Criticism - Blog Posts

*It can be about anything and from any iteration.*

Hi everyone! I’ve wanted to know the most common criticisms about the franchise for a while now, so why not ask now.

I believe some of you know that I wrote a post about my own version of the TMNT. One of my strategies for writing it is to read fans fair criticisms and not making the same mistakes as the previous iterations.

I haven’t found a lot so I would like to know what you guys disliked(fill free to say your likes too) about the franchise.

You can talk about characters, plot, etc. from any iteration. Talk about multiple iterations if you want.

Thanks for reading! 😊❤️

💙💙💙

Dibujo a tinta (bolígrafo). Una herramienta a la que me he acostumbrado mucho y pienso que le estoy sacando provecho. ¿Que piensan? Estoy completamente abierta a criticas.

Ink drawing (pen). A tool that I've gotten used to a lot and I think I'm taking advantage of it. What do you think? I am completely open to criticism.

(I'm sorry, I use a translator, I don't speak English at all)

Thanks 💙

Story idea: Two dudes that have lived together their entire lives but one doesn't know the other exists.

Hear me out. Guy 1 is super chaotic. You know, forgetful, messy, gets distracted quickly (I think I just accidentally described ADHD). But through some cool coincidences or maybe just his forgetful brain, whenever he forgets his jacket and it starts raining, it suddenly pops up on his shoulders. His house is tidy when he gets home, so he assumes he must've tidied it up and forgotten. Sometimes those coincidences are a real lifesaver. Sometimes he's walking over the street and misses a car that's driving right towards him, and suddenly he's yanked back because his jacket got stuck on a tree branch or something.

Guy 2 is the guy who grabbed his jacket. He's been there for a really long time. Maybe they're twins, or maybe roommates.

Whenever Guy 2 steps into Guy 1's field of vision, Guy 1 turns, or something suddenly blocks it. Occasionally through some crazy twist of fate, like that one time a tree fell between them.

Whenever Guy 2 tries to talk to Guy 1 or even just makes a noise of any type, it's either covered by a different noise or Guy 1 just doesn't hear it because he's zoned out.

In the beginning, Guy 2 tried leaving notes for Guy 1, but they were always blown away by the wind, or someone accidentally poured juice over one.

Guy 2 has tried everything. He's tried asking others to tell Guy 1 he exists, but as usual, it was impossible for them to tell him about it. Sometimes they just forgot, sometimes they got spontaneously arrested or worse. He's tried messaging Guy 1 online, but the messages either didn't get delivered or got banned for some weird reason.

Only a few people online know about Guy 2's predicament. He vented about it on social media. The post is accessible to anyone, but he knows that Guy 1 will never see it because the algorithms just won't bring it to him, and even if he does, why would he think it's about him?

this might turn into a structureless rant and it will be rambly, but i’m just gonna be so honest, that moment with sevika at the end was so unearned and it accidentally encapsulates one of my biggest gripes with season 2.

the writing of the season betrays everything they set up about the piltover-zaun conflict. i fully expected a deeper exploration into the innerworkings of piltovian systemic oppression and/or the failures of its institutions. and it didn’t even have to be nuanced, mind you - had they done any kind of social commentary on just one aspect, be it the corruption of the council or the indifference of the privileged class, and how it accelerated the pace of piltover-zaun wealth disparity, i would have been fine with it. (i have SO MANY ideas on this specific topic i’m not even joking, maybe just because i’m a no chill raging leftist idk.)

instead, what we got was half-baked ideas of generic activism (i refuse to call it class activism) and throwaway music videos about anti-establishmentarianism that just boil down to “oppression bad”. don’t get me wrong, this is not inherently a bad message, but it’s an underwhelming and ineffective one, because it’s so inoffensive that it doesn’t actually challenge anyone’s political standings enough to elicit radical changes. and if you don’t think any political development adjacent to “zaun independence” is a radical change then i don’t know what to tell you.

and worst of all, the cumulation of DECADES of class struggle manifested into… nothing. NOTHING. a mutual avenger-level age-of-ultron threat just sidelined that whole plot line into the stratosphere. “we were oppressed but there’s an invasion so we’re cool i guess?” - said no zaunite ever. and do i even want to get into the fact that the final boss is a zaunite or are we not ready for that conversation yet? (i mean people have talked in depth about how displeased they were with viktor’s character development more eloquently than i can so go read those posts and give them some love.)

it’s so unimaginative and ridiculous that at the end the resolution to the class struggle is the fact that poor people are represented in the council now. the conclusion to that whole conflict is not even a triumphant moment it just felt empty. and it felt empty because the story, in the way it eventually played out, did not respect the core conflict that it had consciously tried so hard to flesh out. piltover and its ruling class were condemned for the fact that they crippled an entire city and its people, but then never had to face the consequences of those actions - and they probably never will, because even if sevika’s on the council now, she can still (and will very likely) be outvoted in any zaun-related matter. be so fucking for real.

it’s actually funny and eerie how that ending mirrors our current world in the way political institutions treat marginalized minorities demanding better treatment: instead of making actual systemic changes, those in power often shut down voices of the oppressed by giving them a seat at the table but with little to no negotiation power. it’s a shut-up-and-take-it tactic. it’s a non-solution. it’s disingenuous and evil. and it’s so disappointing that the writers decided that the ending we got was the best one they could think of for the people of zaun.

Zaun never got its independence but its ok guys Sevika is on the council now

I know I'm late to this. But:

The fact people complitely forget how Ava/Kris turned out to be into cp "art" and only use this information as another excuse to be transphobic towards her is gross af.

If someone say " it's common sense"

And you don't know it, Common sense isn't really common, is it?

So, I have a lot of problems with the latest (sixth) episode of Percy Jackson and the Olympians. I’m just going to start from the beginning and work my way through the episode to the end.

Firstly, the episode title is “We Take A Zebra to Vegas.” Do we *see* a Zebra? For all of two seconds. That’s it. So much for a plot-relevant episode title. It’s a nitpick, sure, but if you’re going to make something an episode title, it should have SOME relevance to the plot. I understand that that’s the only chapter where we see the Lotus Casino, so it makes sense to use that chapter title as the episode title. But is it *really* that much more effort to add a scene featuring Percy and/or Grover chatting with the Zebra? There’s certainly run time and almost certainly budget for it.

Then we get to the casino itself and, as loathe as I am to admit it, the movie did it better without question. Even the smallest of details — like the look and vibe of the casino are done so much better in the movie. The casino is designed to trap children, so it’s filled with water parks, roller coasters, and all that makes a kid lose their mind. We see that in the movie. In the show, it’s just a regular old casino filled with a bunch of adults of all ages. There’s only like 2 or 3 shots where you really see groups of children. And that’s not even mentioning the exterior architecture of it. It’s a nitpick, but the show version doesn’t even look Greek-inspired. In the movie, it’s basically a knock-off Caesar’s Palace with Greek Columns and everything. It’s great. The giant Lotus Blossom with a roller coaster coming out of the side just… isn’t.

Much like with Medusa, all the suspense was just thrown out the window. Once they enter, Grover does the whole “wait, Percy, did your mom read you the Odyssey?” shtick and the trio figures out it’s the Lotus Eaters that Odysseus faced. Consequently, Percy and Annabeth do not lose themselves in the casino. They stay sane the whole bloody time. What annoys me even more about this is that Percy even says as they enter the casino “what if we just chilled here and played some games for a bit.” It got my hopes up that we’d actually see a competent drug trip scene — I was wrong. Annabeth immediately shuts him down and he’s like “yeah, no, I was joking.”

Anyway, they go to look for Hermes. I’m not sure why the fuck Hermes loves hanging out in this casino. The show’s explanation is that he just likes chilling there and nothing more is said on the matter. It feels weird to be that an Olympian would just be chilling in a casino run by monsters without a care in the world. Whatever.

Once they enter, Annabeth decides Grover should split off so they can cover more ground. Um, hello, if you’re trying to cover more ground why not have EVERYONE split off, not just Grover? So Grover goes off on his own, finds a Satyr that used to know his Uncle Ferdinand and starts talking to him about the Search for Pan. The Satyr is like “oh, yeah, Pan. I think I found him here. Come follow me.” Grover follows and eventually forgets who he is (and ends up playing VR). Sure, great, one of the trio lost it, but that doesn’t account for the other two and we really didn’t need to shoehorn more Pan stuff in just for the sake of getting Grover to split off from Percabeth.

Meanwhile, Percabeth have found Hermes and he takes them aside to chat after they mention they’re friends of Luke’s. There’s a few things here that annoy me. Firstly, Hermes lore dumps all of the trauma that is May Castellan — something which doesn’t appear until the 5th book. We could have — and should have, imo — gotten the backstory behind Luke’s failed quest to the Garden of the Hesperides to steal a Golden Apple. The quest he failed when Landon gave him the scar on his face. The quest *Hermes himself* assigned to him. There’s plenty of resentment for Hermes that comes for that — we didn’t need May Castellan. Not yet.

Turns out, Hermes is just stalling them because he doesn’t want to help. Fucking dick. So, Annabeth goes invisible and steals his car keys — which Hermes absolutely knew about. They rescue Grover after a brief spell of forgetfulness. Annabeth reasons that they didn’t lose it like Grover because they were together and it’s harder to forget when you’re with someone. Sure, great. How do you explain the DiAngelos? I highly doubt that Bianca would willingly let Nico wander off on his own. It just doesn’t make any sense to me.

I really hate that the movie casino somehow managed to include Disco Darrin — the kid from the 70s that triggers Percy realizing something is fucked up — and that the show doesn’t. Darrin really helps reinforce the idea that the casino is full of kids out of time, which helps set up the reveal that the DiAngelos were in the casino for 70ish years and didn’t age at all. I hate that the movie did something better, I really do. But it’s just unavoidable when comparing these two scenes.

The trio then “steal” Hermes’ cab, which just so happens to have a letter addressed to the trio that supposedly tells them a back way into the Underworld. We’ll see how that turns out next episode, but I will be UPSET if we don’t get DOA Recording Studious and all that jazz. As soon as Percy (shoddily) drives the trio out of the parking garage, Hermes’ travel magic transports them to the beach in Santa Monica. That’s the one redeeming thing about this episode for me. That’s actually a really cool application of Hermes’ powers as the God of Travelers.

What I do have a problem with, however, is Percy’s experience in the ocean. Instead of meeting Poseidon, as was promised to us, we meet the Nereid from St. Louis. She tells Percy that “surprise, the summer solstice already happened. Poseidon waited for you as long as you could, but now he has to go marshal his forces for war. Go home now, your quest is done.” Um, what? The summer solstice passing makes no sense to me as a creative decision. The solstice is the reason that all the gods were on Olympus when Percy returned the bolt. You can’t expect the gods to just be chilling on Olympus 24/7 especially when war is about to break out.

Plus, you cannot tell me that Zeus wouldn’t have immediately started fucking shit up. His symbol of power was stolen — allegedly — by Poseidon. He’d want that back ASAP. In the book, it’s stated in no uncertain terms that, if Percy+Co. failed, Zeus and Poseidon would be fucking up the weather. Massive storms and natural disasters everywhere. The sky and the sea would be at war with each other. It would be like Armageddon. There’s 0 sign of that. At all.

Then, before Percy leaves, the Nereid gives him *four* pearls. Not three. Four. This takes away Percy having to sacrifice Sally for the sake of the world (even if she comes back eventually). This change just doesn’t make any sense to me. The explanation in the show is that Poseidon cares about Sally. But that makes 0 sense because there’s been an overarching narrative that All Gods Are Bastards. Additionally, even in this episode, Hermes mentioned that it was Poseidon’s advice to stay away from the lives of demigods/their mortal parents. That it’s awful watching them struggle and feel powerless to stop it. Why does Poseidon suddenly have the power to help Sally now? It just… doesn’t make any sense to me.

Another issue I have with this is that if the Nereid is telling Percy to go back to camp, why is she giving him *four* pearls? Assuming a retcon that the pearls transport the user to CHB, there’s no need for four. If Percy is supposed to return to CHB immediately, he doesn’t go to the Underworld to rescue Sally and therefore does not need a fourth pearl. If that isn’t a plot hole, I don’t know what is.

The episode ends with Percy being like “no, I’m seeing this quest through to the end.” Which is great and all, but the teaser for next episode worries me with how much it includes. We’re going to see Crusty’s Water Bed Palace, the Underworld, AND the fight on the beach with Ares. I don’t know how they’re going to fit that all into like 35 minutes of show time (accounting for the “previously on” segment and credits taking up 5 minutes of the 40 minute runtime). Crusty was the obvious cut from this episode so that it doesn’t feel rushed, but it *wasn’t* cut and that worries me.

And, furthermore, I think Crusty is going to have to be heavily modified for the screen. I see no way Disney allows Percy to go full medieval torture and stretch Crusty to death. Which is disappointing, if I’m being honest. It’s really the first indication of how Percy acts when he’s snapped/in the zone. Stuff like summoning hurricanes while fighting or overwhelming the weather barrier at Camp also falls into this category. That’s a nitpick, sure, but whatever.

Look, I didn’t want to be a hater. And I still don’t. I would love to love this show, but the problem with it is the marketing and the writing. It was marketed by Rick and the critics as a “faithful adaptation.” This is not that. This is a rewrite of the book that’s honestly worse than some fanfics I’ve read. Which says a lot because the PJO fanfic community is not known for having well-written works.

And the trio themselves just aren’t clicking as their book counterparts for the most part. Percy, especially, just doesn’t act like Percy. We’re missing his sarcasm and biting humor. It’s not Walker’s fault — anyone who’s watched The Adam Project” knows he can pull it off. Annabeth has lost most of her character development and had that screen time given to Grover. I was alright with it last episode with Ares, but it just did not work with Augustus this episode. The trio just doesn’t feel like the trio and I don’t think it’s the actors’ faults.

Like I said earlier, Walker can absolutely pull off Persass. The script just isn’t letting him do that and that disappoints me. I watched Leah in Beast and absolutely could see the Annabeth in her, but all of her moments and character traits are either being given to Percy and Grover or cut entirely. Taking away our knowledge from the books, we know the least about Annabeth’s character out of the trio. The script just isn’t making her click in my mind as Annabeth like the script in Beast did. I can’t really say much about Aryan, since I haven’t seen him in other works, but I do like that he’s being elevated above comedic relief. So… that’s a good thing, I guess.

Overall, I have a lot of issues with the show. Especially with this episode. I also have a lot of fears with the direction this show is going for the final two episodes and I’m nervous to see where Rick and the writers take this. Thanks for coming to my TED Talk.

The mothers

only pray

to get

Lawyers

Doctors

Presidents

and

Engineers

then

the world

stares on,

finding it hard 

to give us all our daily havocs,

for the rest 

of our lives.

Some are whores

and 

gigolos 

so you

marry them at

your own

risk

that when you

find them

extramarital

you know that

this was it,

the destiny thing.

Writing Tip 3

Take criticism like an adult. You won't always hear what you what to, the writing that you put so much time and effort into may be torn apart, but you have to roll with it. There's always some truth to complaints, some people just love tearing writing apart, most are honestly trying to give you feed back. If you get mad or cry how will you handle the publishing process? Most people get told no many times over, it's life.

So, don't be rude or outright ignore it. Take it to heart and if you get a complaint more than once it probably does need to be changed or fixed. If you handle this with a good attitude and act respectful, people will be less likely to rudely rip your stories apart. Besides, the compliments are worth it in the end.

An Essay Against Calvinism

As a premise to this essay I want to note that I write all this as a Christian, I go to a Baptist church but I was also greatly informed by many of the Catholic Church’s teachings on numerous matters. In this context it is plain to see that I don’t intend to negate the validity of a Calvinist’s faith, however I truly believe that there are some completely mistaken ideas that are either introduced by Calvin himself or held sacred by contemporary Calvinist cells. Connecting to this last sentence I must add that many of my complaints and reflections come from contact with actual Calvinist theologians and from current -- sometimes underground -- publications by them.

First of all I want to present the claims and concepts of the Calvinists that I’m going to argue against. (#1)Out of many articles of teaching they are most boastful of the center of their theology, which they say is God and they contrast it with other denominations’ different focuses -- or at least as they perceive that this contrast can be legitimately made. At the core of their Scripture interpretation lie two crucial elements: (#2)the Predestination “fact” derived from Paul’s letter to the Romans; and (#3)a very broad incorporation of the Old Testament’s teachings. There’s also the doctrine of (#4)“Total Depravity”, which states that men can do only bad things -- meaning all men at all times do only bad things.  And lastly there is (#5)a contradictory stance held by Calvinists on the principle of “Sola Scriptura”.

#1: As it will be explained in the point about Predestination, Calvinists support and try to resolve the internal conflict of their theology by referring to God’s infinite greatness, his infinite power, and the infinite influence of his rulings. They use these attributes of Him to get rid of all logical counterarguments because, quite undeniably, He’s above all human intellect, so we cannot take up a fight against Him in any way, not even dialectically. This comes together with -- again from another point -- the faith that God decides about everything constantly. Predestination to them means that God actively makes unbelieving souls believe, by His own selective choosing. This is always irresistibly happening, but in fact this is the case with all things in the world: God makes everything happen.

Without spoiling my second argument too much, this, in a nutshell, is why they think the focus of their theology is God -- they refer to Him about everything. This is usually put in contrast with how other denominations treat the questions of faith and Christian conduct: all other schools of Christian faith believe there is an active human component in these matters. For example: when somebody is converted to Christian faith a generic Christian will say “He found God”, whereas a Calvinist will make the same assessment through these words “God made him believe”; another illustration is that in generic terms someone would “sin”, in Calvinist terms someone would “not be forced to do good things by God”. I hope this clarifies it: Calvinists do not in fact put God more at the core of their focus than other denominations, they only erase other words from their dictionary*. This trickles down to their theology in a peculiar way, as they find it arrogant of other Christian theology’s to involve positive action and human initiative in their tenets because those are not autonomous, instead made directly by God. Why would anyone mention something else, or explain something through other means than God’s work, when that is all there is? goes their argumentation. 

I find it to be a serious misunderstanding of the contrasted denominations to say about them that they don’t put God at the center of their theology in the same exact way as them. In fact they say the same things with regards to God: He is all-powerful, all-encompassing -- the real difference is what Calvinists think about human beings. In a way they don’t believe in humanity. Not in the way that they don’t praise humanity or believe in its power to save itself, rather they don’t believe in its existence. More on this denial later, back to the point. As I’ve said, these theologies follow the same pattern, all believe there’s no salvation through actions, only through Christ but Calvinists laugh at the idea, when other denominations teach the believers about everyday conduct or talk about the search for purity. And they can’t avoid but laugh, since for them it is futile speech, men can do nothing on their own. Men’s every minute is ruled by God, if they be pure, God made it, if they be bad, God didn’t make them be pure.

This is an important mistake because all of Jesus’ warnings against pride and evilness fade in the shimmering light of denying the need for any Christian to strive to follow the teachings of the Bible -- after all, he’ll follow if God rules it, and he necessarily won’t if God doesn’t, he has no internal agency to act or remain inactive. Probably another point will bring more light on this...

#2: In Romans 8:29-30 Paul talks about how God has known and decided about His own before time to become like His Son. I was paraphrasing because I tried to both encapsulate the part that Calvinists base their teachings on and remain true to the text, not to accidentally bend it toward anything I might unconsciously prefer to be there -- I even tried to utilize the original Greek’s meaning for the most attainable truthfulness. The other bedrock of the Predestinarian Calvinist faith is the first part of the ninth chapter of Paul’s letter to the Romans.

It is an extremely dubious thing what the Calvinists do: they pose an interpretation of these scriptures and claim it is explicitly the content. I say it’s dubious because somehow non-Calvinists didn’t take up this mental and it’s never really been the canon interpretation. So they rely on one very revered source of the past: Augustine. His turn from Manicheism gave the Christian tradition one of its greatest theologians and philosophers, yet he shouldn’t be named as the one Calvinists will rely on. Augustine first championed the existence of free will, then, arguing against other schools of thought, went on more and more to shrink away from it. In The City of God he introduced the concept of God’s election for His salvation. It was much more moderate than Calvin’s but about near the end of his life, Augustine got to a point, where he, in a way, denounced free will and got to the point Calvin did. The reason he’s not an ideal theologian predecessor is that he never rested at any one state of opinion on the matter of predestination but kept it changing from work to work. Its evident reason is that he was continually arguing against others and in this fashion of reactionism were his interpretations born. Today we’re not having a discussion with the Plageans, there’s no actuality of his works, they should be inspected with a much more contextual approach and more analytically, not accepted as, well, Scripture. I want to note that I don’t intend to discredit Augustine, as there’s absolutely no way for me to do that, as he’s clearly my intellectual superior and I’d be a predestined loser in a sparring match, still, it’s important to see that there’s something forced in the Calvinist approach to legitimize their claims of predestination.

The Calvinist concept of predestination is as follows: God, in his sovereignty, elects certain individuals for salvation. Others He elects not, as everybody is worthy of damnation, which even further glorifies His loving kindness and goodness, since He does elect some by His grace. 

First of all it is crucial to remember that, despite what Calvinists claim, only the Calvinist interpretation of the texts from Romans is the above one. Other denominations and schools of faith never taught that this is the meaning of Paul’s words. Mind you, despite the claim that this is explicitly what he says. This statement of mine must be amended because the Calvinist interpretation isn’t completely dissimilar to others, traditionally Christians have believed that God works in people to help them to get to faith and on their own people wouldn’t be able to find salvation. Even so, this is what the work of the Holy Spirit in us is most often credited for: He helps us to break free from our flesh and eventual death, in order to be resurrected. This I do not argue against. Yet, it’s not identical to the Calvinist version.

The reason why predestination isn’t an interpretation that Christians traditionally believed is that salvation has been connected to Christ’s sacrificial death on the cross, His resurrection, and faith in it. Even though Paul doesn’t speak of any of these things in these verses. His mention of the Pharaoh, of the Jews and Gentiles, seem to show God’s workings on Earth. Especially so, since in these cases there was no Gospel, at the time of Moses the Jews didn’t have a concept of any afterlife or salvation, yet they were elected. If this election means election for salvation, then God’s saving works used to be happening completely without the sacrificial death of His Son, which I think is blasphemy. If we make the step as to say chronology is irrelevant from the point of view of God, there still seems to be a problem with Evangelization: if people were saved unknowingly, why does the Bible put an emphasis on the spreading of the Good News? Why does it matter? The question of afterlife for people before Christ’s time is quite mysterious for us but the Calvinist answer is outright contradictory, to say the least. It seems that Paul could possibly mean something other than God would choose on His own accord to save some and damn others, and like most Christians believe, there likely is a reality on the part of human initiative with regards to faith, even if not achieved completely alone.

Now there are Calvinist responses to these:

Predetermination is argued against because it seems illogical, whereas it seems so only because humans are much lesser beings and what constitutes logic**? Human constructions, whereas God’s great works far exceed those. He wills what He wills, that is His sovereignty and we are not to understand it but to abide by it and make ourselves subjects to it.

This is problematic only because predetermination seems to reflect solely the Calvinist vision, and I suspect they refer to God’s sovereignty only in order to prove themselves, as His rulings are indeed inarguable. Traditionally this isn’t the interpretation, logically it isn’t the interpretation, there is no reason to accept it, other than Calvin and Augustine said it and that falls into the category of tradition, which proves weaker than the entire Christian tradition; whereas if someone claims to have come to the same conclusion about predetermination, they used their logic, which is again overruled by sounder logic.

God is great, in fact He is the greatest in existence. It is arrogant to assume He needs our assent, that is, our initiative, our, so called, faith, in order to save us. If He wills to save someone, He cannot be stopped with any obstacle and if He wills not to save someone, those cannot somehow get into salvation.

My answer to this is that God’s irresistible greatness is made evident in His work of Salvation through Christ. That cannot be undone by anyone or anything, it is done forever. It is superfluous to go as far as to assume He must decide for us. This is, of course, assuming that it is possible for humans to autonomously believe. I will explain this later but it is a crucial question because Calvinism tends to express its stance not dissimilar to disbelief in human existence. So the problem with the Calvinist argument is that they believe non-Calvinists think God needs us to repent, on our own, is because He couldn’t otherwise save us and that makes Him look incapable of overcoming our will. And yes, evidently He can harden and soften people, but were it the case that people could decide to believe or disbelief, He could let them. God’s all-powerful work is that we can be saved and if we believe there’s no circumstance that can take us out of salvation -- simply, Calvinists reject the notion of free will.

#3: Now it is universally true that for sound doctrine it is necessary to incorporate the entirety of the Bible, that is, including both Testaments. Why Calvinists differ from other Christians in their doing so is that they look at it normatively (not differing from all schools of faith, as fundamentalist interpretations usually follow the same pattern). This is problematic because in the New Testament it becomes quite evident that Gentiles are not required to conform to old Hebrew rules and patterns and in the light of the Gospel the Old Testament’s essence seems to be revealed to be something completely beyond normative texts: it is a narrative gradually moving toward the final revelation, which is Christ as the Son of God and as the Savior. Paul also talks about the role of the Law in the Christian life, and in addition to this, many texts of the Old Testament, especially the ones concerning normative parts, philologically seem dubious, as in attributing rules and laws to Moses whereas they were created much later. This makes it questionable in the context of usefulness as normative texts and it seems just more likely that they are included in canon for other reasons, namely for context, or helping to create the image of Christ throughout the Old Testament. Now this is not as elaborate as the previous arguments but I hope I have at least made this argument at least an inspiration for understanding the underlying problem with this trait of the Calvinist faith.

#4: Calvin introduced the concept of Total Depravity in Institutes. It’s based on several verses from the Bible and he concludes that all men at all times are doing evil things and they cannot help but do that.

I will present three counterarguments to this, the first one I consider a weaker one, the second one I consider a more powerful one, and the third as an auxiliary one.

Firstly, through empirical inspection it is quite visible it’s untrue. Not only in the sense that not all people are doing the most vial crimes imaginable at all times but also seen in how sometimes people perform completely innocent acts. There’s familial love and care, which isn’t universal but at least general and usually observable. To this can come a counterargument of selfishness. People can perform seemingly innocent acts but be, in their spirits, totally depraved while doing so. Selfishness is widely accepted as a manifestation of sinful nature and when a mother takes care of her child, she wants gratification, she wants some subtle pleasure in return. This is understandable and eerily similar to Kant’s moral criteria of the categorical imperative. Still, many idealists, who aren’t Christians, show self-sacrifice for the sake of a good cause, without any hope or desire to be remembered or praised for their achievement. It is a rare, noble behavior, but nonetheless observable. Of course, what is empirical evidence, when a man can be deceived, or can misunderstand what’s before his eyes? This is why it’s a weak argument, when dealing with higher things than base natural science.

Secondly, Calvin seems utterly and irreverently selective with regards to his choosing of Bible verses. From the time of Noah, when everybody was evil, yet a man truly just before God existed, through the Psalms, which describe evil and good people, to Paul, who was quoting the Psalmist, everywhere in the Bible there is a dichotomy of Good and Evil persons. It’s very important when dealing with this matter. Even outside of the community of generally accepted believers there seems to be, at least portrayed, gracious characters in the Bible and contrary to a selection of decontextualized verses, the Bible never categorically claims that people would be inherently incapable of doing anything but evil. In fact, it would be futile to call anybody to do good or resist evil, were it impossible for them. While sinfulness in nature is apparent, its totality is Calvin’s invention. Other schools of faith teach the doctrine of deprivation in the way that all men are sinful and cannot achieve salvation, therefore are in need of God’s mercy, realized in Christ and His work of salvation.

The reason I find need for an auxiliary argument is that with total deprivation comes the incredible doctrine of human-denial. The ultimate response to any criticism about total deprivation is that men can do only wrong and God can make them do good, when He decides so. He does that for the sake of His own children’s benefit. This means that humans are bound to take the course of evil, unless by God they are bound to do good. The horror in it is that for anything to be alive it must have agency, it must be autonomous but if we are truly not doing things on our own accord, as we cannot possibly alter our will to decide between good or bad, we are not in fact real agents, we are not in fact alive (in terms of soul or spirit). Also, this claim is self contradictory, as if men were incapable of doing anything good, the evil they do would not be their own responsibility. For, are we responsible for things we don’t decide to do? Are we responsible for things we are forced to do? This can’t be a true state, as God is just and righteous, He isn’t condemning people if they are not responsible but they are. In Romans 9 we see a seemingly similar line of argument, only that applies to the election and that has already been discussed above.

#5: The principle of “Sola Scriptura” is that faith is based solely on the Scripture. Yet, this is, illustrated by my previous arguments, far from realized in the Calvinist system. They have their own inventions, their own interpretations and they cling to it and often choose to change the scripture to fit to their doctrines. There are visibly higher authorities than the Scripture among Calvinists and not only Jean Calvin himself -- but he certainly is --, but Councils and texts declaring doctrines. Of course, many denominations utilize extra-biblical sources to base their rituals and modes of teaching on, what separates the Calvinists is the hypocritical nature of it. While a church may have an influential tradition, it is possible to remain true to the Scripture, theologians only have to know which is which; in contrast with the Calvinist way, where tradition and authority is said to be the Scripture or its only right interpretation.

In conclusion to this essay I’d like to add a few notes. Most importantly the reason behind writing this is twofold: on the one side I find a few great errors in Calvinism, especially the kind I encounter through certain theologians and their influence, and I am worried it would spread (evidently more and more people are impressed by it); and on the other side I haven’t seen any denomination in my life be as actively critical and hostile toward other churches as the Calvinists, and it’s important to see that the ones who call the Catholics non-Christians and non-Calvinists as lessers, do in fact comprise the greatest sect in Christianity. These last few words might seem very harsh and I only half-mean them but in light of the above arguments I find myself strongly leaning away from them. Ultimately, I mean no harm, I intend not to hurt any Calvinist’s feelings, I’d be thrilled to continue it as a conversation on faith, and, most importantly, I don’t think Calvinists can’t be saved by God because of their mistakes.

Before commenting consider the following: this is not a scholarly work; I have written it truly as a Christian, don’t try to mix into this essay any other religion or atheism.

NOTES:

*In James there is a lot said about acts and while they’re still no way of salvation, he points out they are necessarily part of a living faith. It is for this reason that non-Calvinists typically mention good acts and even include it in their teachings, since, according to James, a good conduct is inevitably paired with faith. (I wonder if Calvinists are ever puzzled by James’ words.)

**Logic is often associated with humans, as inherently flawed, just like them, whereas in reality logic is the formalization of the paths to right conclusions. In this way it’s easy to see logic can’t be blamed, as it, by nature, cannot err. Where there’s failure in the conclusions, there’s a lack of sound logic. It’s a little bit beside the point, that’s why it’s a note, nevertheless, I thought it important to remind us all that logic is never the culprit, it’s not human-like in any way, it is a precise way of formulation, much like language is a way of expression, yet we -- while language is often unable to fully express something -- don’t make it the Big Bad and reason of false ideas.

***”schools of faith” is a phrase here, referring exclusively to Christian theological teachings and nothing of other religions, nor pseudo-Christian ones

Frankenstein? You Certainly Have No Idea

A while ago I wrote a similar post about Bram Stoker’s Dracula, where I explored how we’ve gradually departed from the original concept and eventually turned the whole story inside out--the way it’s usually believed to be today.

Horror and genre fiction in general are looked upon as solely entertaining literature. It is best represented by enormous fandoms around horror stories that are really the shallow water of the stream of art--yes, I’m referring to Stephen King.

Although is it not supposed to be more? Shouldn’t horror really be more than a good fright? Obviously I ventured out to write this post because I strongly believe horror can have more profound dimensions and it should. Actually, my opinion is mainly informed by Stoker’s Dracula and Shelley’s Frankenstein (and a good portion is a result of reading Poe extensively in my teen years, as it shows in the post later).

Let me begin by explaining a bit about contemporary horror’s genesis. As a branch of literature it has very little to do with books, it is only an indirect continuation to the tradition. Today’s horror comes from a set of movies, some of which were book adaptations or remotely inspired by them. Actually one name is a recurrent theme here: Bela Lugosi, a.k.a. the king of horror--much more so than anyone would have thought. His version of Dracula has proven more enduring than the written one, so the underlying themes of Stoker’s novel, which even concerned the metaphysical at times, are lost, quite tragically. Also, the popular image of Frankenstein’s monster comes from the 1939 Rowland V. Lee movie Son of Frankenstein. The shape of the creature, its mindlessness, the castle, the assistant--every bit people associate with Frankenstein is a direct result of the movie, hardly any of which actually features in the novel.

A written genre originating from a visual one is encased in the limitations of both--what could not be visually understood won’t appear, and the same applies to the written part. It is an almost unimaginable thing but originally these horror stories barely ever showed the horror. “Why, we have that today,” the ignorant reader might say but the horror of old times was not filled with the today commonplace suspense and disgust elements.

In this post I focus on the method of Shelley in Frankenstein: Her approach was what we would today call the purist. Her novel embodies horror--the dictionary’s definition of it actually. She only ever tells as much about the monster that it exists, reluctantly adding that it’s too hideous to behold and once dropping that its hand resembles that of a mummy. The main instrument of this story is a very long line of deaths but only in the purist spirit, as well.

A prolonged prologue commences with establishing the members of an extended family. They are talented, intelligent, wealthy, charitable people, who are just the dream of the era. After individually stating about every relation how enviable and admirable they are, the monster is briefly introduced. No lightning is involved here, only the statement that Victor Frankenstein, the visionary, somehow figures out how to bestow life upon things and then, once the monster is created, he instantly regrets it and falls into a state of mental breakdown over the realization of how unhallowed his work is. The monster then lives alone for a while, gradually comprehends that he is frightening to humans and feels that he is forced into a perpetual state of solitude, which he loathes more than anything--so much so that he will burn down the entire world if necessary to get himself a companion. And that’s about it. The monster asks Frankenstein to create him a mate but as he refuses he decides to avenge him as the creator of his desperation through killing everyone he holds dear. Enter the death of all characters...

The horror is how Frankenstein watches everyone he loves being killed at the unstoppable hands of his own creation. His guilt and reflections at it are horror. He is horrified. Horrified. He--along with the invested reader--is not exactly startled, nor disgusted, but profoundly horrified.

But there’s more to this story than just being the original horror. I explored that dimension only because of the framework of today’s horrible, genre-redefining novels.

As contemporary horror tries to grasp what visually equates horror, all content is lost. Shelley operates with what Poe designated as the horror-writer’s most powerful instrument: “The death of a beautiful woman, is unquestionably the most poetical topic in the world.” In human relations the most extreme loss is that of one’s child but the loss of someone one loves tenderly comes in as a spectacular second, with a much more elevated pathos.

The reason this is preferred by Poe and a myriad of authors is that a parent-descendant relationship is a natural one, where choice has roughly no role, whereas in a romantic relationship, while having a powerful natural component, active choice is central. This is why a parent losing a child usually goes with the line: “A parent should not live to see their child die,” when a lover’s loss comes with: “They were taken from me.” So, while the first kind of death evokes the more profound pain, the second one is the more aesthetic. It is a better case of antagonism: what one actively binds themselves to, pledges to unite their identity to, is actively deprived from them by a second actor, thus their willing choice for whom they would value most highly in life is irrevocably undone.

The peak is then the death of a beautiful woman but it can only be a real peak if the beauty of that woman is fully realized. 

An interesting juxtaposition can be made here between the book’s model and the contemporary one. The book emphasizes multiple faculties, such as intelligence, a charitable nature, intuition and nobility of character, whereas today’s model is derived from the passions of the flesh. Contemporary theories favor a simplifying approach, which marks the core of all traits the sexual of a person. However, Frankenstein is a great example of how it used to be a valid action to discrete the sexual, the intellectual and the emotional. Today it would be called repression of the true motives (the sexual), since all the faculties associated with beauty are just expressions of the deeper, truer core of identity. Feminists of the past would have pointed out that the death of the beautiful woman symbolizes Shelley’s vision of the intelligent, competent woman’s fate, as she is determined to die, even by the principles of literature (or Poe). Today’s most progressive feminists, though, would confine this story to the literal body of women, however, not only a story but women, and all people, are much larger than bodies.

But Frankenstein is not the perfect novel. Whereas it succeeds at many things and has its outstanding merits, it does fail at anticipating what the reader can guess, as Frankenstein misinterprets a supposedly enigmatic line and prepares for his own death, when his soon-to-be wife is threatened. Sadly the target is so obvious that it’s impossible to believe what the protagonist believes to come next but, as I have stated before, this is a completely marginal element of the story and perhaps even Shelley didn’t want to make it a really elaborate twist...

All in all Frankenstein is the beacon of the lost genre of horror. But beside its literary quality it might also be a reminder to the readers that there used to be a way of thinking that thought it possible to abstract from the material.

This overwhelming critical and intellectual uniformity is rather depressing. It was Habermas’ idea that a society’s quest is to find the forms of oppression and then make the problem the ruling topic of communication as a way of remedying inequalities. Admittedly, it might be the best idea ever but might as well not be, so, as I’ve said in the beginning, it is depressing that it is so overwhelmingly winning space.

Following Wheezy’s videos and tumblr I think it’s safe to say that he’s absolutely in favor of and encouraging changes toward more widespread equality. It seems that he has a very similar set of values and ideas to the person, who criticized him, so it’s really friendly fire.

The topics of WheezyWaiter videos are quite diverse but a large part of intellectuals are against this kind of content because the focus is chosen by him and not wholly provided by the general rule that everything in the world should be emphasizing inequalities.

This criticism is merely profound adversity to the very idea of the video. Wheezy said that everyone should pursue whatever they want to, then the commenter came and said no, he, by all means, shouldn’t. Ironic.

It wouldn’t be organic if Wheezy started making videos, criticizing cultural structures and such things, as he has been known for other kinds of content, which is completely fine. It’s terrific that some people are working for change and they’ve probably achieved a lot but pushing Craig toward abandoning his way in order to conform more visibly to this Habermasian ideal instead is, at least, counterintuitive. It would be the destruction of creativity, entertainment and communication--a completely harmless form of those--for the sake of something that already has an immense group of devoted supporters.

Today I ramble on about the idea that you can really do anything you want at any point you want to do it & you shouldn’t think others have magical, innate abilities.

Don’t let people pronounce your name wrong - don’t let them see you walking home. Don’t let them see your mother in the playground, smelling of spices. Bite your lip when you see a white woman in the street wearing a shalwar kameez. ‘I’m on the way to a wedding,’ she drawls. ‘A friend got me this s-…this thing. Isn’t it pretty?’ I don’t know, lady. Tell me, how much do you care about the merchants who jumped to their feet and dove through reams of fabric to find the right one? Are you trying to tell me that I shouldn’t be angry that you’re wearing a garment I can’t wear without eye rolls and insults and, ‘fucking Paki. Go back to India, go back to where you came from.’ I was born here, and I’ve earned my place here. More so than you. I’ve had to work for it. I’ve had to know my shit countless times, be able to list off members of the government on both hands, talk this way, eat this way - my parents stopped sending me to school with rice so early because the other kids couldn’t fathom lunches that weren’t sandwiches. Can you even pronounce ‘shalwar kameez’? Let me hear it, I’m not convinced. I don’t know, my teacher had to ask me how to say my name three times this morning - and each time I said it she would repeat it slowly, squinting, as though it were made from a different alphabet. So I guess you could say I’m a sceptic. Wait. Is that a bindi on your forehead? Where’s your temple? More importantly, where were you yesterday when my Religious Education teacher was telling me how the whites helped educate the poor little Indians and that 1947 was a bad year for ‘us’? My country’s independence was the Empire’s downfall, and the Empire gave us nothing but pain. My grandparents were driven off the border of Pakistan and forced into poverty, and here was a person trying to tell me that the colonies that terrorised my family away, away from their homes and their cities and their loves, did a good thing. Where were you then? I see the henna on your hands, and I am here to say that my culture is not a trend for you to love this season and throw away - my heritage is not your excuse to be ‘exotic’. You are not welcome to pick and choose the attractive parts of being me. Take my mother’s bindi spot, take the unwanted advances of old white men that come along with it - they think we should be honoured to be hit upon by a white man. Take the henna off my hands, and take the sweat and blood of Indian workers trying to make an honest day’s work charging fifty rupees in the street to ice patterns on flesh. Take my sari, take my shalwar, take my lengha and take the low self esteem that growing up in a white society has given me. Take it, take it all.

it might be in this month’s ‘vogue’, but that doesn’t make it yours | ishani jasmin (via ishanijasmin)

I think it's very important to talk about this.

In today's world even the weak, the poor and the disenfranchised are empowered to speak and that's undoubtedly a huge step forward on the arc of history. Inequalities, in relation to representing ourselves, are being diminished. I mean it in the sense that the internet and the social media have given us platforms, where you can upload your content, even if you have far-from-professional equipment and an amazing number of people have access to it. On the internet people choose for themselves what kind of content they view or read or listen to, ergo people's inclination and taste are the major factors contributing to getting heard and not the wealth of content-creators.

After this rather lengthy introduction, let's get to the point.

As the poet's mastery cannot be argued, her point may be the more so. 

Even the first issues mentioned are quite strange. How can an English speaker be expected to pronounce Indian words right? And this is a returning motif. I don't want to waste many words on this question but just say, the poet goes to Denmark and she can pronounce all the names properly? Is the source of this complaint that she can pronounce the English names perfectly and it's different the other way around? Is the part:"as though it were made from a different alphabet" suggesting that the Indian people speak identical to Americans? This whole issue may lead to something more profound and more light may be shed on the source of her frustration as I progress with my arguments.

I would also like to note that the poet is offended by white people wearing Indian traditional garments, without understanding that culture or caring much for it. I find this a very complicated issue and this might be discussed later, too.

The whole poem is filled with anti-imperialist, anti-white feelings and the words are very suggestive. They suggest intolerance, racism, cultural disrespect and such things, which surely originate from experience and a certain kind of environment.

If the poet's environment majorly consists of people, who behave uneccaptably, maybe it's really about time for her to move. I know it sounds bad to ask a victim to change, rather than changing the villains or moving them but in this case it's simply the better solution--of course I only mean this in a theoretical sense, not literally. I said what's above because America does not majorly consist of people acting and speaking filled with racism and/or intolerance. It may be said that certain studies--very reliable ones--show that most Americans have racist attitudes but--just as reliable--studies also show that despite those suggested attitudes, most Americans act and/or speak tolerantly and in antiracist ways. So if it is true that the poet mostly meets racism, intolerance, then she just so happens to live in an improbable place, but she could move almost anywhere and would be treated differently. But if she doesn't live in this very unfortunate coincidence, then it may be that she's the victim of a hurtful minority. However, if that's the case, and she's writing a poem about this smaller group of people, I have to say that it's not a tendency, much rather the ugly side of human nature, very similar to that part of it, which is called criminality; and it's not all right to commit a crime, as it is not all right to be racist or intolerant but it cannot be eradicated completely--quite sadly--but it will remain with humanity forever.

The poet suggests that white people don't have adequate knowledge of her culture, yet they exploit it. If a person is not a part of a given culture, he/she cannot choose to cherry-pick some of the attractive parts of given culture--argues she. It might be based on:

#1: the idea that people, who belong to her culture, have a certain narrative identity, which will also manifest in their culture. This identity brings a lot of pain and a lot of joy but for someone to ignore the pain and embrace the joy only, would leave the rest of the people with a very bad taste: that they have to live with the pain as well and it is an unfair thing for someone to experience their joy without having to experience their sorrow. This suggestion, however, is ignorant toward the fact that people from other cultures have their own pains, ones that may be entirely dissimilar but nonetheless serious.

#2: the idea that selecting attractive parts of their culture will spread an idealized, romanticized version of given culture, thus making the people ignorant toward the things they've suffered. For this to be true, it would also have to be true that these certain manifestations spread in a way that will affect how people look at Indian culture. It is possible that it forms people's views and they will, in fact, have certain stereotypes, romantic ideas about this culture but what must also be observed is that fashion does not take something else's place. Newspapers aren't afflicted by fashion clichés--they might be afflicted by other clichés but that's not the question. So if someone has an image, solely based on fashion's impact, then that person would have no idea at all without the Indian garments. The real question is: is it more detrimental to think about India as the place where there are beautiful clothes, than not thinking anything about India at all. As far as I can tell, they aren't very different in effect, since none of them will make anyone have hostile attitudes toward India and none of them will make anyone more friendly toward her.

#3: the idea that selecting the attractive parts of their culture will make the people subject to stereotypes. It is, of course, terrible to be looked at as already completely known, just because belonging to this or that culture. We demand to be seen in our full complexity and uniqueness and that seems to be our right to do so. What is not observed here is that people can't view others in their complexity, only a few of them, at maximum. So if a certain culture's stereotype will contribute to another stereotype that others are forming about you, it's not unwise to keep in mind that no one really is perceived as they are by the vast majoriy of people they meet. I know it's an important issue today to fight prejudice in the world but prejudice cannot be undone, and it is basically a mistake to oppose it; it originates from identifying prejudice with racism, which might be defined as a certain kind of prejudice but then, prejudice is just a certain kind of attitude, which we all have toward all sorts of things and there's nothing we have against that.

I'd like to mention how the poet discusses India's relation to the West. There's a nod to the general notion of America exploiting their cheap labor and the evil Empire that once ruled half the world.

#1: The US could have a better way of dealing with cheap labor, that's true, of course, however, she can't be blamed for the poverty in India. There's been economic struggle for a long time and its roots go back to social strife, which did not ease with the hardships of pathfinding in he second half of the 20th century, though it's been there even before that. And the way world economy has moved forward was rather hard for India to figure out and a lot of poor decisions have been made, which of course, don't mean that India would be responsible for all of the bad things happening there but it's still mandatory to consider that before looking at richer countries with contempt. And what's also important to see is that India's improving rapidly now and she's been on the curve going up for a little while now, so there's no need to look at her as a mud-hole of poverty, since her fate is not written in stone. And last but not least, not all Indians are browsing among fabrics. Truth be told, the poet isn't doing much for those merchants, either, just by thinking about them or being their comrade. Economic growth, unbuyest bureaucracy and clean politics could be of tremendous help to them and I hope we're going that way--at least as far as I can choose to do my work in favor of that.

#2: The British Empire was, before everything else, seeking her own interests in the world. It's understandable on one side and it means having India on the second place, at most, on the list of priorities, on the other side, which isn't ideal for India. Well, this is how it's easy to think about it but it isn't how it is. India's relationship with the Empire was very complicated with a large amount of both ups and downs on their way together, so it's always very hard to say it was good or bad for India. It was complicated. The poet referred to 1947, which was the year, when India became independent and also when she broke up into India and Pakistan. I don't know whether the poet's family was on India's or on Pakistan's side at the time of this affair but to blame the British for the bad things that happened then is completely nonsensical. When the Indo-Pakistani War, mainly over Kashmir, happened, and when immense crowds of people had to leave their homes because of things out of their power and interest, it was Lord Mountbatten, who had to go back with his forces, to a country, that had already gained its independence, only to try to moderate this humanitarian catastrophe. Even Nehru, the current leader of India at the time, saw it better to have the British forces there, which doesn't mean that their presence was absolutely good or absolutely bad, just that they aren't the disruptors of India.

The poet supposes, but never explicitly mentions, that there's white supremacy in he world, causing pain and turmoil all over the globe. It can be seen in her personal experience, in her narrative identity and from these we can have a general idea about the phenomena. But let me ask: is the poet right in her arguments? If we look at the people who liked her post, can't we see quite a few white people there? When people hurt her, oppress her, say racist things, does it happen because they're white? Are all white people like that?

It is plain to see that not all white people are disrespectful. I value the poet's poetry but I also value her culture, even so, I've chosen to learn about it, so that I could understand it more fully and not live in the world of dumb stereotypes. I respect the poet and I'm white and I know I'm not alone.

Just a sidenote: It would be out of this world to talk about the collectivity of white people, as we could discuss Hungary's* complicated relationship with the US. Hungary's not a rich country, the major difference between her and India would be that western people think India's more exotic but they'd probably consider them both quite alien.

This piece of poetry is full of thoughts and I know I've eventually failed to grasp them all and respond to them all. I don't mean to hurt the poet or say this verse is bad, as it is not. What I'm trying to do is to bring us closer to each other--I want us to see that we're not really that far away anyway.

*Hungarian people are also mainly white people.

Sweeney Todd: The Importance of Morals and the Wrongfulness of Socialism

Tim Burton's Sweeney Todd (2007) has been famous for its explicitly violent themes, which are doubtlessly quite spectacular and shocking. The basic story seems like a tragic journey of vengeance and death but, as a matter of fact, it isn't a more dramatic Count of Monte Cristo, but it's a unique and interesting piece of art of a different nature.

In the beginning of the story Benjamin Barker a.k.a. Sweeney Todd (Johnny Depp) returns to London, from where he has been banished for crimes he did not commit and the corrupt judge, namely Turpin (Alan Rickman), who caused all of his troubles, abused his wife - who took arsenic to escape her pain - and became the tutor of Sweeney's daughter, Johanna (Jane Wisener). Sweeney seeks vengeance, pairs up with Mrs Lovett (Helena Bonham Carter), a widow, together they kill and bake scores of people, finally murdering the judge. In the closing sequence though it turns out, that Sweeney has killed his wife, along with the so many strangers, out of mistake, so he kills Mrs Lovett but he dies, too, because a young boy, Toby (Ed Sanders), who's very fond of the widow, kills him, as vengeance, also.

There are better plot summaries, I know, but I couldn't leave it out, in case someone isn't yet introduced to the movie.

Sweeney's conduct is a classic vendetta, which he plans to materialize by any means necessary. His self-assigned quest is something, that is hard to categorize as immoral. Well, yes, it's wrong to kill a man and it is far, far more wrong to kill a great number of men, yet we can't disregard the information about Turpin's terrible acts. We can say, that we probably wouldn't kill like Sweeney did but it's still hard to say, that his actions are wrongful, since he has the best imaginable motivation. In summary, what he intends to bring down on Turpin and London is understandable and, no matter how much we argue, just.

As the story goes on we get to see a little more of Turpin, who is represented as a heartless, sick person, to say the least. He is seemingly worthy of his overhanging punishment and he just keeps giving us reasons to hate him, and the banner of righteousness to Sweeney.

While Sweeney's struggling to get a chance to finish his vendetta, he kills many people, whom are baked by Mrs Lovett. This is an extremely provocative notion. As Sweeney is placed on a - disturbing and arguable - moral high ground, there is a seeming moral justification of his killing spree. The purpose this monstrosity serves is nothing else, than - apart from mere practice - cleansing the society of the bourgeois--we'll return to this.

In the end, however, everything takes a chaotic turn and what has seemed to be logical and moral - though disturbing and hard to agree with - loses its core element: the purity of its motivation. Has it not been for Sweeney's blindness he could've returned to his wife and with probably a lot of difficulties he could've redeemed himself from whatever he's been accused with. He could've got back his only child, as well. Sweeney realizes all this and kills Mrs Lovett, who has had key importance in his destruction, but it brings him nothing, apart from a very sudden and ironic death. The reason why it is hard to argue Sweeney's right to murder all those people is, that he seems to have a natural right to balance out his loss. This is what disappears in the finale: he must face the fact, that he isn't omniscient, he's not above nature but inside. All of his killings, his vendetta, basically everything turns out to be unjustified and immoral, and this is what our instincts have been telling us all along the movie. This story tells, how no man can rise above the rest of humanity or any given society, and how important it is to always stride on the path of morality, otherwise we'll run into great catastrophes, which are all self-inflicted. Lovett's bakery is a quite unmistakable and disgusting representation of socialism. Although in our society it's not a question whether socialism is right or wrong, this story, for some reason, still asks it but also gives a fast and clear answer: this mechanism of destruction was the one, which led to the demise of the one, whom Sweeney held the dearest.

In my personal opinion Sweeney Todd's tragic tale encourages us to watch the future with infinite hope instead of bitterness, no matter how terrible the past is.

The Great Gatsby and Iron Man

We've all heard the voices, which are wildly against adaptations and reboots but why can't we just appreciate cinema and enjoy it? And yes, it's often rubbish...

Johnny: Opinions and Thoughs

These are my thoughts and opinions on Mortal Kombat that a bunch of people probably won't care about, but I thought I should post them here. Now I will be using past games as reference, even though every character's interpretation/counterpart is different, they still play part to the canon storyline.

[Warning: This post is very long. Slight mention of sexual oral practise.]

I think every single character in Mortal Kombat is prideful and egotistical, the best example would be Jade in my opinion. With that being said I think the way they treat Johnny is a bit unfair. A lot of these will fall in line with my Neurodivergent Johnny headcanons and theory post, I suggest checking that out for context. I know the intros aren't canon and are more what if scenarios, but they mean something.

I have a lot of things to say regarding his character, for starters he gets invited to a tournament and sees it as a chance to show people he isn't just some actor but is legit in his martial arts. Good for him, (I've seen posts that demonise this and say it's pretty selfish as if we shouldn't be allowed to be selfish when situations call for it. Bro didn't like that people were calling him a fake and wanted to prove that he wasn't, there's nothing wrong with that.). When he shows up at the tournament half of the contestants are wearing costumes, can't blame the guy for not thinking it was real at first. There's a lady dressed as a hot soldier (I understand that it gets retconned), a bunch of ninjas standing around, and his opponents are wearing alien makeup.

First of all Johnny doesn't know about the existence of other realms, second of all it's the 90s and he's a Hollywood actor meaning he's no stranger to makeup and practical effects not to mention stunts. He probably figured it was something comic con related (as I've said in another post) and while questioning it he went along with it. He had no reason to think that Reptile and Baraka were real creatures.

When Johnny is told to finish his opponent he responds with "Yeah, right.", and I gotta say, it took me years to find out there was a sexual innuendo to that. Dude straight up thought they were demanding him to perform 'you-know-what'. That was just an example of what's to come (I'll be using the word 'example' lot). (Hollywood must be a wild place even in fiction).

First I'll start with his interactions. He's not very good at bonding with people. In mk9 we see a lot of this. I get that Johnny has his problematic moments, but in comparison to the other characters he's an angel. I'm the sort of person to sweep them under the rug, but I have to address them.

Examples:

"And I'm taking you down. I'm taking you down. I'm taking you out. I'm taking you out. And I'm taking you out... for dinner." I genuinely interpreted this as Johnny being playful. To be fair, I first saw this interaction when I was a child (say 7-9) so the fact that I could see myself doing that probably had to do with my immaturity. But everytime I rewatch it I only have fondness and not annoyance because I found it adorable just how proud he was of himself. I also appreciate how open he is about how he feels towards Sonya, I stan an honest man. However, it seems a lot of viewers saw this as him being stupid or something along those lines. If this was any other character they would be told to go to horny jail, but Johnny is met with hostility from most of the fandom.

"Nice hat :)." Johnny to Raiden in mk9. "You should be more respectful of Lord Raiden!" Liu Kang says to Johnny right away. SonicXD commented on this in his mk9 sucks video, I don't need to say anything. Johnny wasn't interested in saving Earthrealm at first, he straight up told Raiden and Liu Kang that they should call the military if Shao Kahn was that much of a threat (he was speaking facts tho). Also, I think he was still questioning what he got himself into, so Raiden and Liu Kang approaching him probably made him think he was surrounded by insane people. And then he finds out that it's all real and that he's not allowed to leave.

There's also when Johnny saved Sonya from Kano. How that went down was that Johnny was trying to escort her. By the way, this is minutes after he realised that he was in a death match and not some comic con related fighting tournament, everyone was waiting for him to kill Baraka and it dawned on him just how serious they were. So Johnny got worried for Sonya's safety by that alone. But it's also understandable on Sonya's end: here comes this guy trying to chat her up (get into her pants) and not getting the hint that she's not interested, and then tries to convince her that he needs to be by her side.

Cyrax got annoyed just by hearing him talk, you can see it on his face. I saw it as friendly banter on Johnny's side but Cyrax didn't. "Not everyone gets to rumble with a celebrity. Ready for a beat down, Sunshine? Here it comes." I think Cyrax was gonna kill him by that alone if it wasn't for Raiden's disapproving dad stares. Every single Lin Kuei is super serious so I think Cyrax didn't take it as banter.

Next is Jax. Johnny Green, Jax Purple: "So what's the deal with you and Sonya anyway? She is smocking hot." "It's not like that. I'm her CO." "Honey like that under my command-" "You'll wanna stop talking now." "...So if it's not like that- Then you won't mind if I-" "That's it!" And then Jax proceeds to beat him up.

Now I understand that Johnny was talking too much, and was a tad bit slimy about his hornyness, but he didn't want to get between her and Jax if they were a thing. He just has no filter. Now following my Neurodivergent headcanons for him this may have an occasion where he wasn't reading the social cues. Jax says "You'll wanna stop talking now." but Johnny has no intentions to stop talking nor does he want to stop talking. Johnny doesn't answer immediately, perhaps confused about the reply and ultimately deciding to ignore it. I too choose the wrong times to start talking to people, and most of the time I don't realise it unless it's pointed out. Happens way often than I'd like to admit.

I know that a lot of the characters call Johnny a clown or see him as a joke (Spawn, Kotal, Shang Tsung) due to how he operates, but I don't see that as the case. There's one specific quote in mk9's story mode that he says to Raiden: "Sure, let's go and ruin someone else's life." This is why I think Johnny was very aware of what was going on. He's also very open about his ego, he doesn't hide it like everyone else, and yes they are hiding it.

Now don't get me wrong, he does randomly antagonise people, but he's in a tournament so he can do that. And it's not like he was getting personal for most of them. I think the only time he says something personal is when he feels like he's being personally attacked.

"We have something in common?" - Johnny

"I too was once young and foolish." - Nightwolf

"But I looked good doing it." - Johnny

What Nightwolf said sounded like a backhanded comment to me. Uncalled for. This is the same guy that intentionally risked the invasion of Earthrealm just to teach Scorpion a lesson or something. Johnny can tell that Nightwolf is like the others, very serious and tolerant, so he's surprised that Nightwolf can even manage to see himself in him.

Relationships: Even in the intros it's shown that he has a better chance at friendships with the villains than with the good guys. It's more like they (good guys) are tolerable of him, especially Jax. I think Sub Zero allowing Johnny to get away with calling him Grandmaster Blueberry Ice is out of respect rather than fondness. This section can extend to interactions, as I think a lot of people misinterpret him as a person, which extends to a lot of things he says such as statements and nicknames.

Johnny asks the other characters if he can make movies based on their stories, meaning he's (in a way) asking for permission. Johnny could've easily made a movie about their lives without asking them, make money, and get away with it because it's not like they would even watch his movies (they hate him), especially non-Earthrealm characters. But he's respectful. So I guess he understands boundaries to a certain degree.

-----

"Heard you gave Cage a shiner." - Young Jax

"He pushes every damn one of my buttons." - Old Jax

"You, me and everyone else." - Young Jax

-----

"Not surprised I have a kid, but you." - Jax

Why can't he have a kid, Jax? He's so condescending about it too.

-----

"Actions speak louder than words." - Liu Kang

"Yeah, that's why I make action movies." - Johnny

"With fake fighting." - Liu Kang

-----

"We come from different worlds, Johnny." - Liu Kang

"Aren't you from Earthrealm too?" - Johnny

"I mean I come from the real world." - Liu Kang

Liu Kang is such a bully.

-----

"The answer remains no." - Scorpion

"But you'll be co-starring with yours truly." - Johnny

"Exactly." - Scorpion

I think a true friend would consider it.

-----

"What kind of name is Kabal?" - Johnny

"Got a better suggestion, Cage?" - Kabal

"For now on you're Carlos." - Johnny

Never change, Johnny. Kabal clearly finds Johnny annoying, but was able to humour him enough to answer with a question of his own, perhaps encouraging Johnny's curiosity.

-----

"Looking forward to a kindler, gentler Outworld." - Johnny

"Why? Because I'm a woman?" - Kitana

"Well that, and you're banging Liu Kang." - Johnny

I have a lot of opinions about this one. On Johnny's part I interpreted this as him giving her a thumbs up on becoming the new Kahn, and since Kitana is supposed to be on the good side she is expected to rule fairly. You know, like a good person. But then Kitana made it about feminism, so Johnny delivered a line to counter it. I honestly think Kitana was reaching at something that wasn't there and Johnny picked up on it. I'm probably making excuses for him, but that's my take. Her response annoyed me so much.

-----

"So you were to defeat Shinnok." - Kitana

"What is with people? Is it so hard to believe?" - Johnny

"Yes." - Kitana

Kitana this is literally you:

-----

"If it's tail you want I can get that." - Kano

"Johnny Cage doesn't pay for it, Kano." - Johnny

"A scrubble? Note the date and time :D." - Kano

Kano is so pleased.

-----

"You stole my face for Ninja Priest!" - Kano

"Art imitates life, Kano." - Johnny

"Taking my cut outta of your hide." - Kano

A call back to what I stated in the relationships, Johnny didn't ask for Kano's permission for inspiration on a character.

-----

"Why a Russian fan club?" - Johnny

"Just going where the fans are." - Kano

"You have a showman's instincts there Kano. :D" - Johnny

-----

"I won't play your lackey, Cage." - Baraka

"Really? 'Cause I'm feeling a BFF vibe here." - Johnny

So this one is pretty wishy washy, but thought it would be beneficial to this post. I would lowkey enjoy a storyline where Johnny is buddy buddy with Baraka, who is reluctant to accept friendship but slowly gets used to it. 

-----

"Oh, dude! I love westerns!" - Johnny

"The bullets are real, Cage" - Erron Black

"So are my fists." - Johnny

I'm pretty sure Johnny was just admiring Erron for what he is, kind of like meeting a nun in real life after years of only hearing about them... something like that. But Erron interpreted it as Johnny not being in the real world and treating everything as a joke.

-----

"Where is your fear?" - Noob Saibot

"Must've left it in my other pants." - Johnny

"We will find it." - Noob Saibot

Aww, Noob Saibot is so nice~ [Delusion] I love how Noob doesn't go out of his way to insult Johnny or belittle him, unlike some other characters.

-----

"Hey there, Tall Dark and Gruesome." - Johnny

"An apt description." - Noob Saibot

"Do you not get I am mocking you?" - Johnny

I headcanoned that Noob/Bi Han would take things literal, but he's also very analytical. I'm sure he was able to pick up on Johnny mocking him but didn't mind it, meaning he might have interpreted it as a nickname, which Johnny gives everyone. Wishful thinking, there could've been a lot of banter between these two.

-----

"You are more smug than usual." - Fujin

"I'm the new assistant thunder God." - Johnny

"Raiden should not have healed you." - Fujin

-----

"You know the evil overlord bit's played out." - Johnny

"What would you suggest?" - Shao Kahn

"Right now it's all anti-heroes." - Johnny

Is that kindness, Shao Kahn?

--------------

I think they did Johnny dirty in MK11, not gonna lie. To be fair, his storyline also didn't make sense in mkx thanks to discovering his new powers even though he's shown using them in mk9. If he was playable in mk9 story mode and his powers were usable, then the mkx part where he mysteriously saves Sonya because of the green light doesn't make sense. I think he should've been able to always use his green glow, that way Hollywood critics thinking he's fake has another tone to it. His green glow can be spotted in his movies, which is why viewers think he uses special effects, which led him to try to prove himself in the tournament.

I think the problem should've been that he couldn't control it, also as a call back to his mk9 ending. I think it's even referenced in an intro with Raiden. "Seek out the Wu Shi for instruction."

It also would be funny if everyone else was aware of it, but only Johnny wasn't. Like they all assumed he could use the green glow out of choice, but he didn't know or notice that he would go green. The fact that it happened during fights means it would only ignite in stressful situations or on instinct. He was also wearing shades for the majority of mk9 (because he likes shades), in fact he always wears shades so I think he's the only one who didn't notice the glow.

Johnny says "Yeah, those things are real." when referring to Baraka's blades, meaning he didn't feel that they were real. I'm not sure what that means, but it gives insight to his power level. Johnny defeated Shinnok. I get that Johnny 'softens him up' but he still defeated Shinnok, so I think he should've been able to at least handle Sindel. The reason Shao Kahn was defeated in mk9 is because the Elder Gods possessed Raiden which is how Raiden defeated Shao Kahn. They nerfed Johnny's character and I am not happy about that.

Now, with his upbringing and history. I think Johnny had narcissistic parents, and depending on who he got his powers from it was an inherited narcissism (don't know which parent had the powers, someone will probably say his father but let's not assume).

I think there was taught narcissism on Johnny's behalf. The thing about growing up with narcissistic parents is that you grow up thinking that their behaviour is normal, so he must've not seen anything wrong with the behaviour he learned. We also need to take a good look at his personality. He's a bit childish in terms of maturity, and this is common in individuals who grew up with a narcissistic parent. Johnny talks as if he's a teenager rather than the average 25+ year old man. To his credit he doesn't throw tantrums or lash out when his odd behaviours are called out (unless I missed something), but dude is childish. Only lashes out when his face is even slightly ruined and even blindly attacked some Black Dragons for getting a scratch on his face. However he is also very independent, from what I know. And he's a bubbly man, even when he changed, that's a character I can appreciate. I think him and Joey from Friends would be friends, even though I haven't watched Friends to confirm this.

Morality wise Johnny doesn't have wicked intent. In his mk9 story mode he says he's not gonna kill anyone when told to kill Baraka, realising that it's not an everyday tournament. He's okay with fighting people for sport (let's establish that tournaments are basically a sport) but not killing people. The tournament is like a perverted form of kill or be killed, one Johnny was forced into participating in some form (I'm talking about the killing and fighting for Earthrealm part). I don't think Johnny likes killing people or anything dead related. In mkx story mode he rolls a head off the helicopter in a fit of heeby jeebies and disgust.

"Have you killed anyone?" - Terminator

"Yeah, but they were all bad." - Johnny

"Why make that distinction?" - Terminator

Like a rationale of what he's experiencing.

-----

"Discard your jesters mask." - Kotal Kahn

"What you see is what you get, Feather Head." - Johnny

"I thought you merely played the fool." - Kotal Kahn

-----

"You revel in childishness." - Kotal Kahn

"Gotta stay sane somehow." - Johnny

"How are you a warrior?" - Kotal Kahn

----

"He was insufferable. Just like you." says Fujin about Johnny's great-great grandfather. Dude might've been a mega narcissist. Narcissism is taught and learned. Another example would be old Johnny and young Johnny: 

Young Johnny - "Dad always said "Hungry people eat lunch, humble people serve it."

Older Johnny "Dad was an a**hole, Hollywood made us an even bigger one."

So based on those facts alone, Johnny comes from a long generation of egotistical people. Then we have Hollywood. I think Johnny got into Hollywood not just because of creative thinking, but I think there's also a sense of longing there. Narcissistic parents, ignore, abandon and degrade their children. Along with making movies being a hyper fixation, their abandonment played a part in his need for spotlight. Johnny divorcing Sonya for her neglect might be more personal because it was a reminder of his parents.

I heard that there's a lot of narcissists in Hollywood, so with Johnny surrounding himself with people like that...(yikes!) The thing with narcissists is that they are always out for themselves. An autistic person struggles with social interactions, while a narcissist will manipulate the social interaction. Johnny (and Kung Lao) doesn't do that. He very much cares about the people around him and doesn't see them as tools.

Now back to his family.

"Grandma Carlton told you my secret?" - Johnny

"(Snicker) Johnny pee pants?" - Cassie

"I had one accident! One!" - Johnny

Judging from how Johnny both asked the question and responded, I theorise it came from a place of trauma. For his mother to tell Cassie the story as if it's a funny story and give him a nickname is suspicious. I think I already mentioned this in another post but I would like to elaborate. Me personally, I don't think anyone pissing themselves is a laughing matter. People don't piss themselves for no reason, or at least most people don't. Humiliating their child is a narcissist's past time. While his mother may not have played a part in humiliating him, she still found it funny enough to tell Cassie, who also for some reason found it funny.

(I have mixed opinions on Cassie and I might get in on her in another post. I don't know how many of these I'll be making.)

Going back to the interactions between young and older Johnny, I think older Johnny hates his younger self. Movie making is something Johnny loved, cash grab or not creative thinkers like doing creative things. 

I think I mentioned in another post that it's something he learned, so I'll like to continue that theory. Johnny wasn't that much of a bad person, sure he has flaws, but he's not evil or anything. So older Johnny's reaction to his younger self eagerly trying to convince him to make movies and stuff was kind of unnerving. 

It should've been something he could smile fondly at, but instead he reacts as if his passion has been beaten out of him. He finds his younger self annoying, just like everyone else. Everyone else = Sonya, Jax, and pretty much everyone else. As a person who likes coming up with stories and wants those stories to be known, I feel crushed by this conclusion of analysis. Poor Johnny.

Another fact about Neurodivergent people is that no matter what they will always be the same person no matter how much their opinions and belief change overtime, they will still have the same personality. Johnny still likes making his jokes and still gives people nicknames, but he lacks creativity in creating things. I guess applying his need for action into training the Kombat kids and working with the Special Forces counts as a slight change.

I'm coming close to an end so I'll sum it up by saying that Johnny shouldn't have got back together with Sonya. I don't ship them and I'm making it clear that I hate them together. Even before mk11 I thought the ship didn't make sense and it needs to be a character that doesn't tolerate him but actually enjoys his company from the beginning. It took me everything not to write that Johnny is a national treasure that should be protected.

Edenian supremacism probably comes with the Sindel retcon. They were originally allies of Earthrealm and as much victims of Shao Kahn as anyone else - Kitana and Jade were actually freedom fighters for Edenia. Why they're now apparently all soulless pieces of shit (and why the narrative turns against Kitana beginning with Aftermath, seriously listen to how Spawn just dunks on her), I think, has to do with a change in society as a whole.

As more and more previously unheard people speak up and tell their stories, more and more narratives are getting flipped, and rightly so - those we've been told to admire all our lives are turning out to be bigots at best and greedy, power-hungry butchers or heartless religious zealots at worst. Conversely, the people society whose voices society wishes it could silence - BIPOC, LGBTIA+, workers, those with disabilities (ND included), really anyone who's suffered at the hands of the powerful and privileged - are finally starting to be vindicated, to have their complaints validated, and their stories heard.

In other words, our heroes are turning out to be way worse people than our villains ever were, and fiction is starting to reflect this; The Boys would be a textbook example, nobody with superpowers in that franchise is anywhere near heroic, and honestly I'm a little disturbed that anyone would want to play Homelander in MK. The Edenians were presented as the most virtuous in the original universe, so they were the obvious choice to be the rotten bastards in MK11 (not a choice I exactly agree with, or even the Sindel retcon at all, but if I got to make every choice cheese curds would grow on trees, so)

Having made that observation, I still consider having villains more sympathetic than your heroes to be an immense failure on the part of the author. Let's be real, "princess" is part of Kitana's identity, and that implies she's up to her eyeballs in some sort of privilege. The thing is, free will exists, and privilege does not (or should not) hard-lock you into being an asshole. Even Kitana could have chosen integrity and real compassion, to do what's best for the people even when it came at expense to herself, but nope, she chose to play footsie with Kotal's buddies and attack people for not meeting her sky-high standards.

This is not the Kitana Outworld deserves, and this is not the Kitana the MK community deserves.

I'm falling asleep at my laptop rn, so good night and thank you for pointing out that Sonya is trash.

Goodnight.

Not gonna lie, I always saw Sindel as an evil character even with the whole mind control thing. If their own queen was willing to kill her own husband, an Edenian, to have a stronger one (Outworld-ian) then they shouldn't be flabbering about supremacy.

I've been meaning to vent out about Sonya but didn't know when.

"I'm a little disturbed that anyone would want to play Homelander in MK" I thought this was a joke when I first heard it, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone actually meant it.

When it comes to villainising the heroes I think it's more of a Severus Snape situation, where we the viewers find out there's more to the villains and the heroes. I think NRS figured we were tired of goody two shoes and wanted to see those goody two shoes be more humanised, if humanised means less decent. And then proceeded to butcher some beloved characters, I guess. Harry's been told his parents were good people only to find out they did terrible things. When shown that Mileena just wanted a family we can hold some kind of sympathy for her, even though it doesn't excuse the fact that she's a blood thirsty killer.

One thing to be noted is that there's a lack of consistency when it comes to the games, and not just designs, so when you're talking about "those we've been told to admire all our lives are turning out to be bigots at best and greedy, power-hungry butchers or heartless religious zealots at worst." I think it's the writers changing their minds to fit the mindset of current audiences, acknowledging that it's not just kids playing the games nowadays and it's their way of making things more realistic.

As a Johnny Cage stan, I can very much tell you that there's a lot of things wrong with him, but he's an angel in comparison to the other heroes. (even if he was sexist and mouthy in the past, he is the most relatable) He is a good example when making a flawed character in my opinion, or maybe I'm being too soft on the guy.

I don't think Scorpion was held accountable for screwing everyone over, either. Or killing Bi Han. Poor Bi Han.

Coming from a card-carrying Kitana stan who also thinks Jade is super dope:

You forgot the part where Kabal accuses Jade of torture and we have no reason not to believe him.

Seriously, you are the second person I've seen hold Jade accountable for anything. Kitana deserves every bit of condemnation she gets (and possibly more) for how cruel she can be, but Jade gets off easy because people only see the Super Chill Bestie and not someone with very low regard for Tarkatans and their lives.

Having said that, what /do/ you admire about Jade and Kitana? I'm not sure what would be more dope than "at least somewhat racist" and "despot in training" are crappy. (Personally, I think it's super badass that Kitana defeated Shao Kahn, gained a masculine title, and led armies into battle. And Jade, well, who wouldn't want Jade as their bestie? Other than a Tarkatan, obviously.)

This is a mouthful, I know, but it's been driving me nuts and I'd be remiss not to address the seamy side of my favorite dynamic duo.

P.S. God tier username. Britney Spears and the Spice Girls were my jam as a kid, and I'm glad to see someone else remembers them. My sister and I had the Scary Spice doll with the tongue piercing lol

Thank you for the compliments on my user name, I listened to them a lot growing up.

When writing the headcanons I had to try my best to not be distracted by the fact that I'm a Mileena stan, and even then I will hold Mileena accountable, so Kitana and Jade do not get a free pass.

There's many occasions where they've shown that they are pretty terrible, and even though they are cool characters, they are unlikable people. Golly, I'd even say that they are hypocrites. They call everyone else out for their ego when they themselves are egotistical. To be fair, it's not just them that have a holier than thou attitude, but quick reminder that Sonya beat them both one on two in MK9 and they both continued showing hostility towards Earthrealmers and a sense of underestimating others.

Kitana is more Outworld than she is Edenian regardless of blood, and if she grew up thinking her father to be Shao Kahn then how did she even know she was Edenian? How did Jade know?

Edenian supremacy is just wild because their realm got conquered and are living in servitude to Shao Kahn or any big bad that comes along. Jade's parents literally gave her away for their own skin.

I pictured the alliance Kitana had with the Tarkatans not going well because she clearly still holds some discriminating views against them. It doesn't help that the Tarkatans are only shown to be servants meaning they (Kitana and Jade) grew up with the mentality of looking down on them.

The only thing I admire about Jade and Kitana is that they are fun to play as and have nice wardrobes, but that's it. I'm supposed to be rooting for her, yet she has a poor attitude. Don't get me wrong, a lot of the good guys have flaws that I can't look over. It's hinted that Sonya abused Cassie by randomly attacking her and Jacqui with arm bars (what the...), and she also looks down on people who don't have similar interests as her (from what I've interpreted). She's also terrible at parenting. I also headcanon that Cassie joined the special forces in order to impress Sonya, not because she actually wanted to.

I could say a lot about the characters, not just Kitana and Jade. And don't get me started on Kotal Kahn, he is such a clown. He and Jade deserve each other, honestly.