the implication of the OP wasn’t necessarily that dirk and vriska are exactly the same or would react the same way to being in vriska’s position, but my point in my response is that it’s really difficult to split hairs about how any other character would act in vriska’s position without getting into some heavy handed nature vs. nurture bullshit. there’s evidence of vriska being a wildly different person without the constant pressure of abuse (that’s what (vriska) exists for – and aranea, before anyone even considers her, is not vriska, nor is she an ALTERNATE vriska, and she acts more as vriska’s foil in the narrative than an indicator of vriska’s motivations), which makes it difficult to parse how much of vriska’s behavior is her “true” self. the same is true of dirk and bro – they come from some supposed identical genetic makeup, but by nature of their lived experience they are largely nothing alike.
swamp-wizard’s point original point was that it’s useless to say dirk – who has most certainly made his fair share of mistakes – can be weighed against vriska, who was dealt pretty much the worst hand imaginable in her life. not that dirk had smooth sailing, but it’s pointless to gauge his behavior against vriska’s when – were he in her shoes – he would probably have been quite a bit like her. many characters probably would. the OP was making a point of how much people disregard the circumstances that made vriska who she was and how fear and suffering built her into the person she ended up being, and the subtle misogyny in assuming a dude character with his fair share of flaws is SO MUCH MORE morally sound than vriska he would somehow Not end up like her, as though her behavior is some intrinsic flaw she was born with and not very obviously built up from a lifetime of abuse starting from a young age. it’s pointless to posture about, and it’s pointless to argue what ifs – putting another character in the same shoes as vriska will never actually happen, and the intricacies of that potential circumstance don’t actually matter. the point is that every time people talk about this stuff they REFUSE to view vriska through the lens of an abused child. through most of the comic she is 13 years old. people are so dogged about how amoral she is, as though a fictional 13 year old abused girl is too reprehensible to ever forgive. again, i GET why people don’t like her. i get it. but what i said still stands.
my point w/ vriska and feferi is that vriska is… coded, i guess, as an abused child, and feferi is not. the similarities in their situations are pointless to argue about because the reader was never privy to seeing feferi have an emotional breakdown, cry, hurt herself, etc. the way we see with vriska. certainly the surface level similarities make sense to compare, but with regards to the narrative and the emotional impact of the comic there’s no way feferi’s arc holds a candle to the complexity of vriska’s, nor do we see even a hint of the suffering we see vriska endure for pages upon pages.
“she hasn’t done anything to break the cycle of abuse” she’s 13, again, when she abuses tavros. that’s fucked up regardless, but it’s bizarre that people really put that weight on a character that is literally canonically 13 years old. like i’m not sure how you can gauge the morality of a barely teenage fictional child abuse victim so concisely. it’s cool not to like her or feel uncomfortable w her character, but there’s some weird staunch moral soundness i’m picking up here i don’t quite understand. she’s meant to be a divisive character. and yeah, when Main Vriska gets to be 16 and isn’t removed at all from her constant duress and continues to live as though she could die at any moment she makes no progress emotionally. interestingly, however, (vriska) becomes remorseful, sensitive, and affectionate; removing abused children from high stress situations completely changes the way they develop. when she is allowed to live in an environment that doesn’t foster her behavior she considers a part of her survival her personality changes drastically, and again, that was WHY (vriska) existed narratively to begin with.
anyways this got even longer, and tbh i don’t think it matters how vriska “treats people” nearly as much as her actually abusing tavros – abuse is damaging. abuse hurts people in ways it’s hard to recover from. jade, john, jake, and rose find vriska insufferable at most and fairly easy to ignore. when it comes to discussions of morality i think it’s pointless to put “is rude, mean, and bossy” on the same level as “she willfully hurt tavros physically and emotionally for her own ends with no regard for his livelihood or well-being”
anyways the whole point of this post was dirk has literally never been in a situation anywhere near what vriska’s was and it’s pointless to say “oh but he isn’t like her at he would never be like THAT” because all that means is you probably don’t understand the magnitude of vriska’s situation nor do you offer her the benefit of the doubt that she’d be a better person if she weren’t viciously abused as a child. nature vs nurture is an argument older than time and we will not settle it arguing about fictional characters just bc some people think vriska is Naturally Evil but dirk was Born Wholesome
jacobvanloon
blakekathryn
turnnoffyourmind
pixelskylines
andulkaphoto
kianamaiart
germansingergirl
