Anonymous Gambito

24 | Gambito/Ambi | (He/They) (O-Ele/Êlu-e/o) | Brazilian | Zuko is my favorite atla character but I'm really bad at showing it | Only follow if 18+

[anonymous-gambito]

Word of God/movie backstory aside, it suddenly came to me that there is one other gap of knowledge that has probably contributed to a significant part of the alienation between Touga and Nanami, and it's something that existed throughout all of Nanami's life, so it's given that she wouldn't truly notice it: Touga knows they're adopted, Nanami does not. I think that makes a big difference.

Touga's backstory is bound not to be the exact same as the movie (After all, Nanami isn't even there with him), so I'll let myself speculate a bit. Their biological parents could have died, they could have abandoned them or sold them, or the siblings could have been removed from their care, and unless Nanami was brought in later to wherever Touga was, it's safe to assume that he spent at least 5 years with his original parents. He has memories of a different family, and of losing that family. Nanami doesn't even know about any of it. She doesn't realize there is a side of her brother that she never got to meet.

"Blood" is very important to Nanami. Blood is what Nanami uses to try and reassure herself that the parents who are cold and distant to her, and the brother who's grown cold and distant too, have an eternal unbreakable bond. It's very brittle though. Nanami constantly fears being replaced, discarded or harmed by her family. Most often by Touga, who ironically, happens to be her only blood relative there.

Her anxiety can be very easily explained by her experiences with how she was treated growing up in the Kiryuu household, but I do wonder if there's some subconscious parts of her that tap into these knowledge gaps too. I already felt like it was there, in the way her love for her brother is as protective as it is possessive, and how to protect him from harm, be it real or perceived, she can go feral, often shooting wildly at whoever she thinks is to blame, always hitting the wrong targets; and so maybe, I thought, it is possible that her anxieties are also tied to these repressed early childhood memories. Ones of once having a family, and then losing that world, being thrown someplace unfamiliar. Vague mostly forgotten memories fueling her fear of abandonment, working like a constant little nagging at the back of her head signaling to her how little blood ties really matter in the end.

"Blood" doesn't matter to Touga in the same way. He doesn't hold into a rose colored view of it. He knows by experience how easily those ties can be severed, how fickle they are. That's why when he found a little girl in a coffin, a little girl who spoke of there not being anything eternal, of how those you care about are bound to leave you, and questioning what's even the point of living then, he couldn't give her anything. He couldn't save her. He didn't know the answer for himself either.

[anonymous-gambito]

A correction: When I first wrote this, I wasn't sure of how much of Touga's movie backstory to assign to his series counterpart, but now, although I still believe there are differences between the two, I do subscribe to the idea that Touga in the show (along with Nanami in this case) was also sold by his parents to the Kiryuu family.

[professionalfriesfryer]

Finally got some time to do whatever this is happy late pride month

(The thing behing is Shiori because this came to me in a dream after how she was trying to stop them from escaping in the movie. Also Nanami is there because it's funny)

[anonymous-gambito]

The problem with so many people not being literate enough is that every discussion gets derailed in a counterproductive way. Take representation. You tell people representation is important and they will leave that conversation with the very erroneous idea that the purpose of fiction is, actually, to represent real life as it is. So they will always derail critical analysis of a narrative by not treating it like a narrative. One easy example. When people say that Toy Story 3 had the perfect ending, and how making Bonny then not care about Woody much anymore ruined her character to them, people don't try to rebut it by responding to it as a narrative, but instead will say stuff like: "Well Bonny is a kid. Kids get tired of toys all the time. It's realistic" "Wow how could you be mad at a child for acting like a child? So petty 🙄", which completely misses the point. Because Bonny isn't a child. She's not a real person. She is a narrative device. One that people felt wasn't satisfyingly fulfilling her purpose. But do people respond to that? No they do not. Realism doesn't matter when it stops serving the narrative.

And then there are the million comments just like this: "Wow I'm a twin and that's not how twins are like at all, the author is so ignorant" "That's not how relationships work, the author must be a virgin 🤭" which just boils down to the same issue I spoke of, of people taking fiction, something that exists in the realm of subtext and metaphor, and interpreting it as something meant to be taken very literally. For instance, does that person from the first example, at any point, question whether the author was trying to represent the accurate experience of being a twin in the first place? No, they do not. They just assume. Because "representation". And because they hold a particularly individualistic view of it. Because an author having twins in their work does not automatically mean their goal is to "represent the twin community". Again, fiction exists in the realm of subtext. Their goal could very well be, for instance, to represent a form of duality by their use of twins. And there is a difference, between criticizing harmful stereotypes existing in a work, and not being able to discern the purpose of a work in the first place because you believe the purpose of every work of fiction must be to represent reality and be educational in its simplest form.

[kitsuneisi]

Take my revolution 💗💜

[anonymous-gambito]

Why would a person (me) who can't have milk (not even lactose free low fat milk) (gives me migraines), be mostly fine eating greek yogurt (lactose free low fat yogurt)? Like what's the science? What could be happening?

[dateamonster]

tbh im not entirely immune to a villain with a tragic backstory but i do think villain origins are a lot more interesting when the focus is less "here is the original sin, the first big bad thing that happened to them that made them who they are" and more "here is the first time a person who maybe otherwise felt powerless in their life realized that they could hurt someone and get away with it"

[dateamonster]

you can get a lot more mileage out of analyzing a truly abhorrent character through the lens of like. what sort of conditions would allow or even incentivize this kind of cruelty? what kind of person benefits from those conditions and how? over the more typical who hurt them type analysis. imo.

[coyoteguuurl]

"autogynephilia" is fucking hilarious to me bc like. i promise u i get more hot and heavy seeing myself looking sexy in a tight little dress than any trans woman does doing her estrogen shot and getting ready for work. every night i watch myself in my bedroom mirror as im getting undressed and into my pjs and stare at my tits and bounce my ass for my own perverted amusement.

[love-and-mercy]

me (and like a million other tgirls): I can't believe I think I look good today... wow... sexualizing myself.... im such an evil ugly moid... I dont deserve to be a woman...

Every other cis woman from time to time: dammmmnnnnnn Im fucking hotttttt

[coyoteguuurl]

like. the basis for "autogynephilia" is just the idea that there is something wrong with a woman (in the case of agp, specifically a trans woman) who loves herself and loves her own beauty without a man having to be involved.

its just "why do women look beautiful if they dont want men to catcall/grope them??" but adapted in a form which is specifically designed to harm trans women.

[anonymous-gambito]

I fucking hate big city people. Specially gringos but also in general. They don't seen to understand the privilege they have in just having everything be close by and attainable. "Support your local–" There is no "local". And if there is it's not a question of "supporting" anyone, just buying what's available. Be it good or not. And a lot of available things are trash. There is no choice. And even if there was a lot of us probably wouldn't be able to afford it. And that's the other thing. Gringos will say they're poor all the while spending money in shit you can only dream of. With no self awareness too.

[rosabienfuerte]

[apolladay]

Hyperspecific poll but it's all common things that are just rare on Tumblr

cishet and neurotypical

have an active sex life

gym at least once a week

consider yourself completely untraumatised

not interested in creating any form of art/storytelling

none of the above

multiple of the above

Voting ended onJul 6

[anonymous-gambito]

Yes yes I'm still not watching. I know, I'm saying shit about shit I didn't even watch but... I came across two scenes from natla that looked like utter fanon fandom slop. I just wanted to share that. What fanfic brainrotted dumbass did they get to write this

[anonymous-gambito]

I'm wondering about the dichotomy between Kozue and Miki, whether it is really as... black and white, as it seems. This might devolve into incoherent rant, beware.

Kozue is presented as the one who wants to grow up and be an adult, and Miki as the naive, innocent one, who wants to remain a child. Kozue stopped playing the piano, Miki plays it obsessively trying to regain the feeling of his childhood. Kozue has sex with Touga in that same music room. When people first watch that, they interpret it as Kozue trying to push Miki away, but in actuality, going out with boys he would disapprove of is really just her way of trying to get her brother's attention. Kozue plays the piano behind Miki's back. Miki, in the end, is the one actually looking for a new shining thing, trying to find it with a new girl, while Kozue is the one who wants to have Miki back, and can't let go of him.

Kozue hurts the teacher who was creeping on Miki, but sees no problem in having sex with an adult herself. It's like she believes, that just like with his talent with the piano, that Miki has something precious about him worth protecting, something that she doesn't believe herself to have. Kozue saves the two baby birds. She claims she and her brother don't need parents, but that's the role they start playing for the little birds. Maybe she does want Miki to go and save her, wanted them to save each other, to be them against the world. Miki loses the duel when she kisses Anthy.

And Miki, he's supposed to be the naive one. The one who didn't realize the advances of his teacher, the wide eyed innocent one who doesn't know much about the "adult world". But is he? Is he really? Miki scolds Kozue for talking badly about their parents, says that they care. But, behind her back, he's upset about his father remarrying, even if he pretends to be okay with it when talking to the man. Behind her back, he's bitter, talking about how adults who tell you something is "for your own good" can't be trusted, about how he won't let some selfish adult use him. He deduces that Akio has "seduced" Touga. In the light novels, I've heard Miki and Touga have sex. It's unclear whether they did in the show, but Touga acts with him in a way that could very much be seen as flirty, and even called him "easy", so it's a possibility. The way Miki remembers the event that drove him and his sister apart has their father forcefully dragging a scared and pleading Kozue into a concert she didn't want to take part in.

So, are they really as oppositional as they may seem? Is Miki really naive, or is he similar to Utena, and he partially uses this act of naivety as a way to protect his mind from the ugly reality, especially from the parts he has little control over? Does Kozue really want the adult world, or is partaking in it just something she does in her search of regaining the childhood she lost? Could Miki and Kozue possibly just be two different presentations of the same thing?

[anonymous-gambito]

It eats at me that I think I used the word "dichotomy" wrong in this post but I couldn't for the life of me remember the word I actually wanted to use instead and I don't remember it to this day

[anonymous-gambito]

Duality. I think it was "duality"

[anonymous-gambito]

I don't want to watch, just want that gossip. Anyway, I've seen some people complain about natla on twitter and a lot the complaints are that the show makes changes in the story and characterization but then does not commit to the consequences of these changes and what the natural progression would be if one were to consider them. If someone understands what I'm getting at here, has watched and agrees, could you give me some examples of that?

[anonymous-gambito]

This show gives me the vibe of, well, copying someone's project but changing random things so it doesn't look the exact same but that way a lot of it ends up placed pretty awkwardly, but also you can't change too much since you actually don't have enough creativity to have it become its own thing, and you don't understand enough of what you're copying to really do that.

[anonymous-gambito]

I don't want to watch, just want that gossip. Anyway, I've seen some people complain about natla on twitter and a lot the complaints are that the show makes changes in the story and characterization but then does not commit to the consequences of these changes and what the natural progression would be if one were to consider them. If someone understands what I'm getting at here, has watched and agrees, could you give me some examples of that?

[anonymous-gambito]

Anyway on related news, folks did you know that I view "Wanting to become a prince, but also to remain a princess" as just some common unsurprising teenage experience? Ha ha I'm so fucked

[anonymous-gambito]

I've noticed this funny phenomenon where a person will do a quizz and think they will get a certain rgu character only to instead get a character who is actually close to/involved with them or has strong feelings about them. Much to think about lol

[wanderingcoasties]

“The LEGO Movie was my favorite movie of 2014, but it strikes me that the main character was male, because I feel like in our current culture, he HAD to be. The whole point of Emmett is that he’s the most boring average person in the world. It’s impossible to imagine a female character playing that role, because according to our pop culture, if she’s female she’s already SOMEthing, because she’s not male. The baseline is male. The average person is male. You can see this all over but it’s weirdly prevalent in children’s entertainment. Why are almost all of the muppets dudes, except for Miss Piggy, who’s a parody of femininity? Why do all of the Despicable Me minions, genderless blobs, have boy names? I love the story (which I read on Wikipedia) that when the director of The Brave Little Toaster cast a woman to play the toaster, one of the guys on the crew was so mad he stormed out of the room. Because he thought the toaster was a man. A TOASTER. The character is a toaster. I try to think about that when writing new characters— is there anything inherently gendered about what this character is doing? Or is it a toaster?”

— Bojack Horseman creator Raphael Bob-Waksberg commenting on how weird gendered defaults in entertainment are, and why we should think twice about them. Excerpted from this longer original post. (via 360degreesasthecrowflies)