“I never thought I’d say this, but just so we’re clear, I would follow you to the end of the world with only mild complaining.” – @starkastichotmess

image

Loki, hunkered over as ever at a computer in the laboratory beneath the main floor, is inanimate as a statue.  He remains thusly for the longest time. 

When he comes to life, the glint in his eyes is uncharitable: hostile.

Beyond anything else, however, it is suspicious.  

image

“Who put you up to this?  Barton?  Romanoff?  Or someone with a less obvious agenda for cruelty?  The Vision, perhaps? Tell me what I’ve done, to have this carrot dangled: heartfelt camaraderie from someone I respect?  In my long life I have learned it is too good to be true.  So why? WHY? Is it FUNNY, Stark?”

It’s been months, years, since Loki erupted in so volatile a fashion.  His fair rice-paper thin skin goes blotchy-red with ungainly emotions.

image

“Is my loneliness FUNNY?” 

luke-skywalker:

What did it cost? Everything.

Rot in hell, Thanos.   Actions speak louder than words, and you are not sorry enough to spare your own child.   You’re not sorry enough to give her peace in death, so eager are you to win.  “My destiny” translates into “my selfish fanatical glory mission.” Die forgotten. 

illusivexemissary:

//I see a whole lot of posts going around these days about whether a character is “good” or “evil” and what fellow fans should do and say as a result. The “should”-ing ranges from statements as malicious as those that morally judge and police other fans for liking a character (occasionally justifiable, if said character is, for instance, a sexual predator of children), to statements as benign as the witty retaliation “I love this trash character, don’t try to stan them, don’t call them a cinnamon roll, they’ve done  tons of things wrong and that’s why I like them!”

I posit an alternative mode of character categorization that exempts consumers of fandom media from moral or ethical evaluation of any kind: is the character INTERESTING, and can you RELATE to the character?

Because a cast of characters functions not because they are all good, or all evil, or some good, or some evil.  They function because we can IDENTIFY WITH THEM MEANINGFULLY, and ESPOUSE THEIR MOTIVES: OR BECAUSE WE CANNOT.   This is why people like the characters they like, write the characters they write. Sure, embedded in that relatability is whether you and the character SHARE a moral code, but moralilty and ethics are actually a SUB-component of  RELATABILITY VERSUS DISCONNECT. 

There is also a whole rich and wonderful world of discourse (despite the …oddly negative connotation it has via new Tumblr fads) in which issues of social, political, racial, ethnic, sexual orientation, and other dimensions of audience vs character identity can be explored, when you look at it this way. 

Let your arguments in fandom be guided that way. I honestly think that 9 out of 10 times it will make fandom more enriching, and more enjoyable, and discussions therein far deeper.  And it bypasses the whole “if you like x character and not y character, you must be a bad person” thing.