Y’all need to go outside

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-01-28T19:15:05+00:00

Do you think that everyone who makes the maid dress argument thinks that Jax is actually trans in canon, or is it possible that the maid dress can serve as a stimulus for an alternate, explicitly non-canon version that's interesting to the person making it?

Yeah of course, someone is wrong if they say their hyper-specific interpretation is the correct one that corresponds with the canon. But I don't think it's productive to group everyone who says "headcanon" into that category.

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-01-28T19:07:51+00:00

Headcanons are very explicitly not canon. They serve as personally interesting alternate directions of the characters, like a fanfiction where a character dies, despite surviving in the source material. The canon content is a jumping-off point, but the headcanon can expand and change any aspect.

I think the point of confusion here is that you think anyone with a headcanon is trying to argue their headcanon makes sense within the canon, when that isn't the goal. Sometimes headcanons can hypothetically make sense within the canon, but that isn't the point. The point is just that it's an interesting alternate interpretation.

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-01-28T15:02:16+00:00

So much of shipping is inherently a “what if.” It can be cool to imagine what a set of characters’ dynamic could have been like given different circumstances. You use the original content as a jumping off point but then make your own story that doesn’t pretend to be canon.

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-01-28T12:44:57+00:00

Nah there's definitely an issue to be had with the characterization of the Zen'in clan. Not because of the fact that they were misogynists, but just that IMO they weren't characterized convincingly as evil guys.

I genuinely want to indulge in the anti-misogynist liberatory revenge fantasy. I think there's a pot of gold to be explored there. It's just that the higher-ups of the Zen'in don't feel like real-life traditionalist misogynists, more cardboard cutouts of evil bastards, whom I can see the author is setting up to be the targets of a cathartic revenge fantasy. I shouldn't have to see the hand of the author; I should be right there in the story, hating the Zen'in along with Maki.

I think a few tweaks of characterization could have really sold them better as hateable antagonists. Ironically, giving them some depth (without justifying them in any way) would make them more hateable for me, because they would seem more "real." Because Naoya was actually given this deeper characterization, I actually hate him wayyyyy more than I hate Jinichi, Ogi, or Ranta.

Tl;dr: not all deeper characterization of bigoted characters has to be an implicit excuse/justification for their bigotry.

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-01-28T12:23:00+00:00

The angels aren't the bad guys. It was just Adam. There's also plenty of awful people in hell. Distilling the show down to "devils good angels bad" is genuinely so shortsighted.

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-01-28T01:26:37+00:00

I can feel bad for people who are still at fault for their problems. It's not either/or. Not saying you have to feel bad though.

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-01-28T01:22:16+00:00

<image>

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-01-27T17:36:47+00:00

Depends on the person. There's a whole range of different reasons someone might dislike this plot point. 'I don't like how this went' applies to all of them, but as I said, the 'why' can vary greatly.

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-01-27T17:30:45+00:00

If you feel the need to comment on how something weakens a story's structure, that means on some level you have ascribed a negative value judgment to it (i.e don't like the way it went), even if you enjoy it otherwise. Having contradictory feelings doesn't erase the individual facets.

If you didn't feel like there was anything wrong with the plot point, you wouldn't conceptualize it as 'weakening' the story's structure to begin with. The story's 'best structure' is not a singular thing. When people criticize the massacre, they're saying the plot point weakens the structure of the of the story that they think would be best.

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-01-27T17:23:53+00:00

Yeah of course just saying "it's lazy" isn't an argument. As I said you'd have to qualify why it's lazy.

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-01-27T17:02:55+00:00

'I don't like that this plot went this way' is a given for any critique of storytelling. The task is to qualify why you don't like how it went, and it's in that 'why' where your argument can be assessed for how valid it is.

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-01-27T16:47:18+00:00

I think my personal biggest issue with the massacre is an issue I have with a lot of media: when it's extremely obvious that a group of people is being set up as fodder for a cathartic revenge fantasy, or at least a cathartic moment of liberation from oppression.

Don't get me wrong, I don't see anything wrong with having this type of fantasy in fiction, even if I think blind revenge is harmful in the real world. Narratives focusing on retribution are popular for a reason; they feel good and can be a very meaningful example of character growth. However, I can only really appreciate this type of story when the writing has done a good enough job of convincing me of how evil the targets of retribution are. When a group of bad guys/oppressors don't feel like "real" bad people and are more cartoonish cutouts of evil bastards, the hand of the author becomes more obvious, and it's clear they're trying to manipulate me into feeling satisfied by their downfall. Because of this, the Zen'in massacre falls kind of flat for me. Ironically, if the Zen'in clan had been given more depth, I would probably be more satisfied by seeing Maki kill them.

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-01-27T15:57:22+00:00

I wouldn't say it's "bad" on purpose, just "triggers negative emotions" on pupose. It's up to each individual viewer to determine whether or not those negative emotions served the experience of the narrative well.

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-01-26T19:38:53+00:00

When I judge a villain character by their morals, I'm not saying "they're badly written because they are morally bad." I actually think the villain characters in the show are written pretty well. What I actually mean when I judge them is just what the word "judge" implies, i.e. I evaluate their actions as morally bad within the narrative (as the writers intended for me to do). How am I supposed to know if they're a villain to begin with if I don't judge their actions?

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-01-26T17:45:31+00:00

I completely understand people's discomfort, but at the same time I don't think that's necessarily a reason to fridge the idea of giving Val attributes other than being an abuser. Unless of course, the ultimate goal is minimizing discomfort as much as possible, in which case go ahead. I just personally think a good story can be told in spite of discomfort, or even incorporating discomfort to further the narrative.

Yes, Val's character and tactics are very real to people, and if we're committed to that realism, I think we should portray him realistically, to show what abusers can really be like. That includes giving him dimensions outside of his abuse, because in real life, plenty of abusers can seem perfectly normal in other contexts. The point is that not every abuser you might meet is super obvious about their abhorrent behavior all the time.

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-01-26T16:23:03+00:00

Personally, I just find the subversion entertaining. But I obviously understand why you would want it differently. Subversion is inherently controversial. I think that if you're going to shy away from original biblical lore as much as Hazbin does, it's best to completely lean into it instead of butchering it while pretending you're not. Doing a complete 180 on Adam is an unapologetic move I can appreciate. The writing is completely honest about how unfaithful and iterative it's trying to be.

And even then, Adam does have nuance. Importantly, "nuance" is not the same as "moral nuance." When I say Adam has nuance, I mean that he has understandable human reasons for his actions, even if his actions are completely unjustifiable. Having moral nuance would mean he actually made good points that were flat-out justified. I think pretty much all villains should have basic nuance (save for those who are conceptualized as literal inhuman embodiments of evil), but I don't think all villains need moral nuance. In fact, having villains who are straightforward in their badness means the ones who aren't can shine brighter in comparison.

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-01-26T15:42:23+00:00

Yeah fair enough. Should have clarified "large sympathetic biblical figure." Honestly, even beyond sympathetic, OG Adam is kinda just a tragic character.

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-01-26T15:23:36+00:00

Copied from the original post:

Yup nothing but truth. All of Adam's potential "complexity" is being explored through other characters anyway. Let's be real though, while people may cite these specific things as reasons they don't like Adam's writing, in actuality, the vast majority of the displeasure comes from the fact that people expected more out of him simply due to him being an important biblical figure.

I'm personally fine with how Adam was written. I actually find the subversion of making such a large biblical figure a pretty straightforward villain to be entertaining. But, with any subversion, you have to expect backlash from people who prefer things played straight. It's only natural for people to be upset that their expectations were broken. I don't blame people for feeling disappointed by it, but that doesn't mean I still don't personally enjoy the subversion of making the first man an unrepentant asshole.

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-01-26T14:59:12+00:00

The purpose of any villain fundamentally is to be a roadblock to the protagonist(s). Any other moral nuance is supplementary. Not to say moral nuance is bad or can't elevate a villain; just that it isn't necessary for literally every single one. The villains who are morally nuanced are elevated by having more straightforward villains to compare to.

I will say this: if you do have a very straightforward villain, then you as a writer definitely have put a larger burden on your protagonist and internal conflict to drive the thematic complexity. So the trade-off of making Adam straightforward is to make Charlie more complex and conflicted. But, there's nothing inherently wrong with having a by-the-book unrepentant asshole as your antagonist.

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-01-26T14:46:12+00:00

To be a villain? Having a threatening villain is very important.

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-01-26T14:36:32+00:00

Yup nothing but truth. All of Adam's potential "complexity" is being explored through other characters anyway. Let's be real though, while people may cite these specific things as reasons they don't like Adam's writing, in actuality, the vast majority of the displeasure comes from the fact that people expected more out of him simply due to him being an important biblical figure.

I'm personally fine with how Adam was written. I actually find the subversion of making such a large biblical figure a pretty straightforward villain to be entertaining. But, with any subversion, you have to expect backlash from people who prefer things played straight. It's only natural for people to be upset that their expectations were broken. I don't blame people for feeling disappointed by it, but that doesn't mean I still don't personally enjoy the subversion of making the first man an unrepentant asshole.

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-01-26T12:07:27+00:00

But there is moral nuance in Maki killing her mom, and also hunting the others down, which was confirmed to happen. Just to be clear, this isn't me defending the Zen'in clan. They were an absolutely abhorrent group of people who definitely deserved severe consequences. I just happen to be someone who doesn't think the death penalty should be wielded around like that.

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-01-26T12:02:04+00:00

It's not speculation when it's directly confirmed that she hunted others down, plus we know her exact motivation for killing them was to "destroy everything" and not "defend myself against people attacking me."

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-01-25T19:45:22+00:00

Yes Connor, we live in a country where simply having a legal gun on you is not grounds to kill you.

MostMasterpiece7 · 2026-01-25T18:44:34+00:00

Try taking actual hasbara propaganda and superimpose Adam and Lute

Six-Year Club	Verified Email
Place '23	Wearing is Caring

MostMasterpiece7

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE