#victims being put on spot for their feelings while abusers actions are defendable and justifiable

[furiousgoldfish]

'Aw but don't you feel sorry for your abuser' 'oh maybe they've been abused themselves, you have to think about that!' 'but maybe they're only doing it because they have a mental illness! You have to look at it from their perspective!'

DON'T YOU THINK MY PRIORITY SHOULD BE TO GET AWAY FROM ABUSE WHILE I'M STILL ALIVE?

Also, why are you immediately putting yourself in the shoes of my abuser but not me? Do you feel it's more likely you'd be abuser in that situation, rather than the abused? Do you think this situation requires some virtue signaling and boasting about how you'd be a 'more compassionate' victim? Are you here to help them abuse me? Are you here to make sure it keeps continuing? Do you think anyone with a mental illness should have free reign to abuse me, or you? Do you think people threatened by a predator need to be running away or stopping to see how the predator would feel about it?

[bookofmirth]

Hello! This is a bit different from your usual gwynriel/elucien asks, so I hope you don’t mind, but it’s something that’s been bothering me lately and I wonder if anyone else has noticed.

I’m not sure if it’s because if the upsurge in popularity of acotar on tiktok/twitter with a younger audience reading it, or if I’ve just been lucky and not noticed it before, but I’ve seen so many Tamlin stans coming out of the woodwork and it honestly bothers me.

I definitely do agree that Tamlin is a complex character and of course, it’s fine that people are interested in him (I really don’t care about him, but to each their own)! But lately there have been so many people in the fandom arguing that he’s a victim of PTSD who deserves better, often villainizing Feyre/Lucien because of this.

I‘ve seen takes that Feyre was gaslighting Tamlin when she told him she was happy with Rhys because Rhys still had the whole night court persona going on?? And that Lucien and Feyre were a horrible support system because they wouldn’t stand up to him (completely ignoring that when they did Tamlin … ya know … physically hurt both of them)? And that somehow Feyre spying in the Spring Court in ACOWAR was also abusive and manipulative towards Tamlin?

I just genuinely don’t understand where all of this is coming from. I try to be critical of SJM’s writing because I understand that it can be flawed, especially since I have problems with how Feysand was written after ACOWAR, Azriel’s issues with women, the IC’s treatment of Nesta, etc. But I just can’t seem to get behind these interpretations and I’m not sure if I’m just missing something (or ‘biased’ by Feyre’s POV as some claim).

Wooooooo boy, so I didn't know that this was a thing happening but lemme break down how wrong these people are with some of these arguments! This is going to get long.

(I definitely don't mind, I appreciate any ask that's not just about ship wars!)

So I'm going to lay out the claims people are making and talk about them one at a time.

Tamlin has PTSD:

Probably yes. In the beginning of acomaf, Feyre mentions that he has trouble sleeping, just like she does, and I believe he gets up at night, and this is when their relationship really deteriorates. I can't say for sure what he was experiencing, but it seems like he had a lot of anxiety and fears left over from Amarantha and watching Feyre die. The things he was experiencing emotionally are 1000% understandable and valid, even if it wasn't diagnosable PTSD.

But you know who else likely has PTSD? Lucien and Feyre.

Say it with me everyone: emotions do not always justify behaviors.

Feyre is gaslighting Tamlin:

Hell fucking no.

People need to learn what gaslighting is. Gaslighting is not just "lying". Gaslighting is not "disagreeing". Gaslighting is a very specific tactic used to make someone question their memory, their reality, to twist the truth.

Rhys definitely had a persona. That was a calculated decision. But when Feyre tells Tamlin that she is happy, she is not lying at all. Her telling Tamlin that she is happy has nothing to do with whatever lies or manipulations that Rhys did in the past. Why? Because even if Rhys was a super asshole dark dude, Feyre saying she is happy with him is still the truth. Feyre isn't lying, let alone gaslighting Tamlin, that idea is completely laughable.

The only way that people could say that Feyre is gaslighting Tamlin is to say that she is responsible for Rhysand's Dark persona, that she is the one who created it with the intention of making people question what they thought was true. Which she isn't. That isn't even the reason that Rhys created the persona. He created it to obscure the truth in the first place.

And even his persona isn't gaslighting? He isn't trying to make people question their reality. He isn't trying to make people question themselves. He is trying to make himself look scary. And so when he drops that persona, he is telling the truth. He isn't gaslighting people, he is saying "hey I wasn't being honest before but now I am".

And i think that's a big, big difference that people are failing to understand. Gaslighting is about trying to change other people's reality. Rhys's persona was about him. Feyre saying she was happy was about her. Neither of those things were about trying to make people feel like they were crazy.

So there has to be this reality. Let's say Rhys was spotted being menacing. Person A is like "hey, you look scary!" And he's like "noice, my evil plan is working." Then later on Rhys is like "hey you know what, I wasn't being honest before, I'm actually a Super Cool Dude." Person A might be confused for a minute because what they thought was true wasn't true, but they'll get there.

If it were gaslighting, on the other hand, it would go more like: Rhys: *is nice*. Person A: "hey, I thought you were scary though?" Rhys: "nah, that was my good twin, Rhysnaldo. I've never been nice a day in my life. You must be confused." Person A: *questioning everything they thought they just witnessed".

So yeah anyway, people gotta stop using that term if they don't know what it means.

Feyre manipulating Tamlin:

Personally, I agree with the argument that she manipulated Tamlin in the beginning of acowar. I don't think that's even a matter of interpretation, she went to Spring with the intention of burning shit down.

Feyre was not abusive towards Tamlin. She knew his weaknesses and exploited them. I don't care that she did that to him, I think that she deserved a bit of vengeance. However, personally I cannot stand the fact that in doing so she caused a lot of collateral damage and did not gaf. Deal with your abusive ex however you need to, Feyre. Don't knowingly, intentionally bring harm to other people in doing so.

Feyre and Lucien failing as a support system:

NO.

Feyre literally saved Tamlin's life by killing and dying for him. Lucien was also tortured by Amarantha because of Tamlin. Neither of them broke and betrayed him. They were incredibly loyal to him throughout acotar. Even now, when Lucien is being emotionally and physically abused by Tamlin, Lucien is still trying to work with him, make sure he is fed, make sure he doesn't completely lose his humanity fae-ness. Lucien is the only reason that the Spring Court hasn't completely collapsed while Tamlin wallows in his beasty feelings.

Any time that either Feyre or Lucien try to stand up to Tamlin, he gets manipulative and abusive. He emotionally manipulates Feyre into feeling guilty for wanting to be able to defend herself. He emotionally abuses Feyre by making her afraid of his anger and afraid of how he will react to anything that she says or does. He glares or shouts down anything the Lucien says.

Also, Tamlin is a High Lord! They can only do so much when it comes to standing up to him.

For real, Feyre and Lucien did literally everything that they possibly could in order to try to support Tamlin, and much of that was to their own detriment. In trying to support Tamlin, they got emotional and physical abuse in return. So no, fuck that. Being supportive does not mean we have to put up with abuse.

Being biased in Feyre's favor:

We are not biased by Feyre's POV in the sense that she is trying to mislead the reader, but we are limited by her POV because she doesn't know everything. She tells us the truth as she knows it. That is very different from a narrator who is intentionally trying to hide things or lie or mislead.

But even if we were biased by Feyre's POV, so fucking what??? Is it so wrong to take the side of a victim of abuse? Why do we need to try so hard to understand Tamlin's side? People can do that, of course, I have myself, especially later on in the story. In acofas I started to feel sorry for him. I've been mad at how Rhys treated him in acofas. But the idea of being biased in Feyre's favor means that we would have to question her, in some way, when she recounts the story of her abuse. That's disgusting, to me. What reason do we have to think she isn't telling her story truthfully?

We might naturally have more empathy towards Feyre because we heard the story from her POV, but again - why is that a bad thing? To hear a story from the victim of abuse and feel empathy for them??? Call me crazy but that's not a problem. I'm going to empathize with Feyre, and I'm going to believe Mor (and Rhys, and Lucien). The end.

A final word

Just something you said in the last paragraph struck me, in regards to Azriel's view of women and how the IC treats Nesta: those are not thing to criticize in sjm's writing, I think. Just because Tamlin is abusive doesn't mean that sjm shouldn't have written him that way, ya know? If there are inconsistencies in characterization or a lack of understanding of abusive dynamics or alcohol abuse or something like that, those are things we can criticize in her writing. But characters do uncomfy things, that's supposed to happen.

What I'm trying to say is that there is a difference between criticizing a character's actions, and criticizing the way they have been written. Pretty much everything above falls under the realm of "analyzing a character or story", not criticizing the author.

[snapeaddict]

I was fairly certain Remus did regret his actions though. He literally tells Harry that he often stood aside and watched it happen without saying anything, and that he wishes he had. In the Prisoner of Azkaban, whenever Snape gives a dig at Lupin or insult him and Harry tries to stand up for Lupin, he repeatedly excuses Snape's actions. Hell, even when Snape tries to reveal Lupin is a werewolf and eventually causes his loss of job, Lupin never hits back, or even tries to defend himself.

I’ll divide my answer into three parts. 

1 - Repentance vs Regret 

So, you are right. I do think Lupin regrets some of his past actions - but the thing is, it seems to make you think he understood the seriousness of his actions/has grown up/is now a better person. And I strongly believe it is not the case regarding the subject of bullying. 

“In repentance, there is a retrospection of the past mistake and a search for a better way so as to not commit the mistake if such a situation arises in the future. In repentance, there is a commitment towards change. Thus, repentance is an act that intends to make one a better person. If you are repenting, it means you are learning from your mistakes and willing to change to become a better person.”

This, does not apply to Remus. We know from the books he never understands and/or refuses to acknowledge what he and his friends did wasn’t justified or deserved; he doesn’t address it as bullying as I explain in this post. Lupin’s behaviour pattern is quite clear throughout the saga: he never or only partially acknowledges his faults and they are always someone else’s doing for the most part. 

“Regret is a feeling of remorse that is a negative emotion as it leads one to think continuously about his past action or behaviour and causes more shame, guilt, anger, disappointment etc.

On the other hand, repentance is a positive emotion as it makes one learn about his mistake, and he vows not to repeat it in the future.”

Lupin gives the image of a kind, understanding and mature person who knows how to put into question is own behaviour when necessary when he tells Harry and Sirius he knows he should have prevented them from tormenting Snape (Chapter 29 of OOTP). But then, as the conversation continues, if you closely analyses his thoughts - he keeps indulging into self-beating and talking about his own behaviour. He is completely self-centred and cares more about the image he gives than about the consequences of his actions and this clearly is the way he functions:

- He is willing to risk Harry’s life by not telling Dumbledore Sirius is an animagus rather than confess he betrayed his trust as a teenager: he cares more about what the headmaster thinks of him than about the consequences of his actions.

- He finds the time to acknowledge he should have behaved better - what a mature reaction - but never acknowledges Snape’s trauma or the seriousness of what was done to him. He thinks of it as a “rivalry”. 

- He puts a lot of effort into burnishing his and his friends’ image by justifying bullying with “rivalry”, “jealousy”, and agreeing with the fact “it was a mutual hate and those are things that happen” rather than admitting they behaved terribly.

So yes, Remus regrets his actions. But it is clear to me he firstly regrets them because it gives him a bad image in front of Harry and Dumbledore, and to himself; he never learns from his mistakes nor can make sure to not repeat them in the future, because he simply refuses to acknowledge them and put his energy into minimising them or making them, for the most part, Snape’s own fault. I find Remus to be a self-centred and cowardly person, and this behaviour goes along with it. 

However, I am not saying this makes him a bad man and understand this is directly linked to the fact he is a werewolf and giving a positive image of himself is nearly vital for him. But clearly, the fact he regrets his actions means nothing besides what I just explained, in my opinion, because Remus refuses to acknowledge what they did. He never repents and we must not mistake regrets for repentance. Remember that being critical of a character doesn’t make him less interesting or likable and has nothing to do with your personal liking of him. Snape isn’t a saint either, it’s actually interesting to have characters with layers. However, Remus was written kindly and “loved” by the books’ narrative and POV; Snape was not.

2 - He still behaves, in his thirties, like a bully

...which shows he does not repent or feel sorry for what was done to Snape and their other victims. I had the chance to discuss this with @ottogatto and she was very helpful and gave me a very interesting insight on Remus’ behaviour as we see it through Harry’s eyes in the books. 

As she explained, nearly every time the subject of Snape is brought up, Remus will subtlely put the fault on him. “He was jealous”, “Your father was more popular than he was and he hated it”, “He was jealous of James’ talent for Quidditch”, “Sirius and James were good at everything and everyone loved them, unlike Snape” are embedded quotes from HP5. Why was Snape furious against him at the end of HP3? “Because he wanted the Order of Merlin”; not because Remus had nearly killed him again as well as three students, just as he had done when Snape was younger. He keeps dismissing the consequences of his actions and justifies (to both Harry and the readers), the abuse Snape went through at the hands of the Marauders. He uses a florilegium of excuses commonly used by bullies that are both very vicious and even pervert in their aims (pervert = lead someone away from what is considered acceptable. Distort or corrupt the original meaning or state of things. Exactly what he does repeatedly). This is still the behaviour of an abuser. If @ottogatto finds the post she made about it, you may like to read it as well. Remus refuses to acknowledge Snape is right to act in the way he does regarding the bullying he went through and thus deepens the hate that already exists between Harry and Snape.

From the (wonderful) @ottogatto: You see, when you tell people how your target is jealous of you, it demonizes them in a shameful way. It tells how they are a pathetic person attacking you wrongfully, oh poor innocent human that did nothing wrong. Jealousy, after all, is a fault that remains completely on the jealous one. It gives your listeners the image that your prey is a mistrustful person while putting you in the position of someone who can be envied -- supposedly for your goodness. Because that prey is framed as mistrustful and ill-intentioned, it allows people to doubt whatever accusation your target might have: either "they're lying", or "exaggerating", or "making things up". Only those who are versed in the mechanisms of bullying -- the easy or the hard way -- will spot the problem. Otherwise, people will find a pretext, a rightful excuse, or an innocent, well-intentioned goal, to keep your prey alone, weak, and "punished".

3 - It is absolutely normal Lupin doesn’t defend himself or hits back when Snape reveals he is a werewolf

...because he is in the wrong. Snape doesn’t even cause his loss of job and you may want to reread the books while not taking Harry’s perspective for the unbiased truth. Dumbledore is obviously the one who asks Remus to resign. Remus just nearly killed three students and a professor, and roamed freely onto both Hogwarts grounds and Hogsmeade as a werewolf, risking many deaths and infections because he forgot the potion Snape had been brewing for him (he depended on Snape, another reason not to fight with him). Dumbledore just learns it isn’t the first time he betrayed his trust and he did the same for two years as a teenager, risking Hogwarts’s closure and reputation and his position as headmaster, breaking the promise he made to him when he was accepted as school. The worst thing is, it is Sirius who tells Dumbledore. Not Remus. Remus clearly demonstrates he is dangerous in spite of himself - Dumbledore learns as well he hid a very important information from him (Sirius being an animagus) during the year, supposedly risking Harry’s life. Dumbledore doesn’t apologize for Snape’s behaviour when he tells him goodbye and it is reasonable to suppose it is because he is fine with Lupin’s identity not being a secret anymore. 

I understand Snape’s decision (and certainly Dumbledore’s as well, as read in Snape: A Definitive Reading and various clever posts on Tumblr) may seem cruel and negatively impacted Remus in a society full of prejudices; but I understand Snape’s decision as well. Lupin was a walking danger and had proved it countless of times, nearly killing him: I’ll always argue his decision wasn’t a bad one but you may disagree. I’m sorry for Lupin and what happened to him- but I also am lucid and acknowledge the fact he continuously risked people’s lives and was a danger to society at this point (because said society didn’t help him in any way, don’t get me wrong). But to come back to your main point, Lupin was the only one who caused his loss of job, and he had no legitimacy to call out Snape for revealing his true nature to the public, because clearly only this knowledge would prevent him from doing harm in the future. It’s a complicated situation that goes deeper than Remus and Snape’s relationship. 

Lupin could also be deemed as dangerous on another level: he spreads around pro bullying rhetorics and makes it look okay if it was "deserved". He makes bullying less serious if the victim isn't likable. He makes bullying less serious because he is likable. And this is very wrong both in and outside the books.

[ywhiterain]

Gotta put on my gameface

So, uh, I guess I’ll cut for frank discussions of abuse. John to Dean and Sam and, at this point, Dean’s developing abuse of Sam. I’m not tagging this with Dean hate, because I’m actually very sympathetic to Dean here. It’s going to be a few more seasons before I completely run of of patience with him. 

Season one was searching for Dad, season two was mourning Dad. Losing a parent always sucks. Losing an abusive parent sucks, but grief gets tangled with trauma. There’s a lot of different ways this can go.

Sam’s response is to try and be the obedient and good son he never was - although he keeps his moral code. He feels guilty for fighting with John in their last moments together. Sam’s initial reading of John in the pilot was actually pretty spot on, if not particularly kind to John. During season one, he starts getting more insight into John’s motives and begins to process why Dean was the way he was. Disobedience gets people (Sammy) killed.

Post death, Sam takes it one step further. Look, I agree. I think John did the best he could and there were a lot of things outside of his control. But, the fact of the matter is that John’s best was shit. And he knew it was shit. Sam knew it was shit. But now he’s sincerely doubting it. 

Dean’s pain is actually a bit more complicated than Sam’s right now. Not only did Dean lose John, he knows John died to save him. Worse? John told him to either save Sam or kill him. Killing things seems to be the only way he can figure out to cope.

What’s interesting is that for all he’s dismisses the idea of talking it out. It only takes a few hours of bonding with Gordon before he’s opening up about some of his grief. Which is good, even if, ah, their relationship sours pretty quick. And I don’t begrudge him not wanting to talk to Sam about it.

But he’s acting pretty goddamn dumb. He trying his hardest to act like everything is okay in order to support/protect Sam. The problem is that Sam’s not a four-year-old convinced by obvious emotional lies. Dean’s got a read on Sam’s grief, but he doesn’t want to admit Sam’s got a read on him.

That’s not a big problem. Well, it is. Because of how he’s lashing out. Beating up the car. Delighting in bloody violence. And when Sam pushes him, Dean hits him.

It’s probably the first action I’d call directly physically abusive. Dean’s more physically aggressive than Sam in season one, but he gives as good as he gets. Dean may have shoved Sam against the bridge, but Sam later shoved him against a wall. In very highly emotional moments that didn’t develop into a real pattern. Not all family violence is something I’d classify as abusive, even if it was problematic. 

And if this was the only time Dean took a swing at Sam, I wouldn’t call it abusive. I’d call it two people dealing poorly with trauma and grief. Sam’s quick acceptance and decision not to hit him back, even when Dean offered would just read as him understanding that Dean’s in a dark place and not holding it against him.

And, to a certain extent, that’s kind of what’s happening.

But there’s a sicker undercurrent going on here. Sam is reframing John’s abuse as ‘doing the best he could’ and defending John’s honor. He’s basing his life choices on doing what he thinks John would want. He’s giving up on his dreams of attending school. That’s the frame of mind when Dean punched him. That’s his frame of mind when he said that Dean could hit him all he wants.

Dean’s frame of mind is, yes, angry that Sam’s pointing out that he’s not dealing. And while Gordon raises red flags, Dean’s got a right to develop friendships on his own terms. But Dean’s not just angry at Sam’s gall and intrusion of him bonding with a new friend, he’s annoyed that Sam’s a buzzkill. Because Sam’s ethical questions are making it hard for him to have his simple coping mechanisms.

Sam is also doing something Dean really hates. Sam is refusing to fit into the Strong Big Brother/Protected Little Brother dynamic he favors between them. And that he’s really clinging too right now, for good reason. Protected Little Brother can be saved. Sam With A Mind Of His Own might do something John would want to kill him for.

It’s not new, either. In 1x02, Dean was really annoyed that Sam was on vengeance mode and angry and not giving sweet puppy dog eyes at the victims of the week.

This dysfunction isn’t Dean’s fault. But at some point, he needs to take responsibility for his choices. And he’s fully capable of doing it. He gets through Sam in 1x02 with emotional honesty and being there for Sam. When he stops dong this, it’s a choice he makes.

Again. If this wasn’t the start of what will become a pattern, I would say that it was a shit thing to do. But not abusive. And honestly? Pretty forgivable. In context of the Sam/Dean relationship, a punch is not my top concern wrt to the dysfunction between them.

The most troubling part is that Sam doesn’t fight against the punch. I’m not talking about punching back. That wouldn’t do any good. I’m talking about him holding Dean accountable for crossing a line. Sam’s doing pretty well at calling Dean on his shit. When it comes to his grief about John. Or how he’s treating other people.

But this is a turning point, because this is where Sam doesn’t stand up for himself. “Hit me all you want, but that won’t change anything,” is not Sam defending himself. Not only is there implication that Sam wouldn’t fight if Dean hit him again, there’s also him not standing up for his basic right not to be hit when he disagrees with Dean.

And, again. The only reason I find this worthy of pointing out as a developing abusive dynamic is because it escalates. Dean will hit and emotionally abuse Sam and Sam will accept that part of having Dean around is submitting to his abuse. 

Because this is the downward spiral for Sam’s mental health. This is the part where he starts really embracing his self-loathing. Dean’s abuse only intensifies and justifies that self-loathing. And the fact that Dean keeps Sam and gets a much more compliant Sam in later seasons just validates his abuse.

And the treatment of Sam’s abuse by Dean in the narrative is interesting. It’s acknowledged. A lot. In many, many different forms. But it never changes. It becomes an unpleasant part of the show. Like killing a demon or angel possessed human. Not ideal. But what are you going to do?

It’s super interesting to me, if incredibly depressing. 

[primrose-path-of-dalliance]

Lotor’s end (?) in s6

i gave in to my terrible impulses and wrote a three-part essay about lotor. it's literally >9k and i ignored all of my other projects for this for over a week. rip.

in these three posts, i talk a lot about lotor from a sympathetic pov. so if that's something that makes your fandom experience uncomfortable, go ahead and ignore this post because it's not for you. stay healthy, and i can only promise you that i hold lotor accountable for every shitty thing he's done (especially when it comes to withholding info from allura because seriously, what bullshit). on the other hand, if you are a person who hates lotor as a piece of evil garbage because ???? fandom and purity culture thought it would be a great idea to hate him without looking very hard at the work the writers put in to make him more complex than the actual pure evil bastard zarkon himself that we already have... i challenge you to read on. do it. i dare you. (at the very least so you might hate him with a better understanding of why.)

so tl;dr: this is the "in this essay i will" meme followed through, if i started talking about how lotor's not a pure evil bastard and is instead the perfect example of a protagonist gone sour through 10,000 years of poor coping choices, oppression, and a lot of actual resentment, as well as a neat talk at the end where i break down lotor's breakdown.

toc 1: i shake out some salt and talk about the altean colony | 2: i question why people keep insisting lotor was "evil all along" | 3: i talk about my favorite parts of lotor’s breakdown

i take a lot of my knowledge and inspiration from @radioactivesupersonic, who writes some awesome meta. (seriously, thank you clockie. you are amazing.) so while i might specifically cite posts of his throughout these three posts, expect his ideas to be everywhere lol. please check him out if you have the time, he's much better at this meta thing than me. (for safety purposes, i'm gonna disclaim: i did not consult with him on anything. so while i synthesize with a lot of his stuff, my thoughts are not necessarily his and i take full responsibility for that shit.)

anyway, i don't make meta posts a lot nor have any good idea of what a good structure for one would be. so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

"even after season 6, you still like lotor?"

fuck yeah my pal.

"but why? he's clearly terrible and evil! he killed thousands of alteans and said he was going to conquer the universe, destroy voltron forever, etc.!"

i mean, yeah. but i'm gonna soapbox for a second.

number one: nothing precludes me or anyone else from loving the shit out of an evil character. we're not personally invested in the story in the sense that we have real stakes involved. they're fictional characters, and we are the audience. nothing they've done has any bearing on our reality (barring general patterns that can be established by media as a whole) and therefore it's not our moral responsibility to throw down terrible judgment on a person who isn't real, even if they've done horrible shit.

i'm not saying one can't acknowledge or dislike a character who's a bad person. lotor himself has done terrible things, and if you could not give less of a fuck about him, that's highkey your prerogative and i champion your freedom to have your personal preferences.

but we're not the characters who live in that world. we're spectators to a fictional story, and one thing that means is that we have no obligation to anyone to personally hate a villain, no matter what they've done because put simply, nothing they've done is real. no one has ever been harmed by a singular fictional villain.

the purpose of the villain and their actions is not to be hated by the audience, but to help tell a story. hopefully, they're also helping to paint a picture of the variety of people, perspective, and experience in a respectful manner.

there's a strong trend in fandom now toward purity culture, where we're expected to hate anything that isn't perfect, and that's such a goddamn lie. nothing is perfect. nothing ever will be. we can't reasonably expect that level of performance from content creators.

and what does "perfect" even mean? social justice is an extremely nuanced topic, colored by individual perspective on what's right or good. there's never going to be an ideal piece of media that hits every spot perfectly because there are an infinite number of spots, and what they are changes in importance with every person.

so when it comes to storytelling, we need to focus more on what's practically possible. what's practically admirable. for me, ideally, that's "what have they accomplished? is this story illustrating the richness of human (or alien) experience? and how?"

this includes villains.

number two: i don't believe lotor is a villain in the sense that he's Evil or even necessarily irredeemable. from a personal perspective, i'll direct you to this post (link), which basically sums up my view on forgiving people who've done bad things. but from the third-party perspective as well, lotor isn't someone to find reprehensible or evil—at least, not to the level a lot of other people seem to be compelled to. let's break this down into more questions.

"lotor has killed people for his own personal gain! abused countless alteans, who already experienced a genocide!"

(allura is right there with you guys.)

yes, he did. i don't deny his crimes a single bit. the personal gain point may be arguable, but it still doesn't really make it better.

firstly: this is also addressed to those people who are stalwartly defending lotor's goodness by saying that romelle must have been lying. i haven't read any of the posts myself and only heard some of the points secondhand, and that is because the theory sounds like a load of bollocks (link).

this isn't something out of character for lotor, as much as i might want to believe so. it's really, really not, and i fully acknowledge that. we already know that lotor will do anything to survive if he finds himself caught between a rock and a hard place. that was what happened to narti.

lotor does have good morals. he has an absolute shit ton of them that, honestly, i don't know how to explain in detail without making this post twice as long as it's already going to be. he cares about individual life. he campaigns for conservation. he values people's cultures and would much rather work alongside them than dominate them. he's not cruel or sadistic like many of his peers in the galra empire, and he favors those who are discriminated against. and no, i don't believe any of these were an act. i can point to word of god for the most supportive proof—that "part of Lotor, a portion of Lotor, maybe all of Lotor, is coming from a very genuine place" (link).

(if you want deeper explanations about why these conclusions are accurate, please check out my #voltron meta tag and @radioactivesupersonic. especially him.)

but as it's been established, lotor is willing to break his morals if he feels he's faced with an ultimatum: survive, or die. victory or death.

"but that's a galra chant! he said it during the trials at oriande, and he was unworthy because of it. doesn't that prove he's really selfish at heart and will destroy anything if it means he gets what he wants?"

no. and also another no.

those two links go to really good arguments against that line of thinking. but let me sum it up: lotor has lived 10,000 years with an abusive father in an empire that considers his half-galra status lesser and despises his altean blood especially, and spent much of that in disgraced exile.

"victory or death," to him, doesn't mean that it would be better to die than to accept a loss, as when it's used by his galra peers; it means that he has to win, or else he is left to the mercies of his foes. and none of his foes have ever been merciful. he can never trust that one will ever be.

survival is lotor's most important victory in an empire that has been either apathetic to his existence or outright antagonistic. it represents his entire struggle of living—that he has to stay alive in order to win, and to a lesser extent, that staying alive in his universe is winning.

of course, lotor has larger motivations than merely surviving that he will protect just as ruthlessly. from a general perspective, one can hardly blame him for that. surviving isn't exactly living and being happy, especially in a universe that oppresses people like him, and he wants an escape from the corner he always seems to find himself boxed in. to a slightly lesser extent, he wants to create an escape for the countless societies oppressed under the empire as well. that's where his desire for infinite quintessence comes from.

"so you're telling me that he felt trapped in a corner and forced to break his supposed morals to use countless numbers of his own people as a fuel source. how the hell does that make sense? what trapped him? didn't he have other options? and how does this justify what he did?"

i'm not claiming that lotor was justified in any way. that is a fair grievance for people to have, and frankly, what he did was horrible and ugly and made victims of an already fragile colony, including romelle and her family. understanding the 'why' of what someone did is, shockingly, not the same as justifying them. (and i don't believe people look for the 'why' enough, when understanding the 'why' is an important step toward preventing the 'what'.)

maybe lotor had other options. there's not a lot of exposition that happens in this show, in-story or in interviews or otherwise. there isn't enough information about the canonical process of quintessence collection, or about quintessence in general, to say for certain if lotor could have done something less egregious in his treatment of the altean colony.

either way, he had to harvest quintessence. the likely possibility as to why? the galra empire was limiting his resources, both because he was an exile and because he knew they (particularly haggar) might be watching, and he couldn't let them piece together his plans to usurp power. he needed quintessence in which he controlled every part of the creation process, and he needed to hide as much of how he was using it as possible. the easiest way to do that was for him to get his own source.

contrary to that assertion, i don't believe lotor first created the altean colony with the intention to use them as a quintessence farm. i believe he genuinely cared about preserving what was left of altea, similar to how he cares about preserving culture in general. this would be consistent with his previous characterization as well as lm and jds's assurances that he was coming from a genuine place. most importantly, even according to romelle's story, the second colony is never depicted as an idea lotor conceived from the start. it came much later, after the first colony was well-established.

it's likely that lotor originally had other sources of quintessence, since throk mentioned his possession of multiple colonies in s3e1, or that he hadn't yet come up with his plans in their entirety. maybe haggar or zarkon caught wind of certain plots and thwarted them, destroying his sources in the process. (we certainly get the impression in s3 and s4 that lotor coming up with rebellious plots isn't a new thing to either of them.) maybe his ambitions and travels gradually revealed themselves to need more quintessence than he'd expected. purchasing quintessence from any suppliers would have required an income, a relatively time-consuming and unreliable endeavor that might not have gotten him much in exchange. any quintessence supplies he might have acquired using his identity, if he could acquire any, would almost certainly have been monitored—how much he took, where he received them—to the point where use of them would be incredibly risky. he might have also morally disliked using empire-produced quintessence, since they would've been harvested using empire methods (i.e. "caring about colonies whomst?"). at least with his methods, he would know he wasn't destroying them without regard. either way, whatever previous sources of quintessence he had became too limited an amount for his operations. he needed more.

i get a strong impression that people don't understand what he could be using quintessence for. but we see it everywhere in the empire, in voltron, and in the castle of lions—it's the primary energy source of vld's world that powers machines, fuels ships, assists in experimentation, heals injuries, even prolongs life. nothing else compares. lotor wouldn't have needed it personally for the latter purpose, but one can't exactly travel the universe on an empty tank. without quintessence, he would've essentially been dead in the water. additionally, considering that the quintessence shows up in places not explicitly related to lotor, the fact that we see galra soldiers accompanying lotor on the altean colony when we know he was in exile, and the amount of resources he must have been supplying to the colony in secret, it's also possible he was using it to bribe people into doing things for him and staying silent. it probably would've been effective; it's described as an especially powerful form of quintessence, and he was the only source.

anyway, lotor needed quintessence he could control entirely without having to fear discovery and subsequent destruction. the altean colony was his only colony that he could be reasonably certain the empire would never find. and in true lotor fashion, the first defense he asserted was that he saved what was left of altea from the empire, despite the horrendous crimes he was committing, and could now stop his quintessence farming with his access to the quintessence field. technically, we don't even know whether all of the alteans taken to the second colony are dead (link). the man romelle saw there was still in the tank, as many others must have been.

lotor might have been planning to eventually heal them by using the quintessence field. of course, even if that's true, lotor still took away years of their lives, lied to them and their families, and drained them to near-death. the experience must have been traumatizing. and who knows how well they would be able to recover, if at all. it's little comfort.

(editing, i feel compelled to plug this analysis by @radioactivesupersonic of lotor's arc and relationship with allura as a vampire story because it's interesting as hell, pounds out what i've just said further, and is something i read prior to writing this up so i may have unconsciously stolen from it. (i can only promise that i completely forgot about it until i went looking for all my links rip.))

nevertheless, lotor's first priority for the altean colony was always to preserve them—even if he eventually, essentially started treating them as a renewable resource with his farming's effects on the survival of his people and culture as environmental impacts. make of that what you will.

"if lotor is such a decent person who loves altea and wants to end the galra empire, why didn't he team up with voltron from the beginning? he was around before season 3! why didn't he show up earlier?"

that, my friend, is a good question i've puzzled over too. i have an answer.

number one: lotor has been in the habit of effectively working on his lonesome for about the past 10,000 years and canonically displays a wealth of paranoia and trust issues. teamwork isn't usually the first idea that comes to mind to someone like lotor.

number two: we get a very dramatic hint toward this in the climax of s6 (can't wait until we reach that part!), as well as during his invasion of puig in s3, but i believe lotor didn't have much confidence in voltron's capabilities during the period of s1 and s2 or for some time afterwards. he's a very cautious and careful player, learned from millennia of working against the interests and conventions of an extremely powerful empire.

and if we all remember correctly, voltron lost 10,000 years ago. granted, alfor sent the lions away rather than risk zarkon gaining control of the black lion, but it was still him and the other paladins against zarkon. victory should've been within reach, and yet they lost. so 10,000 years later, voltron appears to have returned, and none of those fears have been assuaged. who are these random newcomers to pilot the lions, and how could they possibly succeed where the original paladins didn't, when they don't even have the might of armies behind them? zarkon could still retake control of the black lion. additionally, lotor's own feelings towards voltron (and symbolically, king alfor) as a savior are extremely complicated. (you cannot believe how excited i am to talk about that. just wait.) he's not going to risk everything he's worked for on a wild card he's incredibly unsure will manage to make a dent. it would even make zarkon stronger if they lost, and therefore his father, one of the people he most wants to avoid the attention of, would be coming after them in a frenzy.

even after the s2 finale where voltron critically injured zarkon, he finds them insufficient. they create the coalition, yet he can essentially retake puig in the span of an hour with a team of five attackers.

clearly, they still weren’t well-equipped enough to stand against the galra empire. it would be in lotor's best interests to avoid voltron like the plague unless he was certain they wouldn't be crushed. so he did just that.

i suspect that before the voltron coalition grew into its own, lotor was planning to independently start a coup of some kind. it would've been pretty easy with unlimited quintessence. but after he was declared an enemy of the empire to be killed on sight, when voltron had gained significant strength and organized rebellion against the empire alongside liberated planets became a genuine and effective possibility, he joins them—right after their surprise attack liberates a full third of the empire and shocks the galra off his trail. the coalition was finally a basket he felt secure putting some of his eggs into.

(part 2)

[agent6o6]

5/29/2021

TW: This is just me ranting here, but there are mentions of the previous president, toxic relationships, gaslighting, guilt-tripping, sexual intimacy, swearing, food, George Floyd (very brief), BLM, etc. If I missed anything, please feel free to let me know, I'm still learning what triggers people :)

Good Evening!

I'm doing a lot better today. I still have thoughts of my future and where I'll end up, but I know I'll be okay. I know I have time, but sometimes it just feels like it's moving so fast that I can't keep up.

I hope someday I'll look back on this and wonder what I was so worried about. I know it probably seems very dumb, looking at the outside in, but I can't help the things I worry about, and neither can you, and that's okay ^^

I still have been thinking about my future partner though. I've only been in one relationship in my short time here and after almost a year being out of it (it was a 7-year relationship, so it was very hard at first) I'm slowly realizing things that happened that I wish I recognized as borderline abusive when I was first in it. The first few years were the 'honeymoon' phase and I was just so blinded by having a partner that I guess I didn't realize how bad it was going to be. There were red flags everywhere. But you know what they say, red flags look like normal flags when you're wearing rose-colored glasses.

I'm going to call them J for now.

We were very different but very similar at the same time. At the time, I never cared that their opinions on things were different than mine because I wanted to be mature about it. But things came to a head these last few years thanks to the orange cult leader we know as Trump. J wholeheartedly believed that this man had done nothing wrong. They victim-blamed all of the women that came forward about the abuse they experienced and just... I don't know. It's appalling that I still dealt with that for so long.

The first red flag that I blatantly ignored, was I asked them if we had a child that was part of the LGBTQ, what would they do? J (without hesitating) said that they would not love them and try to change them. They did not want their kid to go to Hell when they died and wanted to be with them in heaven. This was the 2nd year we dated, and I just thought that was okay??? I'd also like to add, this was before I started to question my sexuality and who I liked. J still doesn't know that I'm Panromantic and probably Pansexual too. I just know that J would "try to change my ways".

The second was probably that I admitted that I didn't believe in God and they just continuously started pushing it into our lifestyle.

J also told their father about what I had done to protest Trump's actions, KNOWING that J's dad would be so up my ass about it. They told their dad about how I supported BLM and how I had reserve tickets to his rally just to not go in front of me. I was on the couch, watching TV with their family and J just decided to bring that up, like it was a fucking conversation starter. Their dad started berating me calling me a communist and a N**i and a fascist and a bunch of other things that I blocked out. And they just stood there. Not defending me or anything. They didn't care about my feelings. They didn't give one shit about them. It was very clear at that moment. So I just left them there. They could figure out how to get home. We didn't live far, their parents could bring them home. I drove there after all.

The sad part? I didn't break up with J until almost a year later. I stuck with them for so long after going through so much mental abuse that I didn't know what love was.

I was also going to participate in a BLM peaceful protest with people from our small conservative town. We ended up canceling because the townspeople threatened us with guns and J said that was perfectly justified. Like, what the actual fuck??

J had always told me that I was stupid and it made them mad whenever I needed extra validation that day. I always asked, "Do you still love me?" "Are you mad at me?" etc etc because their actions didn't make me feel loved. I felt like I was the only one who tried and kept us going.

My love language is gift-giving, so whenever I went to the store to get groceries (which they refused to go with me whenever I did because they hated going with me and made it known that they disliked it whenever I begged them to come with me), I always made it a part of the trip to get J something as well. A small gift, like a booster pack or ever their favorite snack. I always made dinners with stuff that J liked and purposefully didn't get anything that I liked but they didn't (they were a VERY picky eater). But I got almost nothing in return. I didn't mind it much until I realized that I had done so much for this person for almost nothing in return. I cooked the dinners, I offered to pay for the meal, etc. They had also guilt-tripped me into doing sexual favors for them all the time, KNOWING that I had sexual trauma and was not ready for it / didn't feel comfortable doing it at the time.

Whenever I did get gifts, it was either something that I had to point out, "Hey, you should get me that for -insert holiday here-" or I would have to pay half of it.

It is also disappointing to look back at previous journal entries I have and seeing how much I thought that I was the one at fault. I'm the one with anger issues, I'm the one who is not perfect, they are. We would argue about things a lot. Whenever my bottle would explode from the day's events and J just didn't help anything at all. They would constantly tell me that I made no sense and that I was the bad guy. (Just now realizing that that is literally gaslighting, great). And yeah, I'll admit, sometimes I would blow up at them for no reason. I was an angry person and sometimes I just wanted someone to listen, but J just flat out refused and told me to turn to the bible for help. I'm not a perfect person, and they knew that, but I feel like they didn't make an effort to help me the way I helped them all the time. I let them rant all the time about their job, their siblings, etc. While I was just a complainer and needed to 'lighten up, shit happens.'

J was out of a job for almost a year, so I had not treated myself to anything that entire time because I was the 'breadwinner' of the household. They wanted to start writing stories that they came up with and I was 100% on board. I helped them flesh out some of their ideas and put in my 2 cents every now and then. I wanted them to succeed, I wanted J to do what they wanted so bad. But they wouldn't do anything. it was always 'I don't feel like it" "I'll do it tomorrow". Somehow I let it slide. I let J buy new games all the time so that they were entertained while I was at work even though I knew we needed that money for rent and food. It wasn't until late 2019 that I finally broke down and told them that they needed to find a job. I was exhausted from the stress and I just wanted to feel safe knowing that I didn't have to worry about food. I felt so wrong telling them what to do and when they needed to do it, but it needed to happen.

The reason why I finally left J, was because of a friend I made online. We had met while I was playing OW and we started talking. I call them D.

D and I instantly clicked. We talked all the time and just had fun talking and BSing about just random shit. It was really nice. It wasn't until one day that we were talking, that I had asked D, how they felt about their partner asking for extra validation. I don't like putting people on the spot like that, but they made me feel so valid. They said that they didn't quite understand where I was coming from, but that if their partner felt like they needed it, D would gladly tell them that they were okay and that nothing was wrong. D wanted to give them that extra validation. They told me that there was nothing wrong with needing someone to tell you that everything was okay.

That's when I started realizing that things were not okay with J and me. Something was not right with the relationship we were in. Though I still stayed, hoping everything would fix itself. That August, we got into a huge fight because J was "concerned about what I was sharing and posting on Facebook" about George Floyd. I was sharing things like how police are not the judge, jury, and executioner and how George should not have died that day, no matter what the situation was. J talked to their family before coming to me about it, which I felt very conflicted about. We didn't talk for about a week before J asked me if I still loved them. At the time, I don't know if I did, but I wanted things to work out. I wanted to stay in this relationship even if my heart and mind were talking to me that I shouldn't. We ended up breaking up that day but got back together. After that, I just was not emotionally available. I didn't want any kind of affection from J and 5 days before my birthday, I called it off. J moved out that week.

Ever since then, certain moments came into my head and I realized that I deserved better. I have no intention of getting back together even though J wanted to try again in about a year. I know I deserve better than them, I know I do. It's just upsetting that it took 7 years to realize that.

If you take anything from this, please don't let toxic people into your life. They will knock you down again and again until there's nothing to come back to.

TL;DR My ex is very toxic and I didn't realize until our 7-year relationship was over.

This turned out to be me just ranting about my previous relationship, I'm sorry. I just don't have many people to talk to about it and I don't want people to think that I'm still obsessed with them (maybe I'm not IDK, I did just write a fucking essay on their shitty behavior).

Until next time Space Cowboys :)

-Agent 606, signing off-

~You're gonna carry that weight

[ashwolfforever]

This is a comment from deviantART of mine that I saved a copy of in my stash. I like what I said and want to keep it. Thus it being posted here.

To the author: Thank you for sharing the story with us. I hope you can actually finish it and the hate doesn't force you to just end it. I want to be able to judge the story on the finished product, not the in-progress version. I'm going to suggest (and you don't have to listen to me obviously) that maybe it would be better if you waited and released each chapter as a complete whole. That way most of the time we'd see the whole scenes. To people reading this post in general: I do not support rapists. It's a shame Jonna doesn't live in the verse I usually write in, because rape is a death sentence crime. Now that that is out of the way... First I want to address what I saw said about the comments being posted: "They're defending him same as they did my abuser/attacker." - That is a valid point, and a valid worry. Making excuses for the "bad" guys is very common in general. And many people will make up the most tragic backstory they can for their favorite villains. They will then use this as "See! SEE! He was mistreated its not his fault!" There's a post I keep seeing on Tumblr: It says something like "A tragic backstory explains the character's actions, it doesn't justify them." It has a gif on it that says "Cool story bro, still murder."     The Lion King fandom is great at this. Scar was abused, Scar was X so he's justified in killing his brother etc. The answer is no. There's no tragic backstory that justifies a characters actions. So yes, Ulfr could well be like Kargo and forced into it, or just terrified of the Beasts to risk disobeying. Yes, he likely was raised to believe treating the females as things was perfectly acceptable. It doesn't change the fact the actions themselves were wrong in the first place. That said, stories like this have the ability to reach people with that mindset. They see Ulfr's possible excuses, but Jonna too right now hits that soft spot. "She was abused! She's justified in attacking him!" Because of that, its possible more people might - might - start seeing things from the victims' POV. Might start realizing what such actions do to people, and how they are never justified in the first place. Secondly, I want to address the "Don't judge him yet we don't know what he thinks/feels/did!" No, we have not seen his thoughts on the practice of rape yet, just a general "the females are uneducated" and on this page "I will always be able to tear you to shreds if you step out of line". While that was aimed at Jonna, look at how Ranach treated Gati - he cut him the second he made a mistake. Violence doesn't seem to be just on the females, so at this point I am not 100% sure Ulfr's anger is about equal females and not about "untrained people put on the rank of the trained". Yes, he's still a rapist (and murdered Zilas I believe) but I am reserving full judgment until the story is over. Lastly, I just want to say, as a writer, one tactic I plan to use a main character with a mindset I disapprove of. I plan to show that character coming from the mindset, meeting others and starting to doubt their long-held or taught from birth beliefs. Because maybe, just maybe, a person like them will read it, and at least consider they're wrong. Stories like this can do the same thing. Thanks for reading.