#we have morally good characters who are ugly and morally bad characters who are beautiful this is like...kindergarten level

[fromtheseventhhell]

I also find it funny that fandom will only accept Lyanna being her non-conforming, wild self in the context of saying that Arya isn't meant to be pretty; Any other day we get back-to-back posts about how Lyanna is actually super traditionally feminine cause she sniffled at a song once, so she's actually more like Sansa. Instead of constantly speaking on Arya and Lyanna, how about you guys reflect on why your standards of beauty for women are attached to how well they perform feminity within the patriarchy?

[extremely-judgemental]

Subtext is completely lost in this fandom. I partly blame SJM for it. This is a rant from both reading and writing standpoint and leans towards the characters since I like to psychoanalyse them.

The one thing that tired me the most in these books is the excessive narration. I don’t mean the wordy description to support world-building but the never-ending monologues. SJM takes ‘show, don’t tell’ advice literally with the visual cues when it should apply to the characters and their personalities as well. Where subtext usually exposes depth of these characters and lets you decide who they are, SJM strips away that chance by writing it down for you word by word. The reason so many are going with 'in the book' argument is exactly this.

Here’s what I mean.

In real life, people don’t think linearly. They have an idea about themselves as much as they have about everyone else around them. There are self-imposed restrictions on their thoughts based on who they believe to be and who they strive to be. And it shows in their interaction with outside world. Say, when someone is ashamed of their actions, they will deny it for as long as possible. Someone who regrets something, they will sugarcoat it.

But in her books, her characters think clearly—way too clearly so that you latch onto the ideas she perpetuates. You don’t get to know them based on their thoughts, words, and actions, and see how these three support each other. You don't get a chance to draw conclusions as to if they are the hero/villain and good/evil based on their actions. If their behaviours match their words or if their choices are acceptable. Because SJM sets it in words for you. The characters come with a label beforehand. (Feyre, Rhysand and Inner Circle are good guys. Tamlin, Eris and Nesta, sometimes Lucien are evil.) It's why so many toxic and abusive themes are dismissed because it’s the 'good guy' or the 'morally grey guy’ who does it.

And so, her lead or ‘good’ characters fall flat since they have everything figured out. They know themselves inside out. They are never wrong about themselves, there’s no part they hide from themselves or the others. There’s nothing for you to read and identify the beauty or ugliness in the character. There’s no depth in them because they don’t contradict themselves, they don’t struggle to be someone they always believed to be. They don’t have to prove anything to themselves or others. They say what they think and they do what they say. They are very aware of their shortcomings and they all seem to know the exact consequences of their decisions.

Feyre doesn’t change in the three books. Her ‘rags to riches’ story doesn’t lead to much character growth. She starts out as an adamant, reckless child and ends up being arrogant, reckless woman with a crown. She doesn’t undergo a shift in personality but climbs up the social hierarchy. And that’s considered character development. Rhysand remains the same throughout. He starts out as a villain but later revealed as a good guy playing bad. Instead of growing into a hero—given his crimes, his ill deeds are negated with sympathetic backstory. And from there, it’s a flat line. There’s no growth.

In the end how does the character change in the aftermath of the events? Which of their beliefs are shattered and rebuilt? What is the emotional impact on the other characters? SJM does offer some closure on these regards but they are solely focused on a list of traumas and specific reactions set by SJM herself. And so readers refuse to think for themselves how these scenarios may play out and take the words relayed through the unreliable narrators who are essentially preaching SJM’s biases. Also, when they are so explicitly written down, there’s not much room for subtext. After going through pages and pages of justification, it tires you from using reason.

Even if we get past this (writing) flaw, there are other major issues. Story telling is a way of experiencing life. It helps build empathy, compassion and understanding of the world. Even in a fantasy book, when that world doesn’t exist, when the characters aren’t real, their journey are drawn from real life experiences. Relating to these characters is subjective and solely depends on the reader, but determining the rightness of their actions is not. This too is warped as SJM dictates which behaviour is acceptable and how far through her lead characters(Feyre vs Nesta imprisonment). Instead of allowing you to judge the choices, the verdict is spoon-fed through the ‘hero’. If the characters are forgiven, it’s not abuse. It’s a simple mistake. (It’s a mistake if it happens once and if there’s a changed behaviour after the apology.) If the characters are happy in the end, their acts are admissible. Unless SJM stamps the word ‘abuser’ and ‘bad guy’ in block letters herself(Tamlin), it's not even considered a possibility.

In short, in this fandom, ‘reading between the lines’ is acceptable as long as it supports what the author preaches. When it contradicts ‘it’s in the books’. Logic is valid only if you use it to justify the fan favourites and applaud them. Empathy is conditional. Compassion is conditional. Critical thinking is so discouraged that it’s pitiful.

[tachiguin]

Is Tanizaki really more evil than Dazai?

I don’t think I’ve ever written a longer meta about “Tanizaki is the person who comes the closest to “evil” among all the Detective Agency employees”, which is something Asagiri mentions at a BSD Exposition, but I do have a lot of thoughts about it. I think the most popular reaction to this statement is ‘more than Dazai?!’ which is fair. Because Dazai is a former Port Mafia executive and has a rap sheet longer than Tetchou’s saber. But I think there’s multiple angles at which you can tackle this: The qualifier being “among all the [ADA] employees”, what makes someone more evil than another, how you define ‘evil’. 

The easiest way to justify this if you firmly believe that Dazai is more evil than Tanizaki is to separate PM!Dazai from ADA!Dazai. Say that PM!Dazai is more evil than ADA!Tanizaki, who is more evil than ADA!Dazai, who after Oda’s death promised to be on the side that saves people. Current Dazai is making an active effort to be less evil than he may have the potential to be, and that counts for something. Whereas Tanizaki knowingly throws all pretenses of being a good guy out the window as soon as someone he cares for is put in danger. 

Though, I raise a further question: if PM!Dazai is more evil than ADA!Tanizaki, who is more evil than ADA!Dazai, would PM!Tanizaki be more or less evil than PM!Dazai? Perhaps we will get our answer if Tanizaki does end up transferring to the Port Mafia.

However, I also don’t necessarily want to shut down this discussion by just saying “Well Dazai is in the ADA now, he was definitely more evil when he was a PM executive”. It feels like a cop-out. Rather, I think that depending on how you define ‘evil’, you can definitely argue that Tanizaki is far worse than Dazai. Is it evil to be indifferent to committing evil acts, or is it evil to situationally want to commit evil acts? Is it evil to be aware of one’s moral faults, or is it evil to think oneself innocent—normal, even—as one is willing to do any atrocity under the right circumstances. Honestly, we can argue morality and try to assign quantitative values to “evil” back and forth, all day until we die. There’s really no “correct” answer here. But for the point I’m making that’s good enough. Depending on how you view “evil”, you could easily see how Tanizaki is closer to evil than Dazai, who never really saw a real difference between evil and good.

I think one of the most ‘evil’ things about Tanizaki is that he thinks he’s normal, with his whole chest. He’s the first person to suggest murder as a solution to a problem, and he just doesn’t understand why everyone else shows reluctance.

He seems to have some vague awareness that his morality is somewhat less than that of his coworkers, as in the Light Novel he thinks that he “[has] a mediocre sense of justice]”, but he mostly equates this to just being cowardly and timid, rather than the full blown self-awareness than we see in Dazai, who is able to articulate to Oda that he feels there is no real difference between the side of “good” and the side of “evil”, and embraces this knowingly.

I also think that to a degree its Asagiri's nihilism at play. Because BSD is a world full of characters with shifty morals, and characters like Kunikida who cling to their principles like a lifeline are a minority. So in a way? Tanizaki is the most ordinary guy.

And he’s not evil on purpose, or performative about it (like other characters, to a certain degree, like Fyodor) it’s completely ingrained into him. It's just that he isn’t a good person, but he’s not necessarily invested in being a bad person either. He simply cares about himself and the people within his circle, to the point that he doesn’t care what he has to do for their sake. I think this is also something that appears subtly in his irl counterpart’s works: the idea of love/affection as evil. Tanizaki-sensei used this kind of oxymoron a lot: ugliness and beauty, hurt and pleasure, destruction and love.

"[his] self-immolation, [...] with which he changed his whole life in an instant, turning the ugly into the beautiful, [...] it was very nearly the act of a saint." — Tanizaki Jun'ichirou, A Portrait of Shunkin

"Little by little, the loathsomeness changed into an unfathomable beauty." — Tanizaki Jun'ichirou, A Fool's Love (Naomi)

"It was evil incarnate, without any question, and at the same time it was all the beauty of her body and spirit elevated to its highest level." — Tanizaki Jun'ichirou, A Fool's Love (Naomi)

Maybe that’s why Tanizaki is closer to evil than Dazai. Because ‘evil’ is second nature to Tanizaki, in part because it goes hand and hand with love and care.

I don’t think Tanizaki’s “evil” could be reasoned with, in the same way you might be able to convince Dazai or Mori not to do something awful. Because Dazai’s evil is ruled by indifference, and Mori’s evil is ruled by logic, they’re both less personally invested in their evil acts than Tanizaki, whose evil is ruled by emotion. You might be able to give Mori a reason why the more logical approach would be to not commit a homicide, but the same reasoning would never work on Tanizaki, because his evil is coming from a more fundamental desire to commit the morally corrupt action, rather than seeing it as a means to an end. In this regard, you could easily see how Tanizaki is closer to evil.

Still, returning to my point about how nebulous the definition of “evil” is—you could also argue that it’s more evil to coldly commit evil acts as a means to an end, as opposed to doing evil acts out of love or affection for another person. However, I think it’s clear why Asagiri made a statement that implied Tanizaki to be more morally corrupt than Dazai, regardless of whether you agree or not.

[jean-dieu]

Dragon age the Veilguard: The Good, The Bad, The Ugly

Don't expect too much there, I'm just writing my own subjective, non-organized, badly written critic of the game. Spoilers ahead, so be warned!

The Good is the good stuff, The Bad is the bad stuff that isn't too jarring or that doesn't threaten the whole setting so much so it's okay to just ignore them, and The Ugly is the bad stuff that DOES make me want to fucking die and explode.

The Good:

-It's beautiful. Not a fan of a lot of design choices but it's obviously well made. The landscapes are very pretty.

-The character creator. It's always funny to me when I see some dudebros complaining about it as if they're not purposefully making ugly characters. It has quite a lot of option, nice skin details, scars, tattoos and all.

-I really like the combat. I still think DAO is the superior system but I'm much more happy with a true action rpg than whatever Inquisition was trying to do.

-I'm going to be more objective there and say the maps are better than Inquisition. THAT BEING SAID I love the Hinterlands so I still prefer Inquisiton's bloated open world lmao.

-There's a lot of nice details all around! Neve's metallic prothesis walking sound, the decorations all around, tears in character's eyes, ect.

-Solas. Can't believe I'm saying it as I didn't like him much in DAI and I don't like Solavellan but DATV made me like him very much. He's much more morally grey and less uwu wet cat and I'm here for that. Excellent voice acting of course.

-Mythal. Again, I love whatever Solas and Mythal have going on. It's toxic, it's passionate, it's one sided, and Mythal is a very interesting character IMO.

-Felassan. Again, such a cool and compelling character.

-A lot of NPCs were very cool. Antoine who's singlehandly saving the French's reputation, Evka, The Viper, Strife, Viago, Teia, etc. They're cool and rather compelling.

-I did enjoy a lot of the companion's personal quests. Davrin and Bellara especially as they felt more in line with Dragon Age in general.

-For a game where the Bad Guys are Comically Evil... Johanna Hezenkoss fits the bill and yet she's a delight.

-There's really cool codex entries. Irelin's letter about mourning Arlathan for example. Antoine's letter to Evka should he ever be Called.

-Ghilahn'ain's design.

-I liked the living Blight! OK the darkspawns were ugly af but I still really enjoyed the idea.

-I actually liked the puzzles lmao? I'm sorry but I usually find puzzles fucking annoying in that type of game so I'd rather have something easy and fun than scratching my head in a rpg.

-I was glad to see Valta again!

The Bad: (vaguely in order of importance)

-Unpopular opinion but Assan and Manfred felt forced af. Yeah I got it, they're cute... Now can we go back on uh, the apocalypse.

-The music is boring. Fuck man Inquisition and Origins musics make me cry, but Veilguard's main them... Exists.

-I would prefer the companion to be stationary and being able to talk to them whenever want. They tried something but it didn't deliver.

-The fuck is Inky wearing.

-The fuck is Isabela wearing, but racist edition. Oh well. At least it's an easy fix with a mod.

-The companions have potential but they often lack something. I wish we got more than Lucanis liking coffee. Also, some characters concept from the art book felt so much more interesting. The only character I REALLY was interested in was Davrin because he feels very dragon age-y. A Dalish Grey Warden! That's interesting!

-The Lore seems alright and coherent with the serie so far, but it was just lore drops after lore drops, with no time for reactions, and your companions being sometimes waaaaay too chill about it.

-The overall sanitazing of the world while the grim stuff still somehow being there regarding Tevinter. It's very close to be in the Ugly category but because it's supposed to be there, I'm encline to believe it's still canon and not a retcon, and just a poor presentation. Where are the slaves? We see some of course, and some stuff were legitimately jarring... But because we're confined in docktowns, we don't get to see the ruling magisters and slavers. Docktowns almost seem... Nice. But it doesnt stop there. The Lords of Fortune not stealing artifacts because they respect cultures. The Crows being patriotic vigilantes. Lucanis being a mage killer but only for evil tevene magisters.

-I understand the impossibility to be Evil as you're recruited by Varric and he wouldn't have recruited the local serial killer that drowns kitties for fun. But... You should be able to be aggressive, stern, serious and all. You should be able to play a no-nonsense character who is authoritative and assertive while still following the plot.

-Again, I understand the companions being healthier than whatever DA2 crew had going on (love them tho) but it should have been more like Inquisition. People working together and forcing themselves to make it work for the sake of the world YET fighting and disagreeing on plenty of subjects. And Rook should be able to tell the companion to stfu sometimes. To tell Taash that they're an ass. To tell Emmerich you don't give a shit about his magic and that Manfred is fucking weird and shouldn't exist. To tell Bellara to stop whining.

-On the same note, the companions are all WAY too nice. One their own they're alright, but none of them have some true flaws/secrets/dark past/opposing convictions or whatever. Davrin and Lucanis are almost the only one who are arguing and fighting a bit but it's very tame. We never hear them arguing over politics, religion, or even ways of doing things (except for food lol. why is this game so much about food). If you take Inquisition for example, the companions are ALL working together in the face of a Ancient Evil threatening Thedas. Yet, they still argue about plenty of things. Solas and Iron Bull about the Qun. Vivienne and Solas about the existence of Circles. Varric and Cassandra's fighting is ruthless even when it's about nothing important. Try to show your pride as a Dalish to Sera and she won't take it well. Tell Cassandra that you don't give a shit about the Chantry and she'll disapprove. And still, these persons managed to work together. The excuse of "They put their differences aside because of the current threat" doesn't hold. The companions don't necessarily need DA2's level of animosity between them, but they don't need to all be best friends forever second one. Bellara could be suspicious of Neve for the sole reason of her being a Tevinter Mage. Lucanis too ("Mage Killer"!!!), but because he doesn't trust magic at all. Davrin and Bellara could argue about what it means to be Dalish to them, or argue about their faith!! EVERYONE Should be more worried about Lucanis being an abomination, damn it!

-I understand the Crows we see are not the one experiencing the worst of the organisation since they're highranking members but c'mon... It should be acknowledged at least.

-Some of the dialogues are fucking awful especially at the begining. They repeat themselves so much. The scene with "Nooo Rook you need to help us resolve our problems otherwise we will be too weak to fight the gods!! Rook, do my personal quests or I'll be too sad to fight!!". Harding's "Awkwaaaard". Bellara's quirky uwu manic pixie girl vibes at the begining.

The Ugly:

-Anything related to the elves. For a game centered on elven gods... We get so much yet nothing. Why are they all more or less cool about their "Gods" being real and evil? No one freaking out about having Elgarnan's vallaslin on their face? No crisis of faith? No elves joining them, really? Not a single one? No dalish celebrating their return before realizing the awful truth? No city elves or elven slaves fleeing to them because they have nothing to lose anyway? That's unrealistic. I can understand the Veil Jumpers already knowing the truth, it's more or less explained in the books anyway, but there's no way it's commonly accepted among all dalish clans. Speaking of dalish clans, were are they? And Briala ? Didn't she also control the Eluvian? What about city elves in general? And elven slaves? There's just nothing. The elven pantheon wasn't some myths for the Dalish. It was a religion. Their religion. Damn, imagine Christians learning Jesus is coming back BUT he's in fact very evil and is launching nuclear weapons everywhere? And their only reaction is "Oh no, we have to stop Jesus :(" ? I'm taking the christian example but you could say that about pretty much every religion.

-Where are Fen'harel agents? A few lines and one or two NPC mentioning Solas parting ways with them or even making the Veil Jumpers the ex-agents left behind would have been SO much more interesting than whatever they justified in the AMA. I can't believe they didn't even put A CODEX ENTRY explaining their absence in game. That's lazy af.

-No repercussion on the elves AT ALL? Seriously, realistically speaking, what is the future for the elves at the end of DATV? "Their" Gods almost destroyed the world, "Their" Gods killed countless, "Their" Gods created the Blight, "Their" Gods that many dalish still worshipped only a few years ago. What do you mean humans aren't going to declare open season on them? Like OF COURSE I don't want that to happen, and I'm hoping that idk, they'll found their own country in a reclaimed Arlathan, or that the instability in the south allows some of them to grab positions of power but don't tell me the humans aren't going to feel so fucking justify in their hatred, especially towards the Dalish who never converted to the Chantry. The fact that the endgame doesn't mention ANYTHING about it is jarring. Bioware ffs drop a book or whatever soon I need answers. I need hope. The game is treating the racism against Elves as... Some prejudices humans soooometimes have against them and not... centuries of systematic oppression, genocide, cultural erasure. The City Elf origins, Chevaliers killing Alienage elves for funsies, Celene burning down a whole Alienage, the genocide of dalish clans anyone? All of this is stuff that happened like... Between 8 and 20 years ago. It's not ancient history.

-Blighting Ferelden Beyond Repair, the Venatori Coup in Orlais and Kirkwall's evacuation was mean. Of cours the South is dealing with the blight and a shitload of problem but the "we lost Denerim. And Redcliff. And anything really. Idk if there's survivors. But if there is they'll starve anyway. xoxo the Inky." was just mean spirited I'm sorry. Same as above, Bioware. I fucking need hope for the South. Anything really. They could have stopped as "Yo there's a big Blight in the south and it sucks, Denerim is struggling and we lost villages and all" and that would have been FINE. No need to go scorched earth damnit.

-The lack of worldstate choices. C'mon. I understand not having a lot of them but a list of 6-10 easy questions would have been nice. Who's Divine? Who's ruling in the South? Who drank from the Well of Sorrow? It wouldn't have asked much work to just personalize a few sentences to adjust that. Also, saying they only kept 3 choices so they could really mean something... Liar. The only thing that really has an impact is did u date solas or not. Which fine, of course it matters! But all the other romances, the inquisition disbanded or not, stopping solas or not had NO IMPACT whatsoever.

-Where the fuck is Fenris. Idgaf Inquisition had Leliana when she could die in DAO, so bring Fenris in the Shadow Dragon. He needs to be there.

-The Antaam is such a fucking racist trope I can't believe they did it. Yeah, let make them growl like damn animals.

-Speaking of Qunari, even Taash is... Urgh. Why do you mean they sniff people. Also, their whole storyline on their gender identity was badly written. That scene with Isabela... No. That's not how you apologize. You misgender someone by mistake? Say sorry, correct yourself, move on. That's it.

-Dwarves had cool moments in the game but dang, we really, REALLY needed more of it. So many revelation about them, and while some of them were very well written, it doesn't have enough impact.

-The absence of reactions and dialogues related to your race is jarring. Can't believe I'm begging the game for racial slurs but here we are. EVERYONE in Origins commented on you playing an Elf. A non-human Inquisitor faced struggles as the Herald. Why is Qunari Rook able to roam freely in Minrathous without a SINGLE comment on their race? Same for the elves, to a lesser degree since at least they are not a rare occurence in Tevinter. Can't believe dwarves get so little reaction for all the big reveals. Can't believe elves barely get to react to ELVEN GODS destroying the world or Bellara's guilt about it.

-WHERE'S THE CHANTRY. WHERE. DAMN IT. Even if it's not the focus of the game, I'd expect to still see its influence. Man I'm almost wishing Harding was more of a Chantry Girl.

-Morrigan's whole storyline is an insult to her character.

[thequeensjester]

What do you think of Agnes from The Ugly Stepsister? Do you think she's a good representation of Cinderella, or was she unnecessarily recast as a bad character instead of maintaining the character's essence?

When you say good/bad, I'm assuming you mean in terms of morals?

I do like how Agnes (and all the women really) are presented in the film because they're not flatten to purely good or bad. Even the stepmother had a moment of nuance (the cake throwing scene).

I don't think Agnes truly liked Elvira, even before her father died. I think she was nice because their families were going to be joined in marriage. Agnes says that her father married Elvira's mother for money—the same is true for the opposite. In real life, blending families isn't always easy and perfect. Her father's marriage is a situation that Agnes accepted if it meant they became financially stable.

I think Agnes was justified in feeling angry at how callous Elvira and her stepmother was after the father died. There's definitely a tit-for-tat meanness between the girls but Agnes didn't need to be the completely sweet and innocent Disney version of Cinderella for us to understand how wrong her stepmother and Elvira treated her.

Elvira had her bratty moments (much of it likely influenced by her mother) but it doesn't mean that she deserved to have been repeatedly abused and disrespected by everyone else either.

I think we're supposed to understand and feel sympathy for both Agnes and Elvira. Blichfeldt shows us that however mean, if not cruel, many of the women are to each other—however flawed they are—they all lose under crushing beauty standards within the patriarchal society.

Being morally good doesn't exempt you from that either, which we see with Alma (who mostly watched from the sidelines) being upset when she starts to menstruate. The difference is that Alma realizes that the answer is to help her sister and get both of them out of there.

[john-laurens]

is kinloch a good person? if not, why?

The study of historical figures is rarely so black and white. The question "Was this historical figure bad or good?" is not really one I'm interested in answering when I personally study these people - at least not from that exact perspective. I want to understand the influences and motivations behind their actions and the effects their actions had on the world around them. I want to understand how they perceived themselves and how they were perceived by their contemporaries. There is no perfect historical figure. They are all people who likely have done a combination of "good" and "bad" things. How would we decide what makes a person wholly "good" or "bad"? For many, there really isn't a straightforward answer. Painting historical figures with a broad brush erases the nuances of their lives and makes it harder to fully understand their actions and the world they lived in. The complexity of these people is what makes them so interesting to study. There is also a distinction between interest in a historical figure and approval of a historical figure. You can certainly study, examine, and write about a historical figure without condoning all of their actions. Researching historical figures is about understanding those whole lived before us, and that naturally involves the study of morally complicated people. I do not say any of this to excuse any harmful actions committed by people in the past. I just want to acknowledge that studying historical figures is complex and that the beliefs and actions of the historical figure being studied are not necessarily reflective of the person studying them.

All that being said, if you are interested in learning about Francis Kinloch Jr. because you think his morals will be similar to those of his friend John "free the slaves and burn the houses of the rich people" Laurens, then you will be sorely disappointed. Like Laurens, Kinloch was born into a southern elite family that profited from the slave labor on their plantations. I have a post that explores the wealth of the Kinlochs here. You'll see in that post that the Kinlochs owned, at the very least, hundreds of slaves. I unfortunately haven't been able to find many other details about the slaves owned by the Kinlochs. I assume much of that information would be contained in the papers of Francis Kinloch Sr., but these are either lost or not publicly available. Francis Jr. occasionally acknowledged the issues of slavery in his letters:

"I admire your ideas of slavery_ I heartily agree with you, but at the same time can not flatter myself that our country men will ever adopt such generous principles._" - Francis Kinloch to John Laurens, April 28, 1776 "for my part, I make no sort of doubt but What the fate of America is ere this determined. Should the Kingly government be reestablished, I immediately fly home, nor do I think that one who has near relations whom he tenderly loves, who likes reading, & whose hands can dispense happiness or misery to numbers, who, though of a different colour, are still his fellow creatures, can possibly lead an idle, or a disagreeable life." - Francis Kinloch to Johannes von Müller, November 13, 1777

Both of the above writings are fairly empty platitudes, and to my knowledge, Kinloch never openly opposed the institution of slavery or took action to free his slaves. While he was forced to sell his estate late in life due to financial troubles, he did sell the property to his niece's husband, so the property (and, presumably, any slaves) stayed within the family. Kinloch's involvement in slavery is certainly one of the most reprehensible aspects of his character.

Kinloch was also far from progressive in his views of women. He objectified women and often saw them as little more than vessels for his sexual pleasure. His writings from his time in Europe are filled with descriptions of the relative beauty (or ugliness) of the local women. Kinloch's spending on sex workers is outlined in the wealth post linked above. One thing that is particularly striking to me is his multiple references to sexual encounters with beggars:

"Pour les Mendiantes (translation: for the female beggars), I have been rather unchaste since my arrival, I am however very prudent, & can I think ensure Noses to my posterity_" - Francis Kinloch to Johannes von Müller, May 30, 1777 "Whilst I lived With You, & my Mind Was perpetually taken up, I was satisfied With the fortuitous enjoyment of a Savoyard girl, or a not-ugly beggar Woman_ But far different has been the case here_" - Francis Kinloch to Johannes von Müller, February 2, 1778

It should be noted that Kinloch used the word "prostitute" elsewhere in his letters, so he seemed to make a distinction between beggars and actual sex workers. My concern is that Kinloch may have coerced beggar women into having sex with him in exchange for money, which is a situation of dubious consent.

Outside of these more obvious issues, there are areas where Kinloch's morality and decision making were more gray. For example, Kinloch was a staunch loyalist at the outset of the revolution, but he ultimately took up arms on the American side. He wasn't driven to change sides by any desire to protect his countrymen or to stand up against a perceived tyrant. He was largely motivated by a desire to protect his estate from being taxed or confiscated. Would you say this is "bad"? Perhaps selfish? Or would you call it prudent or pragmatic? This is where my interest in Kinloch starts to form. I see him as an interesting foil to Laurens. The glory-seeking abolitionist and patriot versus the loyalist, the reluctant soldier, the complacent slave owner. Kinloch's letters tell us about what it was like to be a young (rich, white) man during this revolutionary period. He was conflicted between the different influences in his life. His patriot mother called him home and urged him to defend his country, but he was hesitant to act against his loyalist guardian, who had become a second father to him. He longed to serve as a diplomat for England, but his hopes were dashed as the war dragged on and Lord North failed to find a position for him. He settled for the study of law, but he despised it and dreamed of a life that was never to be. I'm also interested in Kinloch's contributions to queer history through his incredibly prolific, affectionate, and heartfelt letters to Johannes von Müller.

Kinloch was not a man of outstanding moral character, but his life and writings can tell us so much about different parts of history, including the American Revolutionary War, slavery and the southern plantation economy, the Grand Tour tradition, queer history, and more. I aim to acknowledge both the "good" and the "bad" to give a more complete picture of who he was and the time he lived in.

[imbecominggayer]

Writing Advice Part 2: Disability And EVIL

Disabled adults are adults and because they're adults they have a wide variety of morality and characters since humans are an exceedingly diverse group with even more diversed existences.

WRONG!

No. No. In reality:

👿👿DISABLED ADULTS ARE EVIL, ALL EVIL!!!!!!! 👿👿 According to certain writers!

When writers take communities and existences such as the facial difference gang or the intellectually disabled doers this results in horrific portrayals of "demonization". Obviously, people with physical disabilities are often portrayed horribly. I will mention them in the facial differences saga. The only reason I am specifically talking about facial differences and intellectual disability is because physical disability and facial differences tend to overlap while intellectual disability is a common yet undertalked form of representation.

Demonization: it's just like what it sounds like. Disablity always equals evil

However, the ways that facial differences gang is demonized is different to how intellectually disabled doers are demonized.

THIS BECAUSE OF A COMMON ASSOCIATION aka

Good = Beautiful/Handsome, Evil = Ugly

For future reference, when I say ugly I mean "not conventionally attractive" and when I say beautiful I mean "conventionally attractive". Afterall, Harvey Dent is attractive. That's a fact.

A popular example of this is the James Bond franchise which has stocks full of villainous characters with various limb differences, scars, and other such things. These ugly and bad characters fight against the cool and handsome James Bond

Literally, the association between evil and "ugly" is so ubiquitous that when a character becomes disabled they also become evil. The transition between being law-abiding handsome attorney Harvey Dent and evil insane "ugly" Two-Face is marked by fire/acid.

Let me tell you, there is no link between being a bad person and being not conventionally attractive. I'm not saying you can't write bad people with facial differences but they're not bad people because of their facial differences.

Secondly, Facial differences aren't only scars. They are often congenital. There are hundreds of different kinds of facial differences. This was just to talk about the fact that most people hear "facial difference" and think "scar".

FOR INTELLECTUALLY DISABLED DOERS, their evilness comes from their supposed "mental status as a six-year old". For the purposes of clarity, I am just going to say that's not how intellectual disability is labeled and move on.

Because of their supposed "mental status" 🤢, they have no ability to guage morality. They're " *derogatory term* who does evil out of ignorance"

Firstly, intellectually disabled people can learn things, like morality. Especially, if we are talking about the majority of intellectually disabled people who have to mild-to-moderate intellectual disability. Either way, there are hundreds of education prgrams designed to help people in learning about things from periods to childrearing to reading to everything necessary for life.

Secondly, intellectually disabled people aren't children. I talked about that in Part 1 named Writing Advice: Disability And Infantilization. Check it out, it's fun.

Thirdly, intellectually disabled people exist in the real world. If you want to write a character who is intellectually disabled, you can ask them for assistance. There is nothing stopping you.

CONCLUSION: No matter what disability someone has, that shouldn't stop them from being human. You can write disabled characters as evil but disabled characters should be evil not because of disability but regardless of disability. Evil Doesn't Equal Not Conventional.

[shallowseeker]

The Exodus convo between Lucifer and Gabe was so good, really.

You see, I think the conversation between Gabriel and Lucifer in Exodus 13x22 was good because they were both right, and they were both wrong!

Gabriel is leaning too far into Chuck's POV, blaming the victim, blaming Lucifer for the things that happened TO him.

GABRIEL: (incredulous at Lucifer’s gall) Okay, you think Dad was the ‘bad guy,’ and you were a victim? You were not a victim. That was just your excuse. LUCIFER: My excuse for what? GABRIEL: For it all, Lucifer. For it all.

It's great because Gabriels is a little bit wrong here. We've seen the Mark up-close and we've seen how it takes away free will. The fact of the matter is that, even in Chuck's own words, Lucifer was a victim. Chuck's line about "Lucifer always casting a jaundiced eye" is a rationalization—Chuck sidestepping his own culpability.

Because even if Lucifer had those undercurrents, the Mark, as we saw, eradicates impulse control. Choosing not to act on ugly thoughts is an essential component of free well.

Lucifer was both a victim AND a perpetrator.

///

Responsibility, wants, and needs:

But Gabe's also right, that at some point Lucifer has to take responsibility for his own actions instead of blaming everything on "a bad childhood." (See Vince!Lucifer's words: "And because being Lucifer? So much Judeo-Christian baggage. But Vince? He's famous. Everybody loves him. And I need love. I had a really jacked childhood.")

(((Aside/// Ah, yes. The two SPN character archetypes: "I need/deserve love" and "I'm unworthy of love."))))

Anyway, It's a bit of a thematic warning that everything Sam and Dean do can't be laid at the feet of John Winchester. At some point, as an adult, you have to stand up and take responsibility for your actions.

GABRIEL: (amused at Lucifer’s frustration) It is really killing you, you’re not out there impressing your kid, huh? Lucifer, do you really see a version here where he sticks by you? LUCIFER: (shrugging) I think the kid is pretty blown away by his old man, so... Yeah. I do. GABRIEL: He’s a kid. He likes shiny objects and magic tricks. But he’s not like you. I can see it in his eyes. His mother’s bloodline, the Winchesters’ influence... LUCIFER: I can be an influence.

Lucifer wants.

But Jack's humanness, his human-centered locus of morality, separates the two of them utterly.

///

Redemption for thee but not for me?

It's interesting a little bit because we see all sorts of evil characters get redemption. Amara spends an entire season sucking out souls and bringing on immense destruction to earth (see: TVss filled with storms, fires, and destruction), and yet... characters like John Winchester, like Lucifer, when it comes to the faintest whiff of redemption, we balk.

I'm not saying they necessarily should get redemption, but our instinctive reaction to the idea is interesting to me. Certain characters' symbolism with respect to evil is so deeply embedded that we cling to our own revenge against them.

And when we care more about who they hurt, we tend to be less forgiving.

///

Too late for Lucifer // Too late for Chuck?

LUCIFER: I’ve changed. [Gabriel stands and walks over to Lucifer.] GABRIEL: Dude, it’s me. I’ve known you since the stars were made. You can’t change. You’re incapable of empathy or love. You live to be worshiped or feared. Or both. LUCIFER: Okay. I--I see that you’ve -- you’ve drunk the Kool-Aid. Fine. [Lucifer pouts, shooing Gabriel way as he turns back towards the truck.] GABRIEL (sarcastically): Oh, is this the part where you tell me that, uh, Dad made up all those so-called lies about you? Got it. LUCIFER (getting angry): Yeah! Yeah, Pop locked me up, okay? GABRIEL (also getting angry): Don’t you get it? Humans were innocent and beautiful. But you...you couldn’t stand that the old man loved them more than He loved you. So you tempted them and corrupted them just to prove how flawed they were. LUCIFER (threateningly) You better be careful, man. GABRIEL: Dad saw that your evil was like the first few cells of cancer...that it would spread like the disease unless He cut it out. That is why He locked you up, to stop the cancer. But it was too late then. And guess what? It’s too late for you now. [Gabriel turns away, leaning on the truck bed and looking back at the camp. Lucifer stares at Gabriel, a lone tear falling from his eye, before he too turns the other way and stares off into the darkness.]

Is it ever too late? I think that's the biggest question of all. And it sticks out to me too that while Gabriel blames Lucifer for his own corruption (the Mark), he gives humans a pass. In Gabe's mind, they're not responsible for their own corruption! Bit of a conundrum, isn't it? Because it's hypocritical to Gabe's overarching point about being responsible for your own actions...

For that matter, what was the "cancer" Lucifer corrupted them with? Was it evil... or was it free will?

Aside/// It's also interesting to me... After Gabriel pronounces his judgment, he turns away so as not to be moved by Lucifer's tears, but note: he is moved by them—he doesn't leave Lucifer's side.

///

Anyway, Lucifer may have killed Gabe, but simultaneously, Gabe is one of the people Lucifer still loves and who still loves Lucifer. It's why the conversation actually hurts.

It's perhaps one of the reasons Lucifer steps up to face off again against AU Michael, even when he's already lost so badly to him, because we have to remember Cas's words: Lucifer’s deeply, deeply afraid of this Michael, too.

It's...hm. It's something. Lucifer has purpose when he's fighting, and however selfish his motivations were, Jack gave him something to fight for. He stepped in front of Gabe to fight Michael, at first.

That's. Hm.... it's something.

///

Cas and Gabe... the only people who seem to be able to put up with Lucifer somewhat effectively, lol.

///

Anyhoo, speaking of redemption...

This conversation reminds me just a little bit of the deleted conversation between Chuck and Metatron in 11x20. Metatron shows his humanity to Chuck, who chops it up and conceptualizes those emotions as "story." It's a bit of flagrant, writerly dehumanization, and Metatron's reaction to Chuck's lack of humanity is so interesting to me:

METATRON: I did. (gets up) But Cas-hat... he spared me. He showed mercy. (sits down opposite CHUCK) And do you know what was the first thing I heard when I woke up in my cold hospital bed? It was hands-down the sweetest, loveliest song I ever heard in my whole, long, sad bottom-feeder existence... My heartbeat. I was still alive. The joy of knowing that you're still alive, and the simultaneous panic of knowing that someday that heart is going to stop beating, that's humanity. It's frail and it's flawed, but damn it, it's worth fighting for. CHUCK: That's a really sweet story, Metatron. Good details, nice balance, and a healthy dose of truth. But it's a little late for a redemption arc, don't you think? METATRON: For me, or for you?

That's...hm. It's definitely something.

Maybe it's easier to get redemption when you haven't irrevocably hurt the people we love... When their victims are... more distant.

[intheholler]

Do you have any traits that you think are vital/you’d like to see more of in Appalachian characters?

I’m writing a fantasy story (that I dream of making into an animated film) whose main character is an Appalachian-coded werewolf woman. I’ve been working on her story for a while, and while she was always from Appalachia in my head, she wasn’t Appalachian until I started following you, not really. I want to make sure I’m capturing the beautiful spirit of Appalachian folks with her and the people around her. She’s selfless to the point of personal damage, deeply, deeply compassionate, and smart as a whip. She’s also a little ruthless and morally utilitarian, which means she does some bad things, but her whole thing is that she always acknowledges that the people she hurts are people who don’t deserve it.

Apologies if this is like, weird, I just want to thank you for helping me flesh out a character who is so near and dear to my heart. Hope you have a nice day!

hi, this absolutely is not weird. actually it kinda made me wanna cry (in a good way).

it's been a busy morning & afternoon and i am drained so i'm worried i won't give this the right response bc brain is currently hamster on wheel.

first...

"...while she was always from Appalachia in my head, she wasn’t Appalachian until I started following you, not really."

i felt really warm reading that. like wow?? that i could be that much of a positive influence on perceptions my home or like that i could make that kind of impact just by talking about my experiences, those of which i used to be so ashamed of..

ok actually yeah got misty typing that. lol. aaaa okay.

to the point of your question-i would like to see more of acceptance as a trait.

people always equate us with hate and intolerance, but that has not been my exclusive experience. yes there are queerphobic racists here, clearly i do not downplay that here on this blog.

but there are queerphobic racists everywhere. everyone acts like they are all solely concentrated in appalachia/the southeast, and that that's the only kind of people we are allowed to be. incorrect!

im not saying we're innocent obviously. growing up we were constantly checking each other's casual racism and prejudices.

but like, that's the thing. most of us didn't/don't wanna be the way we was raised. we didn't actually feel that way. we were just taught that we should, and deep in the hollers all you find are echo chambers.

we are a very "you tend to your business and ill tend to mine" kind of people. we don't wanna bother nobody and we don't wanna be bothered.

so, characters who keep each other in check when something ugly slips, or a character who might have to originally confront bias/prejudice when meeting new people, but who does so quickly and lends aid without question, would be pretty realistic.

and honestly really fucking refreshing lol

[rise-my-angel]

Because I love salt, what do you find to be the most annoying lines of so-called evidence or foreshadowing for ships you hate? For me it’s hard to pick just one but Jon saying Sansa looked radiant is up there for me because the idea that Jon had a crush on Sansa in the first book or before is so much worse than the thought of them meeting again and then developing feelings (which I still hate, but it’s just not as bad). It’s super normal for people to think their siblings look nice. Arya’s POV chapters also remark that Sansa is beautiful. Ashford theory is annoying because it was originally about the hound and Sansa (also hate this ship but the fans are a million times more tolerable). I also roll my eyes when fans insist that the bride of fire line foreshadows Dany marrying Jon (and I even LIKE that ship but only in an AU in my head where Lyanna is Jon’s mom but Rhaegar is NOT the father)

"Because I love salt"

You have come to the right place as this is an accurate real life photo of me running this blog:

Thats a good one I hate though, multiple siblings and family members in this series all compliment one another. Even characters with bad relationships compliment each other. In the books, Arya recalls that her father calls her pretty, which only Jon ever also called her. Does that mean Ned had romantic feelings for Arya? Or Lyanna for that matter? No of course not. Thinking someone in terms of beauty is zero indicator of attraction in any way.

Also its even funnier with Jonsas because Sansa herself notes that Arya looks just like Jon, and then on multiple occasions notes that she thinks Arya is ugly. So, its even less compelling.

In the show Tyrion compliments Cersei's beauty all the time and we know there is nothing to it. It's reading into something that isn't there beacuse if they ignore the way beauty is used in this series as a common compliment towards other highborns, then its a really simple box to check on really stock symptoms of attraction. (I also dont really enjoy Sansan but it is funny how they just stay in their circle and mind their business like they somehow are winning based on being not fucking annoying alone).

I'm gonna rapid fire for Jon here because pretty much every single ship he has is backed by the worst evidence known to man.

The idea that Jon never thinks about Sansa because he loves her the most is dumb and not how we know Jon works. He holds back what he says not what he thinks. He thinks of Sansa the least because despite being his sister, she treated him like shit because she looks down on him for being a bastard. Jon cares about her, but not anywhere near how he cares about his other siblings who have clearly shown him love and respect.

The worst of Jon and Arya is a very very old outline that grrm scrapped. Its an outline that wasnt used and most of it isnt canon so it is literally a piece of non evidence for a ship that is disgusting. (Both Jonsa and Jonrya make Jons good older brother behavior towards his sisters look predatory and the shippers are all literally too blind to realize it)

Jon and Dany have literally nothing to back that up, because they are staged as moral oppositions to one another, dont know the other exists, and the idea that the motif of ice and fire will be about the coming together of romance is antithetical to everything grrm has established about the themes of his story. They are so far from being a ship that literally the ONLY thing they have to support it is the show and thats an absolute joke (see my every post that got me blocked by jonerys stans for more detail)

Ygritte is a rapist, so I accept literally zero "evidence" on that ones validity.

I also hate the "the actors have chemistry" argument to support really bad ships, because some actors having chemistry doesnt equal good romance, it equals good on screen dynamics in its own unique way. Like Tywin and Arya in season 2 have GREAT chemistry, but I don't need to explain why shipping that is creepy. Catelyn and Jaime have great chemistry, but it doesn't mean anything was actually there which could've worked.

Like shipping is fine, but so many people just INSIST it is canon or meant to be instead of something fun to think about. I joke ship about Stannis and Davos because its fun but I'm not over here arguing that people who don't ship it are "ignoring the text in front of them deliberately".

Also honestly, its really funny to me that you had to specify you'd only like that ship if they weren't related. Big oof on that one. Jonerys stans hate the idea they couldn't be related because they somehow think Dany being his AUNT isn't at all creepy. Like, Dany is related to Jon the way Jon thinks hes related to his MOTHER. There is no capability of romance or attraction there, that's crazy.

People who are biologically related but don't know it, 99% of the time are in fact, still not accidentally attracted to each other because that's biological survival instinct. Anti inbreeding protocol. But they think because DANY was raised to think her families blood superiority driven incest is fine, that somehow means JON would think its fine. Jonsas have no argument for that they just have to pray desperately that Jon would want to fuck his little sister despite how much it makes him look like a predator.

I'm sorry, I hope you have water on hand to wash down all this goddamn salt I just threw at you all at once.

Really, it isn't individual lines that irk me, its the overall tendencies of these ships to put more emphasis on things that don't even exist to justify something they don't even realize WHY people think it's creepy. I don't hate a lot of ships, just...all pro incest ones, and ones that promote predatory/rapist behaviors. Which is why I don't ship much in this series.

We're probably not meant to ship many people in this series if I in any way understand even a modicum of why grrm writes the lack of romance the way he does.

[lurkingshan]

BL/QL Ask game : The Ugly, the Bad and the Worst

Tagged by @clara-maybe-ontheroad to start some trouble. There are a lot of these, so I'm mostly going to do quick hits and maybe expand on a few that really get me going.

The categories are:

Worst soundtrack / weirdest song choice in a BL

It would be easier to list the BL soundtracks that are not horrible (offense intended).

Most cringe-inducing line (cute)/Most cringe-inducing line (actually bad)

I'm so bad at remembering specific lines of dialogue unless I think they're beautiful/heart-wrenching, so I got nothing.

Most stupid decision made by a character

In a BL?? Baby, I do not have all day.

Worst plot line

Hmmm I'm gonna give in to recency bias and say faking amnesia to get your fiancé to love you again after you iced him out and denied him sex for four years because of your tiger attack-related PTSD (no I am not making that up, never change actually Naughty Babe).

The most problematic show you've watched

Problematic is in the eye of the beholder, so honestly who can say.

A show people love but you find bad

LOLOLOL. There are. So many. Probably the one with the wildest fandom fervor :: Shan personal enjoyment ratio is KinnPorsche.

A show people find bad but you will defend

Theory of Love and y'all stay wrong about this. It is easily one of the best early Thai bls and the writing, character development, and narrative structure are all excellent, but people hate slutty characters so they can't deal with it.

A show that is just objectively bad but you enjoyed it/were horny/because of that one character

Why r u? What can I say, I'm a Fighter/Tutor girlie.

A bad show that you kept watching because you were intrigued/fascinated

Hmmm I usually just drop it if I'm truly not having fun. I guess you could count me finishing Minato's Laundromat 2 despite knowing any hope for it was over at the end of episode 9. I just needed to see how mad I was going to be in the end (pretty damn mad).

A bad show that you would still recommend

There is too much BL nowadays to be trifling with the bad shit.

The character that ruined a show the most/most awful character that you hated

PLERN PLENG (Together With Me). cc: @bengiyo the co-president of the Plern Pleng antis.

Most awful character that you loved

Boston, a beautiful chaos demon (Only Friends).

A character that wasn't awful but that you just don't like

Anyone played by Podd or Jimmy (it's their faces I can't stand them sorry to those men).

A hero that should have been a villain

This is an interesting one! I’m not sure this counts, but I’ll just say I did not love the way The Untamed white washed Wei Wuxian and removed his culpability for all his worst choices (I recognize this was largely due to censorship). I much prefer the more morally complex and deeply flawed version of him we got in MDZS.

A morally bad character you're into/you're not into and you wish people would stop being into

I don't believe in holding fictional characters to real life moral standards. Bad behavior makes for good stories.

The show that disappointed you the most

Let me take this opportunity to drag Plus & Minus again, a show that had all the right ingredients to be a top tier friends to lovers narrative and absolutely blew it to do some beyond clichéd noble idiocy and breakup bs that violated character and undercut the relationship to such a degree that I can never rewatch or enjoy anything about it again.

The Worst Show of Them All Because of Your Own Reasons

Hmm I do not have one. It's rare for me to not be able to find something of value in any media I consume.

Tagging @chickenstrangers @sorry-bonebag @kayatoasted @blmpff @twig-tea in case you want to play!

[bwhitex]

The Allure of the Beautiful Villian: It’s Actually A Dance Morality

The charm of the good-looking bad guy. People love a good-looking bad guy in stories. They're interesting because they're not just mean – they're also nice to look at, which makes things confusing. Usually, heroes are good and villains are ugly, but these characters mix it up. They are both scary and attractive, and they grab our attention. Their good looks are like a trick, hiding their evil plans. They make us think about what's right and wrong because they're hard to hate. They show us how powerful charm can be, making us wonder about our own choices. They're like a treat you're not supposed to have – tempting and dangerous.

Good-Looking Bad Guys in Poems

In poems, these villains are even more special. Poems turn their mystery into words that feel like a dance. Reading about them is like being charmed by the villain themselves. The poems show off their two sides, pulling you in while also making you nervous. Poems help us feel how captivating these bad guys can be, almost like we're caught in their trap. The poems honor their influence, showing how they don't follow the usual rules. They dance through the poem, and we see all parts of their personality.

The Trouble with Liking Someone Bad

Good-looking bad guys make us wonder about what's right and what's wrong. They're so charming we sometimes forget they do bad things. We find ourselves in a tricky spot, feeling pulled in two directions. Even though we know they're wrong, their style makes us almost like them. These characters make us look at how we judge others, especially when they're attractive. They poke at our ideas about good and evil, making us think harder.

How Looks Affect Our Choices

Looks can really sway people's opinions. Good looks can make us think better of someone before they even speak. The good-looking bad guy uses this to their advantage, making their looks a weapon. But judging by looks is a mistake we often make. It's a sneaky dance, and we're the ones being led. The power of these villains comes from how we react to how they look. They remind us to be careful and to see beyond what's on the outside.

In the End

Beautiful = -laws/you

A beautful villain breaks rules for you. Good-looking villains, dont play hy your rules, sometimes societies rukea, but they win?

Good-looking villians are some of the most exciting characters in people’s stories. They show us parts of who we are fundamentally to– how we're drawn to the beauty of brwaking rules and winning but turned off by bad deeds. By losing. Their stories make us think about how charm works and why we should look deeper than looks. When we finish their stories, we're left wondering about our own morals. These villains are more than just bad guys; they teach us about being careful and knowing ourselves better. Their stories might end, but the conversations they start keep going. They leave a lasting impression, showing us the tricky play between bad and good.

“Between might ain’t right; rules are accountable to ethics; we secretly want the right rule breaker”

-Novio Con Blanco

The statement "Between might ain’t right; rules are accountable to ethics; we secretly want the right rule breaker" embodies the feeling perfectly; this pgraae graps a nuanced view of morality and governance. It suggests that power doesn't equate to moral righteousness. It emphasizes that rules must be measured against ethical standards, not just followed blindly. Furthermore, it reveals a paradox in our collective psyche: while we uphold the law, we also admire those who challenge it for a just cause, the “right” rule breaker who acts when ethics demand it, even if the rules do not.

[true--north]

I have finally watched Wish 2023.

Good things: A++ costuming. Medieval style of the movie is awesome, there is nothing to compare to it. Also, scenery is pretty impressive. I wish Arendelle and Northuldra costuming were that good.

I like the meta of Wish, they tried to make a prequel set up for other Disney fairy tales: Asha is the first Fairy Godmother, a woman from the town is that seamstress that created the fashion book from Sleeping Beauty, Magnifico is the face into the Evil Queen's mirror, the wishes floating up looked like the lanterns in Rapunzel, Asha's cart's transformation looked like Cinderella carriage's, etc. The classic fairytale book opening was beautiful and nostalgic.

That's all.

Bad things: where to start?

Animation Style. As I feared since the early gifs, this combination of styles is not my cup of tea. The combination of simple flat drawing and 3d models for me ruined the immersion and created a "Who Framed Roger Rabbit" weird effect. Even worse. Because in the Rabbit the drawn characters remained drawn. and the real actors remained actors. In Wish, the characters could be 3D one moment and flatly drawn the next. Or have 3d face but flat dress, 3d clothes but flat simplistic hands, etc. The way they acted against flat painted sets like at a theatre stage was just weird. Maybe Disney was trying to tribute their two eras of animation this way, but it didn't work for me. I kept noticing the changing styles and found it annoying.

Asha is uninteresting as a heroine. I wasn't moved by her at all, there's nothing special about her(except that she has a living mother, but still her father is dead and she's ready to talk about him right at the interview.) There are "no like other girls" heroines, but Asha is literally the opposite. Maybe they tried to make her generic on purpose, like she's a proto-princess as well: laughs like Rapunzel, is awkward like Anna, talks to animals like Snow White and Aurora, runs like Elsa in Let It Go, has the same colour palette like Isabella, has similar scenes with "Be our guest" and "Under the sea", but she didn't inspire me. And she is too adorkable. Her friends have more personality and coolness than she.

Her goat is just awful, I'm serious here. Not only is he ugly, but he talks in a weird for a baby goat manner and makes stupid jokes. In fact, the jokes in Wish are really cringe. The chickens and eggs, the goat's tail in Asha's face…no, thanks.

Magnifico. I absolutely do not miss "classic villains", especially if they are going to be like him now. I don't know how the old Disney did it but Queen Grimhilde and Maleficent were a way more understandable and "justified" in their hatred than Magnifico, even though we know nothing about them. They had something in them Magnifico doesn't. Lady Tremaine and Ursula are just geniuses, super bosses and icons in comparison to him.

He has no reason to be so paranoid and do what he does other than a mental illness he got as a child. He has no reason to fear being attacked by the citizens, he had no reason at all to fulfill/continue fulfilling anyone's wishes, what for?

What he was doing did nothing at all to prevent his fear of being attacked he developed when he was a boy. Holding wishes back doesn't protect the city from war that was not going to happen, actually. If Magnifico had been drinking energy from wishes from the beginning it would make much more sense, but no he started doing this only after he opened the book of forbidden magic. Although, he indeed had the right to decide what is worthy to fulfill because it was his magic, not everyone's.

He's ugly and yes as I've noticed before he looks like older Prince Hans.

I found the final moral that magic is unnecessary and we should do everything by themselves, that people can't live well with it and are asking too much, discouraging and too didactic rather than inspiring. If wishes are not going to be fulfilled in the end and it's painted as good, then why Asha was sad when she found out that Magnifico didn't want to fulfill all of them? Magnifico at least fulfilled a % of the wishes, now they have zero. The problem that sometimes wishes just can't come true and it will hurt you is not addressed as much as it should. Oh, and the collective wishes have magic and are good but individual wishes should be achieved by hard work thing...Idk.

What was that all about?

And all the songs are not catchy at all. "I'm a star" has some unpleasantness in its message I can't put my finger on.

⭐⭐⭐ experience. Only its aesthetic made the movie for me. Sorry, Lee, Buck and friends 😗 I just hope that F2 wasn't your last good piece of art and that you'll make better than this for F3 and 4(one of the Wish directors is a Frozen storyboard artist. Mark Smith, do better, please.)

[walkingstackofbooks]

DS9 3x24 Shakaar thoughts (I’m re-watching, so beware spoilers for future episodes!)

(31/05/2023)

There's just something about Sisko playing darts with Miles :3 I don't think we've seen Sisko just socialising casually before? The crew is becoming found family more and more <3 

"The new head of the Provisional government ... is Kai Winn." DRAMATIC MUSIC. Valid choice, it's pretty bad

"It has been my observation that one of the prices of giving people freedom of choice is that sometimes they make the wrong choice." Feels. That's too close to home (I can't wait for the 2024 election but I'm also terrified that somehow we STILL won't get the Tories out...)

"It's for Vedek Bareil, ACTUALLY." Oh I love you Kira, I'm sorry you have to talk to this woman. 

"He never wanted fame or glory for what he did. As someone who loved him, I'm surprised you didn't that." I HATE HER. YOU THINK YOU'RE SUCH A GOOD MANIPULATOR BUT YOU'RE ACTUALLY JUST A DREADFUL PERSON. And just because someone wasn't seeking game as their motive, doesn't mean you can't recognise their contributions! 

Kira calmly walking away because she feels she needs to be diplomatic with Winn and is seconds away from yelling probably. Proud of you <3

Winn is THE most loathesome character. "Vedek Bareil used to tell me that you could be quite persuasive when you put your mind to it, child." Yuck

Ohh, Kira's smile as she hears about her old friends ❤❤❤

Interesting that he calls her Nerys, but she calls him Shakaar

Can't believe Quark actually persuaded Miles to do the darts and not kayak!

"Somehow replacing the arm seems ungrateful." There's something that really gets me about this. I guess it's just allowing war to be so unapologetically ugly?

The wind in Kira's hair is so powerful. She's beautiful.

"Did you explain to Shakaar that you were there on the direct authority of the First Minister?" She loves power so much, and it's so obvious she thinks she should be respected just because of that authority - she doesn't even try to earn it.

"Shakaar sounds like a prideful and arrogant man." SHUT UP, THAT'S WHAT YOU AR-- "It also seems there's no reasoning with him." Oh my GOODNESS, she's clearly just making excuses why is actually his fault she won't talk to him!

"This isn't your fight, Nerys. Go home." "I am home, Shakaar, and I have been lied to by Kai Winn for the last time. She wants a fight, I'll give her one." YES KIRA

"Don't worry, coach. I won't let you down." Idk just Julian smiling at Miles and everyone being so supportive :3 

I love that Miles bring "in the zone" is the entire B plot though XD

"Look, I'm in the zone. I just need- ARGH! I just need surgery... :/" Ohhh, you tried, Miles 

I'm honestly not sure if they're faking it or not - but Miles is a good actor if so. 

"It's been two weeks since I was forced to send the militia into Dahkur Province." FORCED?! FORCED?!!!!

"I'm more than willing to do that, on one condition... I'd like you to provide a Federation security force to take their place." That's... That's not what he's saying though. He's saying any force out there is Not What Is Needed. 

"I wasn't aware that our relationship needed solidifying." Sisko calmly rebutting Winn will always be my favourite, he's so good at taking her down in a way that's polite yet savage.

"So, you're refusing my request for aid?" "I suppose I am." I love him <3

"That would be an unfortunate overreaction." Which she knows but thinks she can get away with and make the whole ordeal - and rejecting Federation membership - look perfectly reasonable.

"This is a test, a test by the Prophets. They want to see if I'm worthy [...] I will not fail them. I will stop Shakaar by any means necessary." The scary thing is I actually think she believes that this is The Right And Moral Thing To Do. She's terrifying. And just The Worst. 

I really, really love the way this is solved. Real Bajorans not wanting to hurt and fight each other, and recognising they have the power to change something so stupid. 

"So this is a coup?" "No, it's a free election." Well, kind of both if you have military backing... But I love Winn not getting her way. 

(Why did they give her the power of First Minister before having the elections? But I guess it's good they did, or she wouldn't have had enough rope to hang herself with before her power was solidified with a vote.)

Why is Julian looking so shocked at throwing a twenty? It's funny when pre-augmentation things don't quite make sense and you have to headcanon them away. (I'm saying he wasn't really thinking about what he was doing and didn't realise he'd thrown until the board beeped with success.)

[eve-made-the-right-choice]

Terry Pratchet IS very cool; I grew up on Pratchett as much as I did on Rowling. I can’t recommend him enough- his many characters are weird and wonderful and delightful in their oddities, and his worldbuilding reinforces a life of compassion even more than his chacters do. Whereas Pratchett often gets to the point in just one book, Rowling takes her sweet time allowing mysteries to unfold and first impressions to be proven wrong. Both authors instilled in me many moral standards that I still live by today. Both had their own ways of taking on the concepts of bullying and looking down on others.

But before Pratchett and Rowling ever published a single book, there was Raul Daul. In Raul Daul’s book “The Twits,” the narrator explains to the reader that no matter what a person looks like, their inner beauty shines through.

This is the lesson on appearances and and weirdness that was first imprinted on me as a child: that people’s intentions can shine forth from them regardless of their outer appearance. And I have largely found it to be true- often times, aquaintances who were beautiful in my eyes will become repulsive when they show an ugly side of their personality that I can’t tolerate, while strangers who appeared ugly at first glance will become beautiful when I get to know them. It’s hard to explain what it’s like to literally see someone differently when they show their true colors, but I swear it’s real.

This is hilariously paradoxical to Raul Daul’s real personality; according to everyone who knew him, he was an insufferable asshole. Which just goes to show that even bad people can make good things sometimes. A lesson that Rowling’s haters could stand to learn.

When I began reading Rowling and Pratchett as a teenager, I took this lesson with me into their books. When Trelawney was eventually proven to have experienced real prophesies (book 5), ones which she could not control, her obsession and odd behavior suddenly made sense. How frightening it must have been, to be unstuck from time in such a disorienting way. I saw her differently after that, and so did Harry. Because I was primed by Daul to seek inner beauty instead of shallow appearances, I was fully prepared to accept the lesson of Professor Trelawney: that people who seem odd at first often have deeper motivations that we are unaware of. When Umbridge fired professor Trelawney in later books, I was as enraged as Harry was- a very different reaction from his first impression of her in books 1 through 4. I was equally primed for Pratchett’s quirky characters, knowing full well that their oddness would become lovable if I gave them enough time. But Pratchett never challenged me to keep looking deeper the way Rowling did, with her long-term twists and turns and generational secrets- Pratchett revealed his characters’ beauty to me right away, while Rowling allowed me to put the puzzle pieces together bit by bit.

Three different approaches to the same concept, from three different authors. Imagine that.

I’m hardly the first person to compare them but Terry Pratchett and J K Rowling really are polar opposites in terms of the way their writing treats weird characters. In Rowling’s writing, any weirdness is there to be laughed at (for example: Professor Trelawney, the fake seer who doesn’t know she’s an actual seer). In Pratchett’s writing, though, the characters’ weirdness is taken 100% seriously and the humor arises organically from the situation itself and is never at the characters’ expense (for example: in Making Money, the man who was born a clown and was never told so until he was 13 years old). In Rowling’s writing, the main characters poke constant fun at Professor Trelawney, making joke predictions and fudging homework and talking about how divination isn’t a legitimate field of study. Even after she gets fired and more or less drops the act, the joke changes to “look at this sad drunk lady” and the main characters express little sympathy. The narrative is saying she’s there to make one real prediction and otherwise she’s only there for comic relief. This sort of thing happens over and over in Rowling’s writing, where any quirkiness is there to be laughed at and the misfortunes of characters we’re not supposed to like are supposed to be funny, and it sends a message of conformity under threat of ridicule. In Pratchett’s writing, the clown man’s story is treated as a great tragedy: imagine growing up not knowing why you are the way you are, and then finding out the truth as a teenager! And knowing that your own mother kept the truth from you! This man was so deeply traumatized by this he denied himself any humor or fun for decades, and when he has a crisis and runs off to become a clown again, he is given support and medical treatment and is welcomed back to his job at the bank and accepted for who he is. The fact that this whole situation is hilarious is secondary. And again, this sort of thing happens over and over again in Pratchett’s writing, where characters’ quirkiness is embraced and often seen as irreplaceable by the end of the book, and it sends a message that our quirks are valuable and weirdness should be acceptable. It just strikes me as a much… kinder approach to people, you know?

[redheadbigshoes]

Hiya, another anon here! I want to preface this by saying that I love your blog and your willingness to speak out about lesbophobia. But, I do agree with the person who wrote to you about describing terfs as unattractive? They're really shitty people with enough bigotry to sink a battleship, and I think it's possible — and beneficial — to focus on that without bringing up attractiveness at all. I'd never say that choosing to be mean to bigots is a bad thing, but it only works if we attack them on the basis of what they do, rather than something immutable (even if it is subjective) like attractiveness. Maybe it will make them feel bad about themselves, maybe they won't see the comment at all, but it can also ricochet and unintentionally hurt others. This is especially true for people who grew up being bullied for their appearance, as it can set off spirals like "am I only being tolerated by this person because we agree on things? If they were to see me on the street, would they judge me negatively because they don't know me?" I think by sterotypes, the other anon may have been talking about how "ugliness" is often associated with some moral character failing, or as a "bad quality" rather than something that, really, should be treated with neutrality. And this is true in reverse too — the whole "this is how you age when you're unproblematic" trend also connects beauty with "goodness" in a way that feels a bit off to me. I didn't mean for this to be so long — sorry!! This ramble aside, def. keep doing what you're doing for lesbians, you're making Tumblr a better place :)

I appreciate you being nice and respectful about this, but I think people feeling bad about an offense (or basically anything) that is not about them at all is way more about the person’s internalized issues than the thing they felt bad for itself. Don’t know if that makes sense lol, I’m gonna use the example of whenever someone talks bad about certain men and other men who don’t fit that (or at least seem to not fit that) get pressed about it even though it wasn’t about them in the first place.

Tbh it didn’t seem like that other anon was talking about stereotypes the way you’re talking about it. To me it felt way more like they assumed I had said that person was unattractive because she doesn’t fit certain stereotypes or because she fits in a specific stereotype they thought about…