Read on Twitter
im going to chatter abt mdzs, specifically jc vs. wwx and jgy vs. nmj, and the way fandom likes to pits two traumatized characters against e/o and picks one as the "real" victim, the "right" victim, when mdzs as a whole is largely about impossible choices in a cruel society. https://twitter.com/bunmeibuns/status/1389978885249507342">https://twitter.com/bunmeibun...
all four characters are traumatized, and none of them handle it like the perfect ideal victim, and to various degrees each are demonized by different groups of ppl in fandom. its done to all of them.
(tbc)
(tbc)
mdzs is interesting in that 1), it explores unreliable narrators, the inaccuracy of rumors, and the dissonance btwn someone& #39;s reputation and the reality of their actions/character, and 2), so much is open for interpretation across various adaptations.
a lot of character motivations aren& #39;t explicit in the text. there are speculations and implications, but a lot of the time we& #39;re left to draw our own conclusions from the limited viewpoints we see.
however. all 4 of these characters go through trauma, and all 4 exhibit signs of
however. all 4 of these characters go through trauma, and all 4 exhibit signs of
mental illness. you cannot separate any of these characters from that unless you are being purposely obtuse.
they are also all acting within the constrains of their society, trying to live their lives and follow their priorities as best they can within their social position.
they are also all acting within the constrains of their society, trying to live their lives and follow their priorities as best they can within their social position.
while jgy /can/ certainly be interpreted as a power-hungry monster who had schemed his way to the top from the getgo, to me that undermines the parallels btwn him and wwx and makes the story a lot less narratively satisfying.
thematically, mdzs purposely explores "who is right,
thematically, mdzs purposely explores "who is right,
who is wrong? what is black and what is white?" and if the main antagonist is a morally bankrupt unsympathetic villain, the story loses a lot of its richness and tragedy.
(tbc)
(tbc)
but back to "real/right victim."
i see a lot of retaliatory characterization, not only in the form of char bashing but in the de-fanging of your own fav. ignoring the ugly parts as if to justify preferring them over the one you& #39;re pitting them against.
i see a lot of retaliatory characterization, not only in the form of char bashing but in the de-fanging of your own fav. ignoring the ugly parts as if to justify preferring them over the one you& #39;re pitting them against.
taking deeply complex no-win situations and skewing them so one character was unilaterally the victim
unjustified anger, lashing out at the wrong target, refusing to give the benefit of the doubt, targeting someone& #39;s sensitive points, dubious morality in the war, needless death,
unjustified anger, lashing out at the wrong target, refusing to give the benefit of the doubt, targeting someone& #39;s sensitive points, dubious morality in the war, needless death,
questionable wielding of social and/or cultivational power--
all four of them to some degree or other do these. because of their character, their values, their life story, their trauma, their mental illness, and above all the society and specific situation they wind up in.
all four of them to some degree or other do these. because of their character, their values, their life story, their trauma, their mental illness, and above all the society and specific situation they wind up in.
the degree this happens changes depending on the character and the fandom space, but i& #39;ve noticed it with all four-- if you want to discuss something questionable/wrong/"bad" any character has done /in canon/, fans of that character get upset even when you& #39;re explicitly coming
from a place of love, when you& #39;re trying to explore the character/situation with nuance. to the point of actively refusing to acknowledge certain things. which i feel like comes from the same place as what OP said; either they& #39;re 100% toxic, or they& #39;re an uwu mentaw iwwness baby.
the objective badness (or justification) of actions, the objective amount of atrocities or how valid the Bad Victim Behaviors are, is not the point. like, "OK but X is worse" is not the point-- also a worthwhile discussion, but it& #39;s a different one than this.
the point is:
the point is:
