Avatar

Lips of honey, eyes of fire

@kissfaeries

miel de luna. 19. ⚢
bisexual. spain;
“her wings are cut
and then she is blamed
for not knowing how to fly.”
Avatar

it’s literally so crazy how the label of feminist has become completely meaningless. 95% of ppl who go around calling themselves feminists are not. And 100% of the men. Men can be feminist allies but any man who calls himself a feminist either is doing it to score pussy, or wrongly thinks himself enlightened

Avatar

modern “””feminist””” beliefs:

  • Makeup and heels are empowering
  • Plastic surgery is empowering
  • Prostitution is empowering
  • Selling nudes to men is empowering
  • Having your partner choke, hit, and degrade you during sex is empowering
  • Porn is good for everybody
  • If a boy likes dresses he’s a girl (or nonbinary)
  • If a girl hates dresses she’s a boy (or nonbinary)
  • Talking about vaginas, uteruses, & other stigmatized parts of female anatomy is gross
  • Talking about vaginas, uteruses, & other stigmatized parts of female anatomy is exclusionary
  • Men’s issues are feminist issues
  • Consent can be bought
  • Religion is off limits for feminist analysis
  • Sex acts are off limits for feminist analysis
  • Gender is off limits for feminist analysis
  • The pattern of male violence is off limits for feminist analysis
  • Any choice a woman voluntarily makes is off limits for feminist analysis

It’s honestly hilarious(ly sad) how the feminist movement has been successfully infiltrated by patriarchal structures and flipped completely on its head to undo most of what earlier feminists were fighting for and push classic male propaganda instead. And the women who notice this get silenced by the women who are still indoctrinated, who have been convinced that shutting up actual feminist analysis is the most “”feminist”” act they can do.

this except men cant be feminist allies. i’d rather they actually do stuff, like calling out their friends’ misogyny, cutting off porn etc instead of going around calling themselves feminist allies.

we are on twenty four hour wylan van eck lockdown!!! if you don’t wylan van eck that is your problem!!!! rip to you but i’m different!!!!!!

Avatar

AH HEY y’all remember that Six of Crows zine I got into?? Here’s my piece for it!! I’m still really, really pleased with how it came out- I love all these kids so much!!

I feel disheartened when YA fandoms in particular perpetuate this idea that strength and badassery and competence/capability necessitates a proclivity for - or a casualness surrounding - violence. It gets to the degree that a character is either considered disinteresting for not being violent, or forced into a shape that goes against their canon characterization in order to confirm their strength badassery et c. by lauding and glorifying this supposed enjoyment for violence that they simply do not have, and do not need to have to be a good and interesting character.

Jesper and Wylan post CK: Kaz only cares about kruge and Inej lmao he is probably glad that he can work without us pestering him now

Kaz's search history:

Of course the crows would continue having a blast making fun of rich high society Kerch stuff post-canon, but considering that Wylan has zero idea of what normal looks like, having only ever been either in a super rich but super detrimental household or homeless, everything would be a fun little game of "Is This a 'Rich People' Thing or Is This a 'Jan van Eck is Fucking Insane' Thing?"

Like the crows would be just teasing about galas and bed warmers but when Wylan tries to roll with it he accidentally ends up whipping out the most deranged occurrences imaginable which were not, in fact, the ✨Silly Rich Person Tingz✨ he thought they were.

Soc Au where everyone can break the fourth wall and talk to the camera except Matthias (but he CAN see them doing it and it makes him crazy)

Addendum: Wylan does not do it throughout the entirety of the Ice Court arc, but he never really comments on the others addressing the camera. Then when Crooked Kingdom begins, he breaks the fourth wall as well, revealing that he was perfectly capable of it and simply chose not to. Matthias, who had previously believed him an ally in this bizarre situation, goes ballistic.

I think that one of the reasons why people misinterpret Wylan's character and arc, among others, is because they misinterpret the relationship between him and Kaz. This post has kind of mitosised off from the BFWP (Big Fucking Wylan Post) I'm writing because it's a bit of a different focus and constitutes its own post.

A lot of people talk about Wylan's character and development as though it's meant to match Kaz's - starting out as a nice kid who the city forces to become amoral, indifferent to violence, and well-versed in crime. These qualities are usually talked about with a weird reverence as an irrefutable symbol of "badassery", as though it's always a positive development for any character regardless of the story's narrative, which annoys me but is not the topic of this post. That's part of the BFWP's job.

Following Kaz's exact development is not the point of Wylan's character. The point is that Kaz and Wylan narrative foils - very similar in many ways, but with a fundamental difference that creates the "broken mirror" effect/shows how they could have turned out if they'd chosen differently. I think that difference is how they respond when they climb out of the harbor after their respective betrayals. Narratively, Ketterdam represents a very harsh system that presents the people struggling there with very few options. You can either choose to ditch decency, play by the Barrel's rules, and live, or you can hold on to decency and die.

When Kaz returns to the streets after Jordie's death, he chooses the first option. He copes with what happened through ideas of revenge, and to survive long enough to see it he quickly turns to thievery and violence. He thinks to himself after he robs a kid for money and food that it was much easier to survive when you've left decency behind. He survived through violence, creating the Dirtyhands persona around himself for protection.

When Wylan has to fend for himself, he choses the second option. He finds "honest work" at the tannery, where they exploit workers and expose them to toxins. He wonders if he'll live long enough to use his savings to leave the city, or if the chemicals would kill him first. He was smart enough to steal and survive, but he chose decency, and with it, he chose death. There are a number of reasons why he chose differently than Kaz despite their similarities - his older age and thus more developed moral code, having no one to avenge but himself when he believed himself worthless, his more privileged upbringing, and his relatively low drive to live. Alone, he would have died.

Then Kaz steps in. Kaz's role in all the crow's lives is that, intentionally or not, his ruthless rule of the Barrel creates a sort of haven that allows them to survive where they would have died had they stayed alone. Wylan is a really clear example of this, and though Kaz's intentions were at least partly self-serving, his involvement both kept Wylan from dying of exposure or street violence as well as prevented him from needing to do the more terrible things that it takes to survive in the Barrel. Throughout the books, we see Kaz kind of taking the brunt of enacting violence in Wylan's place - traumatizing Smeet's daughter, killing the clerk on the lighthouse. Wylan could get by making explosives in the workshop rather than having to shoot or stab or beat the life out of people. And at the end of the series, Kaz sees to it that he never will have to. Of course Wylan did bad stuff to survive when working with the Dregs, it's the Barrel. But the extent is greatly lessened because of Kaz's involvement.

Wylan's arc was never about becoming comfortable with violence, or becoming just like Kaz - the way people characterize him as some sort of ruthless murder mastermind is inaccurate and redundant with Kaz's character. He isn't nonchalant or celebratory about crime or death or violence by the end of the book. He doesn't HAVE to become like Kaz, because Kaz himself gave him the space to continue being decent, intentionally or otherwise. Understanding that dynamic is important to understanding what Wylan is like as a character and as a person. If you assume Wylan's trajectory is to become "Kaz 2.0", then you're going to mischaracterize him. I've seen posts about how Kaz was the Jordie that he didn't have to Wylan, and I think that makes a lot more sense. Because Kaz is willing to do the horrible things in his stead, Wylan has the third option otherwise impossible in the Barrel - maintaining his decency and surviving.

ok these are previous tags that I saw looking back through this post for BFWP reasons and first of all excellent addition, good fucking food, secondly it reminded me of a detail in the books that fits in with this idea very well. Kaz thought about cutting away his old self "like a diseased limb" after escaping the harbor. Wylan meanwhile was being chased down by hitmen and still couldn't bear to ditch his bag which was literally dragging him down. He thinks "nonsensically" how he can't get rid of his flute. Obviously music is a huge part of his identity, and he refused to let that identity go even when it could kill him, which pretty much symbolically sums up his existence in the Barrel.

When inej climbs six stories with her hands threatening to burn off and when inej chokes tante Heleen to steal her necklace and when she defies gravity sometimes too and when she doesn’t break under torture despite thinking kaz won’t come for her and when she decides to spend her life hunting slavers and when she climbs on top of shipping containers despite having a knife in her side and bleeding out and when she’s kind despite everything she’s been through but won’t let people take advantage of her and when she

enough about kaz, jesper literally kills people just for the adrenaline rush

Ok I have something to say about this. Yes and also no. It's true that the fandom doesn't often reckon with the fact that Jesper is deeply morally questionable because of the way he handled his situation (conning his father for money, getting into jobs that require him to kill people to fund his gambling). Obviously we are able to see the complexity of his case because of the nature of addiction - it's a painfully messy illness that can warp people's morality to get what they crave.

Adrenaline-seeking, which Jesper does, can be a symptom of ADHD, but I would say that's not really the reason that he kills. Canonically, he doesn't like killing, or get a rush from the actual act. But whenever he's in a gunfight, it's literally the only time he uses his powers, however subtly. Grisha more or less get a high from using their powers, and repressing them causes illness (in Jesper's case, repression is implied to heighten his adrenaline-seeking behavior like gambling and fighting). That leads me to think that Jesper can't seem to stop because he is addicted to shooting. He's described as practically glowing after a fight. It's the only time he is free of the itch inside him that comes from self-repression. If anything, his adrenaline-seeking should be lower when he's using his guns to exercise his powers. Perhaps I'm splitting hairs, but I don't interpret that he kills for an adrenaline rush - it's more that he kills for his only relief, without realizing it's just the use of his powers that is helping him.

The saddest part is that Wylan and Matthias were the first people to ever suggest to him that this was the case, and present the possibility that there could be other ways to find reprieve without fighting and killing. Jesper never learned about his own identity as Grisha because of his upbringing, and the fact that he finds out only after he's done so much is really kinda heartbreaking. He never really allows himself to stop long enough to think about the violence he partakes in the way we see other characters do. I feel like post-canon, Jesper would finally have space to really reckon with what he'd done to cope with not only his gambling addiction, but also his repression.

Ok I have more things to say about this, because though I can't tell if these previous tags are disagreeing with me or not, they do bring up something else I want to talk about in terms of narrative.

Most stories featuring characters and plots of nuanced morality tend to explore characters' more complex relationships with violence. Six of Crows is one of them - the narrative isn't trying to tell us "all violence bad" or even "this violence is good and justified, this violence is not". I am also not trying to push an analysis that absolves a character of moral ambiguity one way or another. HOWEVER, I'd argue that the narrative themes of Six of Crows themselves cast most violence that the main characters commit in a light of tragedy. The series is very much about children that were spit out by oppressive systems who, one way or another, have turned to violence to live, in some cases against others in the same predicament. The narrative questions the systems that brought the characters here, and shows explicit examples of how the violence they have partaken in negatively impacts them and traumatizes them further. It's a tragedy because they're kids that should never have had to harm others and take lives in the first place. Individual readers don't necessarily have to investigate the tragic implications of death and violence, but the narrative is very focused on the issue, and I think that it does the story an injustice to insist that it's fiction so there's no need to dissect the themes of violence.

And on a personal level? I don't need characters to be squeaky clean for me to enjoy them. But honestly, I find characters with an uncomplicated apathy toward violence to be boring. I'm tired of characters who kill and don't think about it, who never grapple with the value of human life, who just kill for plot convenience and for the author to gloss them with the aesthetic optics of being a "badass". Everyone enjoys a piece of media differently, and I am pretty unenthused with a character who is ~ruthless~ and ~badass because they kill people coolly~. There is an oversaturation of that in fiction at the moment, and it just kind of exhausts me. Personally, I love characters who have a complicated relationship with violence, who still value human life and are empathetic and have to truly grapple with their own actions. I like their badassery to be in their fight to maintain their compassion, not their lack of it. It's easy to not care - it's difficult to stay human. I think SoC touches on this, and that's why I'm really drawn to characters like Inej and Wylan - and I think to a degree, Jesper. Jesper is clearly someone with a big heart and a shit ton of issues, and I feel like it also does his character a disservice to boil it down to "he likes killing people because it's cool". Like. Boring. If you enjoy the character more that way that's fine, but there is nothing wrong with me investigating the nuances a bit more for a reading experience that's more meaningful to me.

Tl;dr, violence is a big theme in SoC's characters and it deserves to be dissected, and if I wanted to see senseless violence I would just turn on the news or something.

One thing about Kaz that I feel like we don't talk about enough is his willpower. For all his cleverness and talents with locks and cards, his real skill in the end is sheer endurance. No matter how big or impossible the problem is, he does not stop until he's solved it.

When he breaks his leg, he walks on it anyway, and when it heals wrong, he gets a bone-breaking cane and makes it part of his legend. No matter the setback, he always keeps going, usually even better than before.

This is a huge part of who he is as a person and why he does the things he does, and it's also ultimately why he's so ashamed of his touch aversion. He tries to approach it the same way he has everything else, by just powering through, and he fails. It's the one problem he's never been able to white-knuckle his way out of.

For an idea of how seriously he takes his ability to do anything he sets his mind to, in the first quote he's literally trying to willpower his way out of needing to breathe.

Based on their friendship dynamic and the fact that Kaz is always fully covered in at least 2 layers of clothing if not 3-4, Jesper would absolutely start making "he's naked " jokes anytime Kaz so much as rolls up his sleeves.

Kaz: *loosens his tie and undoes his collar after a long evening at the Van Eck manor*

Jesper: okay whore

Joost spends one (1) chapter complaining about how Anya’s brown eyes make it impossible to compliment her and Inej and Kaz spend the next two books coming up with different ways to admit they love each others’ brown eyes

Joost: there's no pretty way to describe brown eyes 😔

Kaz, about to call Inej eyes lost planets, black moons: hold my beer

True crime media is insensitive but I will give it credit: it’s the number one thing that radicalizes women.

It’s presented as apolitical, but when you watch constant stories of women being raped, tortured, and killed, and the shit way the justice system handles that… you realize how much society hates women and girls.

Even episodes of Snapped show how society coddles pedophiles and has harsh punishment for the girls who finally fight back against their rapist and abuser. I saw an episode where a grown man married a 14 year old and tortured her with knives for years, and she has the evidence all over her back to prove it. Police did nothing. She finally kills him in self defense, and she gets life in prison. That shit radicalizes you, it makes you angry.

When a man complains about how hard it is to be expected to not cry, and you just finished watching a video about women’s getting acid thrown in their face for simply being women… it puts everything in perspective.