#which is saying something because I usually dislike majority of the characters

[okurrroye]

Just watched the bear and now I have no clue how I’m going to survive without them until season 3

[prettyinpwn]

Mabel Pines: How Well Was She Written... Really? (GF Writing Analysis Pt. 3)

GF Writing Analysis Series: Pt. 1 - Ford Pines: A Masterclass in Writing a Good Flawed Character Pt. 2 - How Gravity Falls Could Have Been Better + Poor Ford and Wendy

Like my previous post in my GF Writing Analysis series, I am a bit nervous to post this, to be honest. I love this fandom, but there are two main topics in it that tend to draw the most debate: A. how Gravity Falls ended and its length/pacing, and B. Mabel's writing.

I already tackled the former in my last post, so today, I'm tackling the latter: Mabel. I like to live fandom life on the wild side, what can I say?

Let me preface this post by saying that I am very neutral on Mabel as a fan. I never especially liked her, and I never especially disliked her. It's nothing against Mabel. I'm just personally more drawn to characters like Stan and Ford the most, and if I'm honest, the only reason I'm drawn to Dipper more than Mabel is likely because I relate to him more.

*Gestures at, you know, this blog's over a decade long history of theorycrafting and analyses.*

So... I'm coming at this post with a very neutral eye and an open mind, and like my other analyses, it will be based as much as possible on writing theory I learned in college and over the years in personal study.

But unlike Ford's post, where I already had a viewpoint in mind and wrote it around proving that thesis, Mabel's is going to be more exploratory, and I will reach a conclusion at the end. Is Mabel really that badly written? Is she written pretty well with just some flaws? Or... is she actually a really well-written character and just misunderstood?

Let's discover the answer together.

Mabel's Introduction + Who is She?

I will quote my general method of analyzing character writing from my Ford analysis post to start:

"When I took writing classes in college (and over years of writing in general and drooling over writing advice podcasts and blogs), I found that the best method for me, personally, when it comes to crafting characters is to focus on two major things:

1. Their want.

2. Their need. On the surface, these look like the same things, but in character writing, they can be vastly different. For example, say that you have a character that greatly desires fame and recognition. They want these things.

But what’s the real reason behind it? Is it because they had a parent that was famous and want to live up to their example? Is it because they want to be adored by people? Is it because they were told they’d never amount to anything by someone and want to prove them wrong?

This real reason behind it all is the core need. Yes, they want fame and recognition, but they need it because, say, they have low self-esteem and need copious amounts of outside validation to boost it.

Tied to this need is usually a backstory reason (sometimes called their wound). Say your hypothetical character was bullied a lot as a child. Or abused by a parent. Etc. Whatever the wound was, it caused a big, painful hole in their heart that they try to fill and fix with their want.

So they go on a journey. The want is often the external journey. The need is often the core journey / character arc. Our example character seeks fame and recognition on an external journey, but deep inside, they realize they need something else, which is to understand that their past trauma/wound doesn’t define them, and fame and recognition will not be the balm they expect it will be. Often, they realize they had what they needed all along. They grow past their flaws associated with their seeking this want through understanding and instead pursuing the need."

So... what is Mabel's core want and need as a character? And what's her wound? Who is she? Let's identify these things by looking closely at the very first episode, Tourist Trapped. Tourist Trapped establishes the following things about Mabel:

Optimistic; likes to look on the bright side of things. ("Yay, GRAAAAAASSS!", "Check out all my splinters!").

Go with the flow / easy-going / accepts things at face value. ("Yes, you can keep chewing on my sweater!", learns Norman is a bunch of gnomes and instead of punting them immediately she tries to gently turn them down).

Romance obsessed. No examples needed. *Gestures at whole series.*

Assumes the best in people / accepting of others. (e.g Norman).

Naive / overly trusting (e.g Norman again).

Cares about her family (protecting Dipper).

Clever (ever notice how she tricks the gnomes almost like how Stan tricks Bill near the end of the series?).

(Quick side note because this part always blows my mind: Tourist Trapped is a microcosm of the whole series, by the way. Two siblings get into an argument, one gets swept into the paranormal, and the other saves them from it. The former tricks the paranormal in a clever way to stop the paranormal threat from harming them both, and the two make up at the end and go on more adventures. Sound familiar?)

Back to Mabel, let's identify her core want and need and wound from her character traits. I struggled a long time with identifying this, because Mabel seems like such a laid back character that it's harder to pin these down for her compared to, say, Ford (false validation given to use me vs. honest but selfless love) and Stan (earning worth vs. knowing inherent worth). But I think I pinned it down...

Yins and Yangs

And guess what? Hers and Dipper's wants and needs match Stan and Ford's, but not in the way you think. Dipper has Stan's struggle, and Mabel has Ford's. Just like how Tourist Trapped is a microcosm of the whole series where one twin gets whisked away into the weird (Ford and Mabel) and the other needs to save them from it (Stan and Dipper)... their wants and needs are the same.

Granted, it manifests in different ways. Using Ford as an example, Ford's want is love and acceptance, but in a "praise me and my science and my accomplishments and accept me for who I am" way. Mabel's want is love and acceptance, but in a "must find boyfriend and keep loved ones close" way. Or in another way of explaining it, Ford desires introverted love, and Mabel desires outgoing love; makes sense for their characters. Ford is a Mabel if she were an introvert, and vice versa. Just like how Stan is a Dipper if he were an extrovert, and vice versa.

So... yeah. Ford and Mabel are the same character... sort of. Because as much as Ford pursues the unknown, Mabel pursues love (both romantic and familial). And Stan and Dipper are the twins that chase after them, anchoring them back to reality, sometimes even literally.

And that's where we come to the concept of balance, AKA why the twins are good for each other. You ever notice how the Pines at their worst is always when they're alone? Stan alone is a depressed criminal. Ford alone is both paranoid and naive. Dipper alone is insecure and pessimistic. And Mabel alone is also too trusting like Ford and delusional.

What fixes this? Their twin. Stan with Ford is happy and with purpose again, Ford with Stan is protected (thanks to Stan's people smarts) and grounded, Dipper with Mabel is more confident and optimistic, and Mabel with Dipper is protected (thanks to Dipper's logical smarts) and realistic.

THAT'S why the show had Mabel and Dipper stick together at the end. THAT'S why there was such an emphasis on why Stan and Ford being apart caused so many issues. THAT'S why Dipper chose to stay with Mabel over the apprenticeship. Because time and time again, the show states the thesis that a Pines without their twin is a dysfunctional Pines. Agree with it or not, that's the theme with their characters.

Because - and I say this lovingly - the Pines are kind of stupid at times without their twins. Stan's purposeless and turns to crime, Ford's too naive and trusting, Dipper's too pessimistic, and Mabel's too optimistic. Ford gives Stan purpose, Stan gives Ford some actual common sense, Mabel gives Dipper some needed levity, and... Dipper gives Mabel a reality check (GEE, I WONDER WHY MABEL'S WEIRDMAGEDDON EPISODE WAS CALLED 'ESCAPE FROM REALITY', AND WHY DIPPER WAS THE ONE TO BREAK HER FROM IT? *Cough beats people over the head with a theme but somehow people still didn't get it cough.*).

Sorry, Caps Lock rant aside, honestly, I should just make a chart to explain the Pines. We'll be using four scales: introverted (I) vs. extroverted (E), gravity (G) vs. levity (L), active (A) vs. reactive (R), and book smart (B) vs. people smart (P).

(Yes, we're gonna make our own Gravity Falls Myers-Briggs, because I'm that insane.)

This system also reflects the Pines on a layer level: Stan and Mabel's outside personas (E and P) seem more similar, but their cores are different (GR vs LA); the same goes for Ford and Dipper (shared outside persona of I and B, but different cores of LA and GR).

This is why, in the fandom, we often look superficially at the Pines and say, "Dipper is the Ford twin because smart nerds, and Mabel is the Stan twin because outgoing fun ones". No, my friends: Dipper is the Stan twin, and Mabel is the Ford twin. Dipper is just Stan in a Ford coating, and Mabel is just Ford in a Stan coating.

We'll come back to this later for the next section, but for now, let's focus on answering the main question: is Mabel written badly, or is she written well?

Well... she has core wants (fun and love and escapism and childhood). She has a need (reality and gravity and facing the future). And... well, they never really explored her wound AKA her reason why she desires these things like they did for Stan and Ford.

But... my guess is that reality has often wounded her and popped her bubble in the past (maybe bullying at school, hence her desire to not face growing up alone without Dipper), so she avoids it in order to keep her optimistic fantasy alive to avoid pain. Just like... I dunno... that whole episode that centered around that thing called Mabeland? Metaphors, people.

So so far, Mabel checks the same boxes as my earlier analysis on why Ford is a well-written character:

Want? Check. Need? Check. Realizes she had what she needed all along (Dipper to ground her)? Check. And our last point, I'll refer back to my quote from earlier: "They [well-written character] grow past their flaws associated with their seeking this want through understanding and instead pursuing the need."

Yeah. Mabel has flaws, associated with her pursuing her wants. They manifest in that, yeah, sometimes she's selfish. And that's the flaw most people in the fandom have criticized her for.

But guess what? ALL of the Pines are selfish at times.

Stan? Ford gets captured in Weirdmageddon and Stan - although we get why he's bitter - is reluctant to save him again.

Ford? Ford received a college grant and made no attempts to reach out to Stan who was poor and struggling - although we understand why Ford was bitter, too - and reaches out to Stan not to make amends but to ask him to do him a favor.

Dipper? Probably the least selfish of the Pines, but still... at times he's selfish, too. The Time Traveler's Pig explores this. He repeatedly rewrote the day of the fair because he wanted a chance to be with a girl we know he never would have gotten with anyways. Did he think about what Wendy wanted when he did that? No. Did he think about what Mabel wanted? Well, no, at least until the end, but the moral of that episode is that Dipper learned to sacrifice his selfish want to make someone else happy.

So if people dislike Mabel for being selfish, well... they should dislike all of the Pines, then. And there are times she gives up her wants for Dipper, too, albeit shown less often. She trashes her sock puppet show - her chance at impressing a guy and compromising her core want of love - to save him, inspired by all the times he sacrificed for her. She lets go of a land of perfection and her delusion - albeit one that really wasn't real - to help him fix Weirdmageddon and save Ford.

Because here's the thing: a well-written character has flaws. There'd be no story if they didn't. A character without flaws has no arc and is poorly written. Mabel - just like the other Pines - is flawed and that's great. Because it means... she's well-written. I'll quote my post on Ford again:

"This is why Ford is a well-written character. He has flaws and suffers for them until he makes up for his mistakes. They are understandable flaws, but like in real life, just because it’s understandable why we act poorly at times - be it because of trauma or upbringing - it doesn’t mean we’re justified in continuing to hurt others or ourselves because of those flaws. We must acknowledge them, grow past them, and do our best to do better in the future, as well as apologize to those we hurt along the way."

Just like Ford, Mabel has flaws - albeit understandable ones based on who she is and her history - and she suffers for them. But in Escape From Reality, she acknowledges them, grows past them, and does her best to do better in the future.

As for the other hate on her I've often seen, including the way she gave the Rift over to Blendin/Bill... my friends... she did the same thing Ford did. And the flaw Bill took advantage of to do this was the same flaw she had in Tourist Trapped: her naivety.

Bill: "Hey, naive Pines twin, I have something you want (for summer to never end / validation and knowledge). Just give me something (the Rift / possession and build this portal) and I'll let you have it. I swear I'm innocent and on your side and have your best interests at heart!"

Bill is a master manipulator. So if we don't judge Ford for the way he was manipulated at the age of his late twenties, then why the hell do we as a fandom judge Mabel for falling for the same trick as a 12 year old?

And so we return to Tourist Trapped. Mabel's flaw in that episode was the same as the flaw she had by the end of the series. Drawn into a fantasy, lacking realism and logic about it, sibling saves her, apology to sibling, and working together to fix the mess. The difference is, is scale and stakes, and at the end of the series, it's a permanent change of growth. Mabel learns to accept reality; that life won't always be love and rainbows and sunshine, and that's okay.

I also want to highlight how the Pines' flaws are often their greatest strengths, too. Dipper often pops Mabel's fun bubble with his pessimism and realism; sometimes it rains on her parade, and sometimes it breaks her out of a delusion. And vice versa: Mabel often is too optimistic and naive, and that leads to Dipper having to save her from some manipulations and delusions, but sometimes she's the one who lifts him up when he needs it and he's too pessimistic and insecure. Case in point, Gideon Rises, where Dipper insists he needs Journal 3 after Stan takes it, and Mabel tells him, "You're a hero whether you've got that journal or not.".

And as for the hate on her "holding Dipper back from his apprenticeship", I'll quote this here, said by Mabel after Dipper convinces her to leave Mabeland:

"Hey, Dipper? I appreciate what you said back there, but if you want to take Ford's apprenticeship, I won't get in your way."

She offers him a compromise; she allows him to go for it. Because she learned her lesson of accepting the reality that, sometimes, people grow apart instead of things staying the same forever. She's become selfless. And at that point, it was Dipper's responsibility and choice to take it or not.

So if you're upset that Mabel "held Dipper back", no. She gave him room to leave, and he said no and stayed. If he'd wanted it that badly, he'd have gone for Ford's apprenticeship. And remember the series' thesis on the Pines I stated earlier:

"A Pines without their twin is a dysfunctional Pines. Agree with it or not, that's the theme with their characters."

So... we've now arrived at our conclusion about Mabel's writing based on the points we've explored above:

Once and for all, and I'll bold and make this big to emphasize my point, because I hope it quells some of the Mabel dislike: Mabel is a well-written character. She's flawed, yes, but that's the point. So... Why the Mabel Hate, Then?

There have been some ideas thrown around as to why Mabel has received extra scrutiny compared to the other Pines characters. One theory that's been thrown around is her gender, as she's the only female character of the four Pines, although I would lean towards that this isn't the likely main cause, due to the fact that there are other female characters that are liked in this fandom. Wendy receives little to no hate that I've ever seen (and in fact, I mostly see wishes to have gotten more writing featuring her character). Pacifica is liked, especially when it comes to shipping her with Dipper. So... why Mabel, specifically?

I would argue it's not her gender, specifically, but more her femininity. Mabel is very stereotypically "girly". Wendy is a tomboy, and Pacifica - although "girly" - is more of an aggressive character before her growth. Mabel is feminine and passive. She also is into many stereotypically "girly" things, like romance, knitting, crafts, etc. So people that are uncomfortable with the stereotypically feminine might have a subtle, unconscious "ick" reaction to Mabel for that reason.

And... combine Wendy's tomboy quality and Pacifica's association with a male main character (at least, when shipped with Dipper), well... er... I think that may be one potential reason why Mabel is disliked more. She's A. "girly" and B. she has no inherent "value" to a male character.

Dear God, I feel ick even writing that. But when you think about it... that could be one potential reason why she's the most disliked female character in the series. She's girly and is not a prize to be won to add value to a male's life. I shudder to think that this may be the case in today's world, but that may be the unconscious bias some people might have against her, and instead of realizing that, they blame it on "Mabel's selfish / poorly written".

Or, it could be the expectation that women need to be more selfless than men. Let's take after Ford for a moment and do some science: "The reward and learning systems in our brains work in close cooperation. Empirical studies show that girls are rewarded with praise for prosocial behavior, implying that their reward systems learn to expect a reward for helping behavior instead of selfish behavior. With this in mind, the gender differences that we observed in our studies could best be attributed to the different cultural expectations placed on men and women. This learning account is also supported by findings that indicate significant differences in the sensitivity of the reward system to prosocial and selfish behavior across cultures." (Credit/source).

Translation? In society, we praise women for being selfless, and we praise men for being selfish.

Getting this back to Dipper and Mabel, many have viewed their character conflict as "Dipper's being ambitious, and Mabel's holding him back". And with Dipper being a boy, and Mabel being a girl, fans might judge her overly harshly for her selfishness yet are easy on Stan, Ford, and Dipper for their selfishness because, yes, possibly... gender bias. "Mabel should have been less selfish!", they yell, yet people who criticize this flaw of hers are awfully quiet when it comes to addressing this same flaw in the male Pines.

Another reason why I think this is a strong contender for the most common reason why Mabel is disliked, is because of the parallelism between the two sets of Pines twins. Stan does the same thing as Mabel does: wanting his twin to stay with him, not wanting him to pursue his ambitions, wanting things to always stay the same...

So why do people not criticize Stan for the same thing? Why does he get more sympathy, yet Mabel gets ire? When Stan does it, he's a loving brother who just wants his brother to stay. When Mabel does it, she's "too selfish".

Feminist literary lens aside, sometimes I think Mabel's dislike can also be defense of one Pines twin over the other. I've seen this a lot with Ford and Stan in the fandom, where people vilify Ford yet see Stan as innocent in their squabble, as was common shortly after Ford was revealed at the time of airing.

Added to that was the fact that Ford got less attention from the writers and less time in the show to justify his flaws and understand his character (see my previous Gravity Falls writing analysis here that covers this topic), and, well... of course there's a high likelihood people are going to sympathize with Stan more than Ford. The show gave us more reasons to. But that doesn't mean Ford is inherently more wrong or more flawed than Stan. It's just that... people might like Stan more than Ford, so give him more stink-eye.

So I think the same happens with Mabel and Dipper, although Mabel and Dipper got roughly the same amount of airtime, so that leads me to my next point:

I have a little side theory here I want to test (but I could very likely be wrong) regarding why some characters in Gravity Falls are well-liked by certain people and vice versa, as well as why some characters are more vilified or idolized in this fandom. Let's return to my Pines personality chart:

Please ask yourself these questions honestly:

Who is your favorite Pines?

Who is your least favorite Pines?

Now, write these letters down depending on your answer:

Are you introverted (I) or extroverted (E)?

Are you a realist (G) or an optimist (L)?

Are you someone who goes after what you want (A) or waits for it to come to you (R)?

Are you more book smart (B) or people smart (P)?

Now, create your four letter Pines personality (e.g ILRB).

With your Pines personality, count how many letters you have in common with each character.

Now, answer this: do the Pines you share the most letters with happen to be your favorite Pines, and do the Pines you share the least letters with happen to be your least favorite Pines?

Personally, my favorite is Ford, and my least favorite is Mabel (although like I said earlier, I do not dislike Mabel, I am just neutral at worst with her). My own four letters are ILA/RB, meaning I'm introverted, trend towards optimism/levity, am split on active and reactive, and am more book than people smart.

I share 3-4 letters with Ford, 2-3 with Dipper, 1 letter with Stan, and 1-2 letters with Mabel.

And lo and behold... my favorite Pines is the most like me, and my least favorite Pines is one of two least like me.

So here's my theory as to why there's Mabel hate, since we've already established why Mabel is actually technically written very well: a combination of possible unconscious gender bias and personality matchup. Because if there's one thing us humans are good at it, it's, "Ape like me, me like, but ape less like me? Me throw rock! Insert war/hate/prejudice/online fandom hate, etc here.".

Therefore, in final conclusion: Mabel is well-written, and she's criticized unfairly. Anyone that criticizes her as "too selfish" needs to honestly analyze why they might not apply that same criticism to Stan, Dipper, or Ford.

[aroaceleovaldez]

hi

tyson's actor has been announced

thoughts on that? i remember you talking about tyson's down syndrome coding and the way there's a big chance of being portrayed in an ableist way

I already talked about my main thoughts on Tyson's casting [here] but in summary - yeah, no, confidence is not inspired right now. I had mentioned before that if they didn't cast an actor with down syndrome for Tyson I cannot see it going well no matter what, and given how s1 handled disability themes (aka erasing the majority of references to adhd/dyslexia and other disabilities, turning Sally into an autism speaks mom, etc) I doubt they're going to reference Tyson's down syndrome coding at all, which is disappointing on multiple levels.

A.) His entire character and the arcs relating to his character, particularly his relationship with Percy and Percy's character development in SoM are ALL surrounding Tyson having down syndrome and themes of grappling with ableism. SoM is supposed to be where we solidly establish Percy as a character who stands up for other marginalized kids, particularly other disabled kids, and if you remove Tyson's down syndrome then that entire aspect of the story goes up in smoke - which is a problem because disability themes are central and core to the entire series. You can't remove them without ruining the basis of the entire plot, because it's disability metaphors all the way down. If by some miracle they do try to keep his disability coding, the casting right now at all levels point to it turning out horribly - firstly they've cast an abled actor to play a disabled character - not cool! Especially given down syndrome is not usually an invisible disability - like I give leeway to adhd/dyslexic casting because it really doesn't affect anything at all. It'd be nice but ultimately nothing is different really - But something like this is significantly more important. Secondly, because we know from the casting call that they're keeping the "Tyson is 'actually' a little kid" (< actually part of his down syndrome coding - it's an outdated medical concept from the 2000s which is very ableist so already not looking great that they kept that) them casting a nearly 30 year old for a character who is supposed to be in Percy's grade (Percy being 13) just sounds like a horrible set-up for a very ableist portrayal.

B.) Based on how s1 went, recent books in the franchise, and this casting, the more likely route is they're going to erase Tyson's disability coding entirely and likely replace it with Tyson being a "himbo" character. I was talking with the TA server about this and apparently according to some of them Daniel Diemer in The Half Of It very much gave off the vibe that with his Tyson casting they're going to go the "himbo" route. Which would make sense given in like TOA, TSATS, and CoTG it seems like Rick learned what a "himbo" is and has been trying to shoehorn that character archetype into everything. Also in recent books Rick has just completely started erasing or ignoring disability themes, including applying ableist tropes to characters instead (Percy being a goofy lazy idiot who dislikes school, Nico being infantilized, Annabeth's disabilities basically being entirely erased, etc etc). Suffice to say it's not looking good I'm not happy about it! :T

Like, in all, I'm sure Daniel Diemer is a great actor. I'm not accusing him of being ableist or anything. (Now, Disney? maybe.) But I am really disappointed in this casting and there is literally no way Disney can justify it. Like, what, "he's tall and Tyson is supposed to be tall?" Character height has literally never been a factor for any other casting and it absolutely is not relevant at all for Tyson. The majority of casting so far has been blind casting (save for age for the most part) - why is it suddenly so important now for Tyson's height of all things? When there are SIGNIFICANTLY more important aspects of his character to be casting for? So far it seems the only casting they've actually paid attention to disability with is Hephaestus with Timothy Omundson, which is nice, but one out of A Lot is not great given this is the disability series! We really should not be getting this many abled actors playing disabled characters (and DEFINITELY not be getting this much erasure of disabled and disable-coded characters - Grover's muscular disease, lack of references to adhd/dyslexia, erasure of Percy's PTSD, etc. Chiron's disability being brought from coding to explicit is nice, but they couldn't be bothered to actually cast a disabled actor for it too? Honestly I wouldn't even mind some of the abled casting as much if they actually bothered to acknowledge the disability themes at all!). And this is a trend so far because Disney has also completely neglected casting plus-sized actors for plus-sized characters in the series (INCLUDING TYSON). It generally just reeks of Disney being afraid to cast anybody but able-bodied skinny actors as much as possible, or at the very least being completely unwilling to touch upon the disability themes of the series - which is stupid, given it's the entire basis of the series.

tl;dr: I have exactly zero faith in s2.

[atqh16]

I don’t get the Lan Zhan hate some people have? I don’t get some people calling him a cunt or bastard (derogatory)? Second to maybe Wen Ning, Lan Zhan deserves being hated the least. He is a flawed character. He made tons of mistakes. But so much of his positive attributes and actions completely outweigh all of that. Like, one of the most unique things about Lan Zhan is that despite the pain of losing Wei Ying and despite the punishment he received for it he did not dwell on resentment. He had a right to but he didn’t. Instead he worked on bettering himself. He worked on bettering his sect. There was a post that talked about how Jingyis existence and bright, loud character is a far reach from what most Lans are usually expected to be. But the fact that he’s not really scolded for being who he is and instead the narrative even frames him as being in the right really shows how much the Lan sect had changed over the years and it’s pretty clear that Lan Zhan is responsible for it. Cause Qiren liked the status quo and Lan Xichen was satisfied with it and didn’t really see an issue so they wouldn’t have a reason to create any change.

And for a sect that’s famous and known for its rigidity that is a significant feat. Then you have the fact that in the 13 years Wei Ying was dead Lan Zhan had created a reputation of being someone you could rely on for help and aid without needing compensation like other sects. In a time where cultivating has become a borderline business, a status quo that is openly accepted, Lan Zhan actively rejects the notion which is again a far cry from who he was before. Someone who couldn’t find it in himself to seperate from the majority. He was always kind and empathetic but there was still that part of him that paid too much importance on what people would think. Any action he took that was a deviation from the norm like showing Mian Mian the respect she deserved for standing up to her sect was done in such a way that it could be easily missed and brushed off.

The Lan Zhan we got after the time skip is so VERY different than the Lan Zhan we saw before. The fact that he so easily openly sided with Wei Ying against the other sects, something he didn’t do before until it was too late, wasn’t just an action made out of love and a desire to avoid regret. It’s a culmination of all the character development he’s gone through throughout the story.

I guess if you dislike him because of his pre time skip version it’s understandable but it would also be missing the point. Or maybe if you’re a Jiang Cheng fan you’d dislike Lan Zhan for having beef with him but like, his anger is very justified? Saying that Jiang Cheng played a part (minor or otherwise) in Wei Yings inevitable demise isn’t a hot take. The narrative openly states it and it’s not refuted. Lan Zhan being angry at Jiang Cheng over that truth is very understandable and it’s not like he rids himself of any blame either. Even better despite having that beef Lan Zhan doesn’t act on it. A few passive aggressive jabs here and there ( he’s only human after all) but he doesn’t let himself turn into an outright asshole the way Jiang Cheng did. He doesn’t take his anger out on Lan Sizhui the way Jiang Cheng verbally shits on Jin Ling constantly. Mxtx really likes to write contrast and comparisons and the one between Jiang Cheng and Lan Zhan (in terms of how they dealt with their grief) is a pretty obvious one. Of course it’s not a 1 to 1 mirror of each other but that doesn’t make the comparison completely moot.

[olympeline]

Been thinking about why I found Arthur in the Dark so impressive and it made me realise something kinda significant. Something significant that I’m going to put under a read more because it revolves around a heavy subject. So I wouldn’t advise looking beyond the cut if you’re sensitive to that kind of thing.

Less important, but everything below is a big spoiler and, guys seriously. If you like USUK and can handle darker fiction - no pun intended - give AitD a try. Don’t spoil yourself here. Go try it first and then come back if you’re interested. Try it if you’re neutral on USUK. Or, heck, even if USUK is a ship you dislike but isn’t an outright NOTP. I’d still recommend checking out this comic. Arthur in the Dark is still worth a read in my opinion. It’s that good. But enough gushing. Read on for the meat of this post.

Ready? Here we go: Arthur in the Dark has one of the best depictions of rape I’ve ever seen in a piece of media. “Best” as in most skillfully crafted for narrative purposes. Honestly and truly. Not even kidding. Which is kind of amazing considering it’s a depiction that came from a fan comic based on a jokey, anime gag series. Why do I feel this way? A couple of reasons:

Firstly, the rape in AitD is frighteningly, tragically realistic. Something the majority of fictional rapes are not. We tend to think of rape as taking place in a dark alley in the inner city. Stereotyping up a scene of a bottom feeder, criminal man dragging a (young, attractive) woman away to violate her. They’re usually total strangers and it’s always violent. These kind of rapes do happen, but statistics tell us they’re the minority. The majority of rapes happen like the one in AitD did: between two people who know each other well. Friends, romantic couples, even family members, make up the bulk of rapists and their victims.

Most narratives prefer the less common type of rape. Usually because the creator doesn’t want to tell a story about rape. Not really. What they want is a gut-punch to add easy drama and darkness to their creation. The sliding scale of “irredeemable bad guy” roughly goes: murderer → cold blooded torturer → rapist → child rapist. Making a villain a rapist is one of the worst things he - because 99% of the time it’s a he - can be. Conversely having a character be raped gains them instant sympathy because people are moral and empathetic creatures at heart. Most creators know this and throw in a rape for the shorthand: “Look how evil our villain is!” Which often makes the rape and its aftermath feel artificial. In no small part because the rapist characters, by virtue of being written to be the worst of the worst, don’t come off as very human. They can’t be when their main purpose is to be loathed by the audience. I could go on because there’s tons more to unpack about rape in fiction, but you get the point.

The rape in AitD isn’t like that. America and England know and love each other. Their relationship is complicated (oh boy, is it ever!) but that part of it is never in doubt. They’re each other’s most treasured person and have been for centuries. They’re not a duo made up of a flat, hate bait, villain on a collision course with their victim. Who’s doomed to suffer and be pitied until the creator decides the audience has had enough of their trauma and shuts it away so the story can move on. America and England are two people living together, going through a period of immense change and stress, trying to manage as best they can, and sometimes getting it very wrong. From a narrative point of view, this makes what happens between them so much better and so much more upsetting at the same time.

Which brings me nicely to reason number two of why this particular rape works: the build up. Like everything else in AitD, America raping England is carefully planned out and set up. The chocolate bar scene, man. Brilliant, I have to say. Alarming, uncomfortable, and brilliant. The scene in the garden is not just sprung on the reader for a jarring “Oh no! Oh shit-!” moment. If your typical under written rape is a cheap jump scare, the rape in AitD is a carefully crafted slowburn dread. Early on we start to become aware we’re building to something bad. From the foreshadowing, the art, the atmosphere, etc. We just know a storm is coming. It’s done without America acting OOC too, which is very important. It’s how he can come back from what he did. Something that would be impossible if the author didn’t handle this setup well. America’s actions aren’t right, but they are understandable. That’s the crucial distinction. The psychology of the whole thing is so very well done. America was in love with England and had been for a long time. The guilt he felt tormented him because of what their relationship was in the past. Caught between his human side and his immortal one. The guilt helped keep America in check because he didn’t want England seeing the lustful way he’d begun to look at him. Then they started living together and England was suddenly vulnerable. Vulnerable in more ways than America was aware. Which is another vital detail of how the creator keeps America sympathetic, but more on that in a moment. England willingly went blind so he wouldn’t have to see when America - the man grown from the child he raised - looked at him with lust. The guilt America felt peaked, only to clash with the realisation that he could freely indulge in his fantasies. Indulge and push (again, chocolate bar scene) now the usual moral restraint - England seeing his desire - was removed.

Meanwhile, England himself felt that same guilt but his was also laced with panic and despair. He didn’t want to lose or strain his relationship with the most important person of his centuries long life. Pulled between human standards of morality and the very inhuman existence of nation-people. Incidentally the clash between their existence as humans, while also being something more than human, is brilliantly done in AitD. It’s something that’s hard to get right - especially involving such taboo topics - but Hotama nails it. USUK usually handwaves the implications around England raising America, but here it’s made part of the narrative. Part of the tragedy, part of the resolution. Good stuff. Anyway, England begged Arthur to take his sight away so he wouldn’t have to see the way America looked at him. Then banished Arthur back into the dark in an attempt to run away from his problems. But without Arthur - without his strength - England couldn’t stand up to America when he needed to. Not that America was aware of any of this because he never knew about Arthur. Which brings me to point three: nuance of blame.

“Blame” is a very loaded word in this context, so I’ll do my best to talk about this carefully. Rape in the media is almost always black and white. Absolutely evil, irredeemable rapist. Absolutely blameless, sympathetic victim. But real life isn’t always that simple. Obviously the rapist is always the perpetrator and the one most in the wrong. I need to make that very clear. But the scene in AitD illustrates that sometimes a victim could have done more to help themselves. Not always, but sometimes. This is a delicate subject so I hope you understand I’m not trying to victim blame. Just saying that rape, like all crimes, doesn’t always deal in absolutes. Unlike media, real life is often complicated and tragic. Good people can give in to temptation. Be weak, do bad things, or allow those bad things to happen. England told America to stop, but failed to follow it up when needed. When America pushed for more and used England’s own words to argue he’d already been given consent, that was when England needed to push back. Interpretation comes in here but, personally, I think if England had told America to stop when prompted, America would have. But England didn’t and he gave in instead. Something America took as a tacit “yes.” Again, not right, but understandable in how it could happen. Their power imbalance had grown extreme, stress and feelings were running high, they were struggling to connect as they used to, England’s prior cowardice and separation from Arthur prevented him from being strong when he needed to be, America was ignorant of his problem, and it all came together in a horrible, tragic mistake. All throughout, the rape continued to be brilliantly, awfully realistic. America not noticing - either genuinely or from denial - that England was not enjoying what was happening. England quickly becoming too distracted by the pain to do anything other than focus on enduring it. Then the aftermath where America didn’t realise what he’d just done due to coming down from a post-sex, post-stress euphoria. Awful, miserable, horrifying, tragic, perfectly crafted scene.

Which brings me to my final reason why this comic impressed me in its depiction of rape: where the story goes from there. Where it goes and how the narrative builds from the rape instead of trying to move on because the “shocking” part is over and now we’re in diminishing returns. Going back to my first point, too many stories see rape as something that happens in an isolated part of the narrative. It happened, it was shocking and brutal, now it’s done and we can move on because we didn’t plan to interweve the rape with the rest of the story. So we won’t give it the weight it needs. At best the victim might get a few scenes expressing their trauma later on - maybe a callback or two - but that’s it. It’s shallow. Plenty of fictional rapes could be replaced with a savage beating and nothing would change. In the worst cases you could remove the rape, not replace it with anything, then run the story with minimal problems. Not so in AitD. There, the rape isn’t just another semi-important plot point. It’s a crucial one which couldn’t be replaced with anything else. The whole first part of the story, the engine of the narrative, is built around America and England failing to deal with their changing relationship. A relationship between a pair of humans who also happen to be strange, immortal beings that ordinary humans can’t understand. Changing from platonic/familial to romantic over hundreds of years. With romance comes lust. Lust can be perfectly healthy just like any other bodily appetite. In this case it became twisted by circumstance, and the only “suitable” narrative payoff was rape. Nothing else would have had the necessary impact.

Then there’s how the rape compares to the final sex scene in some classic narrative juxtaposition. The final sex scene which happens to be the only one in the comic that’s fully consensual on both sides. The one that goes beyond sex and becomes real, honest to goodness lovemaking. It’s a perfect contrast. The rape scene had all the trappings of a classic romance. Right down to it being their first time and taking place in a rose garden. But it’s tragic, horrifying, and deeply unsexy. Then, near the end of their story, America and Arthur get lost on their road trip and have sex in their car. Their crappy, cramped car, where they’re surrounded by ordinary luggage, both of them sweaty and a little cranky with each other after a long day. It’s awkward, ordinary, imperfect and gorgeous. If we didn’t have the rape before to show us the nadir of this relationship, the healing and the dawn that came after wouldn’t be half so meaningful. A very strange thing to say without context, but it was a perfectly done rape that gave the audience the payoff of perfectly done lovemaking. It’s no small feat to get a reader to cheer for a romantic resolution after all of the above. Kind of in awe of Hotama’s skills, I tell you what.

Up to this point and I don’t know what else there is to say other than, geez. This comic, man. Blew me away. I’m so happy I rediscovered my interest in Hetalia if for no other reason than I got to read Arthur in the Dark. I’m a bit of a bookworm in my spare time and I’ve read quite a lot of classic literature over the years. Classic literature with rape scenes not crafted half so well as AitD did. Really think about that. An amateur fan comic based on a jokey gag series about national personifications being silly with each other. Did better at something than the books we hold up as the best of the best. Can’t really say anything else than that is genuinely bloody amazing

[madara-fate]

I know you're against the notion of sexist writing in Naruto, but I ought to disagree. The problem isn't that female characters have love interests or are driven by those feelings but that leading roles have that theme way too often and especially how little female characters have to do in the story. They don't drive the story but rather get shoved around, when they do something "major" (seemingly) it's to highlight Naruto - see Hinata vs Pain or Sakura "vs" Sasuke, getting saved by Kakashi, then Naruto as if it wouldn't be absurdly repetitive at that point. This is where the annoyance with the female characters stem from, it's almost comical how little room to develop and individuality they get. Ironically, as much as Sakura is hated on for these things (and quite frankly, many asspulls like mischaracterization of her personality), she's the character that at least has a saving point, which is her aspiration to become stronger and actually doing it. What was missing were more major fights to highlight that. Sure, we have in-verse explanations for why she doesn't fight in the front, she's a medical ninja but those decisions are made by a writer, after all and those rules don't have to exist or can be broken in favor of her having agency in the story.

This is the central part of any good character: agency. We want to see characters make decisions and act upon it. Basically precisely what Sakura did when she decided to lie to Naruto and kill Sasuke herself, I love the idea but the execution is terrible because it ended up circling back to Kakashi and Naruto.

A lack of agency is usually part of a characters struggles, you can see it in villain oirgins and underdog stories, "zero to hero", all that. Sounds familiar? This is the premise of Sakura's character but by not showing how she overcame that through involving her more, it flies over peoples heads that yes, Sakura was a character who didn't have agency and she wanted to change that (except, during important scenes, Kishimoto didn't pull through). I think Sakura is actually the best female character in Naruto due to that premise, however due to Kishimoto sidelining that and not doing the same for any other female character - aside from Tsunade in her introduction (she's the 2nd best female character in my opinion, btw) - his female characters are pale in comaprison to the male counterpoints and people are 100% justified for being frustrated about it. Because revolving the female characters around their love interests is one thing, stripping them of agency to change anything in the plot is another.

I don't hate the characters for it however, I dislike Kishimoto's writing in this aspect and I as an aspired writer take his female characters execution as an example on how not to do it.

This is a great video on Arcane's female characters that I think explains pretty well how agency is integral for good character writing:

https://youtu.be/hML-FGHGEN4

I recommend watching it if you're interested :)

I hope I could explain where the "sexism" claims stem from and why people are frustrated about Kishimoto's writing of female characters. Have a great day!

The problem isn't that female characters have love interests or are driven by those feelings but that leading roles have that theme way too often and especially how little female characters have to do in the story.

Sakura is literally the only leading female character in the story, so to say that the problem is how often this is the case, when there is only one leading female, doesn't really make sense. As for how little female characters have to do in the story, that is a numbers issue, not a female importance issue, which I'll elaborate on later. Because by this logic, I can very easily levy the same criticism towards every male character in the series not named Naruto or Sasuke.

They don't drive the story but rather get shoved around, when they do something "major" (seemingly) it's to highlight Naruto - see Hinata vs Pain or Sakura "vs" Sasuke, getting saved by Kakashi, then Naruto as if it wouldn't be absurdly repetitive at that point.

Only Naruto and Sasuke drive the story. That's why I've always stated that this is not a female character issue, its not an issue of the female characters not having enough panel time, it's that Naruto and Sasuke simply have too much of it. The vast majority of the male characters suffer from exactly the same thing.

The fact that you felt the need to put major in quotation marks, and then add (seemingly) already shows me that you're really trying to downplay everything significant that the female characters have done in the series in order to serve your argument, but why though? Why actively try to downplay the accomplishments and feats of the female characters? To me, that alone is far more sexist or misogynist than anything Kishi has done or shown in the series.

Sakura had major feats which had nothing to do with Naruto, such as saving multiple characters' lives, defeating Sasori alongside Chiyo, unlocking the Byakugou Seal etc. Tsunade had feats which had nothing to do with Naruto, such as her performances against Orochimaru, becoming Hokage, her role in the War etc. Temari's significant involvements, such as saving Shikamaru from Tayuya and then subsequently defeating the latter with ease, had nothing to do with Naruto etc. I can continue listing when female characters have done significant things, which had nothing to do with Naruto, so I do not get this point.

This is where the annoyance with the female characters stem from, it's almost comical how little room to develop and individuality they get.

Again, if you are unable to acknowledge the growth and development that the important female characters experienced, then that is on you, not Kishi. Sakura went from being an ordinary fangirl who cowered in the face of adversity, to being a compassionate person who is the strongest kunoichi in the world on paper. Hinata went from being a shy, stuttering bundle of nerves, to a confident kunoichi who's will can move mountains. Tsunade went from being a pessimistic gambler to a hugely respected leader, mentor and role model etc.

Sure, there are some female characters who experienced little development, but there are just as many, if not more male characters whom that criticism also applies to. I mean, what great development did Kiba receive? Or Shino? Or Kankuro? Even someone as beloved as Rock Lee, is essentially the same person at the end of the series that he was at the beginning.

Ironically, as much as Sakura is hated on for these things (and quite frankly, many asspulls like mischaracterization of her personality), she's the character that at least has a saving point, which is her aspiration to become stronger and actually doing it. What was missing were more major fights to highlight that.

On that, we definitely agree.

This is the central part of any good character: agency. We want to see characters make decisions and act upon it. Basically precisely what Sakura did when she decided to lie to Naruto and kill Sasuke herself, I love the idea but the execution is terrible because it ended up circling back to Kakashi and Naruto.

Okay, so because you don't like the execution of one instance in which Sakura demonstrated her agency, does it mean that the execution of her agency in general is poor? What about all of the other examples?

A lack of agency is usually part of a characters struggles, you can see it in villain oirgins and underdog stories, "zero to hero", all that. Sounds familiar? This is the premise of Sakura's character but by not showing how she overcame that through involving her more, it flies over peoples heads that yes, Sakura was a character who didn't have agency and she wanted to change that (except, during important scenes, Kishimoto didn't pull through).

I'm going to reiterate this point - If people honestly cannot see how Sakura experienced her own "zero to hero" like development (something that I went into a lot of detail on during this post for example), then that is on them, not Kishi. As far as I'm concerned, her development in a multitude of ways, was exceedingly clear. Because contrary to popular belief, Sakura had more focus and development than 99% of the male cast, surpassed only by Naruto and Sasuke themselves, and rivalled by Kakashi.

I think Sakura is actually the best female character in Naruto due to that premise, however due to Kishimoto sidelining that and not doing the same for any other female character - aside from Tsunade in her introduction (she's the 2nd best female character in my opinion, btw) - his female characters are pale in comaprison to the male counterpoints and people are 100% justified for being frustrated about it.

So let's exclude Naruto and Sasuke for a moment, because I've made my criticisms of their general over importance in the story very clear. Tell me, in the context of development and importance to the story, how exactly do the female characters pale in comparison to their male counterparts? Because relative to the number of female characters in comparison to the males, their importance in the story is near indistinguishable.

A quick overview of several of the teams to illustrate my point.

In Team Gai, Neji had the most development and significance, Lee was in the middle, and Tenten was last, fair enough.

In Team 10, Shikamaru had the most development, Ino was in the middle, and Chouji was last.

In Team 8, Hinata had far more significance than Kiba and Shino combined.

For the Sand siblings, Gaara had the most development, Temari was in the middle, and Kankuro was last.

For the Rain orphans, Nagato had the most development, Konan was in the middle, and Yahiko was last.

For Team Taka (excluding Sasuke), Karin had far more development and significance than Suigetsu and Jugo.

So you see, generally speaking, the female characters were given roughly the same amount of focus and development, but because there are noticeably more male characters, it gives the false impression that more focus was given to them. But when you consider the numbers, it's evident that this is not the case.

Because revolving the female characters around their love interests is one thing, stripping them of agency to change anything in the plot is another.

The lives of the female characters did not revolve around their love interests, and they were not stripped of their agency either. Plenty of them had several instances when they changed things in the plot or did something major, so that's just you downplaying what they accomplished, and they were not any less likely to do something major than their male counterparts outside of Naruto and Sasuke.

Sorry but my stance is rather firm on this. I hope you have a great day too, but we'll have to agree to disagree on this.

[kaibutsushidousha]

To be honest, your discussion of Minase's positive and negative qualities piqued my interest. What do you think are the main recurring fgo writers' strong and weak points? Also where would you rank the lilim harlot event?

For the sake of brevity, I'll stick to one per writer. Picking apart everyone to the extent I did with Minase would take forever and would be better done after their respective Ordeal Calls.

I hesitate to call Higashide's comedy his strong point because his huge hits are about as frequent as his huge misses. I suppose I'll go with clarity for Higashide's main strong point. Even when I think he sucked at delivering his point, I can always tell what he's trying to say, which is not something I can say about Sakurai's most compressed scripts. His weak point is his lack of ambition. It's nice to have at least one person in FGO's team who will never try to escalate things, but I can't see it doesn't make his stories more forgettable in the long run.

Minase was already detailed in his own post.

Meteo’s best quality is a tone setter. Requiem, Salem, and all his events come with an atmosphere that feels very tangibly different from what FGO usually does. Often his events are bad, but never they lack a unique identity. Which segues into his weak point, being that many of his events are comedy events and the man is simply not funny. Bullying Erice is his only consistently good joke, and when he tries other things, the results are more miss than hit. See Las Vegas and Wandjina World Tour for major examples of comedy events that failed hard at the comedy side.

Nasu is a master recycler. I don't know how he does it but the man is constantly reusing the same structures, the same themes, or the same dynamics and somehow it never feels repetitive. There is always something that makes the whole recipe feel fresh and unique despite being so easy to recognize the same usual ingredients there. And what I dislike about Nasu in FGO is how he's still stuck at the concept of selling waifus from the girls with routes days. Everyone has their list of characters who get ship tease with Fujimaru but only in Nasu's case it feels like an overwhelming majority and that some of the choices create too large of a difference between the summoned character and the character in the main story. Was it really necessary to do this with, say, Morgan? Melusine? Tenochtitlan?

And Sakurai I saved for last because one major reason this post took this long is that I was struggling to sort out what is characteristically good and bad about her. Well, even now I don’t have a simple and satisfying answer. Things can’t be simple with Sakurai, unfortunately. One friend of mine described the experience of reading Sakurai scripts as “playing chess against an opponent that doesn’t tell that you are in a game of chess” and that’s honestly a fascinating way to phrase it.

Sakurai is an intriguing combination of inflexibly ambitious and inflexibly professional. She has grand ideas for her characters and she will include them in the script without fail. But she's also strictly adherent to script size limitations. While Nasu is making Camelot and Avalon le Fae with total disregard to every possible limit, Sakurai is cramming so much into Septem's and London's microscopic file space that it becomes utterly incomprehensible. Nasu wrote Last Encore's plot as a whole ass novel and hired Sakurai to convert that into anime scripts because Sakurai is his expert in fitting a lot of stuff into tiny spaces. Tunguska was tossed at Sakurai because probably no one else could fit into its raid event constraints. And because she doesn't compromise on what goes in, her alternative is not revealing the mysteries about her characters but laying out all the hints so the players can figure it out themselves, which is a really fun thing once you're used to it (read: aware that you're playing chess against her).

And the answer to "Where would I rank the Lilim Harlot event" is 1st place.

[someverygaymoth]

*°•MASTER POST•°*

Welcome to The Moth Den; Asks are open!

This blog is the home of KD!AU, DFT!AU, The Retriver Institute, The Horrors in the Wilde, CFK!AU, Skyfall AU, Bugged!Cross(Bug), and plenty of other AUs.

(check out my AU details list here)

✨We're Proship✨ Well, what does that mean? No one deserves harassment over writing/drawing taboo topics in a completely fictional fandom with completely fictional characters!

✨ We're comship✨ Well what does that mean? We ship some ⚠️CW⚠️ worthy ships! All are fictional and tagged appropriately. Instructions on how to use the keyword blocker are in this YouTube link! (More about what I draw/discuss below the cut so you can block disliked tags)

Two quick rules!

We're a SFW blog here, I will say we've got some suggestive themes, so I'd say please keep our asks appropriate for a 15+ audience, alright?

I'm being so serious when I tell you do NOT come on my page with anti rhetoric, I use the block button as the Tumblr devs intended,

Links↓↓ and about me↓↓

And a quick note, I do not currently take drawing or writing requests, but I do take suggestions. If you would like to suggest something to draw, I do not guarantee that even if I respond I will do said suggestion or finish it if I do start it. But please feel free to ask questions about my AUs and the characters within them!

Here's the link to our SFW Discord, make sure to be kind and pay attention to the rules!

You can find me on AO3 at Some_Very_GayMoth, although not everything on there is SFW, so navigate with care!

And on Twitter, where I never post, @TgayMoth

As I mentioned before It's important to note that I do write ✨Comship/dead dove✨ content, and as a psych enthusiast, I believe exploring darkness through fiction can be a positive and safe experience! So, hopefully there's no confusion there. There's a list of what I am comfortable writing about vs not below. (That is why I focus heavily on tagging all of my works adequately, and all of my posts! So that you can block keywords you don't want popping up on your timeline, and you —hopefully— never have to run into anything you don't want to see on my page!)

Please make sure to take care of yourself and pay attention to tags on any of my writing, or any writing in general. If you see something you do not want to see, don't click on it. Tumblr does indeed have a keyword filter, and I will always do my best to use keywords in my posts, so if you do not know how to set up your keyword filter with the things you don't want to see on your timeline, I would highly recommend you check out this link on YouTube that will show you exactly how to do that!

I write angst, violence, hurt/comfort, gore, all that good stuff.

Now that I've mentioned keyword filters— here's what I write/talk about frequently so you can block the tags you don't want to hear about! As well as what tags I have blocked because I don't enjoy them personally, because everybody has boundaries and it's okay to have yours. (Just remember you're responsible for enforcing your boundaries by blocking people and tags you don't agree with/enjoy)

I've written twincest(shout-out to Dreammare)

I'm not comfortable writing any parent/child stuff but no shade if you do, I usually don't like any OG fontcest stuff either it's just hard for me to digest but again no shade.

I won't talk about the kinks I write and don't write on here but there are many yes, no, and maybe situations to be found there, I assure you. And again, write or read, no shade.

I've written stuff about anxiety, depression, schizophrenia, disability, all sorts of trauma, lots of that.

I've written Major character death, violence, and some mild gore too! A lot of that is for The Horrors in the Wilde, so keep that in mind, lmao.

Honestly I think that's all I have, which is kinda L, maybe I need to step up my dark fiction game if this is all I've got. (It can get so much worse and istg I will write worse stuff to spite anyone who's tossing around hate like it's confetti. And I'll tag it properly so they don't have to see it if it makes them uncomfortable. I'm just cool like that.)

Oh btw if you're not tagging your stuff properly or make a fuss about tagging things when someone tells you that you didn't tag something properly, you and me aren't cool. Nothing about that is okay. I will never fuss about someone asking me to add a tag, if I EVER miss something please tell me, I will happily add tags for you and keep them in mind for next time.

About me↓↓

I have been writing for about five years now for the fandom, and I've been here since about the very beginning. Like when we were still figuring out that undertale had a genocide route, lmao. I actually got into UMTV through CPAU and never managed to make it out, lmao. I started posting my writing back in early 2020. It's been so wonderful to see this fandom grow and change, blossoming with many fun aus and beautiful ideas, and I hope I can contribute to many more beautiful ideas on my little corner of the internet.

I have some physical health problems that may make it difficult for me to post more regularly, but I will do my best!

Disclaimer; we are a OSDD system, I've known since about 2022, but it's not something we particularly enjoy discussing online unless it's relevant to a topic at hand. But, to my fellow systems, you're always welcome here. If you have questions, we're comfortable answering them, so feel free to ask.

[bedlamsbard]

I know this is kind of out of nowhere but for the longest time I was super weird and mentally dismissive of your burning out of Star Wars because I was someone who survived the OEU's insanity back in the day and managed not to burn out of Star Wars in the face of ridiculous nonsense like the Yuuzhan Vong and Killiks, so if I could survive that, you were of course entitled to dislike Star Wars but I still found it silly. Anyway I just finished watching Tales of the Jedi(Resolve) and I Get It Now.

...I recognise that may not be the most hinged thing to say to someone I don't actually know, and apologise for my mild to moderate insanity; I slept three hours, am very sick, it's shark week, and my brain seized on you as someone who'd Get It and who I had been hard on in my thoughts in the past, but, like, none of that actually affected you until I randomly said it? So anyway sorry for babbling at you like that lmfao, I'll stop talking now

Okay. I've been thinking about these since I saw them; I saw the first one before the second one arrived, which was a hell of a thing to wake up to since I saw it first thing in the morning. While my usual policy is to leave messages along these lines in my inbox, I was genuinely upset and wanted to respond once I had a more coherent reaction than "why me, gods, why does this always happen to me."

So, first of all, I'm sorry that you had an installment in canon that didn't do it for you; it happens to the best of us and there are very few people in fandom who uncritically (or even critically) enjoy everything in canon, especially in a fandom as big and long-running as Star Wars.

It's also very common for people to fall out of love with a fandom, even a fandom they've been in for a very long time; I would say that fen who have consistently been in one fandom for an extended period of time are probably rarer than those who haven't. It's not always because there is one installment that is just The Worst; often that's just a tipping point for fen who have been on the edge for a while. (Ask your average former MCU fan who left after Avengers Endgame.) Other times fen just drift away from a fandom without a reason to push them out. Maybe their favorite characters have died, maybe the canon is no longer telling stories they're interested in even if none of those stories are "bad," maybe it's a closed canon and without new stories there's nothing to keep them there; there's any number of factors.

I had a very dramatic breakup with Star Wars three years ago, and it was about three years after I really should have gotten out of the fandom, because I had not been having a good time for a while at that point. And honestly, considering that I hadn't had a healthy relationship with either Star Wars or the fandom for a while before that, for various reasons that go well beyond what was happening in canon, arguably I should have gotten out even earlier. However, I'm monofannish to a fault and I really needed something that would actually kick me to a new fandom -- which meant it couldn't come from Star Wars.

I don't really dislike Star Wars as a whole. There are individual installments that I quite dislike, there are some that I still love, and the vast majority of Star Wars I'm neutral on. I do however have a very fucked up relationship with Star Wars, including the canon, the PTB, and the fandom itself. I have gotten regular abuse on Wake and Gambit for the past ten years, which really screwed up my relationship with AO3 and with the prequel era. There is canon that I really, really dislike, some of it because it personally does nothing for me (the ST), some of it because from my point of view, it completely fucked over a story I love (Rebels S4, TCW S7, some other stuff that contradicts stuff from the EU I love; I came out of the EU too), some of it because I just plain don't like it (THR, most of the comics), and some of it because watching it just plain made me feel like I was being gaslit, which is not something I say lightly (Mando is the worst offender, but there are others). A lot of these are problems that could come out of any fandom, especially a large, long-running, multi-media fandom; I know a lot of Marvel people who have very similar problems, though I think the scale tends to be slightly different there just because the canon is set up differently.

When I switched fandoms, I had to recalibrate my entire relationship to fandom, to canon, to AO3, and to how I interacted with all of them. I still have to check myself in most of those places because my relationship with Star Wars had screwed me up so much. I had to train myself into being able to post on AO3 again; I do talk regularly about how a lot of what I write is shaped by trying to avoid getting the kind of reactions I got and still get from my Star Wars fic, even years later. I have to make conscious decisions not to engage with every part of the canon without feeling like a failed fan, especially the installments I'm pretty sure I'll dislike, because I tried to do that in Star Wars and it regularly messed me up. As a cosplayer, I still have a fairly bad reaction to even seeing the word "approvable," and it took a while for me not to have a similar reaction to "screen-accurate." I'm still destashing most of my Star Wars merch and right now, my reaction to seeing new Marvel merch isn't "ooh, would I wear/use this?" it's "when I inevitably have a horrendous breakup with this fandom will I be able to resell it?" which is not a really healthy relationship to have with a fandom. (I have mostly moved off this but not entirely.) I knew that Star Wars had screwed my relationship with Disney World, when I had a panic attack on Guardians of the Galaxy: Cosmic Rewind because I was so terrified that it was going to be ~necessary canon, even though Marvel has never operated that way; Star Wars does with Galaxy's Edge, which I don't really like being in anymore either.

And yes, I'm aware all of these are an extreme overreaction to getting out of a fandom. I'm not happy about it either and I wish it wasn't happening. It's better now than it was a couple years ago and I'm frankly glad I'm not in the fandom anymore; I'm happy for people who are or who have gotten back into it and are having a good time. I am not one of them; I may some day be one again, but probably not anytime soon.

But even if I didn't have this specific fucked up relationship with Star Wars, a fandom I have not been in for three years at this point, sometimes people just burn out on a fandom. I'm not a CSI:NY fan anymore, either. (Which my last big fandom prior to Narnia, which I just drifted away from. I've only been in five big writing fandoms over twenty years.)

[saturnine-saturneight]

Writerly Questionnaire

@davycoquette posted this up and it looks fun :)

About You

When did you start writing?

I started writing poetry somewhere in my early teens, then expanded to short snippets when my school had a creative writing workshop as part of a week long retreat. I did some minor roleplaying on the [Country redacted] version of Facebook, then started roleplaying on a fandom specific forum at 17... Started running with a group on Discord and Tumblr and learned how to write well with a dictionary always open in another tab. It's how I learned the majority of both my conversational and my writing English!

Are the genres/themes you enjoy reading different from the ones you write?

There are themes I really don't like to watch or read, but love to write, for example medical horror and body horror. I get squicked out when I'm not in control of those. I also adore detective fiction, especially Poirot, but don't have an interest in putting together a murder mystery myself.

Is there an author (or just a fellow writer!) you want to emulate, or one to whom you’re often compared?

I think the way I write is very conversational and very stream of consciousness. I'm a child of the internet, and you could make an easy comparison to other people writing indie online, but I'm not sure the comparison is as easy when you're looking at bigger, traditionally published authors. I think about the way I write in comparison to the Realism art movement sometimes. I want to emulate how people really talk, and I want to get deep into the nitty gritty of a psyche.

Can you tell me a little about your writing space(s)? (Room, coffee shop, desk, etc.)

Laying down ✌️

What’s your most effective way to muster up some muse?

Daydreaming! Dozing, napping, taking a walk, doing the dishes; anything that lets my mind wander.

Did the place(s) you grew up in influence the people and places you write about?

Not really. See above, child of the internet, but I'm also not sure I can capture what my country is really like. I never feel all that informed or all that "with it" here.

Are there any recurring themes in your writing, and if so, do they surprise you at all?

Come back with a warrant, lmfao.

Your Characters

Would you please tell me about your current favorite character? (Current WIP, past WIP, never used, etc.)

This is hard for me to decide because I really do love most of my characters equally when I just spend enough time with them. Of course it's Ron right now, I'm writing his story and he's living in a bigger corner of my brain than usual. I never really figured out what he had to say until pretty recently, he's always been a very taciturn narrator and loathe to talk about his feelings in dialogue. Throwing him into a fully moving plot and inflicting The Horrors on him really makes him react, and it's endearing him to me a lot.

Which of your characters do you think you’d be friends with in real life?

Matcha! She's goofy and sweet and she has a lot of things to talk about. We'd just need to set boundaries early because I'm not a fan of being flirted with. I also think I could get along with most of the rest, at least on friendly terms.

Which of your characters would you dislike the most if you met them?

Nat is an amalgamation of the worst traits and tendencies that I see in other people and myself. They're also a bully, which is something that personally makes me see red. They can go be a sympathetic villain somewhere else.

Tell me about the process of coming up with of one, all, or any of your characters.

So the very first one of the bunch was Teo. He was originally a pirate, and I made him to be weird and angsty and complex, but also kind of a liar who'd just boast about things unfounded. I thought this was easy to figure out, but I started noticing people taking him at his word, so I made Haru to call him out on his shit. These two were good foils, but didn't talk that much, so I made Rabbit who can never shut up to deliver some exposition.

When I make a character, they fill a niche in a dynamic, and/or have behaviors and beliefs that I want to write about. The rest is vibes.

Do you notice any recurring themes/traits among your characters?

I try to make them pretty diverse from each other, but there's always a general sense of overcoming and survival that I think is fascinating and write a lot about.

How do you picture them? (As real people you imagined, as models/actors who exist in real life, as imaginary artwork, as artwork you made or commissioned, anime style, etc.)

I don't have 20/20 vision in my imagination, things are pretty fuzzy. Real people, but stylized, I think.

Your Writing

What’s your reason for writing?

To create a space where I can really dig into the things I like and the things that are on my mind. I'm also pretty competitive towards myself. I always want to be better at something than I have been so far.

Is there a specific comment or type of comment you find particularly motivating coming from your readers?

I love comments that really pinpoint which moments or beats a reader enjoyed...

How do you want to be thought of by those who read your work? (For example: as a literary genius, or as a writer who “gets” the human condition; as a talented worldbuilder, as a role model, etc.)

Just some guy, please.

What do you feel is your greatest strength as a writer?

Character depth and dialogue.

What have you been frequently told your greatest writing strength is by others?

Dialogue also, and a certain sense of... chaos? Urgency? My longer form stuff has been described as 'one long rollercoaster'.

How do you feel about your own writing? (Answer in whatever way you interpret this question.)

Eh. I'm happy when it turns out well.

If you were the last person on earth and knew your writing would never be read by another human, would you still write?

Oh that's a mean question. I do have a little bit of a "what's going to be my legacy" thing going on. Yeah, I think I would still write, though. I really do it for the fun of it as well. It's just a lot less fun when I can't bounce it off other people and see what it turns into where it meets their lives and their experiences.

When you write, are you influenced by what others might enjoy reading, or do you write purely what you enjoy? If it’s a mix of the two, which holds the most influence

On a line by line basis, I have an issue of trying to write to a worst faith reader that I'm trying to work through, but the larger picture is completely just what I enjoy and not written to a specific genre, reader, or market.

I am tagging @marlowethelibrarian @fortunatetragedy @paeliae-occasionally @lychhiker-writes @rotting-moon-writes and YOU 🫵

[agentrouka-blog]

How does the fact that Jonsa is widely considered a crackship and vehemently disliked by the majority of fandom (including fellow Sansa fans) affect Jonsa shippers? It’s a genuine question. Because I think Jonsas make a few points but when fandom is so overwhelmingly united either in favor of or against something, I do believe there’s reason for that

I wasn't around back when the Huge Backlash against jonsa shippers became a thing, so I can't speak authentically about the experience.

It's mostly the abject absurdity of how vehemently dismissive and insulting "enemies" of the theory of jonsa (not merely the ship) treated jonsas, though, that I see remembered and reflected in this corner of the fandom.

Simple disagreement isn't the issue. The abject hate is. Though the refusal to even consider a number of the theories on their actual merit within the fandom is pretty ridiculous. The hints jonsas consider credible follow the same pattern of foreshadowing as, say, RLJ, but somehow very few people doubt that theory. Or get rape threats over it. So the effect is mostly that there's less interactions with hostile factions of the fandom?

Which is sad for them because jonsas have a lot to offer.

In spite of how united the fandom is in dismissing Jonsa theories, they were mostly proven right by the show. Villain Dany? Sansa as an important character in a final leadership position? Girl in Grey? Sansa being instrumental in regaining Winterfell? Sansa and Jon forming a close bond? Sansa reconciling with Arya and forming a strong team? Northern independence?

It's disingenuious to claim Jonsas have no business making predictions because they must be wrong, because they are supposedly incapable of correctly interpreting the hints in the text or in the show. They were not. They were usually right. That's what convinced me of the theory. The evidence.

They weren't even wrong about Jonsa being an option in the show, considering the numerous intentional visual parallels created between Jon and Sansa and canon romantic couples (as opposed to the parallels created between Dany and canon villains), and the weird chemistry between "brother and sister" noted by a number of reviewers. The show ended up going in a different direction in a very erratically constructed final season that most would agree didn't bear the hallmarks of consistent storytelling. So the one thing jonsas got wrong was jonsa itself. In the show, anyway. ("Show, derogatory.")

Still a good average, no?

So maybe the idea that the fandom being united against the theory of jonsa does have a reason. Maybe it's that they hate that it contradicts many other theories that have been popular for a very long time. And that have been proven wrong.

I have nothing against people who don't ship jonsa. I have nothing against people who have given the theory thought but have plausible reasons to disregard it. I have nothing against people who don't care about it at all. But I do absolutely laugh at people who call it a crackship and then support theories with far far far less collective evidence behind it.

[partywithponies]

Glossary of media discussion terms I invented myself and then bring up casually as though you should know what I mean (AKA Tash Translation Guide):

The Inherent Eroticism of Solving Crimes Together:

the simple fact that the kinds of common character dynamics between the two leads of any given detective or mystery or police show (i.e. trust, devotion, talk of being "partners", sneaking around together in the dead of night) are often very easily read as romantic or sexual to fandom-brained people, even if that obviously wasn't the intention. Even if one of them's already married. Even if there's a 30 year age gap. Doesn't matter

The Holliday Grainger Effect/Holliday Grainger Syndrome:

Named for the actress Holliday Grainger and the MULTIPLE TIMES she has been cast as the less attractive/less desirable narrative foil to the more conventionally attractive and desirable female lead, as though we're all supposed to pretend Holliday Grainger isn't also an incredibly beautiful woman

The Milton Keynes Conspiracy:

Named for my joke conspiracy theory about the teen soap Grange Hill, in which I claim that within the Grange Hill universe, Milton Keynes isn't actually a real place, and that whenever a character disappears suddenly with the only explanation given being that they "moved to Milton Keynes", that was just code for them having been disappeared by the government for getting too close to The Truth™️, and every time something odd or unexplained happens or something major is just brushed under the rug and forgotten about, that was all just shady alien-related government activity and all part of The Milton Keynes Conspiracy. I tend to bring up The Milton Keynes Conspiracy whenever a show's canon, continuity, or geography makes absolutely no sense under close scrutiny and the only "logical" explanations left are things like time loops or aliens or cracks in space and time or government conspiracies.

Bastard Man (Affectionate) and Bastard Man (Derogatory):

A very important distinction. The sparknotes version is that a Bastard Man (Affectionate) is a Card Carrying Bastard who does it all with charm and charisma and confidence, knows they're a bastard and takes a twisted pride in it, and is at least funny about it, while the Bastard Man (Derogatory) is just whiny and sad and won't actually admit to being a bastard man, and usually the narrative won't admit it either and keeps treating him like a tragic hero no matter what. Has a tendency to just get away with stuff with no payoff and isn't even funny about it. Shares a lot of DNA with:

Sadboy:

My absolute least favourite character archetype, though that's purely subjective and there are still SOME Sadboys I like. I know that my opinions are not universal because part of the reason I have such a visceral dislike for them is because they're often tumblr sexymancoded and I cannot escape them in the show's tags. They're wet. They're pathetic. They're miserable. And they're pretty. Usually played by a skinny pale white boy. (Like I said. Tumblr sexymancoded). And because of this, the show and the fandom alike will expect you to ignore the fact they're an awful person and excuse everything they've ever done wrong. Look, you can't be mad at them, look how sad they are about it. Look at their big wet puppydog eyes. In fact they haven't done anything wrong at all and you're crazy for saying they have. It's everyone who was mean to him who is wrong and his wife/girlfriend is a bitch for getting mad at him. He's just a sad wet little meow meow. Ugh. Disgusting. When will [REDACTED ACTORS HERE] answer for what they and their characters have done to me.

[outeremissary]

The Hierophant, Strength and the Hanged Man for Carmen?

Thanks for the ask! For once, there is something resembling brevity to my answers.

(also reordered to obscure some aeon spoilers for anyone for whom those are a concern)

[tarot asks]

Strength: On what issue is your character persistent?

The abomination thing. It’s the abomination thing. It’s most certainly that, the abomination thing. Carmen has developed a fringe theory of the cosmos in which the pristine world of Golarion has been corrupted by the unnatural incursions of creatures and forces not meant to exist on it. History is full of hubristic supernatural overreaches, evil wizard tyrants, and wicked gods and demons sowing destruction. Fey tricksters run rampant in the wilds, the self-righteous so-called good gods leave doctrines of discord for their followers while turning their backs on disaster, the unquiet dead have so infested the earth that a whole disgusting nation of them has taken root. People turn to religion for salvation and the gods feed on their fears and their hopes and all their beautiful, rich lives like parasites. And hardly anyone can see the connection, that there’s not good and bad types of abomination, but that it’s rotten all the way down. That you need to purge it all: the angels and the demons and everything else. The Worldwound is but one corner of a far greater crusade, one that mortals fight endlessly every day just to survive. She’s absolutely miserable to discuss religion with.

(From a meta perspective, this was an adaptation of her impractical and logic resistant tabletop philosophy that every arcane magic user ever born was, deep down, evil, because magic is inherently evil and corrupts everything it touches.)

The Hanged Man: When has your character needed to step back and look at things from a different perspective?

Honestly, just being appointed Knight Commander was a major moment for this. Carmen has never thought of herself as a leader. She knows she doesn’t have a lot of social savvy or patience for trying to parse issues outside of her skillset. Her skills in compromise are generally poor. She doesn’t like delegating tasks. She’s most comfortable receiving orders, not giving them. And grand strategy? She’s a soldier, she doesn’t know what it is that generals do. It’s hard to understand what she’s being asked when Galfrey makes her intentions clear, and it took some processing to come to terms with and accept. Trying to push outside of her usual narrow view of the present and to consider Galfrey’s reasoning, Galfrey’s character, and the state of the crusade did help. As much as the symbolic reasons or the reason of blessings she knew she hadn’t received and disliked being associated with didn’t resonate with her, she could see logic to the crusade needing new blood and fresh morale. The disaster of Kenabres made that much clear. And some morally superior part of her could also be swayed by the logic that she was the right choice for being more upright, for being more clear-headed, for being willing to do what others wouldn’t, just like when she purged the Wardstone.

I suppose in the end it would up less the empathetic understanding of others and more a roundabout way of reaching her own warped perspective there though. Common Carmen L. She does respect Galfrey though, mostly. She has very complicated feelings about Galfrey. All part of the toxic yuri love triangle.

AEON SPOILER ZONE

The Hierophant: Who has served as a mentor to your character?

Carmen has had effectively zero people in her life in the recent past she would consider mentors, especially in the crusade. To “mentor” her would require demonstration of shared values, valuable skills superior to her own, and a temperament she finds agreeable and worthy of respect. Let me just say that there are no characters in the game who meet these standards. She respects some, like Greybor or Galfrey, as equals or near equals. But there’s no one who can put her in a position where she feels that she is a student. The closest that you could probably come is the aeon in the mirror (it’s always that damn aeon in the mirror), and that’s because to her, it is very much not a separate being. It’s just her. She’s just spending time clearing her head and thinking- that’s normal, everyone does that! And she easily internalizes insights she picks up from there. It’s fine. Don’t worry about it.

Would love to see a dynamic of mentor and penitent disciple between her and Hal if she ever halfway shaped up her act though, that would be fun. I thought about that periodically in 2021.

[southpark-trashfactory]

I find the idea that Stan's gang are called "the popular kids" by Butters yet Craig claims the majority of their classmates dislike them/think they're assholes is really interesting

Sure it could just be a matter of personal opinion from two wildly different characters, but I also don't think these two opinions really contradict each other realistically

There are plenty of real world people who are incredibly popular but widely disliked.

Personally, the way I've always viewed Stan's gang was as popular but more in an infamous way? I feel like Stan is usually credited as being a natural leader, and Cartman is credited usually with being very charismatic, but I would argue that these are qualities thar all four of the gang have to varying degrees and presentations, which I feel makes them maybe tolerable individually to their classmates, all four of them have a handful of likeable traits that you could reason would make them popular, but together as a unit they're a fucking destructive force with the capacity to pull people into crazy shit they didn't necessarily understand the scope of

And it can either be GREAT, like Stick of Truth/Black Friday Event where they essentially organized a massive game for the whole town

Or you know, they could steal Craig's birthday money and get them all sent to Peru

Either of these scenarios is just as likely as the other when getting involved with these four, so I imagine they're easy to love when things are going great, but even easier to hate or at least be wary of when they're even just suggesting doing something even more than mundane

(I sorta headcanon Craig nicknaming their group "The Supermassive Black Hole" due to their ability to suck people in and figuratively rip them to shreds (and also because Craig using space terms ))

Honestly I feel like the closest group that could be "popular" in the sense of them being well liked because they're just... likable? It would probably be Craig's Gang, which I feel is kinda funny, because when I think of them, I sort of imagine them being the opposite of Stan's gang

That is to say, I imagine Stan's gang is more tolerable individually, whereas I feel like Craig and Those guys are more likeable as a group?

I feel like Timmy and Tolkien are probably pretty affable individually, but Craig, Clyde and Jimmy I feel like have the capacity to be real shitheads if left unchecked and I love them for that. (Not really including Tweek here, even thought I technically include him with Catg, but he's kinda like their Butters so )

I wish I had the strength to factor in how the girls fit into this, but the fact that the girls are treated as one monolithic group fucking irks me too much

[seeds-of-life-daily]

how far does your seele rei au diverge from canon :0 if I may ask

Thank you so much for asking this !! Well, I gave it some thought, and I wouldn't say it would stray too far from canon, but some big changes would be made. One of which being, well, the main thing. That Rei gets raised by seele. I covered some of the changes it would make to Rei and Kaworu in this post I made a bit ago, but after giving it a bit more thought, I wanted to note down a few more changes I would make to canon in this AU. One of which, probably the biggest divergence in this au, is that Rei doesn't get forced/conditioned to take such a maternal and feminine role. Other than the usual maternity stuff that comes with having the soul of a progenitor, she wouldn't have to experience it with the intensity they do in canon. They also won't get sexualized, since that was another thing that I really disliked in Evangelion. Not to go off on a little tangent here, but when talking about canon, I really think Rei never really wanted to take on that kind of role. The femininity was something they were made to feel like she had to do. She was taught it meant to serve, to be complacent, to fill a role, and to mother. Whenever I think of Rei and femininity my mind always goes to that one Aradia gender meta, since the parallels between the two are insane, and it just voices basically most of my thoughts. In the seele!Rei AU I like to think that Rei's more self-expressive. Being reserved, but a helping hand because she wants to. I think they would also take part in their interest to learn more. We don't know too much about seele, but since we know they probably let Kaworu have access to music and human culture, I think Rei would also have the opportunity to indulge in more books, the internet, and so on. Also, since Rei isn't a clone of Yui here, she won't be subjected to Shinji's Freudy antics as much. She would still somewhat look simmilar to Yui, but this time not made from salvaged remains. Now, another thing I would change is letting Kaworu develop more as a character. In most adaptations of Evangelion, we only see him mainly interacting with Shinji. In this AU, he will not only have Rei as a sibling, but I plan to make him interact with Asuka and Misato too. I think a talk between Kaworu and Misato would be really interesting. Especially when she finds out he's an angel. Imagine meeting the kid that got created, and half of the population, including your dad, died because of that. An interaction with Asuka would be similar. Imagine meeting the guy who's here to replace you if you get worse at piloting. They would eventually get along, but at the start, I can definitely see some conflicts going on there. Since Rei's with seele here, they have both seeds of life in their custody, so it would be even easier for their instrumentality plans. While it's true that Lilith's still in the NERV basement, and Adam's still getting kidnapped (angel-napped?), seele can at least be sure that if one of them dies, at least there's another vessel to work with. (Speaking of which, what would happen if two instrumentalities happened at once? Maybe seele didn't think that Adam, in her embryonic state, could be enough to initiate one? Maybe they were too focused on the Dead Sea Scrolls that they never bothered to think of it?) While we're on the topic of instrumentality, they would totally try and rebel against it this time. After spending a good amount of time at NERV with the rest of the Pilots, I think they would attempt to go against the whole "everyone becomes one in the big primordial soup ocean" plan. Those are just the major changes I would make, but overall? Yeah, it would be canon-divergent, but it would still follow most of the happenings of canon.

[reyreadersblog]

TIME FOR AUGUST READING WRAP UP (PART 1.)

Well summer ended like a week ago, so here is all the books i've read and my reviews of them.

Rating: ⭐⭐⭐

Never lie was the first book i read at the start of August and it was very easy quick and twisty read. Finshed it in a day, the dual POV was really fun and it added more tension to it.

However the plot twist was very unexpected, and that's not the reason i disliked it, the reason is that it didn't really make sense. I mean her whole monologue was lie...

Overall i did like the book, i'd say if you want something fast paced read it, but it was kind of a dissapointment tbh.

Raiting:⭐⭐⭐⭐.5

I LOVED THIS BOOK! It was so good! (Gave me major tig vibes)

I love any book that involves a kind of treasure hunt, and this book had added stakes with an inheritance hidden somewhere in the town. It was entertaining and very dramatic, although I wouldn't necessarily say that it was suspenseful, because it felt very over the top at lot of the time, so I wasn't exactly concerned with the characters' safety, if that makes sense. However, it is fast-paced and twisty, and I was excited to find out what was going to happen in the end. It had found family trope which i ADORE! It was so cute and fun to read about the team and what they went through in order to get the treasure. I also loved how many LGBTQ+ character were in the book.

The grieving part was done very realisticly, as someone who is going through grief rn, i fully realate to Lily.

This book was an example of how someone can take an inspiration from another author's work without fully coping them...*cough* Lauren Roberts *cough*

Raiting: ⭐

I love you Lynn Painter BUT WHAT WAS THIS😭😭😭

The main character was unlikable and obnoxious. She was not like other girls, she was just ✨quirky✨ and ✨different✨

The mmc was SUPERRR boring, liks his character revolved around being hot and rich, literally nothing more.

What did i like about this book? NOTHING.

Raiting:⭐.5

I can't tell you one thing that i liked about this book, tbh i read it because someone said it was about a heist and a game...and i'm all for that (the hunger games habit i can't get rid off😔) but oh well...it was not good.

More telling, less showing. The fmc always talked nonsense, i couldn't understand half of what she was saying.

I get that romance wasn't the main focus but it was...so dry, so boring...it felt like she saw someone with the same skin colour as her and ✨immediatly fell in love✨ and i'm not saying any hate or something, i'm a poc but it was done so poorly and unrealisticly.

Uhmm the plotholes???

The characters were just too insufferable for my liking.

I didn't feel connected to any of them.

The authour kepr describing every single detail like it depended on her dear life.

I wanted to dnf so bad but for some reason i kept believing it would get better...it did not.

THE ENDING WAS SO DRY?

Raiting: ⭐⭐⭐⭐

The book was very disturbing but so so good!

Long story short it's about Ellery and Ezra are the Corocan twins, siblings that live every day hoping that their addict single mom Sadie Corocan comes home every night.

Usually she does.

But one night, Sadie crashes into a jewelry store while drunk and high. She's sent to rehab while the twins are sent to live with their maternal grandmother in the sleepy town of Echo Ridge

What love about Karen MCmanus' books is her writing. It's really interesting to read a mystery/thriller book with dual POV because occasionaly author drops clues and hints in each of their chapters.

very honestly speaking, this book was a thousand times better than One of Us is Lying. i was even one of the ones who really liked One of Us is Lying, and Two Can Keep a Secret was LEAGUES better.

one of the main things that really set Two Can Keep a Secret apart was the characters.

I loved the characters. I loved how cracked and broken they were. How they didn’t come from perfect families. How they made many, many mistakes. How they grieved for those they lost, but they also let it fuel their desire to find the killer. How they overcome their pasts.

This book has 2 plot twists, and the first one...did surprise me, i expected something better tho. THE SECOND ONE??? THE ENDING? Had me GAGGED and literally almost threw up.

Let me tell you.

The last line.

THE LAST FUCKING LINE.

*spoilers*

✨i thought she was your mother✨.

This woman dropped the most disturbing line in the book history and thought it was fine.

Overall, totally recommend🙏🏻👭

Raiting:⭐⭐⭐.5

I did like this one more than some of the others, but let's talk about its big turn-off: Brynn and Tripp. I love when a mystery book has romance subolot, tbh i can't read a book that has 0 romance in it, but it's kind of annoying when you can feel the author is forcing two characters towards each other.

Brynn and Tripp have no chemistry at all. One of them was in love with the other, then Brynn leaves town for five years and when she comes back they try to resolve this mystery in their life. One of them declares itself to the other, and the other thinks its look has improved with time. They kiss and then they live happily ever after.

What's the point, exactly? Why should they be together when they’re clearly better as friends? What’s supposed to happen now, they’ll have three fantastic months and then break up before college?

It was entertining but the "plot twist" was not it. Like what was the point? If you gave the book "that" kind of ending, what is the point?

Raiting:⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

IDC THIS BOOK TRILLOGY WAS ABSOLUTE 6 STAR READ. (Go read it! Now!)

"Ash Princess is a trope-filled book with a very common story line. Theodosia, or Theo, was six years old when she witnessed her mother's (the queen) brutal murder and had her country conquered from her. In her country there are magical caves that run underneath the temples. For fire, air, earth and water. These are very sacred and only those who have proved themselves to the gods completely can go and get the magical gems. Now, Theo's people are forced to work as slaves in these mines and dig up the magical stones.

For ten years she has been living under the Kaiser and his brutal rule, living quietly and trying to please him to survive. All of that ends when she's forced to kill someone and her childhood friend comes and offers her an escape and make things right for their people. She's filled with hate and determination to take back her kingdom and avenge her mother and people."

The fmc in this book, Theodosia has become one of my favourite fmc! An example of fmc that doesn't need to be a bloodthirsty monster from the beggining to be considered as strong, mindful and brave.

CHECK THE TRIGGER WARNINGS!

Even tho it's YA there are some serious and heavy topics in this book so be aware of that!

THERE IS A FOUND FAMILY TROPE!

There is such cute and heart warming found family trope..*cough* with traumatised kids *cough*

I loved literally every character! (Well except for a few...)

LGBTQ+ REPRESENTATON OMGG!!!

The ROMANCE!!!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.

One of the main reasons i loved this book,

Oh no, my guys, this has a LOVE TRIANGLE!!! [cue the groans of every person on the planet] LISTEN, I know y'all hate love triangles and I DO TOO!! but this one is somehow bearable, even though it annoyed me a lot. It's like one of "those" love triangles where it's obvious who MMC is. Theo has feelings for the Prinz and her childhood friend, some dude, whose name I forgot, because I DON'T FUCKING SHIP THEM. He's a really good guy, but Prinz Soren and Theo all the way, bitch. Like, they're both good boys, but idk something about the Prinz, man. HE IS BLONDE TOO!! It's a slow burn + forbidden romance.

Overall, I LOVED THE BOOKS, IT'S ONE OF MY FAV READS OF THE YEAR, and if you like high fantasy with great world building + found family + strong character + lgbtq characters + feminism elements GO READ IT ASAP.

Well this is part one! Also not proof read so please don't mind the mistakes🙏🏻