#which is not to say that those arcs are inherently evil but

[likealittleheartbeat]

“Sexual desire is not the only dimension of the homosexual experience, but it is the core of that experience. It is sexual desire and acting upon that desire that puts the homosexual into conflict with dominant power structures. It is where we must begin. How does one dramatize homosexual desire? Can one represent desire without words? One can ‘force on’ the audience sexual acts, kissing, embracing, looking. Or one can enact those opposites which have also been central to the experience of many homosexuals: not looking, not kissing, not embracing. Or one can enact the cause of these negations: heterosexism, which can be dramatized by acts of brutality, acts that sometimes result from the negation of one’s homosexual desire.

One of the more interesting aspects of homophobia is, as Richard Mohr points out: “People in general find gay love—kisses of parting at the train station and the like—sicker even than gay sex.” The sight of two men kissing on the lips can evoke enormous fear and hostility in some audience members. Anyone who sat in a movie theater when Peter Finch and Murray Head kissed in Sunday, Bloody Sunday (1971), or Michael Cane and Christopher Reeve kissed on Deathtrap (1982), or when Harry Hamlin and Michael Ontkean kissed in Making Love (1982), will remember the audible, hostile response such images provoked. Everyone knows that sex between men happens, but the sight of two men kissing is often seen as a transgression of the gender order, taken by many to be ‘natural.’ A kiss is a sign of affection, of love, not merely of lust. A kiss, to paraphrase the old song, isn’t just a kiss. Hence it’s theatrical power.”

—John M. Chum, Still Acting Gay

[aeithalian]

Apollo and the demonization of power

I graduated and I'm back on my shit, y'all.

I saw this post by @apollosgiftofprophecy (hi Alder) about whether or not Apollo should have stayed mortal instead of regaining his godhood, and may I just say I 1000000% agree.

To summarize the post: if Apollo had chosen to stay mortal, his promise to Jason (to remember what it means to be mortal/human) wouldn't have meant nearly the same as if he'd gone back to Olympus. Regaining his godhood allowed him to chose to help people with his full ability and remember his humanity for however long it takes for him to fade.

And if I may add on: Apollo even talks about maybe choosing to stay mortal at some point in the latter half of the series, but eventually comes to the conclusion that to chose to stay mortal would be akin to running away from his problems. And he's right: if he chose to stay mortal, he wouldn't have to face Zeus again and he could shirk his responsibilities as an Olympian. So he decides against it (not that he really ever has the chance to chose). And I just love to take this as a great moment of character development and an insane amount of self-awareness for somebody who started their arc where he did.

But it also got me thinking. And, in short, I came to the conclusion that Apollo must be an idealist simply by the way he views power.

In this case, fiction reflects reality: villains want power. They want control. They want to squash rebellion. And that, typically, is an occurrence we typically only see with villains. Never with the heroes, who rarely want power outside of defeating their enemy. But here we have Apollo, who spends the entire series literally seeking power in his attempt to regain his godhood.

And that has morphed into something really interesting when it comes to representation of power in classical media. More often than not, power is demonized. It's seen as something inherently evil. If a character wants power for themselves, they're likewise seen as evil. Any one of your classical antagonists are going to, at some point in their stories, want power in any which way it presents itself. Voldemort of Harry Potter wanted to live forever. Sauron of Lord of the Rings wanted the Ring of Power. Palpatine of Star Wars wanted control of the galaxy. Zeus wants to rule the Olympians. The list goes on.

On the other hand, in stories where a protagonist seeks power to destroy their opponent, they eventually end up discarding their items of power because they don't want to be 'corrupted'. Harry Potter refused to use the Elder Wand. Frodo destroyed the Ring of Power. Luke Skywalker turned down the Dark Side. Even Percy Jackson declined godhood.

But Rick, in writing Apollo's character, takes an interesting approach and a fun subversion of this trope that I, for one, absolutely love. Previously, he'd written Percy to turn down godhood because he primarily wanted to maintain his humanity. To Percy, being a god and being human are two mutually exclusive concepts. They don't coexist. For Apollo, on the other hand, he accepts power out of a sense of duty, and vows to use it well in the spirit of his promise to Jason. There is no demonization of power. And to Apollo, humanity and godhood are not exclusive concepts. So what does that mean post-trials?

There are two perspectives at battle here. First is demonization: 'power is inherently evil'. But the idea that power corrupts is not necessarily a fact: in my opinion, power in and of itself isn't evil. Yes, it's dangerous, but it's more or less a blank slate. What you do with power, who you are when you have it, is what defines it. And that's a pretty nuanced take, and it comes with its ups and downs, requiring those powerful protagonists to be your most responsible, most dutiful, most kind characters who take up the mantle of power with the full understanding of what it means. Who's to say that you can't achieve power and use it well? So there's the other perspective: 'power is a blank slate'.

Let's look at power from a Zeus vs. Apollo perspective:

Zeus wants power (or at the very least, to maintain his power) as a way of controlling people, squashing rebellion, and maintaining order in the way he sees fit, without any sense of legitimate justice or care for others. It is Zeus' actions that make him evil, not his power.

Apollo, on the other hand, seeks power as a way of solving problems, creating solutions that benefit the greatest amount of people possible, and creating a lasting difference on others to change for the better, just as he did. More often than not, when he reminisces about having power in the series, it's more out of a place of 'this terrible thing wouldn't have happened if I were a god', or 'I could help better if I were a god'. Never once does he view power as a way of controlling or manipulating others. Power, to Apollo, is just the ability to love to the greatest extent possible (re: my meta on Apollo's fatal flaw).

But the interesting thing here is how Apollo views power in general, outside of his own. The idea of demonizing power doesn't even occur to him, despite the fact that he's been the subject of abuse for millennia. What's fascinating to me is the fact that Apollo, having been hurt so often by Zeus' power, doesn't ascribe that same generalization to his own person.

I find that very interesting: abuse does wacky shit to people's brains. By all means, that should have irrevocably changed Apollo's perspective on power as a whole, right? Not if you've learned to view power as something that is part of you, no.

I don't know how other gods besides Apollo view their own power, I actually think it's accurate to say that gods view power as something inherent to their nature. And, honestly, maybe it is. But that's besides the point.

Regardless of whether or not power is inherent to gods, Apollo, throughout his journey, realizes that it must go hand in hand with responsibility and humanity. Power is a privilege. That 'blank slate' perspective is one he learned in his trials, the knowledge that the power he has is something he shapes, and something he has no excuse for. If power is inherent, all of Apollo's wrongdoings are his own failings.

And that's even more interesting when you relate it to his relationship with Zeus. Apollo must likewise know that Zeus' wrongdoings are solely his fault, not a result of his power. It's a fascinating perspective of power coming from somebody who has none, who's been hurt by somebody who has so much. To maintain that optimistic view of power as non-corrosive when faced with your abuser is, I think, the glaring mark of an idealist.

So, what does this mean post-trials?

I think, along the same vein, there is a point where the idealist breaks. They have a glimpse of reality: all is not well. For Apollo, that's at the end of the series where he decides that Zeus is beyond all hope. Take this quote from the Tower of Nero:

Some fathers don't deserve [reconciliation]. Some aren't capable of it. I suppose I could have raged at him and called him bad names. We were alone. He probably expected it. Given his awkward self-consciousness at the moment, he might have even let me get away with it unpunished. But it would not have changed him. It would not have made anything different between us. You cannot change a tyrant by trying to out-ugly him.

More often than not, my favorite stories are the ones where the main character gains power, keeps it, and uses it for good. Aragorn accepted the crown of Gondor. Luke Skywalker chose to train a new order of Jedi. Apollo regained his godhood. And readers of any of my multichap fics know that I love to write this trope as well.

But, much like my mutuals and I have been yelling from the rooftops for LITERAL YEARS, Apollo's story is not over. And once the idealist has 'broken', like we see in the scene above, there's only one way it could go.

To see somebody mishandling their power in a way an idealist knows is corrupt is quite literally a recipe for revolution. Look me in the eye and tell me that the way ToA finished wasn't setting up a revolution. Do it, I dare you.

Regardless, it's safe to say that, at some point, somebody's going to take a look at Zeus and say "you know what? Anybody could do better." Just saying.

Anyways, vive la révolution.

[a masterlist of my other metas]

[an-excellent-choice]

A random thought but I am what you would consider as a new fan in dragon age. So, for me the common discourse/hate surrounding Cullen in the games is really shallow.

(I am referring to the character not the voice actor, I do not give a shit about that guy and about his bullshit)

I see a lot of hate on cullen and how either he is so fucking bland or evil because he is a equivalent to a cop in dragon age. which while I can see the comparison it just go and shows how people cant really handle an overarching flawed character story arc when they aren't this witty or sassy person.

Cullen is great example of how a traumatic experience can sway you to extremism (you know like Bolin in Korra) He wasn't inherently bad, hell he trained in a very lenient and peaceful circle without any issue or complaints on his side.

(reminder that the Cullen trained in was very chill and balanced if you think about it. Anders stayed in that circle while doing his multiple escape attempts and they never made him tranquil. Other examples include all the kissing allowed in the circle and the fact the you can save the circle in DAO if you save the first enchanter)

Then everything went to shit in that relaxed circle.

Cullen was tortured and was forced to watch everyone around him get killed by the very things that he was warned what mages was.

If you think about it he probably blamed majority of what happened to leniency of the circle to the mages which is why it isnt a surprise that he would be supportive of strictness of the circle in kirkwall.

A lot of people hate on Cullen because of da2 which i understand but this part of the story is kind of like anders in da2 act 3 or loghain in dao for him.

He is part of his life where he is as closest to monster he could be but you know why he isn't the worst is because he has a line that he didnt cross which was killing allies/ civilians. He later also acknowledges in DAI the pain and atrocities he caused in DA2.

He is aware of his biases and is trying to redeem himself by helping in the inquisition as an independent faction. He left the templars.

He hates how the templars has treated him and his faith to be weapons of abuse. While he was a perpetrator of the abuses of the templars, people forget he is also a victim.

Templars are required to intake lyrium to be part of the order. This system literally uses these drugs to make them addicts and gain control on them. I dont know about you but that shit isnt really comparable to being cops.

He is literally a recovering drug addict in DAI and the reason why he is doing this is to show that templars can do it. They can leave the order.

Extra: I love cullen because he is so complicated and he is trying his best. Does this mean I want to see him in DATV? Fuck no. If him being brought back into story requires for the voice actor to be hired for it. no fucking thanks. His story is done and I'm happy with that

P.S also extra note about people saying he is creepy because he had a crush on the warden in DAO while he was a templar is a stupid point.

I dont care if the author originally wanted it to seem creepy, they completely failed on that mood and they forgot characters can also write themselves a story if you are not careful.

Cullen was incredibly shy and knew how inappropriate his crush was. He literally ran away from any flirting attempts. It is not bad to have a crush with someone you shouldn't have on, AS LONG AS YOU KNOW THE BOUNDARIES AND DONT LET ANYONE CROSS THOSE BOUNDARIES. which he didn't.

[tossawary]

Ooohh do you have any thoughts on Orochimaru specifically? Would love to hear them, I find his whole deal fascinating.

At the moment, not really? I mean, I just finished the last 100 chapters of the "Naruto" manga and I best remember the Chuunin Exams arc besides that, so while I have a general idea of Orochimaru's deal and backstory, I do not remember the small and specific canonical details that generally make characters super interesting.

One thing that I thought was super funny was that Hashirama, Tobirama, and Minato (and Sarutobi Hiruzen, I guess? He was there doing... something) are carrying a significant percentage of this super long final battle, fighting against Obito and Madara, saving lives and dealing out damage. And they're only there as super powerful undead warriors because Orochimaru resurrected them with his improved Edo Tensai technique. So I think it's fair to say that a SIGNIFICANT part of the final battle is being carried by OROCHIMARU, who might as well be sitting on the sidelines for most of it with a cocktail and a beach chair.

I don't remember the exact details of the human experimentation, at least part of which I'm sure is unforgivably evil even if Orochimaru was doing them on behalf of his village at some point. (Doing that shit on someone else's order is still not good even if all of these traumatized characters were raised to be obedient soldiers since early childhood.) But besides the mad science, Orochimaru generally doesn't really stand out to me as being any more evil than a lot of kage and other senior shinobi.

Like, they are in the business of making child soldiers and killing people for money; that is the general deal of ninja here. Inherently corrupt and violent systems and all that jazz. So, personally, I don't really care all that much that Orochimaru defected and started his own business, because I don't think that most of these characters owe any real loyalty to this broken military state that keeps fucking them and their loved ones over to hold onto its power. I like the fact that he's fun-looking and dramatic and a lot about him as a villain / antagonist calls out everyone else around him as hypocrites.

I don't remember enough about him to fully understand his motivations and be persuaded that his actions make any kind of sense by the story, but a lot of character motivations and their choices to achieve their goals in "Naruto" barely make sense to me. (Note to everyone: this is not an invitation to explain Orochimaru's everything to me. I'll read all of canon properly at some point.) I like the fact that he decided to help against Madara and Obito at the end of the story, because he was like, "Of course I want to save the world? I live here???"

I thought the end of "Naruto" was super abrupt and I can't remember if there was much of Orochimaru in those final chapters. I know he fucked off again and had a kid later, which I find funny. (Half of the time Orochimaru was on screen, I was distracted by Uzumaki Karin, because I wanted to like her as a female character with some cool attributes, I wanted to be in her corner, but every time she appeared, she did something that made me want to strangle the author with my bare hands. I feel entitled to financial compensation.)

[raayllum]

I think sometimes the way I approach fic / meta writing / analysis stems from how I character build and write my OG stuff as well, because while the classical writing advice is about asking "what does your character want?" I've always found it most useful to ask "What does your character want, and what are they willing to justify to get it?"

(Asking how they justify their actions is also incredibly useful but more on that later.)

For example, when ('good') characters are under stressful situations and respond well regardless, we take that as being indicative of who they Truly Are—heroic, helpful, selfless, often even compassionate, etc, and when antagonists behave that way, we dismiss it as just glory hounding or being selfish, when it can Be multiple things at once.

When ('bad') characters respond poorly to stressful situations—threatening harm, using dark magic to saved loved ones, being angry and cold hearted—we take that as who they are, and when it's the protags, we say they're stressed or coerced or any number of things... that are true for the antags often, too! And still true even if you don't like them or have as much compassion towards them.

But unfortunately sometimes people are rarely inclined to do the opposite. They're rarely inclined to take antagonists' good moments as honest statements of their character because "well they're mean/evil" and often dismiss protagonists' complicated or less than stellar choices because "well they're good and they feel bad" (Viren saying he'll never forgive himself for the things he's done even when they saved his son, and Claudia crying over what she's done to save her father? yeah those scenes don't exist anymore sorry).

The fact of the matter is that, at least in TDP and in many other works (including my own), actual antagonists are not always evil and awful and morally bankrupt 100% of the time, and actual protagonists are not always perfect or good or making the right choice (because sometimes there isn't one, tbh).

Who your character is at their best and their worst, regardless of circumstance, is ALL of who they are. It all has to be taken into account. No cherry picking. Rayla can be selfish and dismissive and a liar who routinely fails at whatever she sets out to do and is awful at communicating, and Viren can love his kingdom and his family and genuinely believe that's what he's doing everything for, and neither encompasses their whole character. A perfect example is Claudia, who we cheer for when she chooses Soren over the world-saving mission of the egg in 2x07, and despair at when she chooses Viren over the world-saving mission of maybe not freeing the dangerous imprisoned Startouch elf in S4 and S5. Same principle, character, motivation, different circumstance, but we're happy about Soren (because he's not Viren) and bummed about Viren (because he's not Soren), and because character traits are consistent, and whether those traits are good or bad is inherently circumstantial. Claudia's loyalty can be great, and it can be a terrible, awful justification. Both of those things are true.

To be clear, this isn't to argue for false equivalency: Viren and Claudia and other antagonists are far more often Wrong than the protagonists are, and the protagonists are routinely more Right than our two favourite dark mages are. TDP likes its complications and circumstantial stuff, but there's still some things that are Bad No Matter What (like gaslighting your child, or routine dehumanization). And some of our associations are because antagonistic characters tend to be routinely cruel and mean, which are part of the horrible things they do, and protagonist characters are routinely kinder and more compassionate to the people around them, and protecting each other / innocent people is part of what makes them a good person, but... There's no inherent difference between a lot (not all, but some) of the actions the characters across the board take, particularly in arc 2, just their perspective and who we're personally more attached to and thereby more willing to justify their decisions surrounding.

Like idk my main WIP protag buries people alive en masse and tortures someone vindictively because they killed her friend and I'd still classify her as a Good Person (fictionally), and it's just always wild to me when people don't take All Parts and Choices and Relationships of a character into account especially because TDP spells it out for us over and over that we Should with quite literally every single character, whether those actions are good or bad:

Once again I am asking for encompassing wholes and character nuances where the only time a character should be like "well it's totally fine that you did a Thing actually" (Rayla towards Callum's dark magic use or Callum towards Rayla lying to/stealing from him) or "totally not okay that you did a thing" (Runaan about Rayla sparing Marcos, or Claudia doing dark magic) is taken as an aspect of Character Bias, not a definitive Narrative get off the hook slant or condemnation, because neither of those things Get us anywhere in a writing or analytical sense thank you

[hibiscusel]

it’s upsetting to me that despite setting up each league member to have a specific and beautiful depiction of the ignorances of hero society in their own way, the story never really considers their words at all in making change for the betterment of said society. these are my thoughts regarding the conclusion of the villains, by each character…

shigaraki’s entire character boils down to the fundamental message of society, both heroes and civilians, ignoring the downtrodden who are in dire need of saving, just because it’s inconvenient for them. shigaraki represents those downtrodden people - the neglected children, the poor, the desperate. he represents that criminals are made, not born. yet, despite the beautiful set up we had with his entire being paralleling izuku’s, his monologue during his fight with endeavour, and him deliberately stating he needs to be a hero for the villains, this is just thrown to the side in the end. izuku didn’t save anything when it came to shigaraki even though he vowed to do so when nana shimura asked him if he had the ability to kill her grandson. he said he wouldn’t, but that’s what happened in the end, isn’t it? was the crying child within him who dreamed of being a hero not enough to communicate his humanity to the heroes? in the end he was just a small boy, remaining neglected by the people who were meant to hold his hands and save him. he didn’t even get to reconnect with the other league members - his dear family, in the end. kurogiri had said, his friends were waiting for him.

toga represented the rejection of people with unconventional quirks and how she’s punished for just being who she is. she can’t help who she is. in the bnha society, since her quirk isn’t glamorous or conventional, she is looked down upon and immediately labelled inherently evil for acting upon her desires. nobody in her previous life tried to understand her, not even her parents, as they resorted to counselling in hopes of suppressing her over helping her. and yes, ochako did understand her in the end which can somewhat serve as closure for toga because her love was returned, it’s still unfortunate that only ochako will understand her and nobody else. society will go on judging people with said unconventional quirks without hesitation, not taking the time to understand how hard it is to be shunned over something out of your control.

speaking of the view of differing quirks, it brings us now to spinner and his mini-arc of fighting for the visibility and acceptance of heteromorphs. we literally see the existence of cult groups in the story that are against the existence of heteromorphs in society because of their appearance. my complaints are mainly directed at horikoshi for fumbling the concept of discrimination and fighting for the liberation of the oppressed, especially since it directly reflects concepts of racism, colourism, and alienation in real life. although, i would be lying to say it isn’t a somewhat realistic depiction of how fighting for rights is widely frowned upon. in order to make change come about, society must be disrupted. that is exactly what spinner did in the end, and was met with shoji and koda telling him he must sit and wait peacefully for change to come about - which we all know does nothing in the long run. it’s so upsetting to me that spinner, the one who is undoubtedly the closest to shigaraki within the league, had the outcome he did. he had so much compassion for his cause in bringing about stain’s will, and it just hurts seeing his moment watered down to his nomufication and demonization of the heteromorph revolution.

then of course, is dabi. his entire drive was to prove how terrible of a person endeavor is, and how contradictory it is that someone like him saves people for a living. dabi is an embodiment of all of endeavor’s sins, coming back to put him in his place. however, in dabi’s conclusion with all his family members being there when he nearly combusted, endeavor’s words of atonement (i’m using this word very lightly because what really did he atone for anyways) will never be heard by the greater society. all the civilians will understand is that endeavor brought down his estranged villain son. people will most likely move on from the fact that he abused his family in order to focus on his ‘bringing down’ of dabi (which honestly was all on shoto’s part) and ultimately saving the day. people will not take dabi’s existence as a catalyst for critical thought into who exactly they call heroes and question the integrity of heroes - what are the kind of people that save them.

speaking of questioning the integrity of heroes, this leads into stain. i don’t have too much to say about him but i think it was stupid to just have afo kill him. he wasn’t a villain, he was a vigilante. i think it was such a waste of his character to just have him show up in the story, get jailed, and then have one interaction with all might. i feel he could’ve done so much more with communicating his cause to society, and in reaching regular civilians rather than sparking a flame in the hearts of some villains such as spinner. what a shame. what a waste.

also, i want to mention twice. i loved twice so much, he definitely stuck with me. i thought the concept of “all it takes is one bad day” was such a perfect thing to include for a villain character. his entire life was changed for the worse over a motorcycle accident when he was a teenager. though living in his loneliness which was ultimately destroying him, he had met the league. the members of the league, especially toga, served not as a stepping stone to use and swing his life around in that way, but simply as friends. a family, that he found a place in despite everything else that had gone wrong for him. he had this one thing going for him, and he was abruptly torn away from it with the touch of a feather. he wasn’t even asking for much, he had just found his people - his place in the society that rejected him over a very human mistake, where he could live as himself. and to top it all off because apparently that wasn’t bad enough, shigaraki doesn’t even know he died - and if he did, there was nothing shown for it. another fumble by horikoshi.

tldr; what pains me the most in all of this, is that not only are all the league’s reasons for fighting wholly overlooked by the heroes, but none of what they stood for is going to be considered in the end for reconstructing a just society. their words, their pains, and their dreams are all going to be brushed aside in preference for society simply celebrating their deaths and incarceration. because in the end, all the humanity within themselves that they bared to the world in their fight is going to amount to nothing to people who just wanted them gone. nobody is there to mourn them.

and it hurts so bad.

[heliza24]

Not gonna lie to you all, I do not feel good that we spent the first half of this finale in combat trying to kill a bunch of high schoolers who were manipulated and corrupted by evil teachers who were supposed to be taking care of them. The Rat Grinders deserved so much better than this. They were not inherently evil, they were kids, and they should have had the chance to become uncorrupted. I hope maybe there will be room for some role play resolution in the last ep, but don’t know. The whole thing does not make me feel good!!!

This is a weakness of DnD as a medium; there is no mechanism for diplomatic or even just nonlethal resolution to conflict. But it’s also the result of a stupid structural limit that Dimension 20 has placed on itself. There’s no reason that this season NEEDED to end with a battle ep, except for the fact that this is the way the IH seasons always end. (The battle at Seacaster Manor was so close to the end too, this battle feels especially redundant.) This season has been so strong in terms of mystery, role play, and character development. They could have come up with a really emotional and fun conclusion that was based on role play instead of combat.

I would argue that a lot of times D20 is good not because of DnD, but in spite of it. Or rather, D20 works because it recognizes DnD’s inherent flaws (generic fantasy world building, a lack of story mechanics, a self seriousness that can be irritating) and leverages the talent of its cast and crew to counter act those issues (creative genre usage and world building, Brennan’s strong sense of story structure and character arc, the players’ incredible comedic chops). Which means the uncreative decision to reduce this season’s most interesting and developed antagonists to canon fodder feels especially out of place. We just ceded all this great story work to DnD’s insistence on thoughtless violence, and quite frankly, it sucked!

Not to mention that this whole thing seems to go totally against the established themes of the season. So much of this season was about maintaining relationships in the face of anger and stress. It was about redeeming gods who were corrupted by rage. It was about the thin line between vengeance and justice and mystery and fear. What does it say if we drop all of that, and tell the rat grinders that they deserve to die because they were manipulated into rage?

My condolences to everyone who invested fannish energy in the Rat Grinders. They deserved the fan art and fic and meta you made about them. And they deserved better than that battle.

[usernamesuggestionsarefunny]

Possibly unpopular opinion (Or perhaps not idk): I love what they have done with Zuko and Ozai's relationship in the live action Netflix Avatar show.

In the cartoon we never get the ~vibes~ that Zuko has a complicated relationship with his father, only that it is abusive and one-sided in the sense only Zuko craves Ozai's approval, while Ozai straight up hates him, wants him dead or has no problem with him dying (Why doesn't he kill him if he has Azula? We don't know, plot has to happen, he sent Zuko to find the avatar in order to get rid of him, probably, or actually canon idk or remember), clearly prefers Azula to him as successor, etc, etc, etc (+ later the comics literally overkilled this trend "she was born lucky while..." omg stfu). Zuko is basically the perfect character to prove the fire nation is not all evil (Oh look, they hate him too, he is inherently their victim too from the very beginning).

So when Zuko switches sides in the cartoon, what I see as an adult rewatching is someone giving up on luxory, physical safety and... that is pretty much it. Sure it is a big deal to give up on those things to do what is right (Few would) and still awesome that he did the right thing in the end, but if you really think about it, he is not giving up that much, he is not giving up anything truly valuable to him. Respect? Honor? Sure he is said to have received it back after Azula "killed" Aang, but we never truly see it. For all intents and purposes his sister has that and wayyy more of it. His father's love and acceptance? Never had it, so he didn't truly "loose it" when he spoke up for those soldiers, got the scar and was banished, it is not really shown to have suddenly popped into existence when he was said to have killed the avatar. He literally had nothing in the fire nation, literally nothing. This could only make "doing the right thing" a lot easier for him, and for the adult audience (At least for me), his arc is just him realizing what is almost irritatingly obvious for us: That no one in the fire nation truly loves and respects him so might as well switch sides (Basically if we weren't also shown that Zuko is compassionate and does care about the horrible things the fire nation is doing, Ember Island Players would have gotten a bit of truth in it).

Now, in the live action, where do I even start? It has been so good so far when it comes to Ozai and Zuko. That man, if he hated Zuko in a cartoonishly evil way almost from birth, he sure doesn't show it. Don't get me wrong, he is just as abusive (Creepily so in many scenes, made me feel so protective of Zuko and Azula), but he is also shown to "care" about Zuko as in having some hope left that he can mold him into another powerful genocidal mini me. Is Azula winning by far? Ofc, she is still the prodigy, I am sure I am going to see flashbacks of favoritism later on. But Ozai doesn't yet seem to favor her in a way that makes Zuko's craving for his approval (Or even Ozai's hope in him as heir) hopeless. It seems, from his scenes with Azula, that Ozai foments the rivalry and competition between the two siblings not only because he personally thinks Azula is the best (Which he also might in this version), but also as a way of control through fear (Especially for prodigy Azula), and to make them (Especially comparatively weaker Zuko) "better", something this version of Ozai appears to think is possible EVEN when he banishes Zuko. Now, he might have done this "to get rid of him" as in the original, but in the live action he seems super open to and genuinely believe the idea that the exile could make Zuko stronger and better, not to mention worthy of the throne if he succeeds. Ozai treats Zuko like the heir despite favoring Azula is all I am saying. Zuko's actions are therefore almost impossible, yes, but not hopeless or even naive. And if this trend of Ozai's respect and "love" (Super on quotes) being achievable continues, Zuko's eventual turn to the good side will be much more powerful. He will have to give up much more after spending a summer with his abusive parent love bombing him for "killing" the avatar. Zuko's choice will be solely based on his findings about the horrors the fire nation has committed and not wanting to be the cause of more suffering even though he could have it all. Even though it was his fate to be his father's "mini me"-> Something terrifyingly likely and not so quickly discarded by the narrative itself as it was in the animated series.

I think the best part about this subtle change in the father-son dynamic (If it was the intention of the writers, I am aware it could have been unintended) is that the scar tm was a direct result of Zuko's compassion for those soldiers and not just the excuse Ozai used to banish him or "final straw" because he preferred Azula sooo much more, as it is pretty much implied later on in the animated series and comics by focusing so much on how much of a perfect victim Zuko was pretty much from birth. The addition of the 41st surviving because of Zuko was also pretty nice, and so is Zuko's relationship with them, he will need fire nation allies when he gets to the throne and this is a good start, something the animated series never touched upon much.

I am on episode 6 btw so my opinion might change. I will edit this post if that is the case. BUT my thoughts on these first scenes doesn't change, they are good imho

EDIT (And spoilers): I just watched Zhao’s revelation where he tells Zuko that Ozai would never let him return and he just wanted to use him to motivate Azula. It does change things and invalidates most of what I said, but taking out just this one scene, as I said, the Ozai-Zuko dynamic is great in this show, and also, Zhao is obviously not the most reliable source, because he was allied to Azula and obviously wanted to hurt Zuko, as he was losing the fight with him. There is also the fact that Azula wasn't watching Ozai and Zuko when Ozai told his son that he was being banished and that it was in part so he could get stronger etc, that was all for Zuko and had little way of serving as motivation for Azula (Unlike the scenes where Ozai praises Zuko in front of her, those could have totally been him bullshitting his daughter to motivate her to work even harder). So all in all this scene doesn't ruin the overall impression I had of the Ozai-Zuko father-son dynamic in the life action show. In fact, it could be taken to confirm one of my impressions which was that Ozai likes pitying his children against each other to push them harder.

EDIT 2: Ozai's reaction to Zuko's possible death is further proof imo that his “test” was very much real (even if almost impossible) and everything I said earlier still stands. He wouldn't mind that much if he died, it would just prove his “weakness”, and he is very pleased with Azula, but he didn't look happy or even indifferent when he learned the news.

[rickktish]

Occasionally the contrast between the woobification of Jason Todd and the demonization of Damian Wayne makes me want to commit acts of untold violence.

Like, two of bruce’s kids have “tried to kill” tim. One spent a decent amount of his life being taught to care for and value others and to serve them, went through an incredibly traumatic experience, came back and decided to go full scorched earth on those he believed wronged him while he was gone. The other was raised in an extremely abusive environment and taught that his only value came from things outside his control and that if he wasn’t superior to everyone then he was inherently inferior. He came to his father’s house at a time of severe upheaval, with little to no experience with any kind of unmixed kindness, and felt the need to secure his position (i.e. make himself safe) by removing a competitor for that security, and later learned that person had a contingency plan to deal with him and retaliated out of fear. One of these guys was in his late teens when he caused grievous bodily injury to a younger opponent who had only enacted symbolic harm of which he (tim) was unaware of having caused. The other was prepubescent when he attacked someone more than half again his age out of a combination of fear and a belief that that was the correct and appropriate way to deal with a competitor for your personal position of security and safety because he was literally taught to kill before losing most of his baby teeth.

Guess who gets justified by the fandom and has dozens or more fics where the entire plot is specifically about tim forgiving him? Spoiler alert: it’s not the literal child from the death cult who’s been abused and manipulated by every single adult in his life until his arrival in Gotham.

Guess who gets portrayed as being somehow inherently evil, even biologically so, and utterly irredeemable no matter what he does? Spoiler alert: it’s not the grown ass man who had a whole villain arc before his public popularity elevated him to anti-hero status.

Edit: added quotation marks around “tried to kill” because somebody said Jason never tried to kill tim and I think what they meant was that he wasn’t approaching the situation with intent to actually murder him, only cause him grievous bodily harm, which i’m too tired after work rn to try to chase down atm. But also because regardless of whether or not Jason attacked tim with homicidal intent, this post is discussing fan interpretation used specifically and prolifically in fanfiction, which does tend to view Jason’s actions as falling under the umbrella of “trying to kill” tim. So. I don’t just want to wholesale remove those words. Perhaps I could simply alter them to say that “two of Bruce’s kids have enacted greivous bodily harm upon Tim intentionally, willfully, and with malice aforethought” but again. Most people just kind of call it “trying to kill tim.” So. Idk

[tommyssupercoolblog]

This is a vent post probably no one's going to care about and i haven't slept all night (it's 4 am now) so there's prolly typos. but like.... I like Angel Dust and I Like Poison from Hazbin Hotel, but SO MANY COMMENTS on YouTube refer to the general idea of prostitution (or even "sleeping around" without pay!!! Like just being dtf!!!) as self-harm and it's pissing me off.

There's nothing wrong with having lots of sex, yes even with people you don't know very well or people who are paying you- when you CONSENT.

Angel Dust is being ABUSED by a guy who literally owns him, and on top of that has no way to screen or refuse clients. This isn't "just sex work"- nothing about this is inherent to the premise of him having sex or shooting porn for money- it's abuse WITHIN his line of work, it's RAPE because he can't say no and can't call the shots and can't even refuse to see a client again. Angel Dust has no autonomy in this situation- after he signed he was kept like a pet.

Sex work isn't bad inherently, it's bad when you as a worker have no legal rights or protections to help you stay safe (which sex workers in many parts of the world don't since sex work being criminalized prevents them from doing things like persecuting someone who crossed boundaries, or even just being able to have legal "protections" outside of just getting arrested for their field of work even if it's what they want to do. And of course they get killed and abused by cops too because they're criminals and cops are SHIT), when you're working under a pimp like angel works under Valentino, or when you are forced into it due to poverty or other circumstances and don't want to be there.

As for sleeping around being self harm...first of all, cut off the goddamn slut shaming. Second of all, yes maybe some people lie about wanting sex (NOT in CNC, that's just actual consent with noncon roleplay) as a way of self harming. But nothing about liking to fuck is self harm in itself. Those specific people might need help but not every neighborhood whore needs a redemption arc- maybe they actually love themselves and just like to fuck??!!!!!

At this rate a part of me hopes that after Angel fucking murders Valentino or otherwise gets freed, he still does sex work in some capacity but in a healthy way where he's happy and able to negotiate for what he's willing to do and when- just so people will stop acting like "sex work is always bad and all sex workers want to be freed" is the only takeaway here. If he doesn't I'm not going to be mad or anything of course, and if that's not the vision for his character then that's not the vision. But it'd certainly help make comment threads less....victim blamey and awful.

There's a good philosophy tube video on Sex Work as well, with interviews included- and there's probably sex workers here on Tumblr you can talk to. But just please stop acting like being a prostitute is self harm inherently.

If I see one more post like "I love Angel Dust because people don't talk about how being slutty is just self destructive" or "Poison is such a good rep of why sex work is so disgusting and shouldnt be allowed" I'M GOING TO FUCKING BREAK SOMETHING.

If you want to protect sex workers, listen to them and help them campaign for legalization (because again they need it for safety and to ensure they can protect themselves from clients) and other things they might need. But for the love of GOD don't act like it's some inherent evil that's always abusive because, ironically, that's the shit that makes it so easy for abuse to happen in that field in the first fucking place.

[nextstopparis]

actually you know. the 5.05 conversation is horrible the worst so frustrating and wretched to sit through i want to rip my hair out and sob interesting because arthur sort of… does go through an arc while trying to parse out what merlin’s thinking? and he gets so so so close but ultimately decides to leave it alone for some reason? like, okay.

at first, after he asks for merlins opinion, merlin only gives him vague answers. he says things like wanting “a fair and just kingdom for all” and wanting arthur to “become the king [he’s] destined to be” without clearly stating (to arthur) what he believes a fair and just kingdom for all means. who it encompasses. what kind of king arthur is destined to be. what that destiny entails.

we know, obviously, but arthur doesnt. its always interested me how when merlin says “a fair and just kingdom for all” arthur automatically takes that to mean that merlin is telling him to turn magic away. like, its just vague enough that for arthur, who doesn’t consider magic users to be in the equation, who does not consider them as part of his people in order to incorporate their needs and stuff within his laws, it means to not accept the disirs demands. but for literally anyone without those prejudices, without that life long indoctrination and belief, it could also be taken for all. like. all all. everyone. including sorcerers. so while merlin is saying one thing, arthur takes it to mean something else completely—and merlin. doesn’t correct him. just makes another statement that could mean two very different things depending on how much context you have.

anyway. my point is that, at this point, arthur was mostly thinking of legalizing magic as a means to an end. something he must do to save one of his men. like obviously he’s considering the consequences it would bring and exactly just how significant of a thing it would be but… he’s not really doubting his view on magic at this point.

but then he asks merlin if sorcery reigning once more is what merlin would want. he looks at merlin closer. sees how tense and silent he is. probably sees his glassy eyes and just how uncomfortable he looks. then he changes his stance. up until this point, a fair and just kingdom for everyone meant the exclusion of tolerating magic. up until this point, those two things were just obviously/inherently mutually exclusive to arthurs mind. but then he sees merlin and changes tactic. says, well, “maybe my father was wrong” and “maybe the old ways aren’t as evil as we once thought”. starts looking at merlin intently and admitting that perhaps theres another angle to this (an angle that, whenever he has started to consider, hes been immediately turned away from).

which i thought was interesting. idk. everyone always like HOW DID ARTHUR NOT SEE!!! and like. same. but also i think he did see?

[goblins-riddles-or-frocks]

He is a villain who thinks he is a hero in a believable way which i think a lot of authors can't do properly. I can see his thought process AND I can see that it is fucked.

Also he does do a lot of work in ruling the country? Like before Alina came along he was almost always working, at least that is what is implied idk.

Also this probably you might not agree with but I think he was loyal to his goal till the end i.e. he genuinely did want to make the world safer for grisha till the end. He sucked at it and his methods would have failed and everything but i think that's what he WANTED most of all.

Your "kicking puppy" line made me remember the statement Leigh gave when she said that if she wanted everyone to just purely hate the Darkling, she would have made him kick puppies and kill children. So she changed her mind later i suppose lmao. Because he most certainly was killing children.

I think he’s pretty consistent through the story tbqh! I feel like people say he’s OOC evil by the end, but he’s about as cruel, and if anything, more humanized by the third book. That’s when we get the name reveal, when we get the few scenes of genuine vulnerability he has with Alina. Whereas any positive scene they had in S&B was based in manipulation, like they are actually connecting by that last book. I just really don’t think there was any sudden shift.

But yeah, I have to say I partially agree? Partially disagree? Like I do think it’s integral to the plot, the series’ themes, and Alina’s own arc, that he did genuinely start out with values close to her own. That he meant well, but just took means to an end morality so far, and became so corrupt in his old age and isolation, that his views became warped over time. That that is something Alina might herself fear turning into.

The series’ main point is the corruption inherent to power. I wish it did more with it! It’s clumsily handled lol. But I think that is like the very heart of the story. And so the Darkling, as a foil to Alina, must start out as someone genuinely attempting to act towards the greater good. But then, similarly, I think he must completely lose sight of his morals by the end, and be only concerned with self interest and simply accumulating more power.

I see the argument a lot that, by canon, he’s still primarily concerned with protecting Grisha, but we don’t really see him work towards that beyond claiming he’s going to? Like sure, the Little Palace exists, and he’s made Ravka into a relative safe haven. But those are past choices. In the present, what does he actually do?

If his main motivation was from a genuine desire to protect, then I just think he’d be less focused on killing anyone who does not immediately side with him lol. Like I think he was probably still telling himself that he must have more power *for the greater good* just because that’s what he’s thought for so long. The real desire is just for power.

Anyway yeah, he’s complex! I don’t think either side of the fandom really acknowledge that depth because they have particular biases and preferences for what the story should have been about.

[ilikepjo24]

Azula's character was written for redemption...

So, as some of you may know, Aaron Ehasz was the headwriter and co-executive producer of the first two seasons of Avatar the last Airbender, so by all means, he had a lot of say about the creation of the characters and the 2/3rds of their development, or in some cases, 1/2nds. It's safe to say that next to nobody knows those characters and their purposes as well as he does.

And as some of you also know, after the show had ended, Ehasz made a tweet, publicly announcing that he always intended for Azula to have a redemption arc. Always. It wasn't a last minute decision, it was the end goal from the beginning. Which means that, naturally, in order to create a plotline that doesn't feel forced or odd, Ehasz needed to write a character that always had the potential to be redeemed. He couldn't create an irredeemable character and try to redeem them later. It wouldn't make sense.

Which is why Azula's character always was and still is a perfectly redeemable character.

I genuinely believe that the people that can't see that, simply fail to understand Azula's intentions.

I've had conversations with people that have had perfect understanding of Azula's state of mind, personality and actions, but still failed to understand why she's so redeemable, because they didn't understand her intentions. And I don't blame them for not understanding. You can look at Azula's character all you want, and you still won't see it. Because it isn't just about Azula. It's about the Fire Nation as a whole.

The thing about the Fire Nation is that they genuinely believe they are doing something that is good. It's not just a bunch of people that saw the opportunity to do something evil and did it for fun. Sozin did something evil for power and then gaslighted entire generations into believing they were going something good. The Fire Nation is a bunch of people that think they are doing something good.

In Azula's case, I drew a picture to help you understand.

(Disclaimer: Ozai's crown isn't historically accurate.)

As you can see in the picture, yes, at the end of the day, Azula does bad stuff, but not because she recognizes they are bad and genuinely wants to do then just because. She's s victim of manipulation from an adult she had every reason to trust and brainwashed by the same propaganda that controlled the rest of the nation.

So yes, she did bad stuff and she's a villain.

But she is redeemable.

Every time we see Azula try hard to complete a mission, she's passionate about it. She's passionate to do the "right" thing and she's passionate to make the person that loves her proud. That's why she doesn't evil stuff. It's not because she enjoys pain. It's not because she gets off on people suffering. It's because she thinks it's right, and she's rewarded with love.

Which is what makes her redeemable.

Because being passionate about doing something you think is right means you want to do right things. You just need your view of right to align with what's objectively right. So by that logic, all Azula needs is someone to teach her what is actually right and her views will align with that, and then she'd be passionate about doing the real right thing. The good stuff.

And someone that would do that for her, is someone who would obviously love her, or at the very least, someone who wants the best for her. So with time, it's logical to assume that sooner or later, she'll want to make this person proud.

There's nothing wrong with Azula's mentality of "do good, make proud". It's not inherently evil. Just easy to use. Right now, Ozai has used this to fill the blanks and turn the situation into "do fire nation good, make father proud". All Azula needs to be redeemed is for someone to remove the "fire nation" and "father" proud. Assuming that this person is Zuko, he should just switch it to "do what is considered good on a worldwide level, make brother proud" and just like that, Azula has gone from evil to good.

It's obviously easier said than done, but it is possible. Azula's mentality is what allows her to be anything, evil and good. It's really impressive and fascinating how Ehasz wrote such a character, but he did it for a purpose. This kind of mentality is perfect for creating an evil character that gets redeemed. And it's the exact same mentality Zuko also has. And Zuko hot redeemed, so Azula can too.

This proven.

[deadite-central]

Time for some more Fishman Island gushing/thoughts because like I said, I love this arc

The entire flashback shows us different reactions to the racism that fishmen face. How different people deal with it, how it shapes their lives, their morals, their dreams. On one hand we have Fisher Tiger, who cannot bring himself to love humans, and refuses to let human blood be transfused to him, even if it meant he died. However, he doesn’t let that shape how he interacts with the world. He still lets Koala on the ship because he knows that no child deserves to be a slave. No one deserves that life. Then, you have Arlong, who believes that all of this justifies his utter hatred for humanity, how they should be the ones to suffer like he and the other fishmen did. While it makes sense why someone like Arlong would come out of the environment he was in, it doesn’t change the fact that what he did to Nami’s village was absolutely vile.

And finally, Queen Otohime. She understands that a war with humanity is going to bring them nowhere, and instead, she wants to change the world using political power. She takes a bullet for a celestial dragon because she doesn’t want all of the chances fishmen have for a better tomorrow be ruined. Something she had no idea would in the future save her daughter’s life. Otohime believes that they need to work for a better future, to show their children that hatred isn’t the way, because those very children are the ones who will shape the world when they’re older. She might have been an idealist who hadn’t shown enough care for the Fishman District, but her efforts were very real.

Back to the present, Hody gets an absolute reality check when the people of Fishman Island would rather have their home destroyed than let him rule it. It’s not like he cares about the people of the Island either way. But then Luffy comes swinging, absolutely perfectly landing a kick, starting the fight

And finally, the Straw Hats are altogether (even with Jinbei, who only joins them in the future, which I find lovely) ready to take on the New Fishmen Pirates, but also allowing the people to choose for themselves if they are the good guys. Luffy has no intention of parading himself and the Straw Hats as heroes, because what he cares about is freedom, including the freedom to choose what you see him as

Onto the fight with Hody himself, we find out more about his view of the world: he doesn’t actually care about fishmen. He only wants to get divine revenge for what they went through. He needs humans to be inherently evil to justify his conquest for blood, and he couldn’t give less of a shit how many fishmen die in the process. Humans never actually hurt him, but he was raised in an environment that made him believe all of this. This is how he, and many others in the fishmen district lived. That’s why you can’t just abandon a group of people into a district and let their hate brew.

Luffy finally defeats him in the end, once again completely disproving Hody’s and Arlong’s belief that fishmen are inherently stronger than humans, and after a few more problems taken care of (including Shirahoshi talking to the Neptunians) Fishman Island is saved by a human who doesn’t even consider himself a hero

Getting back to the comedy, my favorite gag gets brought back, and in a great way too. Because Big Mom gets introduced, and holy hell is she terrifying here. Luffy obviously doesn’t care, cause he’s Luffy, and talks back to her, finally resulting in saying he’ll defeat her, and the payoff for that will come much, much later

And to finish things of, just like Otohime believed, the children are the future, and they already have different views than their powers. Because while sure, there are still terrible humans, the Celestial Dragons exist, and surface isn’t completely safe. But there are people like Luffy, who the kids themselves see as their hero. And with the fishman district kids also getting another chance, maybe soon fishmen will be able to live their lives without the fear they used to have

[seoafin]

not to be gushy and sappy on main but hell's paradise is so incredibly special to me for being a narrative about love and friendship and compassion. every single character loves so much and instead of being punished by the narrative for it in the name of being a 'dark' manga it saves almost every character's life. and for the characters it doesn't save, their deaths are so thoughtful and infinitely more meaningful than any other shonen dark manga which likes to kill off characters for shock value. every character's character arc is spurred by love because of the way it irrevocably changes them and how their motivations are shaped around it and their relationships with one another. the characters are only brought closer by the fact that the original stratification of criminals vs. punishers is meant to emphasize the dichotomy of good vs bad but they're all brought together by the universality of what it means to love someone else. the goodness and sacrifice and doubt it brings out in you. the manga humanizes those who have been condemned by society (those who don't follow the arbitrary rules of society) and points out the social conditions and hierarchies that exist to perpetuate cycles of abuse and isolate individuals to be cast out by society and says that nobody is born that way. nobody is born evil (which directly opposes shugen's philosophy and rigid standards of good and evil) in the end it's about the inherent goodness of human nature and why it'll always win. im so sick. im going to cry.

[shadelorde]

1, 6 and 7 for the choose violence ask game

1. the character everyone gets wrong

I was going to say Raava and Vaatu, but unfortunately I think that doesn’t count because I’m comparing to my own convoluted headcanons, not canon. Although I think they’d be far more interesting if Raava was treated as an unreliable narrator and LoK explored more on Vaatu’s impact on the seasons past 2.

As far as fandom vs canon, I’d say Azula. I find the two popular stances on her are either that she’s inherently evil and deserves the awful ending she had, or that she’s an innocent cinnamon roll who did nothing wrong. I find both stances to be pretty ableist-because one demonizes her, especially with the kind of language and arguments those fans use, and the other infantilizes her. I think she’s a far more complex character than that.

6. which ship fans are the most annoying?

I have to say that most popular ships in the AtLA fandom have really insufferable fanbases (except sukka, which I find to be really chill), but Zutara fans bother me the most.

7. what character did you begin to hate not because of canon but because of how the fandom acts about them?

Hmmm I must say Zuko, unfortunately </3. I do love him still but his fanon self is incredibly out of character-I fear he suffers HARDCORE infantilization from his fans. Either that, or people treat him like he’s an irredeemable shitbag and redemption arcs are Bad actually in retaliation to the first fans. So I guess I don’t hate Zuko, but I dread all conversation about him.