And in MTMTE, Rewind transferred a load of history data to Tailgate so he could be up to date with the times.
Ooh, that’s a good one! Coming in the same issue as the previous example of datalogs being sent wirelessly into Transformer brains, this is a good example of why sometimes they must need to do it via a direct link. Rewind here is shoving four million years of data into Tailgate’s brain in 11.3 seconds, and Tailgate is actually seeing and experiencing it “live,” not receiving a file to look through later. Bet you can’t do that wirelessly!
So are there any ways that you criticize people in a tactful way? If so what are some of them? :) hahahaha thanks a lot and have a happy new year!! :)
How to Give Critiques the Right Way
1. What’s your intention?
It’s ok to give critiques if:
You’re helping someone improve themselves or their quality of work
You want to address the root cause of a problem or misunderstanding between you
Avoid it if:
You’re showing your superiority/their inferiority
You’re trying to prove you’re right
You’re coming from a place of anger or hurt (there are better ways to express yourself like talking through your issues instead of criticizing the other person)
You’re criticizing unimportant individual differences or personal choice (e.g. someone’s choice of fashion)
2. Do they want it?
If someone isn’t willing to hear you out, you’re wasting your time. They won’t follow your advice and may feel hurt or resentful towards you.
You should have a rapport before giving a critique. If not, it’s usually fine if you have their respect, or if they explicitly ask for a critique.
If you must critique to someone who is generally sensitive or defensive, make sure they’re in a good emotional state first. Let them know you can help comment on the fiction they’re writing, for example, and set up a time you’re both comfortable with.
3. Is it a good time and place?
It’s better to give critiques in a private environment (i.e. not in front of their friends or coworkers)
Make sure they’re not busy with something else or have other concerns clouding their minds
4. Is your critique constructive?
Here are the components of a constructive criticism:
What they’re already doing well
What’s not working well and why
How to improve it
The how is the key. It distinguishes a helpful critique someone can actually use, from a useless attack that only points out faults.
There’s a difference between someone saying “wow, your drawing is bad.” (negative criticism) and “the anatomy is kinda off, fix it” (unhelpful criticism), and “hey, the balance of that character you drew is a bit off. That right leg looks like it can’t fully support the weight of the body with this pose. Try increasing the size of the thigh and shifting it to the right a bit” (constructive criticism).
What would you say are the most important parts of writing the Master in general?
Depends on the incarnation, since each one is different. I know you
said in general but I’m going to focus on Delgado a bit since he was the
one I was talking about in my previous post.
I find interesting is the shift in the way Delgado is perceived,
because we all think of him as the reserved, serious one, but based on interviews with Anthony Ainley that I’ve read, it seems Ainley
was considered the serious one back when he was playing the role and Delgado was the fun one. And I can
see why, because Delgado’s characterisation was in many ways lighter and
more playful than Pratt’s, Beevers’, and Ainley’s. I think Roberts and
Simm are probably the ones who changed this perception amongst fans,
since Delgado does indeed seem very serious and restrained compared to
them. But seeing him as only that misses an important side to his character.
read too many EU stories where the Master is just… boring. A dull,
cliche villain with nothing noteworthy to offer. If that’s who he’d been
in the TV show, I wouldn’t care about him at all. I mean, conceptually, the
Master has never been that unique a villain, which is why it’s vital he
written and acted in a compelling and entertaining way. No one likes the
Master because he’s a megalomaniac trying to take over the universe—we
like him because he’s fun, or because of his relationship with the
Doctor, or because the actor makes it work. That’s what got me invested in him when I watched Terror of the Autons. Roger Delgado could
completely sell any line he was given and keep you totally hooked. He
could do sinister, he could do funny, he could do charming, and he could chew the scenery in a way that never seemed too over the top.
many writers only focus on his role as an antagonist and write his
whole personality around that. But the thing is… I don’t really care about that. I don’t
care what his evil plan of the week is, especially when they don’t even
give him entertaining plots like deadly plastic daffodils or disguising as a
vicar to summon the devil. I’m not interested in watching him simply
strut around gloating, serving as nothing more than an obstacle for the
Doctor to overcome. But this is how he’s so often used. For example, what
prompted my previous post was the recent DWM comic where he meets
Twelve. There are a few good moments there, but ultimately it turned out
to be rather a let-down. You could have some amazing fun with
Delgado and Twelve—so much wonderful banter, little moments of friendship, a
bit of angst depending on how you played it, foreshadowing for the
Master’s future interactions with Twelve as Missy, etc.—and all that
potential is basically wasted. The story is
only interested in using him as a one-note antagonist.
The thing is,
villainy isn’t actually the Master’s best/strongest trait. As an
antagonist he’s rarely all that threatening. If that’s the primary
aspect of him you play up, he’s going to get boring very quickly, and it
will make the moments when you should play up his villainy less
effective. This is something Moffat got right with Gomez, by
establishing her first as a villain, but then using her as an uneasy
ally (which was always a fun part of many Master stories in the Third
Doctor’s era) and thus adding another layer to her characterisation, but
ultimately keeping her darker nature intact with moments like her
trying to make the Doctor kill Clara.
That’s what makes the
lighter side to Delgado’s personality so important, because it contrasts
wonderfully with his terrible actions. Not only does his charm make us
like him, but it makes watching him murder people all the more
unsettling. Something that bugged me in the comic was a scene where
Twelve remarks, “I’m always angry in this body!” while he’s confronting
the Master, and the Master replies, “Intoxicating, isn’t it?” which
doesn’t really make sense, because Delgado wasn’t prone to anger at all.
He has occasional flashes of anger that pass quickly rather than
being constantly moody. If you study the way he interacts with his
henchmen, you’ll notice he’s frequently very lenient with them when they
mess up—usually just a brief “you incompetent fools!” telling off, and
then he sends them off on another task. He would probably have more success
if he weren’t so congenial towards them.
It’s not that he
actually cares about any of them, of course, he just knows that
sometimes people are more likely to do what they’re told if you ask
nicely, and he does enjoy playing the smooth, dignified,
impeccably polite gentleman. If you’re going to work for an incarnation of the Master
(which is a bad career move that has a 99% mortality rate, so I wouldn’t
advise it), go for Delgado. He’ll still kill you, but at least he’ll
treat you well until then.
An important thing about Delgado is that he doesn’t have the same
desperation or darkness to him that later Masters have, because at this
point he hasn’t been through all the ordeals they have. He hasn’t
struggled to stay alive in a decaying body or fought in the Time War
or any of that. Life is still mostly a game to him, one he thoroughly
enjoys playing (especially with the Doctor), so he’s not all that put
out if he loses a few rounds. He’s just having a good time doing what he
does. Sometimes he messes up really badly and that shakes him a bit, but as
long as the Doctor’s around to fix things it’s all good, right? At this
point he still genuinely believes that he can do anything, control any
terrible force from the dawn of the universe that he chooses to summon,
and make anyone do what he wants and see things his way, just because his
will is just that strong and he’s that awesome.
I don’t think he’s even all that
malicious/sadistic at this point, though there certainly is a bit of
that from time to time. It’s more a case of using any means necessary to achieve his goals
rather than actually wanting to hurt people (unless he has some beef
with them, in which case he will definitely make them suffer). I think
part of him honestly believes that his offer in Colony in Space—a
benevolent co-rulership of the universe with the Doctor—is a good,
feasible idea and the Doctor is being thick for not getting it. In
reality, it would never actually work, and his reign would remain
benevolent for maybe five minutes at most, but at this point the Master
isn’t quite so set in his role as a villain (at least not in his own
mind) and wants power and the Doctor’s approval more than he wants to inflict harm on anyone. Killing people is often a necessary part of his plans and
he has fun with it, but he doesn’t see it as a goal in and of itself.
I feel like I’m rambling on here, but what I’m trying to say is that
when writing for Delgado, you can’t just write the “mwahahaha I’m going
to take over the universe because I’m evil” side of him.
You can’t write him as purely cold and serious. You need an element of
fun and playfulness to his character, and you need a certain level of
friendliness between him and the Doctor. You need to understand his point of view and why he actually does the things that he does.
This kind of applies to
the Master as a whole. You need to incorporate the specific elements of
each one’s personality, you need to keep in mind their motivations
(which are more complicated than they appear and are wrapped up in a
desire for power, a superiority complex, and the Master’s dynamic with the
Doctor which can take on many forms ranging from
competitiveness/antagonism, a desire for approval and/or the Doctor to
admit they were right, and a simple need to restore their previous
friendship), and above all you need to make sure they’re entertaining.
They don’t necessarily have to be having fun—I love a good story where
the Master suffers, or better yet a nice helping of internal
conflict—but whatever they’re doing has to be compelling. If all they
do in a story is act as an obstacle they are going to fall flat because,
like I said, it’s not the concept of the Master that’s interesting,
it’s the presentation. If you want a conceptually interesting villain,
go with the Monk or the Rani instead. The Master serves an entirely different
How does Rogue One effect the future of Star Wars, Rey’s origin [new theory, she’s not related to the Jedi nor the Sith] and Episode VIII? [Warning: SPOILERS]
First of all, I just wanted to say thank you for all your support, I can’t believe how many of you guys read my previous post, so thanks, it’s greatly appreciated :D
I’ve been writing this up ever since I saw Rogue One, and I’ve delayed posting it, partially because of spoilers and yes, you have been warned, this is full of them. But I also wanted to be able to discuss with you all what you felt about the film.
I’ll be covering areas concerning Rogue One’s relevance to Episode VIII, my new thoughts on Rey’s origin, and will also talk about the direction Disney may be heading, based on the plot points and overall risks they took with R1.
The first thing to say is that the most important topic, as far Episode VIII is concerned, is the representation of the Force in Rogue One. In TFA, we got introduced to characters that were force-sensitive but not Jedi nor Sith [Maz Kanata and, one can argue, Kylo Ren]. Lor San Tekka was a believer in the Force, a member of the so-called Church of the Force, but he was a religious man, not a force-sensitive himself. TFA began to expand our vision of the Force, stretching it beyond just the light side and the dark side. It was not, however, the central part of the story. But in R1, the writers go much further, with the introduction of Jedha.
I like the fact that it is a moon; a clear reminder of Obi Wan’s famous line “That’s no moon” in ANH. Rather ironic, considering the fact that the Death Star’s main source of power actually originated from a moon.
The Temple of the Whills was considered to be possibly the first Jedi temple by members of the Church of the Force, but I think, based on VII and Achto, we can rule that out. We do not explore the Temple of the Whills any further in the film as it was destroyed by the Empire, but I think this was deliberate tactic on the screenwriters part. Mainly because it was not relevant to the overall story arc of Rogue One, but also because I think we will be exploring the Whills and the real, original Jedi Temple further in Episode VIII, where it becomes more relevant. Still, they are showing us that these temples do exist, and this clearly ties into TFA and episode VIII. There is an overlap in lore going on here, despite there being completely different writers for Rogue One. These films are connected, do not be fooled.
There is also a connection here to Lor San Tekka, because the The Temple of the Whills was thought to be sacred to those of the Church of the Force. It’s important to note that at this time, even with Obi Wan, Yoda and Darth Vader still alive, the Jedi have already become part of myth and religion, which makes the idea of the Jedi still being viewed as myth in TFA slightly more believable. The Whills are even more mysterious than the Jedi. The Force is depicted more as a myth, a religion than it is an actual, physical power. In TFA, it was hinted at. In Rogue One, it is made abundantly clear.
“I am one with the Force, the Force is with me.”
Baze Malbus and Chirrut Îmwe are similar to Lor San Tekka; they want to bring balance to the Force, but they are believers, not force-sensitives. They protect the Temple, but all that is left there are the crystals, which are all being taken away by the Empire. The Whills themselves are no longer there, their history is surrounded by mystery and even the Jedi don’t know much about them it seems.
But they are important. The Whills were first mentioned by George Lucas in his first draft of Star Wars [episode IV], years later in the novelisation of RotS, ten years later in the first page of novelisation of TFA and now in Rogue One.
I think there is a connection here to TFA and this idea of the Force will continue to expand in Episode VIII. We may even see that there are actually many who believe in the Force, even if they are not force-sensitives themselves. Perhaps we shall see that belief is just as powerful as the power of the Force itself. I think the whole story of Rogue One heavily implies this. The idea that faith is more powerful than any sort of physical power. The kyber crystals actually represent this idea and although they are used for the Death Star, they have potential to do so much more. It gives Jyn and the rest of Rogue One faith and hope.
Kyber crystals also play a major part in the film, although surprisingly, there is little information given about them, apart from the fact that the Empire had been mining for them on Jedha and other locations. There is a lot of technical information available about them; how they were wrongly used in the Death Star, how Jedi would pick a crystal and it’s colour would change etc… But as far as Episode VIII is concerned, if the rumours about Luke constructing a lightsaber are true, we will be learning more about Kyber crystals and their history in episode VIII.
What I find particularly fascinating is the fact that the crystals are also called ‘Living Crystals’ and this ties back into TFA. The title, ‘The Force Awakens’, almost implies that the Force is a living thing, and this emphasis on the crystals further alludes to this. There is a very nice shot in Rogue One where several Rebels examine the crystals in fascination, even though they don’t understand their hidden power, or how to unlock such power. The crystals are also important when it comes to interpreting a certain Force Vision in TFA and also a specific character.
A little like wandlore in Harry Potter, the crystals react to light side force sensitives, and naturally change to a specific colour when the said light sider constructs a lightsaber. Dark siders have to actually manipulate and bend the crystal to their will in order to construct it into a lightsaber.
This is important for when we interpret the Force vision Rey experiences in TFA. Based on how much importance has been placed on the kyber crystals in Rogue One, I personally now believe that the saber itself is actually irrelevant.It doesn’t matter who made the lightsaber or even who used it. It is the crystal inside which is the crucial point. I believe that the crystal, which has Force energy within it, called to Rey, and the way that she reacted to it, as in when she touched the lightsaber, is unique to her and her alone. And with good reason.
Nobody else, not even Anakin, Luke or Obi Wan, has had a reaction like Rey has to the lightsaber. As I said in my previous post, the lightsaber ‘called’ to Rey. It has never done that for anyone else. And I actually think that it’s got a lot to do with the kyber crystal inside and it’s possible origins, which we currently know nothing about.
But what, for example, if it originated from Achto? We know now that Force temples were built above ground which had Kyber crystals hidden underneath.
I must confess that I don’t watch the various sw tv programmes, so my knowledge is limited, but, on a logical level, why would kyber crystals suddenly become so important in the films [specifically Rogue One] unless they had some relevance towards the future installments?
One possible theory I have is that Luke will eventually explain to Rey why she managed to force pull the lightsaber to herself. If we go even further, he may even explain why kyber crystals cause certain people to relive memories and experience visions. Or perhaps, why this particular crystal reached out to her through the Force. And when I say certain people, I do mean it.
I think that there is a very good reason why Rey is the first force sensitive, on screen, to react to a kyber crystal in the way that she did. She clearly isn’t just a force sensitive, she is something infinitely more complex and new. Although it’s completely just pure speculation, I think that she may be related to people who had a certain power over the kyber crystals - perhaps they had the potential to unlock unknown power from the crystals, something that went far beyond the lightsaber, the Deathstar, beyond what any Jedi or Sith were capable of.
The crystals are connected to the Force, that much is clear, but I think that it goes further. The vision that Rey experiences involves her hearing the voice of Obi Wan Kenobi, and unlike the other voices, what he says is new and most importantly, present. This is not a voice of the past, but a voice speaking directly to Rey.
“The ability to defy oblivion can be achieved, but only for oneself. It was accomplished by a Shaman of the Whills. It is a state acquired through compassion, not greed."
So Qui Gon Jinn informs Yoda. He explains, according to the novelisation of Revenge of the Sith, that he learned how to become a ‘Force Ghost’, a state of eternal consciousness, from a Shaman of the Whills.
The Whills were beings who had a close connection to the Force, and it is these beings who I think might possibly be the first known Force Sensitives in the galaxy. That’s just me speculating though, and it would fit in with TFA, as I’ll explain later.
The Whills also charted the history of the galaxy, as shown at the beginning of the novelisation of TFA. Note that they are Force Sensitives but separate from the Jedi. In fact, they are referred to as ‘beings’, so we don’t even know if they are entirely human.
The Temple of the Whills in Rogue One is also called the Temple of the Kyber, which actually tells you a lot, because it means that the Whills and Kyber Crystals are closely linked together.
Obi Wan is the most featured Force Ghost in all the films, and I think, logically, Rey’s connection to the crystal [her force vision] equals to a connection to those who are in a state of eternal consciousness, because Kyber Crystals are connected to the Whills. ‘Whills’ in the earliest draft of the original SW film, according to George Lucas, was another word for the Force.
So what am I getting at here?
Again, this is really stretching it, but could it be possible that
Rey herself is actually a descendant or part of the Ancient Order of the Whills?
She is clearly a Force-sensitive, but perhaps her origins are neither from the light side or dark side, but from something infinitely more ancient….. It would explain a lot about that Force Vision, for if she was a ‘Whill’, then it would explain why the kyber crystal inside Anakin’s lightsaber called out to her, in a way that it hasn’t for any other Force Sensitive in the current films.
Perhaps she has the power to unlock other Force abilities from the crystals, and this is what Luke and herself are discovering, according to the rumours about some scenes in Episode VIII.
And as far as Kylo Ren is concerned? What if the real reason he wanted to find the map was not because he wanted to confront his old mentor, but because he too was searching for
the First Jedi Temple, something Snoke has no interest in? What if he was after Kyber Crystals? We know that he only managed to get a cracked, damaged one. And what if the
‘First Jedi Temple’ which I think we can assume is Achto, is actually a reference to the Whills themselves?
Rogue One expanded the universe of SW, showing that things were not as black and white as we assumed. The Rebels were not exactly goody two shoes, and we were introduced to characters who had their own agendas. We even got another traitor, this time in the form of Bodhi Rook. Cassian Andor has rather questionable morals and I think it’s interesting to compare him to Finn, who defected because he didn’t want to kill for the First Order. If the Resistance is to become more like how the Rebels are depicted in R1, then I think Finn must reach a point where he starts to feel conflict over the fact that the Resistance does terrible things as well, and that it is hard to find complete political correctness in any organization. It could also lay down background for why the First Order is so opposed to the Resistance and the New Republic. This of course relates back to Adam Driver’s recent analysis of TFA, comparing the Resistance and the First Order to two opposing, terrorist groups, both rather extremist in their actions. R1 only further confirms this I think, and if Laura Dern’s character is going to be as morally ambiguous and problematic for Leia as rumours have circulated, then I think we could possible see a ‘Winter Soldier’ type of situation, where Poe, much like Cassian, has been given his own set of personal orders that the others of his team don’t know about. Heck, it might even be Finn himself, although I see him as a very Captain America-like figure, at least where his morals and beliefs are concerned. He has moral integrity, but also an incredibly strong sense of honour. The fact that Hux’s brainwashing program on him didn’t work proves this. In many ways Finn is the very opposite of Cassian, who was a spy, and that makes for interesting narrative since they are both, technically, on the same side.
And then there’s of course the elephant in the room, which is that everyone dies.
Now I’m not suggesting that everyone in TFA is going to die, but it is interesting that a lot of so called good guys in Rogue One have checkered pasts and over the course of the film, they have to come to terms with that and accept each other for who they truly are. And it is only when they do so, that they understand that there is something bigger than them at work. The Force greatly implies this. The only reason Rogue One succeeds is because of the fact that they are, in fact, rogues.
They go against the establishment, which, in this case, means the Rebel Alliance, and act on their own set of morals, as Cassian shows when he says that he wants to help Jyn in the third act of the film. This is actually a rather Luke Skywalker like thing to do, as Luke also went against the advice of his mentors, and saved his friends and, eventually, saved, not killed, his father.
Rogue One is a much more adult movie than TFA, and for one very simple reason. The characters in R1 are adults with history, unlike the new characters in TFA who I would say are more like young adults. Hence the themes that are covered are more complex and their conflicts are more over a sense of world-weariness, something which we could connect to Han Solo.
I think that if Disney is willing to go this far with R1, there’s nothing to suggest that Rian Johnson won’t be allowed to do the same for the remaining two episodes of the new trilogy. And I’m pretty convinced that it’s going to be about the Whills.
It’s also rather telling that the Guardians of the Whills get their own theme in Rogue One. The first three notes of it’s theme are exactly the same as those of Across the Stars. Take from that what you will.
Examples of crappy things that Gon’s friends did to him during the CA arc.
Since I mentioned it somewhat vaguely in my previous post, I felt I should expand on it a bit. People love to talk about the ways Gon was shitty to his friends during the CA arc, but let’s discuss how they weren’t exactly the most thoughtful of people, either.
Exhibit A: Something else that I’ve actually never seen the fandom address was how Killua used Gon’s feelings about his (presumably-murdered) father figure as a way to manipulate/control him. Even if Killua had good intentions in mind (he did), it was a really shitty thing to do to his friend, who he knew was already at the point of mentally-breaking because of it.
I mean, yeah, Gon was selfish because he said that mean line to Killua when Killua was trying to prevent him from killing Pitou…because it’s not like Pitou would have, without hesitation, killed them if it had the chance, right?…but THIS was stuff that really bothered me (even moreso because people found it “funny”). I know this line was likely written off as humor, but they all knew that Kite’s name was an extreme emotional trigger for Gon, yet they still had no problem with using him against Gon–who again, is a distraught and emotionally-unstable 14-year old boy.
(Furthermore, I think the most disturbing part of it is that it is strongly implied that Killua knew that Kite was dead already, while he knew Gon was still holding on to blind/delusional faith that Kite was alive, yet he still chose to do this. And he knew that when the illusion would finally break, Gon would be left irreparably-devastated.)
Exhibit B: I think people fault Gon again for losing control and almost killing Morel in this scene, but remember–again, they deliberately used Kite as a way to manipulate Gon into “proving his worth” as a team member, at the cost of severely emotionally-triggering him.
Imo, it’s comparable to how, during the Hunter exam arc, the prisoner in the tower–unknowingly on his part, which made his actions actually more excusable than Morel’s–used the Spider tattoo/his clan’s massacre to upset Kurapika to the point of almost beating him to death. Except Gon didn’t–and immediately after, he even apologized profusely for losing control, even though Morel had purposefully coerced him into doing so, possibly traumatizing Gon all over again.
And remember–Gon apologized to both Killua and Morel.
(These are the ones I thought of off the top of my head and have the energy to expend on–feel free to add to, or dispute, anything here.)
Thing One: Positivity in fandom is such an important thing to me. You want to yell from the rooftops about how much you love your favourite character? About how your favourite show saved your life? Dude, I am right there with you. And if someone comes along and harshes your squee or tells you that you can’t like a thing? You let me know and I’ll whip out the rolled-up newspaper to give ‘em a bop on the nose.
Thing Two: Sometimes posts under the banner of “positivity” actually wind up making vulnerable fans feel more unwelcome in fandom. An example: “I love the new female characters in season 12 of RvB!” is an awesome statement, and I will totally back you up on that and write a bajillion fics featuring them. On the other hand: “I don’t get why people are complaining, the female characters in season 12 of RvB are written way better than in previous seasons” is a bit more of a jerk statement, because it’s using positivity (good female characters!) to shout down/be dismissive of the folks who think “female characters exist” is a bit of a low bar for celebration, or were maybe uncomfortable with the bad-drivers/lol-butts/relegated-to-the-background stuff in the show this season.
Basically, it’s understandable to feel uncomfortable if some folks come up and say “our favorite show did something hurtful”. And if you want to double-up on your positivity in response to that, go for it! By all means, do something fun: start an appreciation week for your fave character, write a fic, start an RP. Nobody’s saying you’ve even got to acknowledge the negative sides to your favorite show.
But you’ve definitely gotta avoid knee-jerk attacks on other fans, especially if your only message is “I WASN’T OFFENDED SO YOU SHOULDN’T BE EITHER.”
What it boils down to: fandom seems to have a really weird definition of the word “hate”. Someone saying, “I don’t like it when X makes rape jokes” isn’t hating on X; if anything, they’re responding to X’s hate that’s being directed at them. On the other hand, someone saying, “I don’t like Y because she’s such a [gendered slur]” is definitely hating on that character–there’s no self-defense going on there at all, they’re just being nasty and misogynistic. That’s an important distinction. The latter might warrant a defensive post from fans of Y. The former definitely doesn’t–fans of X should probably stay out of it.
Basically: I make my grumpy-posts when fans are being attacked in some way–either directly (“fans who hate on X need to stop watching the show!”) or indirectly (using slurs to describe characters that a lot of fans hear directed at them on a regular basis). I never do it to harsh someone’s squee or to hate on a character or fan I dislike. I rarely even do it when it’s just a one-time offender–if someone makes a crappy post, more often than not I’ll just scroll on by and maybe think about unfollowing.
But when it’s someone who makes the same mistakes again and again, or someone who has a lot of sway in fandom, or if it’s just a conversation we’ve had a billion times before, I’ll make a post about it. And if I mention another fan by name you’d better believe it’s because a lot of folks have made it known to me that they’re being hurt by that person.
Most times, the hurt is unintentional and can be cleared up with a minimum of fuss, and we can all get back to our positive happy place. But just, y'know, try to be aware of the social dynamics and context at play here: if you’re making a positive post about your favorite show, are you making it in order to provoke the folks who were hurt by that show? Have you incorrectly labelled frustrated self-defense as an attack on your faves? Are you more focused on protecting creators from fans than vice-versa?
It’s hard to be diplomatic. I get that. A lot of us hang out online so much in part because we’re maybe a little inept in the social department. But it’s very, very easy to check yourself every now and then and ask whether what you’re posting is going to be kind and mindful of more vulnerable fans. That’s the priority.
There are many anti-Swan Queeners out there that say that SQ believes, “Regina is so healthy for Emma.” I personally believe that they are good for one another, supporting each other in saving themselves from the darkness within them, but that doesn’t mean they don’t have their unhealthy moments, as well. I believe, and I respect if others believe otherwise, that Regina is better suited for Emma than Hook. The support I have for this argument is that Regina tries to get Emma to break down her own walls, whereas Hook stated, “I liked your walls. I liked being the one to break them down.”
In the well scene between Emma and Regina in 5x08, Regina uses the dagger to help Emma break down the walls she has built up for herself, pleading to her, “You just have to be brave enough to knock down all those walls you are hiding behind.” The antis use this scene to support their claims of how unhealthy their relationship is. They state that ‘Regina controls Emma clearly against her will’, which is not completely accurate. In the scene, Regina also states, “The dagger can make you look, but you have to choose to see.” While she may sound demanding, the words she uses in the scene clearly give Emma a choice in the matter, debunking the statement that it was ‘clearly against Emma’s will’.
In the following scene, Emma is approached by Hook and she asks him, referring to the dagger, “Regina was going to use it on me, why not you?” To which Hook responds, “What she did was wrong.” Emma follows his statement by saying that Regina was right in having used the dagger on her. It has already been canon that Regina and Emma understand each other in a deeper level, Emma having admitted the fact in 4x05 and Regina in 5x08. The first statement where Emma asks Hook ‘why not you’ could also be taken as “Why was Regina the one who thought to use the dagger to help me, not you?” A common theme in this show is that the world isn’t always black and white, right and wrong. There are many gray areas, as well. This is a good example of that.
Aside from the fact that Regina was using the dagger with Emma’s best interest in mind, Hook’s first use of the dagger was mere seconds after Emma became the Dark One. He was the first to grab at the weapon and he instantly called out summoning her with, “Dark One, appear!” He had no idea what had happened to Emma and if it were safe for her to return to Storybrooke, which isn’t really putting her best interest in mind. Grant it, he was worried about her but that still doesn’t excuse the fact he immediately thought controlling her was the best way to get her back to them.
To add to this, I believe that Hook and Emma being together brings out the worst in both parties. An example of this would be their first date where Hook believes his hand is making him revert to his previous self, but it was actually him all along. Another example of this with Hook is when he jumped off the top of a building to get Emma’s attention, which is not a good message to send to the viewers. By doing this, he forces her to confront him.
As for Emma, she selfishly turns Hook into the thing he spent most of his life trying to get rid of: the Dark One. I made a previous post about this here, relating this event with Emma sacrificing herself for Regina’s happiness. In summary, both had the same result but for different reasons, therefore making the claimed ‘double standard’ against Swan Queen obsolete.
Emma has constantly supported Regina throughout her redemption arc: believing her when she said she didn’t cast Zelena’s curse, helping in Operation Mongoose, saving Robin Hood while risking turning darker, and even sacrificing herself to the darkness for her happy ending. They are constantly there to help each other when needing a push in the right direction, which is a quality of a healthy relationship.
If you don’t see the point I am trying to make here, please respond with your own support as to why you disagree, but please keep it polite. After all, when the day is done and over with, we are all part of the same fandom: Once Upon a Time. I know it is a lot to ask, but it would be nice if we could all support one another’s beliefs and defend our own without getting overly offensive towards another ship.