#this isn't framed as bad by the narrative. If your girl's always mad at you then your relationship ISN'T good.

[diamondperfumes]

The assertions that Dany will "succumb" to her family's allegedly "evil legacy" or the "taint" in her blood require pathologizing her for being an abuse victim borne of rape and incest, buying into bioessentialist "genetics is destiny" argument, and decontextualizing most of the passages from her book arc. This post, with a song juxtaposed with out-of-context quotes from Dany's chapters, is an excellent example.

"Every child knows the Targaryens have always danced too close to madness." The only "mad" Targaryens were Rhaegel, Aerion, Aerys II, and Viserys III. If you want to stretch it, you can include Baelor, though he was more pious and fanatic than mad. Maegor was cruel but lucid. Rhaegar was not mad, despite being Aerys II's son. And the narrative has distanced Dany from Aerys II several times, because one of ASOIAF's central theses is not "you are your father's child," but "you can overcome your father."

"She could not look behind her, must not look behind her" is not Dany "refusing to look at her family's history." This is taken from her fever dreams in AGOT Dany IX, and what she can't look back at is an icy breath that would cause her a "death worse than death, howling forever alone in the darkness." It's the first time Dany sees the Others in her dreams, and she is the only other character in AGOT to dream of them, the other character being Bran.

"I made a horror just as great, but surely they deserved it. Harsh justice is still justice." This is Dany feeling guilty for crucifying 163 slavers. How is that a sign of madness or refusal to confront her family legacy? It's actually a sign that Dany has empathy even for the worst of humanity, even for her enemies. Also, crucifying slavers isn't evil. It's odd that the same fandom that calls Dany a slaver, slave trader, slave profiteer, and slavery enabler, also calls her a tyrant or mad for crucifying slavers. What is she supposed to do with slavers? What is the "proper" way to handle them?

The mother of monsters passage is more proof that Dany is introspective and self-critical. In children's media, shounen anime, and Marvel movies, a villain may unironically call themselves a monster, but in more complicated, nuanced, adult literature, characters who call themselves monsters usually aren't bad people. They're the self-deprecating, humble, and thoughtful characters who are reflecting on their flaws and mistakes. Again, if Dany is someone who refuses to think about the dark side of her family, she would not agonize over the consequences of using her power. Monstrosity is associated with being stigmatized, ostracized, and alienated by hegemonic forces in society, and those characters who identify with monstrosity often have something to reveal about the violence of the status quo and the normalization of oppression.

George is deconstructing the coin quote, not reinforcing it. Madness/greatness, ice/fire, east/west, north/south, sun/moon, pain/pleasure, love/hate, are all dichotomies in the novel that George sets out to show can unite in some way. As I said, most Targaryens were not "mad," and I find it odd that for a fandom as progressive as it frames itself to be, the ableist stereotyping of "foreign otherized race from the East is genetically predisposed toward madness" isn't something fans problematize more.

Dany longing for the house with the red door and wanting to rest, laugh, plant trees and see them grow, are also seen as signs of madness because of her statelessness and homelessness. If a teenage girl has been raped and abused, and is herself a product of rape and abuse, and comes from an exotic Eastern family, then apparently her longing for home is actually a bomb waiting to detonate inside her, because she's unfit to belong anywhere. It's shocking that this mentality is seen as media literate or subversive.

"Dragons plant no trees" has already been disproven by Dany's arc itself. Dany reclaims fire and blood by the end of ADWD because she realizes the peace in Meereen is false (which it is). Jon Snow goes from wanting to hire glassblowing apprentices to plant crops in greenhouses to grow food, to abandoning his vows and declaring war to save his sister, and then dies. Why is that not seen as a sign of "succumbing to madness?" The acts are narratively paralleled. Perhaps––and this may be crazy, but stay with me––the thesis of FeastDance is that you cannot grow, build, and heal a nation in soil watered with blood. No such rebuilding or regrowing is possible unless and until real change occurs, and for real change to happen, the corrupt old guard cannot stay alive.

Certainly TWOW will be a darker book for every viewpoint character, but it's interesting to see how a combination of pathologizing Dany for her gender, ethnicity, genes/biology, trauma, and stateless/rootless/homeless status as an exile/diaspora, with decontextualizing her chapters, quotes, and passages, and an overall misunderstanding of the themes of ASOIAF, to single Dany out as a "dark" character who won't be able to "outrun" her "negative family history."

[scoobydoodean]

i think it’s kinda funny how you don’t have some sort of online handle except your urls, so i can only ever address you as like dftsam. anyway i saw a take that said cas “learned” to feel unloved from dean, from the way dean treated him basically - an example they gave was dean looking away when cas said I love you as he was dying in s12 - and it seemed there were a lot of people agreeing with it. i’m not one of them, but if you were interested (only if you’d wanna talk about it, I’d get it if you didn’t) I’d love to get you thoughts on this idea?

So I read this at like 1-2 AM lying in bed and I was like this:

I find it so fucking funny when people start in on this shit, because Dean girls and Cas girls can do this to each other all day long. “Dean made Cas feel unloved” “Cas made Dean feel unloved”. You can build a framework for either (BOTH) by cherrypicking scenes to suit a narrative. Like. I can easily say that Cas repeatedly sent a message, regardless of his intentions, that Dean’s feelings don’t mean jack shit to him. I prefer to take things with humor and just understand where Cas’s issues are coming from (just like Dean—who makes his best effort to understand Cas; just like Cas makes his best effort to understand Dean) rather than get mad and demonize him so I can be angsty about Dean always feeling "unloved"… but the guy… look—making no effort to explain why he is like this at this moment (because Cas apologism is absolutely not the point of this ask) Cas is known to do the following:

Control the means of communication. You will pretty much never see Dean ghost Cas. Even when Dean was forced to kick him out, he checked up on him to make sure he was okay. But Cas will knowingly and intentionally ghost Dean’s prayers and calls for days and weeks at a time on repeat through their ENTIRE RELATIONSHIP. Dean has expressed that this upsets him more than once, but Cas continues to do it. Every once in a while he’ll throw in a half-assed apology sure—but it doesn’t mean anything. He’s going to do the thing he’s apologizing for again as soon as he’s decided he doesn’t want to face Dean’s questions or doesn’t want him involved yet again. Which means 1) he isn't actually sorry 2) how it makes Dean feel is not important to him or else he'd stop doing it. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Keep secrets about bad things going on CONSTANTLY. Over and over and over and over… then Dean is still the one who ends up apologizing for getting mad about it. Rinse, repeat.

(Often) Refuse to be a team player in an effort to keep Sam and Dean out of harms way over the things he has personally decided are too dangerous for them, without ever letting them have a say, because he has unilaterally decided they are too tiny and soft and he needs to fall on a sword when no one asked him to and no one WANTS HIM TO. A lot of people want to turn this into bemoaning Castiel's constant unappreciated sacrifices, but this is so unbelievably shortsighted of a take. He is attempting to relate to Dean, a person who believes he is poison and that loving him gets people killed, by attempting to fucking martyr himself over and over and OVER. Dean doesn't WANT it, and it isn't NECESSARY 99% of the time if Cas would just WORK AS A TEAM.

Urges Dean to co-parent children who he feels he has personal obligations to twice.

Who does that remind you of? Because I know who it reminds me of, but people don’t want to read that meta—or about how Cas traded out his car for a truck (who else did that?), or about how your last words before a sacrifice can haunt a person and rip them open in ways you never intended. Of course Cas isn’t that guy… but I bet my ass Dean sure as hell sees the shades of him.. I do think it is an intentional decision to frame Cas in the late seasons after another person who also made Dean feel very unloved and unwanted—not in the big things like big grand sacrifices—but in the small things—the day to day things that slowly strangle a relationship to death—like making unilateral decisions for everyone and not answering the goddamn phone. (Edit here: I do NOT mean that Cas is intentionally being framed as CRUEL and EVIL. I mean that he is intentionally being paralleled with this person. Dean and Sam are also paralleled with that person in different ways at various points and it doesn't mean any of them are evil irredeemable villains. They just have some obvious hangups and the way this particular one for Cas ends up manifesting is probably pretty difficult for Dean and probably makes him think of how that other person behaved and how it made him feel).

Dean didn’t react right when Cas said I love you in season 12? Well. That’s debatable. But going on the offensive first before the defensive: Cas only wants to say this on his deathbed when Dean has no chance to respond.

Dean, on the other hand, has expressed his care for Cas MULTIPLE TIMES. He didn't say the words, "I love you" (he doesn't even say that to SAM) but he said "We're family" "You're the closest thing I have to family—you're like a brother to me" and "I need you" and "I'm not leaving without you" and "Being with you today is the most I've laughed in years" and "I'd rather have you, cursed or not" and "It's a gift. You keep those. Let's work as a team. We're better together."

And what does Cas do after every single one of these expressions of Dean's love?

He L E A V E S!!!!

He fucking leaves, and Cas girls want to talk about Dean making a face? And cry that Dean makes Cas feel unloved? Forgive me if that makes me fucking CACKLE at the AUDACITY.

I think one thing people tend to do, is they frame everything as if Cas is oblivious to Dean loving him, but Dean has to know or SHOULD know how Cas feels about him. This is why we get rancid takes like "DeAn nEedS tO pUll hIS hEaD oUt of HiS asS". Oh shut up. Castiel canonically can SENSE DEAN'S LONGING. If Dean's head is up his ass, Castiel's is shoved so fucking far up his sphincter it's coming out of his mouth.

Yet still—Dean recognizes, in season 11, that Cas is struggling—that Cas feels down on himself and unloved (and I DO NOT think Cas BLAMES Dean for that at all—it takes a lot of willful ignorance about everything going on with his biological family to come to that conclusion) and Dean tries to FIX IT. He once again reiterates to Cas how much he cares about him—that he's family. He has NO IDEA that the words intended to make Cas feel better are going to send him down one of the most deranged spirals of unhinged decision-making ever (the Kelly shenanigans are WILD). I actually have a slightly different take on this, from the typical " it sent him off the deep end because he got 'brother-zoned'". I think it sent him off the deep end because it was the final *nail in the coffin in what Cas saw as a reversal of their relationship—where he isn't the guy who protects everyone anymore with his grace and his grand wings... that's Dean now, and Dean is saying that Cas, like Sam, is under his protection... and Castiel absolutely could not STAND that. He didn't need his romantic affections to be returned. What he wanted, more than anything—what he saw (in a rough draft of the script) when Jack showed him paradise, was Dean thanking him, and his powers returned to their former glory. Because Cas has unilaterally decided Dean's feelings, he chooses to love him like a saint loves Jesus, laying down his life, instead of being in a partnership, because he doesn't want to be someone Dean protects—not even in a partnership where they protect each other. He wants to be the sole protector.

All of that to say: Cas didn't learn how to feel unloved from Dean. TEXTUALLY. It is ON THE TIN. Saying that is literally the EXACT OPPOSITE of what Cas SAYS about Dean. He says he cared about the whole world because of DEAN. He cared because Dean's love was so captivatingly beautiful and inspiring and transcendent that it changed who Cas was inside to the core, and he fell fucking head over heels. "You changed me".

[onewomancitadel]

To be honest, I do wonder about the irony tied to the redemption arc/sympathetic villain discourse in that it's a hotly contentious topic and people get very mad over it. Because as much as I reject the notion that storytelling is confluent with real life, it is funny arguing with people about having sympathy for the wrong sorts of people when I take narrative as well as - at times - moral umbrage with them and I worry about where they come from. They are not my 'enemy', but they certainly want to frame it that way sometimes.

But then on the other hand at every level in society you already have an unwillingness to confront evil and a willingness to decide that because the good guys are the good guys they never do anything bad, and if they do bad stuff you can just excuse it and forget about it. I understand the frustration surrounding the idea of 'forgiveness' because so often you're told to forgive people who never even confront or change anything they've done, so of course you view redemption (a related idea) as a charade, which is why I don't mark down 'that' crowd as being totally filled with bad actors.

I don't even know if if it's that psychologically complex all the time, though. Bad guys are bad guys and we know this and good guys are the good guys, it's basic fact - whether it's real life or storytelling. This is a different hypocrisy of the narrative cynicism crowd: they reify rudimentary storytelling roles, with no interrogation, no engagement. They are contrarian in aesthetics only, not substance.

I think it's an interesting topic because it does get wildly - I want to say meta - at times. Like, am I failing to understand and empathise with these people? It's why I do try hard and why I'm actually much more reserved in my ask responses than I think my worst instincts would allow me to be, because on some level, yes, I do think that there is parity between these ideas. I like to think that the things you do matter, and that includes the way you think about things and the way art/media/literature touches you, but not nearly to the (frankly absurd and narrow) degree that gets put forward online, and certainly not to the degree that we can't think about the bigger picture and actual praxis.

Except it's not always, really, about sympathising with the bad guys, right?

At the end of the day it comes down to online politicking - nay - something even simpler than that, simple schoolground bullshit. Lazy interpretation, also, perhaps chiefly. Refusing to the meet the text on its level. Refusing to look deeper. Writing off the whole point of storytelling - response and engagement - distilling it down to the most cynical, vacuous thing of self-insert fantasy and/or smashing toy figures together.

The reason this is so apparent with redemption arcs, naughty villains, and its adjacent topics of mischief is because I think it's most obvious where the self-insert and the toy figures smashing breaks down. It requires you to think a little harder about who the bad guy is and why they're the bad guy, and why the hero is good in the first place. It's easy to be inflammatory about 'liking the bad guy' - you must be a sicko in real life - you're an apologist - you're a fetishist - you're just a stupid girl. Easy to get riled up about. Everybody loves inflammatory shit now. That's how you sell headlines.

As I've been writing this post my thesis has evolved away from 'maybe there is genuinely something in trying to find middleground because I think that's important, narratively' to recognising where maybe it isn't possible to find middleground sometimes - and I don't like that, of course, particularly when it's just things out of your control (I mean, isn't the fantasy of redemption rooted in the idea that you can change and it's not out of your control?) and sometimes you, yourself, cannot teach someone reading comprehension. Even on a basic level - much to the narrative cynic's dismay - communication isn't input-output and you can't talk at someone until they finally listen. It doesn't work like that. Which is the great irony! Because the value of 'listening' to the villain is more than just heeding their dialogue and more than just making a hero listen and talk, lol. (Then again, you tend to have to look deeper past the surface-level meaning of their dialogue anyway).

I think there's also that ever-complicating factor that online isn't real life. I've never faced the stuff online I do talking to real people. A lot of people forget that their online interlocutors are real people and that is its own irony when people are trying to say villains cause 'real harm' whilst they themselves do so in the process. So I suppose the reason I want to cultivate my own self-awareness is because I don't want to be that person.