to interpretation regardless of the artist's internal perspective that they present it with.

What you should worry about is if your money is going directly to him and his team, which may be used to suppress the victim's voices and provide him an unfair advantage in the matter. This is something that's still in your control more than anything else. Hell, pirate his stuff and consume it in secret if you really can't let go of it.

The conversations around "separating the art and artist" are important, and I personally don't believe in separating them at all, but a more immediate concern is to stop contributing to the artist through their art as soon as something concerning crops up. He's a business man, and you're his investors. Take your space. Breathe. Rationalize. And let his social stock value plummet, jfc, he'll still survive without your money and adoration. As long as you're not directly contributing to his ability to inflict more harm, allow yourself the space to grieve.

And, please, you're your own person. If anything, you're probably going to be the next writer, director, artist, etc who creates stuff that's on par with his or even better. Only difference will be that you won't be someone who actively hurts people.

[blackcat419]

Pros and Antis in HotD and aSoIaF Fandom: the breakdown around grey storytelling

I think I know why TB people struggle so much for understanding why TG is liked by people and it’s because fandom discourse has been so rotted away by “pro shippers” and “anti shippers” discourse that we’ve entered into a puritanical view of consuming media.

They see the media you consume as a direct reflection of the type of person you are and thus the characters you like must be similar to who you are as a person.

To a certain extent I get it, looking at a broad portfolio of media consumption can reveal a bit about a person. For example, I consume a lot of horror media. You can discern that I like being scared and the adrenaline that comes from it. But that’s only in a safe controlled situation where I can turn off the tv or monitor when it gets too much. I don’t like haunted houses, being alone at night, or even the dark.

Media is a safe place to explore different sides of humanity in a controlled setting where the only thing at risk is our own enjoyment. People can find that they like things in media that they wouldn’t like in real life. But this distinction is lost on a lot of fandom puritans. To them, media consumption is a political act. You reaffirm that you are a “good person” by watching the “good shows” and rooting for the “good guys”. To look upon a morally complex character or even the villain with interest and sympathy is thus to condone and support every action that character will be written to take.

But this idea of assuming moral righteousness from the characters you support in media because even harder to understand and justify when applied to stories like HotD and aSoIaF where every character possesses both good and evil. So how does a puritan fan reaffirm their belief that they are morally good in a series such as these? The fan will assign the idea oh moral correctness and superiority to the characters they like. Any bad, morally questionable, or straight up evil act the character commits will be justified as righteous no matter how the story frames those actions to the audience. The same is applied to characters these fans do not like. Every bad, morally questionable, or evil action is amplified to become the main character trait while any good, just, or morally righteous act is off written as either an evil act in disguise or any good to come out of the act should be attributed to another character. Any harm committed again the character is then down played as not that bad or actually deserved.

In HotD and aSoIaF, this fandom Puritanism mainly affects female characters.

In aSoIaF, we have characters such as Dany and Arya being framed as the morally righteous and just while characters such as Catelyn and Sansa are painted as villains. Weirdly this does not apply to actual villainous female characters likes Cersei. This could be because the books and show are very clear that her actions are evil and cruel, puritan fans do not feel insecure liking her as they feel secure that the story and thus other fans know she is a bad person and won’t assume liking her means viewing her as a good person. Characters such as Margery Tyrell and Arianne Martell are viewed with more complexity than other female characters but I bet once they come into conflict with beloved female characters, they will be viewed as villainous.

In HotD we see the same thing happening. Puritan fans see Rhaenyra as the perfect hero with any negative action being just or not her fault while Alicent is painted as more evil than the step mother from Cinderella who, despite all evidence to the contrary, wanted to be queen and this deserves everything that she gets.

This is why so many people have to explain to puritan fans that liking characters like Sansa, Catelyn, Alicent, Aegon, or Aemond does not make one bastardphobic, a rape apologist, or anti feminist. I also think it explains why these fans can’t except that their favorite characters have done wrong and hurt people. They can’t accept criticism or critique of their favorite character because to them it’s not another person’s reading of a fictional character, it’s someone judging them on their morals.

Puritanical fans interlock their identity and sense of self with the characters they like and struggle to separate criticism of those characters as criticism of themselves as a person.

[cosmicjoke]

Levi's Choice and His Value of Self-Determination:

Another aspect of Levi's choice to give Armin the serum and let Erwin rest that people don't really consider, is Levi's respect toward peoples will and right to choose for themselves.

Erwin didn't want to be the commander of the Survey Corps anymore.

He wanted to be able to finally fulfill his role as commander by making that one, final sacrifice of his dream for his duty, and through that final act, at last absolve himself of his guilt and become worthy of the position. That's why he thanks Levi for making the choice for him. Because it allowed Erwin to do what he really wanted to do, deep down, but didn't have the strength to, which was sacrifice himself for the cause of the Survey Corps and live up to the sacrifices of all his fallen comrades. That's what Erwin wanted. To go out on his shield. To die for the cause.

Levi never forces anyone to do anything against their will, and that's an important part of his character to understand in order to also understand his choice.

He's constantly asking others to choose for themselves, to decide for themselves what they want and what they believe is right. We see him do this with Eren, and Jean, and Historia, and even Dimo Reeves. Even when Levi is trying to coerce people into a certain action through threats of violence, they're always empty threats which he never really follows through on and, ultimately, lets the person decide for themselves what they're going to do. Like his threats against Annie, or Zeke or Erwin. Levi threatens all of them with violence if they don't do what he tells them, but he never actually goes through with these threats, even as all these people fail to comply. And, of course, this pattern of Levi letting others make their own choices and decide for themselves holds true with Erwin, too, in Shinganshina.

Once again, because Levi values free will and peoples right to choose for themselves, to have agency over their own lives, above just about everything. That's what Levi's speech to the 104th during the Uprising arc was all about. This idea of the hell people choosing for themselves being better than the hell forced upon them.

To give Erwin the serum would have been to rob him of his own agency and deny him his own choice, forcing him back into a role and a life he no longer wanted, which he had given up gladly and thanked Levi for allowing him to give up, and that would have gone against everything Levi believed in and valued.

Levi's entire philosophy of "no regrets" hinges on this idea of always doing what you feel in your heart is the right course, even if the outcome isn't what you hoped for. It's about never compromising what you actually believe is right, no matter the cause. That's why I always roll my eyes at anyone who claims Levi compromised his values or his morals for Erwin. That claim is so antithetical to Levi's character as a whole.

Levi always followed his heart and did what he believed was right, no matter the cost to himself. Even if it meant losing the one person who gave him a sense of direction in life, which is precisely what he lost in letting Erwin die.

Levi refused to violate his belief that everyone should be allowed to choose for themselves their own path, and he refused to violate another persons agency and right to self-determination, even if that violation was meant to be committed in the name of "the greater good".

And again I posit, what does that term "the greater good" even mean, if people aren't allowed to choose for themselves what becomes of their lives?

That question is what underpins every dystopian nightmare ever depicted in fiction and played out in reality. A society of "peace" that's achieved only through the repression of free will, of fee thought and agency and autonomy. In other words, no real peace at all, but a false peace built upon a lie and the violation of other peoples wills. Further, a peace like that is inevitably doomed to failure anyway, because it's just another form of oppression and persecution. Just another form of imprisonment. Eventually, it would lead to rebellion. Eventually, it would lead to war.

Levi understood that better than anyone, I think. He understood that forcing people to do anything against their will was wrong, and that to do so would eventually only undermine whatever temporary benefit might be gained through forced cooperation.

We really see this belief of Levi's demonstrated through the story. Again, he never actually forces anyone to do anything. He ultimately lets everyone decide for themselves, and he never compromises in this, he never leaves anyone without a choice, because to him, there's nothing more important than people getting to choose for themselves, of getting to live and even die how they choose. It's one of the reasons Levi doesn't make a good "leader" in the traditional sense. He has no desire to tell other people what to do or how to act. And it's not because he's afraid of being responsible for other people, though that is something Levi fears, but because he believes it's every person's right to decide those things for themselves. We see this demonstrated also through the way Levi stands down when Hange makes the choice to sacrifice her life. It's why Levi doesn't try to stop her. Because it's her choice, and he doesn't feel he has any right to tell her or anyone else that she can't make it.

I think understanding this about Levi's character is also vital to understanding why he made the choice he did with Erwin. He wasn't ever going to violate Erwin's agency to choose for himself. He wasn't going to take that choice away from Erwin by undoing it through injecting him with the serum.

As an aside, what I also don't get about people who claim Levi was willing to doom humanity for Erwin is that it assumes Levi believed Erwin was absolutely, irrefutably essential to humanity's survival, which we know he didn't believe, because he was willing to let Erwin die not just once, but twice, prior to making the choice he did with the serum. Once during the Uprising arc, when he tells that MP they kidnapped that he's willing to let Erwin die if it means getting Eren and Historia back, and once during the RtS arc, when he lets Erwin ride to his death charging the Beast Titan. Neither scenario indicates at all that Levi believed Erwin's death in those circumstances would doom humanity to extinction, or whatever. On the contrary, he saw Erwin as expendable in comparison to Eren's survival, and twice put Eren above Erwin in the belief that Eren was more important toward achieving the goal of humanity's victory. Clearly, Levi always believed that humanity could survive without Erwin. He wouldn't have been willing to let Erwin die two times in the lead-up to his choice in Shinganshina if he didn't believe that. So this ridiculous notion that Levi "doomed" humanity for Erwin holds no water. It also assumes that Levi would have somehow, magically, understood the circumstances they would be facing before learning what was in Eren's basement, and that knowing those circumstances, he knowingly and purposefully let Erwin die. People that claim this are basically claiming that Levi had full knowledge of what they would be facing and that Erwin's continued existence was essential to defeating that threat, and he did it anyway just to spare Erwin further suffering. But the reality is, Levi had no way of knowing at all what they would be facing or what the threat was, nor did he hold any belief that Erwin's continued existence was essential in defeating that threat. He had no idea that they would discover an entire world of people beyond the walls, let alone a world of people hostile toward them and wishing for their eradication. He didn't make the choice he did while believing humanity couldn't go on without Erwin. He fully believed it could. This is what pisses me off so much about this bullshit claim that Levi "chose Erwin over humanity". No he didn't. Levi 100% believed humanity would survive without Erwin.

[hyperlexichypatia]

Since I've seen a few lists of "Conservative, right-wing, and/or borderline fascist ideas that get unquestioningly passed around leftist, liberal, and progressive spaces," I thought I'd add my own:

The amount of personal freedom or bodily autonomy someone has is inversely proportional to the amount of material support they receive from others/society/government. It is somehow "hypocritical" to advocate both material support for all and bodily autonomy for all.

Straight men want sex. Straight women do not want sex. Women want romance, commitment, monogamy, and marriage. If a man has sex with a woman without giving her these things, he is in some way harming, "preying on," or "taking advantage" of her. If a woman agrees to such an arrangement, she must be led astray, traumatized, or suffering from low self-esteem.

Someone's sexual desires or patterns of attraction are a large and important component of their overall morality as a person. Sexual desires and patterns of attraction, even if never acted upon, can mean that someone is an Intrinsically Bad Person.

People are marginalized for being smarter than other people. This is a real problem that has to be addressed.

Identities like nationalities, cultures, ethnicities, and religions are fixed and absolute, with firm, defined boundaries between them. Ferreting out people who transgress or "fake" these identities is important, necessary, and a good use of time and resources.

Cultural groups should generally remain separate and clearly distinct from one another. Cross-cultural influence (anything from loanwords to intermarriage to migration) is, by default, Generally Bad.

Religion is primarily a matter of external social identification by others, not a matter of choice, personal belief, or self-identification. Someone might choose to reject their family's religion or embrace a different one, but this is inherently inauthentic, play-acting, appropriation, or the result of manipulation. People are always "really" or "rightfully" the religion they were assigned at birth.

There is some sort of connection between health and morality. Whether it's "Being virtuous will keep you healthy" or "Being sick is a moral failing" or "Doing things that endanger your health is morally wrong" or "Medical doctors are moral authorities."

Having to do a lot of manual labor to survive is good for people. Virtuous people enjoy it.

The world would be a better place if production of food and other necessities were radically decentralized and de-mechanized, resulting in a lot more people having to do a lot more manual labor to survive. Economies of scale and labor-saving technology are bad. "Growing your own food" is possible, desirable, and virtuous.

There was a time in human history when life was good for everyone and there were no problems. Any inconvenient questions about problems that may have existed back then are just propaganda.

There are Intrinsically Bad People whose Intrinsic Badness can in some way be detected or measured through some kind of scientific, medical, and/or spiritual assessment -- whether it's "He has bad vibes" or "She's a diagnosed malignant narcissist sociopath" or "They're possessed by demons."

Violence is good and justified when dealing with Intrinsically Bad People, and if you disagree, you must be saying that Intrinsically Bad People and the Intrinsically Bad Things We All Know They Intrinsically Do are somehow good, which maybe means that you're also an Intrinsically Bad Person.

These are specifically right-wing ideas that have found new homes and new coats of paint in leftist, progressive, and liberal circles. I'm not even listing things that are just universal across the political spectrum, like "eugenics is good" or "children are property." Just the specifically reappropriated fascism and ethnonationalism reframed as "the people's" authoritarian homestead culture.

[luna-rainbow]

Hello, hello, long rant incoming

When I reposted this on AO3, I had intentionally minimised tagging and summary because I wanted to archive it rather than attract readers. I didn’t even tag it Steve/Bucky because there just wasn’t enough mention of Bucky in it. Importantly, P*ggy was not tagged.

The user calls themselves “Rebuttal” and their only work is another essay rebutting someone else’s post on Civil War, which they had to post separately because I guess the OP blocked them. So we have a serial offender with too much time on their hands going around to directly suck the joy out of other people’s fandom experience.

They begin with this:

Although I don't particularly care for Steve's ending, this essay does not offer support for a different one.

*Inhales* Honey, can you please Google analytical essay and narrative essay before you unload your drivel on other people? This "essay" is a fic - while there's some character analysis, the emotive language should be sufficient clue that the focus is the story. It’s like reading The Fifth Elephant then writing to Sir Pratchett to argue his “essay on Discworld” is factually incorrect because it offers no support for the idea that the Earth is flat.

Steve is self-sufficient. He is not shown as requiring Bucky as foundational to his being. (…) We do know Steve was willing and expecting to go it alone after Sarah's death and that he is fully confident in his own abilities; he can "do this all day." Bucky's offer at the apartment earns a small smile, not a great overcoming.

I enjoyed how you, at multiple points in your essay, pick at certain turns of (evocative) phrasing while ignoring actual canon mentions. Explain why you deliberately omitted my mention of the canon phrase "Even when I had nothing, I had Bucky". Sure, Sarah was Steve's touchstone, but Steve's words clearly indicated that upon Sarah's death, that touchstone role shifted to Bucky.

Steve's "I can do this all day" is said a total of 4 times during all the movies. Each time he says it to a bully (one time he specifically says it to protect Bucky), and never in relation to his emotional turmoil. Also just, factually, he never references "I can do this all day" when Sarah dies can you be real for a sec.

It's mighty rich of you to say a grieving person who had JUST BURIED HIS SOLE LIVING RELATIVE that a) "he is willing to do it alone" - I can guarantee no one who has lost their sole beloved family member feels "willing" in that situation; and b) downplaying the smile that took all of Steve's energy to muster. All I can conclude is you know nothing of grief. (And since you love the word "disservice" so much - your interpretation of the scene is a fucking disservice to CEvans' acting.)

Steve's choice to go to war has nothing to do with Bucky. Steve has tried five times to enlist and stated his reasons, which have nothing to do with Bucky and everything to do with not liking bullies.

Because, you know, saying “I want to join the 107th cos I’m gay for my best friend” is going to go down real well in the 1940s military *snerks*

Can you get your head out of your ass for one minute and consider that people make decisions based on multiple factors? By acknowledging that Bucky is an important factor in Steve wanting to join the war DOES NOT MINIMISE STEVE'S MORAL COMMITMENT TO FIGHT BULLIES.

Steve is also not aghast at hearing Bucky's assignment. - Back this up.

Bucky does not believe in pre-serum Steve as much as pre-serum Steve believes in himself. - Right. *In Bucky’s tired voice* Because simply ~*♫~believing in yourself~*♫~ is going to stop you getting killed. This is a fucking war, not a back alley. Do you know the death rate for US soldiers in WW2? 1 in 40. For perspective, the death rate from coronavirus is currently sitting at 1 in 70.

Whether Bucky went to war or not, Steve wanted to go. - Again, back your ass-umptions up.

Steve was told Bucky was dead. He was going to try to rescue the rest of the 107th. Again, to suggest that Steve's courageous act is about Bucky is a disservice to Steve.

So not only do you remember fuck all about the movie where it doesn’t involve your fave, you apparently remember fuck all about the scenes where YOUR FAVE APPEARS.

P*ggy: “What do you plan to do, walk to Austria?” Steve: “If that’s what it takes.” P*ggy: “You heard the Colonel. Your friend is most likely dead.” Steve: “You don’t know that.”

NOW LOOK THOSE WORDS IN THE EYES AND TELL ME HIS RESCUE MISSION IS NOT ABOUT BUCKY.

Also, Steve wanting to rescue his best friend is a "disservice" to his character? Condolences to your friends and your character, I guess.

It is strange to ignore Steve's interactions with people other Bucky. Okay here we go, we’re finally getting to why this steaming trash heap landed in my inbox. It's Peggy who - I knew it. I fucking knew it. Of course it came from someone who likes Miss I-need-to-make-everything-about-me - appreciated pre-serum Steve at the flagpole - Oh you mean the appreciation she showed by not uttering a single word to him?

Peggy and Erskine supported pre-serum Steve's drive to do his part when Bucky did not. It seems truer to say that they more likely "kept Steve afloat" during his basic training, of which Bucky had no part.

Hold on. *walks off to cackle* *walks back, wheezing*. P*ggy kept Steve afloat? Miss-never-said-a-single-word-to-Steve-P*ggy, “supported” Steve during his basic training??

Again, I urge you to actually watch CATFA, where *checks notes* your fave has her biggest movie role. AFTER STEVE FINISHES BASIC TRAINING, the two of them sit in a car and exchange the infamous lines:

P*ggy: “You have no idea how to talk to a woman, do you?” Steve: “I think this is the longest conversation I’ve had with one.”

They have, by their own admission, not had a conversation before this, so which bull’s ass did you pull the “P*ggy kept Steve afloat during his basic training” shit out of?

There is nothing in the scenes to suggest he finds it a great miracle. The whole assumption of Steve's reaction seems to be a Bucky-centric projection rather than Steve-centric.

No, honey, I think you are just blinded by your Bucky hate. You looked at a scene where 2 characters (including your fave) claimed that Bucky is no longer alive, and Steve himself said, "I thought you were dead" - and Bucky was, against all odds and expectations of at least 3 different characters, found alive...and said, NAH NAH NAH NAH there's nothing here! There's nothing~here~to~suggest~it's a miracle.

Honestly I think you're the one living in a different plane of projection.

When Steve awakens in the future, his line to Fury is "I had a date." With Peggy, not Bucky.

Pfft he said “I had a date”, not "I had a date with P*ggy". So your interpretation is just as invalid.

And just, realistically, do you really think Steve is deluded enough to expect he’d wake up in time for a dance? And...do you really think Steve is desperate enough that he'd go for a woman who blasted him with live rounds for locking lips with another woman? When in your own words you said he hates bullies?

We do not know what Steve thought as he died, so saying he is content with death is not supported.

How about this -- "we do not know what Steve thought as he died, so saying he is not content with death is not supported". It’s my conjecture against yours and you’ve come onto my turf to be a presumptuous prick.

He has Peggy and Natasha. To ignore these two relationships seems to do a disservice to both characters.

Ah yes, the great relationship with P*ggy, who in 5 minutes of her screen time is characterised by: 1) mocking Steve as “dramatic” when he asks for guidance, and 2) her florid delirium in which he had to pull the emotional labour to placate her, and 3) her being grateful that she's led a great life without Steve.

If oldwoman!P*ggy was such an important relationship to Steve, he wouldn't have lamented to Natasha that "it's not easy finding someone with shared experience".

If there is any lesson Steve should learn in the modern day, it is that Steve sacrifices and Bucky leaves. Once involuntarily with the Snap, but twice voluntarily.

WHO THE FUCK HURT YOU AND MESSED UP YOUR BRAIN. I don't know how you can look at those scenes and pretend that the sole victim is Steve.

(Actually I can, because it's a common refrain from certain shit!stans who can't deal with the idea of Bucky being morally good)

Bucky sacrificed his own freedom and lived time in order to protect other people from getting hurt. And Bucky being involuntarily "Snapped" only counts as "Steve's sacrifice"?? The one who actually dies/gets Snapped isn't making a sacrifice? My gods the logic in this one is strong. (Also by referring to Bucky's death as Steve's sacrifice you have inadvertently acknowledged just how important Bucky is to him but I guess that flew over your head like the rest of this story)

It also ignores that Steve lived five years without all of those people. He had accepted the loss and changed into someone they would never truly know or understand.

Mate…

Do you hear yourself…

YOU LITERALLY WROTE THE COUNTERARGUMENT TO YOUR ENTIRE ESSAY.

Steve lived TWELVE YEARS WITHOUT YOUNG P*GGY. He had ACCEPTED THE LOSS (although, in my mind, it's really no big loss) and BOTH OF THEM HAD CHANGED INTO COMPLETELY UNRECOGNISABLE PEOPLE, not to mention they never truly knew or understood each other to begin with. So if your logic is that Steve has changed too much in 5 years to be around his old friends, why the fuck would he want to be around a woman he last saw 12 years ago and who he knew got an entire happy married life with another man. Eww.

I mean if NTR is your kink that's fine but no need to flaunt that on my turf.

The fun thing about fandom is that canon is open to different interpretations. You could read the tavern scene to say P*ggy is inviting Steve to be her right partner, just as I could point out that Steve’s pointed silence is a resounding rejection of that invitation.

But there is incorrect fandom etiquette, and that’s when you stomp into an innocuous narrative musing and start a ship war.

And I beg of you to learn another word from "disservice".

(The whole pile of horse shit for anyone needing to have their blood boiled)

[inconspicious-random-thoughts]

I always see people who think Adam was a good person before dying and only became bad after entering heaven. Considering that no one in the court could say why he was qualified to say how a souls gets to heaven I think it was more he was a jerk then to but he had no ability or opportunity to hurt people until the exterminations.

Hello there!

It is a possibly and likely correct.

People sin isn't limited to people who are just inherently terrible people and they want to. It's usually by people who are desperate enough and don't have other means to avoid it.

A starving person who was born into less ideal circumstances, doesn't steal bread for shits and giggles, they steal it because its necessary to survive. To expect the person to avoid the temptation to just stop the pain of hunger and live another day on the same 'test' as someone else that is well off is completely unfair. The starving person with no means only choice of avoiding sin was to accept death? What if the person was attempting to support a family. Condemn them too in hopes that eternal reward is real?

With that analogy, Adam is very much the better off soul with the means. There was no society, the only other humans was his wife and the children they had together. There's no one to be jealous of, no one to be tempted by or to, no one to steal from...basically there's no society, there's no crime that would come with it. I don't think Adam is going to just assault his family and such. So Adam automatically had a head start for things to go in his favor in the after life. He didn't really has people to sin against nor the motivation to do so. It aligns to what you suggested. he had no ability or opportunity to hurt people until the exterminations.

It possibly explains why Adam holds such disdain to Sinners. Adam had never once been in a situation or circumstance that would cause a person to take drastic measures. Adam just can't comprehend that they sin because it was necessary for survival. His lack of experience will view it as "If You didn't want to go to Hell, you should just accepted death instead of sinning" Heaven great, why not speed up the process to go to it by not sinning and dying to reach it? Adam simply has no means to understand empathy. So everything to him is black and white.

I think he thinks sinners do it mostly out of desire. Which to be fair, some do. But I personally believe a large chunk of the Hells population is out of necessary then desire. Or just place put in a bad situation and acted before thinking. The first episode Hellavah boss sort of touched upon this. The school teacher was a good person. But a crime of passion against her cheating husband damned her. She was obviously blinded by the betrayal and after the act was made, she sounded panicked when she realized what she had done. Frighten and remorseful of her actions she then ended herself promptly.

I am in favor have Adam being...a decent person before his death. I wouldn't say good because like the bad, and what you suggested : he had no ability or opportunity. He really didn't have a society to go spread good to. I think he was mostly decent person, he did some douche things and had bad days but overall, he was okay person. He provided and protected his family and taught and pass on the limited knowledge the first humans have acquired. I want to give Adam some credit for being somewhat inherently good. If he was throw in today society, I don't see him lying, stealing, raping and murdering. He just a rude, arrogant douche. He the guy that call a woman a 'filthy stupid whore of a bitch that he never wanted to fuck because she so ugly' when he was rejected type of guy but I wouldn't put him into committing crimes or huge dives in sin. (Maybe gluttony, he seems the type that binge away his issues) I also don't see him commit adultery considering the incident with Lucifer and Lilith. He would most likely develop more empathy (especially if he force to be in a working/labor class and realize how tough it can be just to get by).

In addition, he may have motivation to be good and follow the holy path as he more than likely witness or at least know about Lilith and her being cast to the pits. Lucifer took his wife (learning do not steal) and was casted down with her. He was given an example to what happens when you don't behave.

Adam definitely had already developed arrogants before his death. Being the first human, man, etc. He also made himself the de facto leader once Lilith was banished. Which continued into Heaven. He became such a symbol to Heaven. Adam just use to not answering to anyone beside high level angels and perhaps Go(o)d themselves. Which, I assume isn't often.

I'm positive his arrogance stems most of his not so decent moments on Earth.

I also think, some days, Adam was very bitter when thinking back at the past before his death. From Adam standpoint:

Lilith left him. So I assume in the Helliverse and guessing from Adam eating spare ribs, Eve was made from his rib (Selfless). He lost Lilith by not listening or compromises, so he listen to Eve when she offer the apple. He got punished for that. (He was made to choke on it, adam apple term, and banished from paradise according to the bible)

If he not eaten the apple in the helliverse as it wasnt confirm he eaten it, he was still banished from paradise in order to stay and protect his wife and have a family.

Let's talk about the apple of knowledge...How is it fair to punish those who ate it when they did not know right from wrong before they ate it?

Then learning to survive and defend on his own after being used to paradise with no worries, he had children. His first born murdering his 2nd born out of jealousy because the almighty ignored the first born offering. I sure Adam felt the loss and mourn and probably for his first as well because he sure he be cast to the pit for the act.

But Adam felt he stuck it to the man, Lucifer, who curse and seem to make Adam life harder, avoided temptation, ascended on death.

Nethertheless, I'm sure Adam were bitter some moments of his Earth life. He views the apple as a curse than a blessing or a gift. Life was so good before that damn apple!

Upon entering Heaven, it did seem Adam indulge in activities could consider sinful. He prideful for one. He seem he indulge in gluttony as siluette seemed fit before and he seem to grew a bit of belly as well often seen eating. He shown to wrathful towards Hell. I guess a bit of envy as he seem annoyed that a fan was looking to hook up with the drummer over Adam. Etc. I also goes full circle of Adam being terrible when there's a society for him to go against on.

The thing about Adam is he has great potential to be multi level and complex character. I don't think it will be explored but the potential is there.

Heaven is supposed to be eternal reward for good behavior but we learn that Heaven isn't all there is crack up to be. I think mostly decent Adam became a jaded over his long stay in Heaven.

He may feel like Lucifer and just heartbroken watching his descendants let the curse guide them away from paradise.

Lilith probably did start an uprising or something that looked like it. So Heaven appointed him as general. Who better to square off against the first woman then the first man?

He may have been told or t comforted himself for his acts, he is being merciful by exterminations. No matter how cruel it seem to end the soul life permanently, he's also ending those souls from being tormented and suffering for all eternity. Because Hell is forever and meant to suck a lot. He performing the act of putting a injured animal down. (He later became desensitized and stop feeling mournful of the lost souls and it became a game since the souls are going better place anyways. By better...meaning...nothingness is better then Hell.)

How deliciously angsty is this: He definitely felt conflicted and he faced his own children (Cain) and possibly wife Eve in the exterimations. How is one suppose to permanent kill his first born by divine retribution without feeling conflicted in his conscious.

How can Adam murder his own son trapped in hell, who there only because of murder that Cain committed . Talk about doubt standards.

But no matter how wrong it felt...its must be the right thing to do if Heaven deemed it necessary....He performing a mercy ending his son's life in Hell. End the suffering. It must be the right thing to do because Heaven said so and said it was necessary.

Only to find out that the blight of an soul, Lucifer. The soul that condem so many souls because of his temptation, had a daughter. Who Adam cant take retribution on, but force to smite his own children? THEN that daughter spouting ideals of redemption after Adam already permanently ended his children to have that chance.

Charlie has to be wrong because she in Hell. Hell is full of terrible souls. Terrible souls that lie. Charlie has to be wrong because otherwise all the souls he taken, including his first born son Cain, all of them perished for nothing. Perished before receiving their second chance.

THEN have Adam have the irony timing by becoming a sinner and find out, yes sinners can be redeemed after all. If Adam not throwing himself a pity party, he had to go to Lucifer and his daughter...the reason why he died and trapped in Hell, and just the souls that started all his problems and issues,...he has to go to them for help for home to have a chance at redemption. Going to Lucifer (and his kin) who damn humanity, for a chance at redemption. It all feel like a cruel joke.

Seriously, wasn't that a delicious drama and angst storyline? Adam can be made to be soooo much. Just add a few more ingredients, stir the pot and let it simmer and Adam can become a delicious meal of a story line. But I don't think it be explore at all.

The other idea I been mulling about, one I haven't thought about long and is unlikely: Adam doesn't know right from wrong. In the Bible he ate the apple. But in the Helliverse its not conform.

He may very well be the only human who never gain knowledge from that fruit, which included knowing right from wrong.

He just follows orders from Heaven. Blindly faithful that the orders are right. Adam is in Heaven, therefore everything he does is the right thing. Being made general, and heading the exterminations is the right and merciful thing to do. It explains why he views things as black and white. He just gets told what's right and what's wrong by the higher angles. He doesn't understand there are grey areas. It also full circle he had no ability or opportunity, to figure it out.

I didn't have that thought train for long so I'm sure it has a lot of holes in it but its something to consider.

Either way, I think its shame that Adam is likely not will be explored more.

That's my two cents, I hope there's more value in it then what's it worth. Im sure theres a million typos and spelling errors but i'm sleepy now. So goodnight.

[bohemian-nights]

How do Targies unironically praise T@rgaryen blood purity like legit white supremacists and then deny there's any racism there?? Please make it make sense

Honestly liking the Targaryens isn’t the problem(and at this point, I'm pretty sure we all like a Targaryen or two).

Yeah, they undoubtedly have some bad views as a whole, but as long as you acknowledge that their views are an allegory for real issues that’s fine.

We aren’t necessarily defined by the fiction we consume.

However, these fans outright taking on white supremacist talking points about blood supremacy and blood purity with 100% sincerity and then being confused as to why people are calling them racist is a mind trip.

If all you are getting from the books is how special and magical the Targaryen’s are and how they must keep the bloodline pure, how outsiders dirty the blood, and then use that to degrade and mock characters(and harass their fans) who aren’t silver-haired with purple eyes then yeah, you’re a fucking racist.

GRRM is admittedly not the best at handling race(or even certain female characters). He’s an old white man and it shows, but even he didn’t create this universe for you guys to spout out this crap. You are supposed to question things like feudalism and Targaryen exceptionalism not uphold it.

Nettles is a prime example of this, but they want to say she’s Daemon’s kid, or unquestionably Valyrian, and how she’s irrelevant since she’s Black(not to mention deny the racism she faces in the text as well as outside of it) rather than admit that maybe your blood, your gender(she’s a woman too but they always seem to forget that), your social economic status, your race does not define you. You and your actions do.

That all being said, I do think the Targaryen ideology is what attracts people to the house in the first place, but they won’t admit this because that means they have to confront their own biases.

If Targaryen ideology is harmful and you agree with it wholeheartedly what does that make you? How do you view people who are different than you? Who do you view as beneath you? How do you treat people who you view as lesser than you?

Yes this is all fictional, but the language being used is very much based on how they feel about certain groups in real life.

Look I’ve seen people straight up say things like there are too many Black people on HOTD and that the only in-canon Black character should be cut because they’ve met their quota and then cry that they are being (rightfully) called racists.

I’ve seen people say that since Daemon rejected a white woman(Alys) who they view as better than her(Nettles) he would for sure never touch Nettles’ with a ten-foot pole much less love her in a romantic capacity and then cry that they are now being called a racist.

I’ve seen people purposely reduce characters solely down to their race and then cry that they are now being called a racist.

I’ve seen people harass and stalk actual Black fans and then cry and say that they are being bullied when we call them out for it.

I’ve seen people outright use racial slurs then the fanbase brushes that aside to say that the racism is limited to just a few individuals when many of these same people are using the previous arguments and treat real-life fans like crap.

Racism isn't limited to saying I hate n-words and wanting to commit acts of violence upon us.

It’s easier to say you aren’t a racist than to deal with the very real possibility that you are a part of the problem. That you treat people(including fictional characters) who don’t look like you like absolute shit because of something as stupid as the color of their skin. That you view them as so beneath you that we don’t deserve basic respect.

It should be noted that Targaryren fans aren't the only racists in this fandom especially when it comes to Black characters/fans, but they are the most outright hostile to the point where it is utterly ridiculous when they say they aren't racist.

But what do I know? I’m just a crazy hating ass bitch who’s out of her depth and who should shut her trap…

[avelera]

The single-minded pursuit of something is what makes good stories and good characters. I’m so tired of reading published novels where the main character passively sits around until the story finds them and forces them to move.

My theory is that since writing itself requires long hours of contemplation and sitting alone with one’s thoughts, it lends to a personality type who sees themselves as acted-upon rather than as the main actor in their own story. This infuses the writer’s characters as well who, after all, are all produced from facets of ourselves and/or our observations.

But the difference between a character that people are excited by, attracted to, and want to read about and one that frustrates and bores us is how single-mindedly and actively they pursue their goal. Certain genres provide crutches for writers because the single-mindedness is built in. A horror story about escaping from a masked serial killer on a rampage forced the protagonists to be single-mindedly and forcefully focused on their own survival either by evasion or confrontation. Detective stories focus the protagonist on solving the crime. Romances that are focused on finding love move the protagonist forward based on their desire for companionship in general or for a particular person’s love, and forces the character to move and take action.

Yet stories with longer arching goals like your typical save the world adventure benefit from forceful characters despite how often the protagonist must be forced into participating. “Resisting the call to adventure” as a story beat isn’t supposed to be the character passively waffling around until they feel like helping, I guess, or someone finally impresses upon them the importance of saving the world. While they’re resisting the call they should be actively wanting something else. Even a character who is completely chained up, locked in a prison cell and incapable of action should want to escape and take even the smallest actions possible to make their escape or at least actively think about it and desire it. A character incapable of taking action due to circumstance is not an excuse for passive characters who don’t want anything.

And even if it is realistic to real life (or so the author protests, not realizing that they do want things, even if it’s simply freedom from the guilt of not having written yet today) it’s not good storytelling. Characters are the engines that drive the story through the racetrack of the plot. They’re not real people. They are a function and that function must want to do something and move forward or else they commit the greatest sin in fiction: being boring.

Move yourself as a writer. Don’t let the character waffle about because you are waffling about trying to figure out what to write. Imagine a world where your character wants something and moves and pursues it and if they can’t move or pursue it they are mad about that or have some powerful emotion about it that pushes them to seek ways to get around the obstacle that keeps them from pursuing what they want. Make them move and make them care and make them single-mindedly obsessed with something that will drive them forward to take action of some kind in your story, even if at first it is to actively run away from it.

[xsweetcatastrophe]

You Broke Me First

Part 12

this is my new favorite picture fyi

As you get older you learn you can't take back your words or your actions. You learn it's important to be careful what you say or how you act when you're angry in the moment. Hurtful words can't be taken back, and actions can't be reversed.

Zoe decided to learn that the hard way.

"He SQUEEZED my ARM" Zoe yelled dramatically, as she took a sip of her 3rd... or 5th? tequila soda.

Upon Cillian leaving, Zoe called her best friend, Dana, and invited her over. Dana brought over tequila. After 2 drinks, Zoe told Dana everything. EVERYTHING. Dana now knew the arrangement; everything she wasn't supposed to know. Zoe knew she shouldn't have told her. She knew the implications and how difficult this could make things if Dana told people.

But drunk Zoe didn't care. Drunk Zoe was angry and had enough.

"That's the reaction my dad gave me when my dog died" Dana said, laying on the couch with her drink on her chest. "Hey, can you turn that fan off? the spinning is making me nauseous"

Zoe looked at the fan in the corner, unplugged. "It's not on"

"oh fuck" Dana said, covering her eyes. "I think we drank too much"

"Who cares, LOOK AT MY LIFE" Zoe yelled, motioning to the window where the paparazzi once stood to get pictures of her and Cillian. "Where are they now? do you think they're out there?" She said, stumbling back towards Dana on the couch who was now sitting up.

"sssssswhat are you gonna do, I still can't believe you're not getting paid for this" Dana replied, pausing in the middle of the sentence to hiccup.

Zoe downed the rest of her drink in one gulp and slammed the glass down on the coffee table. "Fuck it. Fuck him. He should be lucky - LUCKY i agreed to this"

"You tried so hard to make it work and feel real. You even started a show with him"

"I STARTED A SHOWWWWW WITH HIM!!!!!" Zoe yelled back. "THAT'S COMMITMENT!!!!!"

"You wanna go out? lets go outttt I wanna go out" Dana said standing up, wobbling towards the front door.

"No I wanna stay here, I don't wanna put on real clothes" Zoe said, pouting.

"Then lets have fun already and stop complaining about men they all suck" Dana said, climbing on top of the coffee table. Zoe climbed on after her with the tequila bottle in her hand. She took a swig of it and passed it to Dana. "To girls with good friends"

Dana grabbed the bottle and took a swig as well. After swallowing and cringing, she added "and to girls who aren't scared of breaking NDA's"

An hour later, the girls were dancing around the living room to Spite by Charlotte Sands. The music was blaring and the windows were opened. The downstairs neighbor was hitting the ceiling with a broomstick, annoyed with the noise at such a late hour. The girls didn't hear the bangs, they carried on with their dancing and singing.

They eventually (unfortunately) made their way out of apartment, stumbling down the street to the dive bar on the corner.

They spilled into the door, laughing and holding onto one another.

They were blackout at this point; they've become the group of girls that are so drunk you would roll your eyes at them and stay far away. "They're obnoxious, so sloppy" you would tell your friends, giving them dirty looks. "Hate to be the person who has to deal with getting them home"

and boy, would you be right.

Zoe, finding her liquid courage and sassiness on a high level, took out her phone and decided to facetime Cillian. It was 2:40am, the bar was calling last call, people were staring to head home, but not Zoe. She wanted to stir the pot.

After about 5 rings, he answered. "Why... hello?" He said, visibly rubbing his eyes. He was in bed, confused why she was facetiming him at such an hour.

"Yea I just wanted to let you know that i'm done" Zoe said loudly, holding the phone too close to her face.

"Done with what - where are you?" He said, squinting.

"I'm done with this pretending thing we're doing, Cillian" Zoe said louder.

"SHHHHH Stop yelling! where are you? are you okay? who are you with?" Cillian said, sitting up.

"I'm with Dana. She's my best friend. She has black hair. And green eyes. and looooooooves Adele and one time, she peed her pants on her way home from work. But you wouldn't know that because you're a BAD. FAKE. BOYFRIEND" Zoe continued. "See, SHEEEEE came with me to the dive bar on the corner by my house you didn't want to go to - you wanna say hi, DANA COME HERE" She yelled off camera.

"Zoe NO. STOP" Cillian said, frustrated. He got out of bed and pulled on sweatpants. "Don't move. Do you hear me? Don't leave." He said, hanging up the phone.

"Here she is - ugh, he hung up, HE'S SO RUDE" Zoe said, completely not hearing anything Cillian said. She had Dana next to her with a round of drinks. They were the last ones in the bar, and the bartenders were starting to wipe down the bar and clean up for the night.

"You shouldn't be with a man who hangs up on you, it's 2024 we want better for ourselves, women's rights" Dana slurred, not making any sense. The bartenders listened from afar, making eyes with the security guards by the door. They were tiny girls, they didn't think they would cause a problem, but they were extra aware of them and how drunk they were.

About 15 minutes later, security escorted them out of the bar. They were now sitting on the curb, leaning on each other and trying to find the strength to stand up.

"Hey I don't feel good" Dana said, closing her eyes. "Call me an uber?" She said, handing Zoe her phone.

"Just sleep by me" Zoe said, standing up trying t pull up her friend. She paused when headlights appeared to her right, shining in her eyes when she turned her head to look. It looked like the car was coming right at her. It slowed to a stop closely to her, and heard the back door open as well as the front passenger window come down.

Suddenly, in front of her, Cillian appeared... looking angry. He was in sweatpants, slides, and a hoodie with the hood pulled up. He walked over to her, forcing a grin on his face but his eyes said otherwise.

"Hi baby" He choked out. Zoe stared at him, speechless.

"I came to get you" he said, putting his hands on her hips and squeezing. He stared her down, nostrils flaring and jaw clenched. If looks could kill, Zoe would be in trouble.

He was full on glaring at her at this point, and unfortunately for Zoe she was starting to see two of him.

"let's get you back to my house... now."

tags: @lau219 @wolfieellsworld  @shopgirl6us

[mochicrackersss]

Blog Post - Genshiken Part Two ᯓᡣ𐭩‧₊˚ ⊹

Okay, I'm not going to lie, I was hoping to like Genshiken as it went on. It seemed cute and slice-of-life-y. Yet, the second season just made it worse for me. Especially when the main discussion surrounding the series was the otaku's consumption of hentai or pornographic media. That isn't what bothered me, as there is that side in every fandom of the world, and it isn't necessarily a bad thing to partake in. However, the content of the donjinshi that the main characters loved is what concerned me. The otaku boys in Genshiken consumed erotic media focusing on young or high school girls. One was so bad that when the character Saki asked if, in an adult video game, they take the clothes off one of the ingame high-school girls, Madarame exclaimed "Undress her? You rape her!" On the other hand, the otaku girls in Genshiken were hardcore fujoshi (one was so obsessed with sexualizing gay men that she fantasized about a harem of her clubmates and made dojinshi of it).

While Saito Tamaki believes that these kinds of indulgences can never be acted upon in reality due to the otaku mastery of "Critical Distance" (saying that the Miyazaki Incident in 1989 was a one-time thing), I have to strongly disagree. Sure, it's not always a 1-1 signifier for real-world sexuality, but especially when it comes to child pornography, the overlap of consuming that kind of media and committing crimes against children is too high to ignore. Especially in America, where we see pedophiles and predators being arrested constantly and having child porn in their possession. And I don't think otakus should be put on a higher pedestal because they can "control their sexualities" better than other fans in the world, as horrible people are in every community no matter what you claim.

When it comes to fujoshi, as the lecture discussed, (not all) but a good amount of Japanese BL fans are against real-world gay marriage or obsess over overly sexualized/stereotyped homosexual relationships. Though I can recognize the goal to parody male-leading content by making the leads romantic instead, I don't think that gay men should be used so carelessly (if that makes any sense). I think there are better ways to puncture masculinity and male-dominated industries. Genuine LGBTQ+ representation could do just that, instead of harmful or hyper-sexualized representation. Though this is all just my opinion and I'd love to hear your other thoughts!

[bestworstcase]

Just found your post about gillian x jaune and I enjoyed it very much! Could you elaborate gillian being anti-theme ozma? Is it like, she’s committed not to GoL and his religion war but the people she loves and she acts in ozma’s manner on this issue? Thank you <3

when i say a character is anti-theme what i mean is they either don’t know or don’t believe the narrative themes. this is a broad / high-level way of thinking about character arcs in terms of a character’s relation to theme. for example, a lot of fantasy protagonists have character arcs about learning and embracing the story’s themes; think “hero discovers the true power of friendship” type of stories. 

one of the characteristics that makes rwby so interesting is that this theme/anti-theme paradigm is decoupled from narrative role, most notably in the case of salem and ozpin. 

salem understands the narrative themes. in fact, she articulates them at the beginning of the story with such precision that fans regularly describe what rwby is thematically about by quoting or paraphrasing her: “even the smallest spark of hope is enough to ignite change,”  “there will be no victory in strength,” and “your faith in mankind was not misplaced: when banded together, unified by a common enemy, they are a noticeable threat.” salem also describes mankind as “strong, wise, and resourceful” and praises humanity’s “passion, resourcefulness, and ingenuity.” these are ideas that salem truly believes. 

meanwhile ozpin professes to have faith in mankind, but in reality he is beholden to a god who explicitly views modern humans as inferior shadows of their predecessors and has commanded ozma to “redeem” them before the gods lest they be found unworthy of existence and destroyed. ozpin himself is also paranoid, deceitful, manipulative, and distrustful, because he has no real faith in people. 

and, if you listen to what salem actually says to and about him (including in ‘sacrifice’ and ‘divide’) it’s obvious that most of her fury is motivated by this: salem believes that humanity is worthy and that the divine mandate should be refused, and ozma’s dedication to his task of “redeeming” humanity enrages her. she’s angry both for herself and on humanity’s behalf.

her belief in the themes is also evident in her strategy and the scope of her war: she is very narrowly focused on the huntsmen academies and seems to be making an effort to minimize collateral damage, i.e. pulling grimm out of vale quickly while holding beacon, the surgical strike planned on haven, not attacking mantle (and having the hound send wild grimm out of the city), leaving menagerie in peace. salem is both desperate and ruthless, but her faith in remnant’s ability to survive and rebuild after she knocks the academies down is ironclad.

so, with that laid out, before discussing gillian i want to first elaborate on jaune being anti-theme salem. 

salem’s own story is defined by striving for freedom and justice: she escapes her tyrannical father’s tower; challenges the brothers, who are unjust; leads a rebellion; possibly brings humankind back and may have created the faunus through her transformation in the pool of grimm; rejects the divine mandate; and now she seeks to topple the huntsmen academies and create a ‘new world’ free from the divine threat of annihilation. 

connected to that, one of the central thematic conceits of her character is the power that storytellers wield over their audiences: ozpin explicitly uses fairytales as propaganda to control the narrative about her, framing her as an inhuman monster who cannot be trusted and desires only annihilation. fairytalesare not real, and the truth is hard to come by. salem is well aware of this and remarks upon it in her V1 soliloquy (“legends, stories scattered through time” that obscure “the forgotten past”). she does not, particularly, seem to like fairytales. 

as with hope and faith in mankind, this is another case of salem knowing the theme versus ozma believing the anti-theme. rwby values fairytales because they can express emotional truths, but the whole truth—the reality—is always more complex, and fairytales can also be weaponized as propaganda or tools of condemnation. it is important to understand that fairytales aren’t real, and treating real life like a fairytale only leads to pain. 

yes? okay.

jaune and pyrrha reflect salem and ozma; she’s the renowned celebrity athlete with a heart of gold, he’s the self-described “damsel in distress” and “lovable idiot stuck in the tree.” she helps him down from the tree and trains him to a level of competence, and like the original ozma, she dies tragically young. simple. 

but,

unlike salem, jaune is not motivated by a longing for freedom or anger at injustice. he comes from a line of soldiers and he wants to prove to his doubtful family that he’s good enough to uphold that legacy. he doesn’t want to be the damsel in distress; he wants to be the hero. he doesn’t want to be saved; he wants to be the one saving others. so he fraudulently enrolls in beacon academy and pretends to be something he isn’t. the tree is his tower—“i’m tired of being the lovable idiot stuck in the tree while his friends fight for their lives,” he says, pointing wildly at beacon tower—but the thing is, he put himself there. during his character arc in V1, jaune is trapped in a cage of his own making, one he built out of childish fantasies about being the fairytale hero. 

further, if we compare jaune’s reason for wanting to be a huntsman against the rest of the kids:

ruby wants to help people and feel closer to her mother by being like the heroes in the stories summer read to her when she was small

weiss wants to atone for what her father has done in her family’s name and make things right

blake wants to make a stand against corruption and inequality for her people, even though she’s not sure how to fix it

yang craves adventure and self-discovery, and she wants to pursue it in a manner that will make the world a better place

pyrrha believes it’s her destiny to be a huntress in order to protect the world

nora doesn’t have a clear idea of what she wants, but she’s an intensely compassionate person who, like blake, stands up to injustice and advocates for people in need. 

ren wants to become the huntsman his village needed, someone who could have saved his parents and his home, and he’s following his father’s final advice to take action

jaune wants to prove to his family that he is good enough to become a warrior like his forefathers. 

jaune is the odd one out. he’s fiercely loyal to and protective of his friends, but he’s the only one who came to beacon for purely self-centered reasons. his arc in V1 is about jaune learning not to be craven and self-serving, to shelve his pride, let go of his cowardice, and do the right thing. 

all of this is anti-theme—or at least, the absence of belief in the themes. 

and that comes to a head when he’s stranded in the ever after in V9. see, salem’s belief in the themes—in the power of hope, the worth of mankind, and the importance of truth—is not just an abstraction. these beliefs are what drives her. for salem, emotionally, hope and righteous anger are one and the same. when she loses her hope, she remembers her anger; anger motivates her to act, and so reignites her hope. she has never given up because she has taken every horrific hope-shattering experience as a reason to get back up and keep fighting. every cruelty the gods inflicted upon her strengthened her conviction that resistance to their design was worthwhile. 

so

what happens if salem lacks that conviction?

salem believes heart and soul that change is possible and that these humans—this world—are better off without the brothers. in the present, she is hopeless and wrathful, and her desperation drives her to catastrophic extremes, but she is not stagnating: she’s fighting to change the world, freeing herself from exile and everyone else from the threat of annihilation. 

in contrast, jaune does not really believe in anything. not in the way salem does—he believes in his friends and he believes in doing his job as a huntsmen, sure. but where is his faith? where, after he’s stranded in the ever after, is his reason to act? after the moonfall, salem curses the gods and wanders the face of remnant alone until she reaches the pool of grimm, then throws herself into the darkness with the hope that it will change something; rather than fall into despair, she holds onto her conviction and searches for a way to keep moving forward. 

jaune… sits on a beach for years, passively waiting for something to happen. when alyx and lewis find him, he tries to be the storybook hero and his obsession with making sure that the story happens as it’s “supposed” to freaks alyx out so much that she poisons him. then he lives with the paper pleasers for years, playing pretend as their hero while he runs in circles. he’s trapped. he has no real purpose or direction. the tree is, once again, his tower—that tree is death! it erases you!—and just as before, it’s a tower of his own making. 

tellingly, his stagnation in the ever after transforms him into a resemblance of ozpin: paranoid, distrustful, manipulative, controlling of the very people to whom he has appointed himself a guardian. he finds himself in a world completely unfamiliar to him, convinces himself that it’s cursed and bad because it isn’t like the world he remembers, and rots. 

so, he’s anti-theme salem: a fractal repetition of her unmoored from her unshakable belief in the themes, who stagnates and is corrupted like ozpin because of his lack of faith. 

the natural converse of anti-theme salem is an ozma who does believe in the themes, because that’s the reversal of ozma’s relation to the theme.

presuming that i am generally anticipating gillian’s presence and role in the vacuo arc correctly, there are a few solid reasons to think that her thematic ties to ozma will mirror jaune’s to salem.

first, as the summer maiden—the maiden of destruction—her “moral” (per the fairytale) is “don’t view the world at a distance; take an active part in it,” and destruction itself has been consistently portrayed as a catalyst and agent of change. ozpin fears destruction and views it as the enemy of life itself—anti-theme. being the summer maiden, gillian would embody the thematic refutation to that idea.

second, the crown repeats the ozlem kingdom: both authoritarian cults founded and led by a pair of leaders claiming divine right to rule (ozlem on the strength of their magic, the asturias twins through their claim of royal blood), and both collapse when ozma / gillian are forced to choose between love and their cause. but they choose in opposite directions; ozma sacrifices salem and their daughters for the sake of the divine mandate, but gillian turns against jax at the last minute to save  his life (and her own) once it’s clear that he intends to go down fighting. unlike ozma, when the chips were down, gillian sacrificed her cause to save her brother.

third, the whole backstory between gillian and jax—as i’ve pointed out before—revolves around gillian’s absolute rejection of the idea that her brother’s frailty made him inferior. everyone else, even jax himself, sees jax as a parasitic weakling, pitiable at best and repellant at worst, but gillian is glad to share her aura with him and not only treats him like her equal but comfortably follows his lead. 

gillian’s semblance makes her terrifically powerful, with or without the maiden powers, and she was raised in a culture that worships power and abhors “weakness”—and yet. she mainly uses her power to support her brother and at one point during the climactic battle she even reflects that the power she grants her forces also leads them to be overconfident and reckless, to their detriment. her attitude toward power is very reminiscent of salem’s—and quite unlike ozma, who seeks out the relics in the hope of using them to overpower salem and goes to extreme lengths to try to keep the maidens and their power under his control. 

so while she clearly repeats ozma, gillian does not put her faith in power and chooses to follow her heart rather than let herself and her brother die for a doomed cause, and she might be the maiden who embodies destruction as a force of active change. all of this puts her thematically opposite to ozma in much the same way that jaune is thematically opposite to salem. 

and,

if she and jaune do wind up being narratively intertwined (romantically or otherwise), there is a lot of compelling reverse-ozlem ore here. a heroic anti-theme salem in juxtaposition with a villainous ozma who knows (some of) the themes. when jaune is at his best, he’s a healer; gillian loves her medically fragile brother. there’s an obvious narrative opening to bring these characters into orbit with each other and helping jax is an obvious step to healing what’s rotten in the state of vacuo. in the broader thematic sense, gillian as an ozma repetition being motivated to complete a villain->hero arc because they’re helping her brother (and because she’s been given a reason to question whether there’s any real truth or value in her “royal bloodline”) would also elegantly precipitates ozma’s apostasy arc. and then you have the possible ozlem reversal of jaune finding something to believe in through gillian just as ozma found something to live for in salem. 

[hihopelessromantics]

making an nnt "god" a concrete thing with lore / biology. substance if you will. because committing to the bit is fun and nakaba missed out

inspired that the idea that not only should Meliodas and Elizabeth have a less human form but Tristan too! I love the different takes on their designs.

chapters cause this is long! and control f is our friend

canon adjacent lore

children of the gods

awakened god designs

the gods' chosen helpers

extra pet theory because I love y'all and I love elizabeth angst

@kalopsiakey @7-ratsinatrenchcoat thank you for helping out with the brainstorming for the tristan and melizabeth 'eldritch forms'! Hope you like the finished product!!

- - - - canon adjacent lore anyone ? - - - - -

In my aus, I usually go with the interpretation that the SD and DK are the latest two in a line of governing deities, with the others dying to various means. And the SD and DK blotted them out from public memory to establish the maximum amount of control for themselves.

In order to govern their realms, I propose it was a long-standing practice that gods would retain only a percentage of their power, and lend out the rest to trusted ones who help them ensure the safety and health of their realm. There might be other groups that the Archangels and Ten Commandments are in charge of!

Theoretically, this would also allow them to retain a form suitable to walk among their people. None of this taller than a castle shtick. Perhaps the DK and SD are physically magnified with their power. Part of their appearance is morphed by their will - the DK's armor, and the veil across the Supreme Diety's face seem to be symbols of their power. They can also be representative of how the DK was seen as an invincible opponent, and how now one knew the SD's true intentions but thought she's "too holy to look upon and find fault in."

To a god, sacrificing and dividing up your power (especially) in a time of peace is symbolic of trust and humility. In war, it could be neccessary to maintain one's prestige and honor as a monarch., Could mean that you value the ability to live as one of your people as one of them rather than as someone they worship.

- - - - children of the gods - - - -

What's the difference between something like the Supreme Diety and her daughter? Biologically, nothing, I'd assume. In nnt, "god" seems to be a state of being, asserted not simply by having power but by coming into your own and claiming it as you.

I propose that the gods are a conduit for that portion of their realm's magic that would otherwise roam freely, and that the other life in that realm has already absorbed, at birth, the limit each individual can handle. Biologically, that is.

For a goddess or demon to maintain that state in Britannia without cracking holes in the fabric of reality, there'd need to be some way to both reign in that power and dilute it down to a level that's manageable for that individual. And there probably are ways. Let's see what happened to Mel. His 'original powers,' when he accepted them, were raw and undivided; additionally, he had no clue how to manage a power influx of that extent and his mind was NOT in a good place to try and manage an extra extreme stressor. And uh. He has priors with letting his demon powers run amock in a destructive manner. If there's also a psychological component to how your godly powers act, that's the first uh-oh. Second uh - oh: he'd maintained complete certainty that unlocking them would have that kind of disastrous consequences for 3,000 years. self-fulfilling prophecies are a thing. especially if you believe that a demon's powers, specifically, their darkness, is deeply involved with their subconscious. Being 'a god' doesn't seem to logically coincide with being helpless. I think the real reason the DK and SD were trapped in their "bubbles" in their respective realms is their refusal to set aside that power, and walk as a simple demon or goddess even temporarily. A lack of will (in the gods' place) or a lack of control (Mel), rather than a lack of possibility. It makes it more interesting, I think!

In that case, the natural disasters we saw after Mel stepped into that power would be a result of the vast amount of demon realm magic accompanying him running completely amock in the wrong realm, interfering with the other magics present and the balance.

- - - - For "awakened god" designs! - - - -

I think Meliodas would want to keep his appearance mostly the same . . . just with more pizazz. Same with Zeldris, he seems to have it down pretty well already judging by his dramatic entrance in 4kota. If they're able to channel their powers well enough for this, I think they'd leave most 'monstrous' features toggled off while using this form except for their aura, and other associated demonic features such as wings, horns, and claws. They'd use the extra power boost to help their darkness roam with more versatility. Perhaps it'd form a tail behind them and coil about their horns and nearby loved ones like decorative, protective wreaths. It might lend a dragonlike flair to Meliodas, with several sets of horns about his face and dragonlike spines; and likewise, for Zeldris, some regal feathers and a simple, elegant floating crown - irremovable but loved - floating like a halo above his head.

I think Elizabeth would gain another pair of wings (if not more), and a dress of light in the same theme as Meliodas's assault mode outfit. She would have a magnificent crown of light, and she would hate it, she would complain that she didn't even wear a crown at her wedding, why does her magic think she'd want one? and she'd tear it off. every time. Maybe one day she'll accept it. Her brother-in-law tells her it's a symbol of how she'd given her heart, blood and breath to her realm, and to protecting the peace in Britannia, and that it's something she earned. But all she can see is this form is more grandiose than her mother's ever was, regardless of how much more like herself it looks than like some plain, no-faced worship-demanding statue. (That's how Meli describes her mother). Maybe one day! In the meantime, she released most of her original magic back to the Celestial Realm to assist in its revival. And covers up the crown with ribbons her husband sewed for her whenever she's prepping for a serious battle.

The special feature I came up with for what I'm calling Tristan's "awakened god form" is based on a biblical angel's wheels of eyes. That, except Twinkle stars, bright as a goddess's magic but as maneuverable as darkness, and they point in whichever direction he's focused on.

Wings would be feather-based, with darkness that weaves around them like the tounges of flames.

I think even the most high-level demons and goddesses would have less humanlike teeth in the back of their mouths accompanying their molars. Maybe just a little sharper, and much more durable. Maybe a second or third row of teeth that gets less prominent or even more retractable as it nears the lips. sharks come to mind. I'm jealous of their teeth. Why are ours so flimsy. Anyway. 7 rats proposed a demon / goddess child's noticably inhuman teeth might be like that of an anglerfish. Interesting idea.

Like. Uh- puts on a poetic narrator voice Like a wide smile, almost uncannily wide but almost like the way you walk with your feet pointed outward and not an emotion. And when he moves his mouth to speak or frown you can see little gleaming edges along his jaw like a set of jewels in a necklace. You're not sure what they are. Like spikes or horns but… from within. That ought to be decorative, you think, but you've thought the same about the demons’ sets of horns and their fangs and now that you think about it, the shapes surrounding the powered-up goddesses'… is they really magic or something supernatural beyond your mind’s comprehension. . . ?

As for the eyes - dark, demon-colored with swirling golden triskeles in the center. Since in normal form he already has the duality - and it makes sense considering how goddess and demon powers present themselves in their eyes - I think hiding the heterochromia in his eldritch form would make it more horrifying. Like, now we are stepping away from physics into what a “god” is in this universe. The darkness spills out of his eyes like the whisps of dry ice ofc!

- - - the gods' chosen helpers: examinating the the SD's blessings and the DK's curses - - - -

3/4 Archangels' Graces channel a certain element of nature: wind (Tornado), water (Ocean), light (Sunshine), with Ludociel's Flash being the odd one out. I propose this is because Ludociel has such a tainted mindset the only Grace that would take him is the one representing swift, determined action (because hehe). The Ten Commandments, unlike the Graces, have a further element of control - their double-edged nature - suggesting the DK isn't as thorough of a manipulatior (deadbeat hehe) as the SD and cannot rely on his command alone to gain 100% of the TC's focus. There's been clear tampering with the power it gives them, and less trust; they're artificial compared to the Graces, one of which was said to have chosen Escanor of its own free will. As for what they can do - they represent values that are considered virtues. Except for purity. what the hell does Derieri's purity do again? Not that she NEEDS that extra power, for the love of god the brute force trauma of this woman's second blow would probably cause permanent damage. Anyway, love forces those with hatred in their hearts to stand down from a fight (objectively not a bad thing), truth does the truth thing, etc.

These are not neccessarily combat-focused powers, though they are used and intended as such. It's not a stretch to say they could be utlized in a different manner in times of peace. The Demon Realm has probably countless small villages and intellegent species for the King to oversee and keep the peace between. It makes sense for him to have more vassals from that standpoint. Meanwile, the Celestial Realm from what we can tell has fallen into disrepair without the routine care of its people. I'm gonna go ahead and headcanon that the natural phenomenon here is at least as 'extreme' in human terms as the demon realm's, and that effectively managing a system of islands in the sky with probably dozens of intellegent migratory creatures like sky fish, etc. does take some supernatural effort. And that most of the goddess population here is centralized in one main area. Pretty much all nakaba has given us is an implied lack of diversity in the celestial realm (why everyone look like that except for Tarmiel) (it's fine we can make the creatures ourselves). Anyway. A not-double-edged-sword version of the Commandments and the current Graces could be repurposed to aid in civil relations (people), and enviornmental mangement (nature) respectively.

-- - - - - extra! pet theory as to why Elizabeth is an only child - - - -

I have a pet theory for my holy war au that Elizabeth wasn't made like a human child and is, rather, a genetic clone the SD shaped of herself (think shaping a living being out of clay) as well as just one in a succession of rebellious (and very dead) attempts at the perfect daughter. This is why there's only one of her, while Meliodas has a sibling, and why she's older than Meliodas. Until Elizabeth, there was no proof that what the SD and DK wanted could be managed without serious consequences. The SD learned that just having the one is important for the amount of control she wants over her daughter. She only has so much patience, and the sisters tended to back each other over her. Thank - well, herself - that they were so young. . . all those times. This is why the DK insisted on totally eliminating his children's emotions; he thinks so long as they don't care for one another, and don't even think to, he can manage as many as he wishes. Otherwise, he thinks the SD is a loon who failed like four times in succession, and refuses to acknowledge that he specifically waited for her to succeed, "learning" from her mistakes, before having his own children.