impressions magazine

[thefeeniximpressions]

The Great Gatsby: The Old Money Society

When people think of “The Great Gatsby”, the first things that come to mind are sparkling champagne glasses, orchestras playing under shimmering lights, and luxurious parties. But behind the glamour and the roar of the Jazz Age lies something colder, sharper, and far more exclusive: the world of old money.

East Egg and West Egg

F. Scott Fitzgerald, the author of ‘The Great Gatsby’, carefully sets up the characters in two different worlds. East Egg, with its solemn mansions and quiet dignity, represents the old money- generations of inherited wealth, sophisticated manners, and social networks from ancestors that money alone cannot buy. West Egg, in contrast, represents the new money like Gastby, whose fortunes were made quickly, and who flaunt their wealth in a way East Egg finds vulgar. The divide is not just physical- it acts as an important cultural wall in the novel. Gatsby can build a mansion, host luxurious parties, and buy expensive cars, but he cannot cross the border and join the East Egg society. 

The Hypocrisy of Old Money

Tom and Daisy Buchanan are the clearest symbols of old money within the novel. They seem untouchable and dignified on the outside, but are careless, snobbish, and hypocritical on the inside. Tom parades his infidelity, yet mocks Gatsby’s morality. Daisy drifts between Gatsby and Tom, never fully committing, only to retreat into her comfortable world when tragedy strikes. The moment that shows the old money’s hypocrisy is after Myrtle’s death. Gatsby takes the blame to protect Daisy, yet she and Tom vanish into their wealth, leaving others to clean up the wreckage. Fitzgerald shows that old money does not simply grant privilege-it grants immunity. It protects its own, no matter the cost to outsiders like Gatsby.

The failure of the dream

Daisy may be Gatsby’s lover, but she represents something far greater- stability, status, and a sense of belonging in the world of East Egg. To Gatsby, she isn’t just a person. She’s the embodiment of everything he’s spent his life chasing. Fitzgerald presents Daisy as both the woman he loves and the dream he can never truly reach- the world of old money that forever stays just out of his grasp. No matter how rich Gatsby becomes, he can never erase the stigma of being self-made. The old money society is not simply exclusive, but it is impenetrable. And in the end, it is Gatsby- who did not make it to the old money society- who pays the ultimate price.

How it relates to the modern world

Although Fitzgerald wrote his novel a century ago, the critique of old money is still present today. Wealth may look attractive and fancy from the outside, but it can also be a fortress, built not just on dollars but on generations of unspoken privilege. The Great Gatsby reminds us that money alone cannot buy belonging, and that the glittering surface of privilege often hides a hollowness beneath.

[thefeeniximpressions]

Citrus Fruits as a Metaphor for Love in Poetry

I peel oranges neatly. The sections come apart cleanly, perfectly in my hands. When Emily peels an orange, she tears holes in it. Juice squirts in all directions. “Kate,” she says, “I don’t know how you do it!” Emily is my best friend. I hope she never learns how to peel oranges. Oranges by Jean Little

Food has been used as a metaphor for love for years now, and it’s quite fitting. Even the simple question, “Have you eaten yet?” is inherently filled with love, and it’s definitely not explicitly romantic. It’s about worrying about another person and making sure they’re getting what they need. Wanting to make something from scratch, keeping them alive and satisfied. Sharing a meal with the people we love is a simple but meaningful gesture. It’s vulnerable. “Eat, because I love you,” are words we cannot say but can only feel. And the acceptance of that gesture is entirely surreal.

The metaphor is present in various forms of poetry. Monologues to one-liners. Artist to artist. Lover to lover–perhaps “lover” is synonymous with “person.” There is no determining exactly what love is or what love means.

Something I have noticed about these poems is that they are mostly citrus-themed. There is a quality to citrus that is communal and mundane– something you can share with friends, something you can bring to gatherings. Baked into goodies, into candles. Perhaps it is because citrus is sensory– the smell, the taste– and it is raw and unfiltered. 

Citrus fruits are especially used as a metaphor for love because of the strong waves of flavours– sweet and sour and unbearably bitter– symbolising pure, unbridled emotions like love, loss, and grief, which are intrinsically linked, as all things are. 

When you bite into a fruit, you feel the juice on your tongue, on your teeth, it seeps and you lick, from sour to sweeter, plump and fleshy, to the seed. Tasting every part of it, knowing you will never be able to relive that moment. 

Here is an excerpt from the poem The Side Effect of Eating Too Many Clementines by Alessia di Cesare.

There are boxes of clementines in the kitchen and the thing is that I love you again. The thing is that I love what orange tastes like so I eat too much of it and end up sick. [...] Instead I will mock the break with more breaking and eat all the clementines again. I only say “again” because I don’t know how to say I never stopped. 

A few lines from The Side Effect of Eating Too Many Clementines by Alessia di Cesare

An example I am particularly fond of, but is not directly about citrus fruits, is From Blossoms by Li-Young Lee. Here is an excerpt from the poem.

[...] O, to take what we love inside, to carry within us an orchard, to eat not only the skin, but the shade, not only the sugar, but the days, to hold the fruit in our hands, adore it, then bite into    the round jubilance of peach. There are days we live as if death were nowhere in the background; from joy to joy to joy, from wing to wing, from blossom to blossom to impossible blossom, to sweet impossible blossom. Excerpt from From Blossoms by Li-Young Lee

“To eat not only the skin, but the shade,” meaning to eat everything, to experience all the joys and sorrows of life, yet to live in the joys as though the sorrows could never touch your eternity. To take the joys by eating them whole, keeping them within you like golden lights. 

Joys, like peaches, that come from everywhere, are passed on and are felt by other people. We are all intrinsically linked, raw and loving.

It is about the willingness to grab a fruit and bite into it, to split an orange messily, juice dripping down your fingers, look fondly on second after mundane second that passes, and allowing yourself to truly feel in that moment.

[thefeeniximpressions]

The Commonly Spotted Formulaic Tropes in Booktok Romantasy 

Booktok is a social media–mainly Instagram and Tiktok– fanbase where books are recommended and marketed by authors and influencers. For the past six years the Booktok community has flourished, expanding widely in numbers and successfully increasing author recognition. The majority of books that are seen and influenced upon contain a mixture of romance and fantasy, combining mythical components with swooning romantic relationships that keep readers hooked. This genre overlap is called “romantasy”, although there is no literal definition in dictionaries or word-building sites, Booktok has given this subgenre the popularity and engagement those books receive now. 

So because Booktok is responsible for the Romantasy books' successful marketing, the books that appear in the Booktok fanbase all contain noticeable patterns in: plot, characters, settings, and even magical components. Authors commonly center their writing around the book’s aesthetic and appearance instead of plot to give more material for the Booktok community to rave about. This is due to authors believing that if their book follows these popular traits from Booktok their chances for their book to increase in sales and engagement will be significantly larger. The Booktok fandom will then market their books for free, saving authors from paying advertising finances while reaching a large audience. It seems worth it doesn’t it? We will now be diving deeper into the uncanny valley of Booktok Romantasy, where we identify and analyse the formulaic tropes that appear most in Booktok books.

Firstly, we must discuss Booktok’s successes in reaching a substantial audience that authors chase after, its prominent increase in Romantasy recognition, and how that has caused certain Romantasy traits to be commonly repeated. When BookTok first rose in popularity, it benefited writers, creating relationships based on the connection between stories to authors. According to the Guardian, Booktok had increased 41.3% of market shares for Romantasy books between 2023-2024. An example of this being Rebecca Yarros famous book “Fourth Wing” that skyrocketed in sales once its book became viral, the devotion from Booktok influencers and amount of social media hype landed the book to become a New York Times Bestseller. Even Medium–a writing-based publishing platform– claimed that BookTok was the primary driver of Fourth Wing's immense sales and its subsequent status as a New York Times bestseller. Because of Booktok’s support, in 2025 alone, every month 4-11 of New York Times Bestsellers titles are categorised under the Romantasy genre. According to “Lords House Publishing Press” 50% of Romantasy purchasers consist of women under the age of 35, that same age group being 71% of Booktok’s audience. Also, Romantasy titles consistently featured on Booktok regularly see sales spikes of 500-800% within days, the majority of content being: posting collages of a book’s “aesthetic” representing setting, characters or “vibes”,  influencer reviews, or major snippets of events that occur in the novel. 

Due to Booktok’s noticeable popularity and engagement, authors have begun to write novels that follow if not repeat tropes seen in Romantasy books prominently featured on Booktok. The purpose behind it is to ensure that their novel will appear in the fandom and will increase the chances of their novel's popularity and sales. Authors may include certain character relationships, scenes, and character archetypes to guarantee instant sales. Some of these tropes can be as vague as character “plot armor” whereas some tropes may be as small as a specific scene like the classic “knife-to-the-throat” chapter, where the defiant and tough female main character has a knife-to-the-throat of the brooding, and morally gray male love interest. Scenes such as these appear unique and powerful when seen once during a book but deem boring and dull when repeated, are so common that Goodreads and bookstores categorise and highlight books that contain the scene or not. A repeated example is the “knife-to-the-throat” Goodreads sections online.

 Sometimes, the inclusion of a trope doesn’t necessarily mean that a book itself is bad–as I myself have read 8 of the books shown in the images–,but the way it is written and constantly overused creates cliché plotlines that make the books predictable and therefore not as fun to read. As Booktok still attracts new readers in and convinces them to read popular Romantasy books, Booktok has also steered away an entire community from even touching the Booktok recommendations due to the lack of originality. 

In Romantasy, these tropes influence the premises of novels - for example, the trope of the common protagonist–typically female– who grows up from a disadvantaged background where she/he was vulnerable in the past. Whereas their love interest is born into power and high status. This trope is seen in A Court of Thorns and Roses By Sarah J. Mass, Powerless by Lauren Roberts, Divine Rivals by Rebecca Ross, The Cruel Prince by Holly Black and more. Each of these books have ranged from one million to thirteen million copies sold worldwide. Once the books were first published they were then introduced to the Booktok fanbase, due to the repetition in tropes influencers then created the “poor girl x rich guy” trope to categorise these books in order to summarise factors of the story, and so if a reader enjoys one book from the category they then have a variety of other recommendations that they will likely enjoy as well. Increasing the book's popularity in the process. But due to its constant repetition the trope then becomes formulaic, therefore making it less interesting whenever it appears again in a novel. 

Due to this trope being under the Romantasy subgenre most examples don’t just signify wealth in currency, but the woman may lack a mythical component that the love interest contains or the love interest may be of higher social status than the female main character. This trope can be represented in a variety of ways while still using the bones of the characters' relationship to belong within the trope.

The repetition doesn’t end there, another common trope is the commanding, fearless, strong woman with traumatic past experiences that taught her to fight and become resilient, yet affected her to now be pessimistic and defiant. This trope is seen in: Powerless By: Lauren Roberts, These Violent Delights By: Chloe Gong, The Cruel Prince By: Holly Black, Blood and Ash by Jennifer L. Armentrout, Shatter Me By: Tahereh Mafi, The Hunger Games By: Suzanne Collins, Six of Crows By: Leigh Bardugo, Lightlark By: Alex Aster, King of Wrath By: Ana Huang, A Court of Wings and Ruin By: Sarah J Mass (the third book in the ACOTAR series), The Serpent and the Wings of Night By: Carissa Broadbent, you get the idea. The University of Liverpool and “The New Feminist”- a female empowerment magazine– believes that leading females appear so commonly in Booktok Romantasy novels to the point where it is a trope. The book is then recommended solely for that factor because back in the the 19th century, (earliest up till 20th century) the majority of cultures proclaimed that women in society were meant to follow the societal expectation of staying home as a housewife and unconditionally follow their husbands wishes. Women were unable to have their own personal things such as their own bank account, which they were only legally allowed to have until 1974 in the US. So although this problem isn’t as prominent in current society, authors take those moments in history to hopefully influence readers (a significant portion of them being girls from age 18-34) that they have the freedom to not uphold those past expectations and they now can strive to be as powerful as male figures today. 

Another reason for this common trope to be shown so often is to contrast many sexist fantasy books that portray women in the opposite way that they are portrayed in Romantasy novels. An example of this is George R.R Martin’s Game of Thrones (an  award-winning Fantasy novel), where female characters are shown to be weak, while suffering from violence and sexual assault regularly. That portrayal of women began to appear commonly in fantasy novels, so when Romantasy became a well known subgenre authors focused on creating more female-centric narratives that displayed female strength due to the lack of it in other genres. Completely disregarding the idea that female strength can be portrayed in multiple different ways, and that strength doesn’t have to come from physical brute power that the majority of traditional male characters contain. Authors should instead try for their female characters to have different kinds of strength and value strength that doesn’t come from physical ability. As they need to consider that there are many feminist girls who may want to be a housewife, live a small quiet life, and/or immediately settle down as not all girls value physical strength.

Some examples of power that don’t come from physical force include mental strength, emotional strength, moral strength, and intellectual strength all of which should be valued and used as much as physical strength.

 Mental strength is a character’s ability to solve problems, maintain focus under pressure, and not be easily affected by insults or offenses. 

Emotional strength is usually overlooked and is seen as a weakness for most characters with developed emotional senses because they are considered “vulnerable” or “sensitive” which contrasts from the steel-like, defiant woman who “doesn’t-take- orders-from-nobody” that is used for most fantasy books. This type of strength is usually given to the side characters. An example of this would be Taryn Duarte, the older sister of the protagonist Jude Duarte from the Cruel Prince. She shows emotional intelligence by developing chameleon-like skills to blend into the dangerous world around her, eventually settling down in a marriage. This shows her use of emotional strength to adapt to her surroundings and harness emotions when she pleases to be seen as “invisible”. Yet, when the wedding doesn’t work out the way she had hoped, she changes things for herself and ends the marriage. She has the “peacemaker” character type (known as type 9) that causes her to avoid conflict to the point where she can accept mistreatment as she knows that her mentality and emotions are strong enough to surpass verbal and life obstacles. These emotionally strong characters don't let others' negative opinions affect them as they are confident in their own skin.

Moral strength, although seemingly underrated, is one of the most powerful qualities you can find in a character. An example of a non-morally gray character is Iris the protagonist from Divine Rivals, she is an ambiguous character with a recognised passion for journalism who contains a strong moral compass. These morally strong characters share traits such as have: largely value morals when it comes to making decisions, create actions that align with their intentions, and are passionate/visionisers. And although that isn’t entirely seen as a “strong” character– because what we readers now depict is strong are characters who are physically strong– the ones that have a present moral compass and contain these qualities are the ones who rule kingdoms and lead armies. They are the most intimidating to face and gain the utmost respect from others around them. And if the author grants these characters with a high societal standing they are almost always known to have a spotless reputation, that increases the admiration of people around them. 

Intellectual strength may be seen often but is usually portrayed in ways that don’t make the character seem “strong”. This wise knowledgeable archetype most commonly falls under the category of the: Sage, Mentor, and Tortured Genius (antagonist in most cases). But don’t you notice that in every story there is at least one character closely connected to the protagonist? And that character is always one of the most helpful and dependable? Rhysand the love interest from the ACOTAR series is an example of one. As the books progress Rhysand is more and more dependable to the protagonist Feyre Archeron and is known as the “mastermind” behind all of their plans against forces of evil. Rhysand is the leader and representative of “the Night Court” (a province in the mythical world) and has the duty to protect all of its citizens while regulating political issues countering other provinces/countries. The majority of the time he is the one that constructs all plans whereas the protagonist Feyre and his friends help him turn it into reality.

 These representations of the type of strengths a female protagonist can have serves as evidence that there isn’t just one way for authors to display power on a character. Yet characters are consistently written to only have physical strength as it is the most popular and repetitive. Because of it also being a fan favorite they include it to increase the book's popularity and sales. Due to its overuse it can cross a point where it is displayed as fake, especially if the physical strength is developed or recognised randomly. But instead what would be better not just for the book's recognition but also for the depth of the character is for the female lead to display strength through a variety of the areas mentioned above and develop them throughout the story. That way the character will be less one-dimensional and more believable while upholding but expanding the Booktok fanbases’ idea of a strong character.

So finally after focusing on common repetitive tropes displayed in Romantasy and driven by the Booktok community we may believe that these tropes are bad. The truth is it is a mixture of both positive and negative. The positive impact of the repetitiveness and categorisation of these Booktok tropes is that it serves as an efficient and quick way to give an identification or synopsis of the book. It may also help improve author sales and unify it with similar books. It can also influence others to read novels through the romanticization of it on social media and recommend books to larger audiences because of its association with a similar book they enjoyed (the tropes themselves). But in Booktok tropes, novels will also be watered down and decomposed to their core tropes that will only be described in video summaries or reviews. So although it unifies books it also makes them all appear the same, removing their individuality in the process while making readers pick a book preference based on what it has in common with other stories and their experiences with them. 

In conclusion, authors shouldn’t feel entitled to change the storyline of their book to match what is deemed to be “popular” on Booktok as it removes the uniqueness of the novel. Instead they should try to be more open to thinking outside of tropes and categorisations and try to use different approaches (for example, the ways to display strength in female leads). Whereas the Booktok fandom should expand their classification of “good books” and show a variety from different authors to not bore viewers from repeatedly being recommended the same book. They should also focus less on the tropes a book may include and instead recommend and market the novel's characters, challenges, mythical components, etc. Instead of focusing on patterns and what is the same between a subgenre of books, influencers and the Booktok community should promote what is different from one novel compared to the rest in its genre. That way it will not only push readers to read books with entirely different storylines and value different things when looking for a book,  but it will also encourage writers to not fear if the contents of its novel will resonate with Booktok readers.

[thefeeniximpressions]

The Hollywood Lavenders 

What  Babylon (2022)’s  portrayal of lesbians in the Jazz Age can teach us about queer history

While not the lead romance, the heady lesbian fling between Lady Fay Zhu (Li Jun Li) a jack-of-all-trades chanteuse and Nellie LaRoy (Margot Robbie) a free-spirited, scandalous “wild child” of the silent film industry, is simultaneously spellbinding and heartfelt, a distant fantasy yet a story held close in the hearts of queer watchers. Fay Zhu - inspired by the Asian American actresses Anna May Wong and the openly bisexual Marlene Dietrich - serves as a severe seductress, with powerful allure. Alongside her, Nellie LaRoy - a free spirit, embodying the traditions of the “flapper” of the 1920s in her free spirit, Louisianan accent and short skirts. 

Their romance somewhat accurately depicts the life of LGBTQ actresses in the “moving picture” era of Hollywood, giving homage to the queer icons of this era. The 1920s were a time of increased freedom, particularly in Hollywood - the new Hollywood studio system created one of almost instant and unlimited gratification - a propagator of social chaos. This allowed many queer actors and members of the Hollywood scene to freely engage in homosexual relationships as part of this distant, fantastical world, where they were free of the moral restrictions of their time. Surprisingly enough, large directors of the time believed that the “lesbianism”, as it was named, produced a special sort of performance on screen - as Joseph Stenberg called, an “androgynous magnetism”. This fantasy is explored in the movie’s first act, with a crazy party in which the musical  number of Lady Fay Zhu takes place. The piece was, in fact, heavily inspired by Marlene Dietrich’s film Morocco (1930) which featured the first lesbian kiss on Hollywood screens. 

However, most studios knew that the image of Hollywood could not remain as unpalatable to an enduringly conservative public eye.  In 1923, Will Hays became the head of the new Motion Picture Producers and Distributors of America - a collective of all the largest film moguls and studios in existence at the time. Hays believed that stability of working contracts was crucial to creating structure in the film industry. He had “morals clauses” put into film contracts, not dissimilar to the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policies of the modern-day United States. This restrictive policy began a culture of discretion for  LGBTQ+ relationships. In the 1920s, a number of prominent gay, bisexual and lesbian actors and actresses rose to fame in the silent film - Marlene Dietrich, for example, Ramon Novarro, William Haines, and Alla Nazimova - whose queer identities were open secrets within the Hollywood community, yet kept tightly secret outside of it. The movie shows the two characters beginning their romantic relationship during this time, after a party in which the two passionately make out after Fay Zhu saves Nellie LaRoy from a rattlesnake bite. Their relationship progresses, and Fay helps Nellie with acting and both act as supporting figures in each others’ lives. 

In the 1930s, with the advent of the Great Depression, the Hollywood Production Code came into being in 1930. This code essentially ruled out any form of “sexual perversion” from being told on screen. In 1932 it was further constricted by the “National League of Decency”, and from 1934, it was strictly enforced. The new rigidity of the studio system affected the lives of many LGBTQ individuals, forcing them into heterosexual relationships. At the same time, Hollywood gossip, tabloids and public buzz grew significantly, at the cost of the private lives of these queer individuals.  In the movie itself, Nellie and Fay are told to break up because of this new grip of morality. It was furthered by the fact that the two were an interracial couple, and “miscegenation” was highly taboo at the time. It was enforced in the Hollywood Production Code, and the two were forcibly separated once their relationship made headlines. 

Babylon portrays a rather historically congruent portrayal of female same-sex relationships in the 1920s. It’s poignant, and reflects the shift from relative freedom to total secrecy between the 20s and 30s, and theorises the lives of LGBTQ actresses during the time. As the 30s transitioned Hollywood to the rigid, censored entity of the studio system, this underground community slowly was suppressed, losing their history over decades. In that, Babylon (2022) brings this history back to the forefront

[thefeeniximpressions]

Power Struggles, Blurred Lines and Inner Conflicts in the Witcher 

Featuring the typical fare of GrimDark world building, the Witcher, when it first came out in 2019, was viewed as a spiritual sequel to preceding dark fantasy shows, coming after the critically acclaimed Game of Thrones. Yet, what makes the Witcher unique is the complex hierarchies that take the Witcher’s worldbuilding far beyond the  typical feudalist intrigue  that has become so characteristic of dark fantasies, with different, morally grey kingdoms vying with each other for control of land and power. In such setups, moral greyness abounds, like in GOT, where Daenerys, upon the death of her, burns down an entire city in a pyrrhic victory. In the Witcher, this complexity is conveyed not in the humanization of both sides of the central  conflict, but rather the blurred lines between them. 

Cirilla, one of the protagonists,  grows up a Northern princess and the heir to the most powerful Northern Kingdom, Cintra. When her kingdom falls to Nilfgaard, a Southern conqueror, she swears total vengeance. Yet, she is saved by an Elven child, who then tells her about how her grandmother, the queen of her kingdom, brutally murdered his people. Cirilla struggles to reconcile her image of her powerful, loving grandmother, with the genocidal dictator that her friend presents her with.

Cirilla’s grandmother, Calanthe of Cintra, preparing for war

Later on, it is revealed that Cirilla herself is of elven blood - and she possesses the powers of a full-blooded elf. She is exactly what her grandmother tried to kill. The Elves, allied with the kingdom that destroyed her own and killed her grandmother, begin to worship her as a hero, there to save them from extermination by the rest of the human world. It is this complexity that Andrzej Sapowski forces us, as readers and watchers, to contend with - that one person can suffer from such deep and conflicting allegiances, and be forced to reconcile with each. As Cirilla runs further and further away from the decision, she becomes sought by everybody, and war begins brewing.

Many other characters struggle with shifting loyalties and conscience during the show. Jaskier, the bard, takes on various masks throughout the narrative. A character known for his lack of allegiance to any one kingdom or cause, he floats around, getting into trouble and joining Geralt on his adventures. Yet, when he, by virtue of his close relationship to Geralt, becomes responsible for Cirilla, he struggles with deciding the best way to do so - making a difficult bargain with Redania, a kingdom aligned with Nilfgaard, clouded by his growing relationship to a Redanian Prince. Despite having a profound love for Cirilla, his actions lead to a betrayal, resulting in Cirilla being lost. Jaskier’s conflict reveals the difficulty of choosing correctly in a world where allegiances are unclear - he makes the mistake of trusting where he couldn't, ultimately leading to a trap that could have been avoided if he had listened to those around him. As we see here, relationships can be quickly clouded by shifting allegiances and difficult mistakes.

While there is nuance within the structure of conflict between kingdoms in the Witcher, this conflict is further exacerbated by the semi-autonomous power struggles within the Brotherhood of sorcerers. In the world of the Witchers, the Brotherhood, an elite organization made from the magical schools of Aretuza and Ban Ard, act as a balance of power against the Northern Kings, providing support of both the magical and diplomatic. The mages, by training together and maintaining a shared organization, supposedly maintain peace and act as advisors.

Yet, even the Brotherhood is struck out of balance, as its mages have to contend with the possibility of taking sides. Their magical power is weakened as tensions erupt and their kings begin to lose faith in them. Yet, they remain an important balance of power as they initially fight for the North, holding their own against the entire might of the Nilfgaardian army. Yet, the stability and power of the Brotherhood remains tenuous at best, as internal rivalries have shockwaves in the power struggle between nations. In fact, it is the breaking of the Brotherhood that ultimately triggers war.

Ultimately, the Witcher stands out among other dark fantasies of its kind not because of the novelty of its conflict, but in the intricacies of worldbuilding creating a unique power structure, dynamic loyalties, and a very unclear picture of two sides - which is ultimately one of the most compelling aspects of its story.

[thefeeniximpressions]

The Radium Girls— The History of Human’s Greatest Poisoning: Greed and Radium

Humans are, in many ways, frail. Consuming the wrong flowers, touching the wrong mushrooms and being bitten by the wrong mosquitoes  all send us to early graves. Despite that, humans are strong, capable of things the rest of mammals on the planet are not. Handling fire, maneuvering complex machines, not only burning but annihilating a forest to a crisp… or even raising an entire civilisation from scratch. Yet, much too often, we are killed by our own creations.

‘The Radium Girls: The Dark Story of America's Shining Women’ by Kate H. Moore tackles both these fundamental weaknesses of humans: both physical limitations and selfishness— along with the unwavering bravery of the same species set on the edge of death. 

‘The Radium Girls’ is a biography, featuring dial painters in the early 20th century - the century of the ‘radium craze’ in the United States. Fooled by the illusion of bright fluorescence, people loved Radium, gobbling it up as a fashion and health trend. The haunting glow that radium possessed was America’s fascination during the turn of the century, not being aware that the very paint covering their tables and  chairs was decaying their bones as  they ate gravy and mashed potatoes for lunch.

Dial painters, who were mostly young women, handled radium paint, painting clock dials day and night with gleaming smiles. They were told that their profession was the dream; it was both sanitary and high paying. The only downside was that the women were expected to ‘lip point’ while already being covered head to toe with glistening radium dust. Lip pointing was a painting technique derived from Japan, using their lips to develop the perfect paintbrush points, which inadvertently led to them putting the radium paint directly in their mouths. This was to prevent the dial painters from wasting any paint with the incredibly precious radium in it.

Predictably, the woeful story follows young women suffering from radium poisoning as their lives are just about to bloom as adults, and the firm’s disregard for their rapidly declining health. Their unapologetic attitude begins off as simple ignorance, regretfully weaving into greed for their own pockets.

‘The Radium Girls’ captures the essence of human nature in an evocative beauty. The firms seem cruel, inhumane. And yet they are all only human, just as the brave, courageous ‘Radium Girls’ were. The girls were poisoned with radium, whilst the dial firms were poisoned by their own greed.  And so it leaves a mark on the important philosophy for us people—  what is the greatest tragedy of all? Is it the frailty of the human body, so easily undone by what it cannot perceive? Or is it the frailty of the human spirit, when greed and indifference lead to the suffering of others? The Radium Girls does not simply tell the story of the past—it forces us to confront the present. The same recklessness, the same disregard for human life, continues to echo in different forms today. But just as the Radium Girls fought back, refusing to be silenced even as their bodies failed them, so too does their legacy serve as a reminder: human weakness may be inevitable, but so is human resilience.

[thefeeniximpressions]

The Immortal Prime of Dame Maggie Smith

A study into the cultural significance of the actress and her roles in film culture over time

Dame Maggie Smith as Jean Brodie in “The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie”, 1969 

After Beginning her career in the Oxford Playhouse, she joined the National Theatre company in 1963. Her first movie was an on-screen adaptation of Shakespeare’s Othello, where she played Desdemona. She was popularised by the 1969 film The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie where she played the titular character, winning an Oscar and major roles throughout the 70s and 80s.

Dame Maggie Smith in Miss Jean Brodie (left) influenced Dead Poets Society (Center) and Mona Lisa Smile (Right)

However, this, along with her classic roles in cinema are not widely known among the average modern moviegoer, and yet, she remains memorable to them. This is a result of a shift in her career in the 90s, moving into mainstream media roles. She grew into roles as an older woman, playing roles of mentorship and age with the same wit and charm as everything she did before. Three roles cemented her presence as a contemporary mainstream actress - The Sister Act,  Downton Abbey, and, most significantly, Harry Potter. 

After the Sister Act, she portrayed Violet Crawford in Downton Abbey, which began airing in the UK and US in 2010 and ran for 6 seasons. Her role as the wealthy, icy dowager duchess reflected the same poise, grace and wit seen in earlier roles, yet brought a new dimension to her humour. She played her age, embodying an elderly character with a traditional and nostalgic worldview. Her trained yet pointed expressions and immensely humorous one-liners including “what is a weekend?” were the subject of many internet memes and catapulted her to fame. 

Dame Maggie Smith’s life was fruitful and tremendously significant, and she remains a testament to the power of stunning acting to remain relevant across time and contexts. As we mourn her loss, we can continue to acknowledge her fantastic career and the place she holds in the hearts of many.

[thefeeniximpressions]

Saving Private Ryan

Saving Private Ryan, directed by Steven Spielberg, is widely regarded as one of the most powerful war films ever made. Released in 1998, the movie is celebrated for its gripping storytelling, realistic portrayal of war, and profound emotional impact. This piece will explore the film’s synopsis, reception by audiences and critics, and its place within the anti-war genre in cinema.

The film is set during World War II and follows a group of American soldiers tasked with finding and bringing home Private James Ryan, whose three brothers have been killed in action. The opening sequence of the film is known to be one of the most harrowing depictions of the D-Day invasion of Normandy and is renowned for its graphic and unflinching realism. The narrative then shifts to the mission led by Captain John Miller (Tom Hanks) as his squad navigates the horrors of war to fulfill their orders. The film provides a stark portrayal of the brutality of combat while exploring themes of sacrifice, duty, and the value of human life. Its historical context and attention to detail immerse viewers in the realities of World War II, making it both a tribute to soldiers and a sobering reminder of war’s costs.

Highly praised by both audiences and critics for its authenticity and emotional depth, the film’s groundbreaking filming techniques, such as the use of handheld cameras, desaturated colors, and realistic sound design, create an immersive experience that places viewers in the midst of battle. The opening D-Day sequence, in particular, is often cited as one of the most intense and accurate depictions of war ever filmed. Critics have lauded the film for its unflinching honesty and its ability to evoke visceral reactions from viewers. Beyond its technical achievements, the film’s exploration of camaraderie, loss, and moral dilemmas resonates deeply with audiences, leaving a lasting impact. It has been credited with redefining the war film genre and setting a new standard for realism in cinema.

While Saving Private Ryan is often categorized as a war film, it also fits within the tradition of “anti-war” cinema. An anti-war film is one that exposes the horrors and futility of war, rather than glorifying it. Saving Private Ryan achieves this through its graphic depiction of violence, its focus on the human cost of conflict, and its exploration of the moral ambiguities faced by soldiers. The film does not shy away from showing the physical and psychological toll of war, making it clear that there are no true winners in such conflicts. By emphasizing the sacrifices of individual soldiers and the senselessness of their suffering, the film challenges viewers to reflect on the true nature of war. In this way, Saving Private Ryan transcends its genre to become a powerful statement against the glorification of war.

Saving Private Ryan is more than just a war film; it is a profound exploration of the human condition and a poignant critique of the devastation wrought by conflict. Through its gripping narrative, innovative filmmaking techniques, and unflinching portrayal of war’s horrors, the film has left an indelible mark on cinema and its audiences. As both a tribute to the bravery of soldiers and a stark reminder of the futility of war, Saving Private Ryan continues to resonate as a timeless masterpiece and a powerful anti-war statement.

[thefeeniximpressions]

Move to Heaven: Grief and Healing

With its first episode being released on May 14th 2021, the k-drama series Move to Heaven delicately navigates themes of grief and loss. The series centres around Geu-ru, (played by actor Tang Joon-Sang) a young man with Asperger’s syndrome, who works alongside his estranged uncle,  Sang-gu, (played by Lee Jee-hoon) in a trauma cleaning business. Their job involves organising the possessions left behind by the deceased, but each episode unravels much more, as they uncover the 

This series can be said to be set apart by the sensitive manner in which death and the impact it leaves on loved ones is portrayed, and has been praised for their effective usage of subtle storytelling and visually stunning cinematography to leave an emotional impact on the audience.

The show also does not shy away from dedicating time to unravelling the complexities of its main cast, with one primary example being the relationship between the main protagonist Geu-ru and his uncle Sang-gu, with the development of their relationship adding a layer of depth to the overall narrative, as they both navigate through their own grief and learn to find solace in each other, illustrating how healing does not have to be a path walked alone. While not “a light watch”, Move to Heaven is certainly a series worth watching with a cast of skillful performers that breathe depth and intricacy into their characters. The handling of delicate topics being built off of a foundation of respect and empathy truly enables the series to be able to resonate with its audience.          

[thefeeniximpressions]

Generative AI: the Silent Death of the Human Spirit

It was the best of times—the world proclaims as Humanity lurches headfirst into the dawning of the "Age of AI". Following the release of ChatGPT in 2022, the usage of Generative Artificial Intelligence has surged to an unprecedented zenith. With the average individual now able to produce a university-level essay within seconds, generative AI has never been so relevant, normalised, and remarkably convenient. Yet, few manage to acknowledge severe ethical violations underlying the very database that enabled such models to function, and moreover, the consequent danger behind the influx of AI generated media, manifesting itself in the stifling of individuality, of original thinking, and the extinguishing of human expression.

It doesn't take a data specialist to grasp the over-saturation of AI-generated media—a quick google search with keywords simple as "girl" or "painting" suffice to reveal a plethora of AI-generated images in its wake. However, this may very well be the tip of the iceberg: Data collected by AI technicians of the Everypixel Journal found that from 2022 to 2023, more than 15 billion images were created using text-to-image algorithms, such as the likes of DALL-E, Midjourney, and most notable of all—Stable Diffusion, which represents approximately 80% of all AI images created as of 2024. To contextualise, within the short span of a year, AI generated images had managed to surpass the same number of photographs taken in over a century, exceeding one-third of the number of images ever uploaded to Instagram and growing to double the current world population. 

Such rampancy is no doubt concerning, as it signifies our entry to an era where low-quality AI-generated media, or “slop”, dominates digital spaces, an era where search algorithms push away significant, credible information in favor of content farms and SEO Optimised webpages, an era where the Dead Internet Theory becomes more reality than conspiracy. Moreover, it begs the question—what is it that allows for such mass production of AI generated content? 

The answer—data laundering. Most are aware that generative AI models hinge on a database, a mass selection of desired material, which the AI then “reworks” based on a given prompt into an amalgamation of sorts. However, few consider the vast majority of such databases consist primarily–if not entirely—of copyrighted materials. Take Stable Diffusion for example, as stated in its official site, it employs LAION, a nonprofit database common amongst image generative AI such as DALL-E and Midjourney. Containing data for over 400 million images, LAION compiles all of its media content from “scraping” the web on a monthly basis, that is, to reap digitally masses of information without obtaining consent, giving credit, or even fulfilling the basic consensus of notifying the original creator. 

These types of AI assets evade legal responsibility through a process known as “data laundering”, in which corporations sought to monetise AI models trained on copyrighted data collected by universities and nonprofits, exploiting the legal loophole of “fair use”, or as AI researcher Devansh was to articulate:”In traditional fair use, attribution is given to the original creator. Not attributing something has been given another, less flattering name—plagiarism”.

In 2023, the Hugo, World Fantasy, and British Fantasy Award-winning Clarkesworld Magazine shut down its submission after reporting a 38% increase in Ai-generated entries. In the same year, the New York Times sued Open AI, the developing company of ChatGPT, for using millions of copyrighted articles to train their chatbots. On the visual front, demand for human illustrators on crucial commission platforms, such as Fiverr and Upwork, has dropped by up to 30% as reported by the Wall Street Journal, with artists engaging in mass protests and boycotts against giant corporations such as Meta, Adobe, and DeviantArt, which had all supplied their in-site AI with user generated content. Even the music industry, a creative field most strictly protected by copyright laws and intellectual property rights, is currently projected to lose an approximate of $64 billion in revenue according to the largest, most recent global AI economic report. 

As with any account of plagiarism, AI data laundering exploits the very group which enables it—unsuspecting creators with hours of passionate, painstaking work ripped from their hands. While generative AI is praised for its efficiency, perceived as a force for progress, the radical revolutionization of human lives, one must grasp that “progress” built upon crushing the backbone of one’s community, is no progress at all. By introducing an algorithm rooted in theft, one with the ability to pump out content by the hundreds, suffocating human livelihood by the thousands—we have, perhaps, created the very antithesis of progress. 

As it turns out, generative AI is not only detrimental to aspiring creators, whose project remain buried to the world as their passion cease to be able to sustain their future, to AI developers, whose ethical concerns regarding the industry are sidelined often in favor of profit—-but most importantly, to us, the very users AI is meant to serve.

In an age permeated by mass production and consumerism, an age that seeks to turn every word into a commodity, every note a transaction, an age where children are warned away from the perilous fields of creativity, all in hopes that they won’t become a “starving artist” in the years to come, we find ourselves slowly losing sight of our individuality amidst an onslaught of endless tasks, functioning like well oiled machines. Squeezed dry of energy, We ask Artificial Intelligence to create lyrics, to write poetry as our soul rots within us, refusing to account for the consequences of such actions. By indulging in the convenience generative AI provides without original input, we deny ourselves the very right to self-expression, that is to say, we deny ourselves of being human.

“I think, therefore I am”, proposed the Rationalist Descartes as he gazed beyond the decadence of the Baroque, and jnto the horizons of Enlightenment. True to the methodic doubt of Descartes, we too, must question what constitutes original thinking. Although the term connotes mainly to logic and rationality, few acknowledge its concealed, but equally important shadow side—Creativity. 

While many today may choose to scoff at the word itself, the act of creation is one carved into our nature. Dating to as far back as Stone Age, we have created far before we’ve come to know anything else, with one of the oldest traces of our very existence cemented in the Sulawesi Caves over forty-five millenniums ago, in bright, vermilion handprints.  

Creativity’s current flows through the river of history—from the "catharsis" of Greek tragedies, paving the way to the earliest forms of psychotherapy, to Persian poets like Omar Khayyam, whose exploration of infinity and existence laid the foundation for algebra, and then again to the Science novels of Jules Verne and Mary Shelley, both of which propelled modern development of biomechanics and space exploration. Creativity glides off the tip of Charles Darwin’s pen, his quick sketches of Galapagos finches becoming a cornerstone of modern biology, and it resonates in the notes of Beethoven, whose rhythmic melodies shaped the invention of the telegraph. Across the globe, Korean celadon pottery led to developments in nanotechnology, Andean quipus mirrored binary coding, and Mayan architecture saw the rise of satellite positioning. 

To put it simply: creativity has always been the culmination of human knowledge and experiences, as only by intertwining the Arts and Sciences can we fully grasp the tapestry of human nuance. It is not, however, a middleman to be cut out of the equation. When we strip away the role of the creator—replacing imagination with automation—what is left of us? We make, therefore we are. To stand against creativity is to stand against human evolution.

After all, what are artists and engineers if not sculptors of the future, bound by the same spark of innovation? And yet, with generative AI threatening to strip away the necessity of original thought, we are at a crossroads: do we allow algorithmic afterthoughts to dictate our evolution, or do we fight for a future where human originality prospers? If we let the pursuit of convenience override the pursuit of meaning, we risk erasing the very essence of what makes us human. The choice, then, is ours to make.

[thefeeniximpressions]

Don't Look Up!

In a world hovering on the edge of annihilation, can individuals and societies truly unite to salvage their own fate? The Director and producer Adam McKay of the 2021 Netflix film “Don’t Look Up” unapologetically conveys his answer  in an ironic way. His film transports all human beings into an alternate reality of imminent death, extinction, and disappearance  from an impending global natural catastrophe. It effectively reflects the frightening apathy lurking in society, with government corruption, and powerless marginalized groups. 

This film emphasizes the authenticity of 2022 New York City through a realistic setting and portrays the complexity of human society with an engaging plot. The story revolves around a scientist Dr.Randall Mindy (Leonardo Dicaprio), and his student, Kate Dibiasky (Jennifer Lawrence), who make a shocking discovery: a planet-killing comet is hurtling towards the Earth. Therefore, they decide to raise the alarm and garner support through attracting attention from public platforms, communities, and the government of the United States. The skillfully curated context of a fast-paced society with developed technology and environment immerses viewers in feeling that the world portrayed in the film is remarkably close to our own planet. 

To elevate the theme of the intricacy of human nature, the director crafts a diverse range of characters, from politicians and scientists to ordinary citizens. This approach adds depth and authenticity to the film's narration and its critique of society in terms of the apathy and indifference it portrays. The film effectively targets the blatant denial of science and the manipulation and censorship of public opinion by those in power, as portrayed through the character President Janie Orlean (Meryl Streep). The portrayal of this character provides a spot-on expose of political leadership valuing poll numbers and short-term benefits over actual problem-solving. Furthermore, the ruthless news anchor Brie Evantee’s (Cate Blanchett) behavior of prioritizing sensationalism over the main problem of extinction, highlights the corrupt state of modern media that ignores people for ratings and societies’ ignorance of global issues. Additionally, the movie suggests the powerlessness of minority groups through the powerful performances of Leonardo Dicaprio and Jennifer Lawrence. Their performance captures the growing desperation of scientists trying to save the world against a backdrop of indifference through the use of various facial expressions and their deep insight into their characters and themes.

The authenticity of the film is not only found in the compelling storyline but also further developed through the visual and auditory elements, including lifelike computer-generated imagery of the comet and innovative cinematographers’ enhancements to the theme. The film is visually well-executed with some impressive special effects of explosion that bring the impending comet to our lives. Additionally, the soundtrack of the film features a mix of classic songs and original music, which complements the film's darkly comedic tone effectively. Ultimately, these visual and auditory elements serve as effective enhancements to the film, providing viewers with a visual representation of the catastrophic impact of these societal issues on humanity. 

While “Don’t Look Up” is an intriguing satire, the humour that the director wants to present might be sometimes dark in terms of the themes such as government incapacity and public apathy in the face of existential dangers. Due to the portrayal of the darker aspects of human nature and society, some optimistic viewers may perceive the presentation as uncomfortable in terms of the frightening apathy in society or excessively unsettling for a comedy.

How could a society with government leaders yelling “Don’t Look Up!” unite to salvage their own fate? The film is a commentary on the state of our world and its collective failure to address urgent global issues such as the issue of global warming and world hunger. The lifelike computer-generated imagery, vivid performances, and intriguing storyline of the film make it emotionally evoking. It will leave the viewers contemplating the state of our planet and start to act upon reducing global issues with a strong sense of sympathy. Therefore, they are more likely to take action in their daily life to prevent events like those portrayed in the film.

[thefeeniximpressions]

Arcane: a Masterclass in Writing

Rating a roaring 100% on Rotten Tomatoes and having an astonishing budget of over 250 million dollars, Arcane: League of Legends is one of the most successful animated series of all time. Filled with intricate details, philosophical dilemmas, and real-world implications, any viewer would be able to tell that the show was done with love. The very essence of beauty of it, however, stems from its daringness to show nuance. 

Taking place amongst the “Topside”, Piltover, and the “Undercity”, Zaun, Arcane focuses on the blazing conflict between the two cities, catalyzed and amplified by the invention of a technology of magic: “Hextech”. In the story, “Hextech” is developed by a brilliant young scientist, Jayce Talis. While seemingly innocent at his first introduction, Jayce’s inventions and actions end up sparking a violent butterfly effect that results in detrimental consequences, acting as the enzyme for the bloody war that clashes between Piltover and Zaun. Though some viewers praise him for his genius and determination, others instead choose to criticize him for his impulsive actions and poor political choices, accusing him of being the central perpetrator for all of the story’s most major conflicts and deaths. Just a simple mention of this character’s name would lead to a wild debate over his actions – Jayce Talis is the epitome of a controversial, if not nuanced, character.

In season 1, Jayce’s arc centers around the pursuit of knowledge, the ethics of scientific progress, and the heavy sociopolitical implications of a revolutionary discovery. From the outset, his invention of Hextech is rooted in a place of virtue – “we, the pioneers of science, can use [Hextech] for good,” he contended at his own trial, where the beginning of his inventions was scrutinized in the eyes of Piltover’s council. Already, the show is not afraid to show the controversies of such an invention, with Heimerdinger, acting as the main opposition to Hextech, using his age and experience as a valuable argument on the potential dangers of such an invention. “I’ve seen this power in the wrong hands,” he mourns powerfully at the same trial. “It corrupts, consumes, lays waste to civilizations.” The Yordle’s wisdom of the consequences of such a discovery is chilling, but not enough to stem Jayce’s – nor much of Piltover’s – enthusiasm. Despite the advice of his mentors and the council, Jayce continues to advocate for the use of science as a means to control the natural world in order to change lives for the better. By the time Act 2 (season 1, episodes 4~6) rolls around, it almost seems as though Jayce had done an adequate job at managing the loaded implications of such a revolutionary invention. The “Hexgates” – a large tower that uses Hextech to teleport ships in and out of Piltover – had been boosting the city’s economy for years, helping to bridge relations with other Runeterran nations and improving its presence on the international stage. While beneficial for the topside’s development, however, it also widened the gap between Piltover and Zaun, fueling hateful sentiments and bitter opposition, driven by increasing inequalities. As a result of his trailblazing research, though, Jayce soon finds himself in a brand new position, promoted to a councilor and hence responsible for the political dimensions of Piltover’s most central operations. 

At this point of the story, Jayce’s journey had already taken a drastic turn – from a passionate scientist to an aboveboard politician, both his inventions and his choices have led him far into the waters of being a controversial character. Amongst this, his relationship with Mel Medarda, a fellow councilor, makes up a certain portion of this nuance. 

Originally a Noxian, Mel was outcast by her family, moving to Piltover to boost the city’s peaceful innovations in hopes of proving to her mother, Ambessa, that violence is not necessary to achieve success. It was Mel that kickstarted Hextech, deciding to invest in Jayce’s work early on and convincing the council to approve his research. “Perhaps it’s time for the era of magic,” in episode 3, she said symbolically. Mel was also the one to promote Jayce to the position of councilor, voicing his expertise on the Hexgates as Piltover faced a dangerous crisis. Throughout the entirety of season 1, it seems as though Mel is the one to drive all of Jayce’s actions and destinies – which only becomes more complicated given the two’s romantic relationship. Many viewers have accused Mel of “manipulating” Jayce for her own political agendas, quoting her relationship with him being used as a weapon for her to leverage her ideologies. However, these critiques fail to realize the different layers woven within the two’s bonds. While Mel did invest in Jayce’s research, it was a mutually beneficial relationship that elevated both parties’ goals – Mel’s wish for Piltover’s peace and progress, and Jayce’s dream of making Hextech accessible for all. Aside from this, their relationship was rooted in a place of personal attraction; by the end of the season, the two had a solidified, healthy relationship that they both benefitted and grew from. Jayce frequently confided his problems in Mel, with these scenes acting as pivotal moments that contributed tellingly towards his characterization and his story. 

Yet, of course, their relationship remains multifaceted. Mel's dialogue in episode 5 speaks volumes:

Mel: Heimerdinger’s inaction is what brought us here. You said so yourself. The peace is already broken, Jayce. I’m only asking you to prepare to defend your people. (...) The decision is yours.

In this scene, Mel uses an array of classic manipulation techniques, from twisting Jayce’s own words, downplaying a heavily convoluted choice, and relinquishing a final decision to give an illusion of free will. Indeed, in many moments across the show, Mel leads Jayce head-first into decisions, though not out of malice, but because this is how she learned to survive – by using her status and influence to shape outcomes in her favor. Raised in a world where power is seized, not given, Mel inherently views manipulation as a necessary means rather than a betrayal. A politician, strategist, and the daughter of an ever-calculated mother, Mel was raised to use others for her own good. While this does not justify the influence she has had on Jayce, nor the choices she has pushed him into, it does explain it. Either way, as the series progresses, Mel begins to learn the importance of a relationship built on trust, not ulterior motives, and her walls begin to collapse around her lover. For Jayce, however, the impact of Mels’ influence is far more complex. While her guidance propels him into positions of power, it also forces him into moral dilemmas he may not have confronted on his own. While ambitious, Jayce is not entirely ruthless – Mel’s presence hence accelerates his transformation from an idealistic scientist into a hardened political figure. Though he benefits from her mentorship, gaining authority and strategic insight, he also begins to blur the line between power and the abuse of it. As Mel starts to understand the value of trust, Jayce, in contrast, struggles more and more to understand the consequences of the power he has acquired under her counsel, leaving him to question whether he is truly making his own choices, or merely playing a role in someone else’s game. 

In short, Jayce’s actions in Arcane’s first season are far from easy to grade on a scale of “right” to “wrong”. His inventions stem from a genuine desire to improve lives, just as they once changed his own. Yet, at the same time, he is undeniably manipulated into positions of power, forced into ethical dilemmas and burdened with the consequences of his own naivety. Despite his good intentions, he still ends innocent lives, escalates conflict, and plays a critical role in igniting a war that alters the course of Piltover and Zaun’s history forever. “It’s all because of Jayce,” one fan lamented in a Tumblr post, condemning him for the endless strategies of the show. “Everything can be blamed on him.” But this perspective flattens the depth of his character. This article instead encourages viewers to consider the full extent of Jayce’s nuance in character, to recognize the intricate layers that shape his decisions and struggles. No one in real life is wholly good or evil, and no one can be neatly categorized as a “hero” or “villain”. The most compelling works of literature and fiction embrace this moral ambiguity, and Jayce Talis stands as a prime example of a character crafted with such depth.  

In season 2, Jayce’s character arc takes an unexpected turn. Scarred – both physically and emotionally – after being trapped in the Hexcore, he is burdened by trauma and driven by a renewed sense of purpose. Determined to uphold his promise to his research partner, Viktor, he sets out to destroy the Hexcore and to put an end to the unintended consequences of their inventions.

This season places a stronger emphasis on Jayce and Viktor’s relationship, exploring how their dynamic as foils not only fueled their brilliant partnership, but also exposed their most intrinsic flaws. Viktor, a Zaunite by origin, made his way topside by becoming Professor Heimerdinger’s assistant in Piltover. After discovering Jayce in the ruins of his workshop, the two shared an inspiring exchange that laid the foundation for their groundbreaking research on Hextech. 

Viktor: I want to help you complete your research.

Jayce: No one thinks it can be done.

Viktor: When you’re going to change the world, don’t ask for permission. 

None of Jayce’s work with Hextech – the very catalyst for much of the show’s conflict, and the cause for his controversy – would have been possible without the influence of both Mel and Viktor. While Mel guided him through the complex political landscape of Piltover, Viktor grounded him in morality, constantly reminding him of their original mission. “There are people out there who need our help now, Jayce,” he said angrily in episode five. In season 1, Viktor’s work on Hextech is driven by a deeply personal goal: to bridge the divide between Piltover and the Undercity, providing aid and equality to those who need it most. This cling to ethics and the potential of Hextech for good highlights Jayce’s stray from this very same intent, with the Zaunite constantly acting as a symbol for the remnants of the initial reasons why Jayce began this research in the first place. Yet, in season 2, the dynamic between Jayce and Viktor shifts dramatically. As Viktor transforms into the Machine Herald, he soon becomes the one to lose his remnants of humanity, consumed by his vision of a “glorious evolution” – a world without weakness, suffering, and imperfection. Compared with the youthful scientist from Act 1, this version of Viktor is haunting. Season 2’s Viktor’s lack of humanity is what highlights Jayce’s remainders of it – the very values that lead to his determination to bring an end to his former partner’s chaos. 

Without Viktor, Jayce would have never been able to realize his childhood dream. And yet, without Viktor, that dream would have never existed in the first place. In season 2, Viktor’s ascension to a cult-like godhood serves as a living reminder of Jayce’s actions. The lives lost as a result of Viktor’s commune forced Jayce to confront the weight of their shared legacy – and the irreversible sacrifices necessary to end the suffering they helped create. In a touching final moment, Jayce fulfills his long-standing promise, sacrificing his life to stop Viktor and destroy the Hexcore once and for all.

Viktor: Why do you persist? After everything I’ve done?

Jayce: Because I promised you. 

In a monologue, Silco, the main villain of season 1, ties these personal tragedies into Arcane’s larger, cyclical nature of violence. “Killing is a cycle,” he laments, merely a hallucination outside of Jinx’s prison cell, “The cycle only ends when you find the strength to walk away.” Case in point, season 2’s “cycle of killing” is fueled by four central figures, each driven by their own desperate pursuit of closure, power, or control:

Jinx, unable to let go of her haunted past, carves a path of chaos and destruction

Jayce, whose inventions of Hextech in season 1 sets off a butterfly effect of violence, its boundless potential both revolutionary and ruinous

Viktor, in his pursuit of perfection, sacrifices the nuances in humanity, destroying lives in the erasure of flaws

Ambessa, determined to secure her family’s legacy and Noxian honor, commanding an army into a brutal war that leaves countless dead in its wake.  

By the final episode, the conflict has escalated beyond control – until, one by one, each perpetrator of violence, of this “cycle of killing”, is forced to confront their role in the destruction. Indeed, the cycle only breaks when they make the choice to stop.

For Jayce and Viktor, this reckoning comes in a poignant moment of understanding. After an entire season of conflict and misunderstanding, they find each other again – not as enemies, but as the partners they once were. In the end, it is their relationship, built on brilliance, ambition, and mutual understanding, that finally puts an end to the suffering they helped create. 

Arcane delivers a masterclass in character writing, and one of its most remarkable aspects is its refusal to frame characters in simple terms of good and evil. In fiction and works of literature, it’s often tempting to assign rigid archetypes to your characters – be it heroes who never falter, or villains who destroy without reason. But Arcane rejects this binary; in the show, everyone is a villain in someone’s story, and a hero in another’s. And no matter what, everyone has motivations and goals that make their actions painfully understandable. 

The brilliance of Jayce Talis’ character lies in this very nuance – he carries the weight of countless mistakes, yet remains a beloved figure nonetheless, admired for his genius, ambition, and unwavering determination. Whether one considers him to be controversial, justified, or completely invalid in his actions, Jayce Talis’ character remains something far more compelling: deeply, tragically human. 

Further on the topic of characters such as Jayce, Arcane seems to be constantly astounding critiques with its excellent character writing, which, at this point of the article, has been concluded as inherently human traits, ideas, and choices. Numerous other characters from this sensational series are discussed with regards to conflicting ideas about their depiction in the show and their morality. One other such character is the skilled, determined, and justice-seeking Enforcer and Crown Princess of Piltover, Caitlyn Kiramman. 

Caitlyn is a hotly debated character with intense discourse about her moral ambiguity, with the vast majority of the fandom having mixed feelings about her character development and overall design, especially after season 2 of Arcane. 

Most of the discourse is around her actions and whether or not they are morally correct. However, there are certain key aspects that are being overlooked, so let’s bring them to light.

In S2, while ‘fascist dictator’ Caitlyn surprised a lot of fans, anyone with a grain of media literacy can observe how it came about to be. Caitlyn carries the responsibility of her mother’s demise like a sack of heavy stones. Her first lines in the new season are about her mother, and it immediately establishes her mindset. Self-blame seems to be a huge part of her character. A reason for this in relation to her mother’s death could be because of her failure to ‘stop’ Jinx from blowing up Piltover. She blames herself for a variety of decisions related to Jinx. Her father doesn’t respond to her saying “I had the shot,” and neither does Vi. The idea that she could have prevented it haunts her. Why is guilt so cataclysmic to her? She seems far more affected by it than any other character in the show.

A commonly overlooked part of her character is the extent of her emotional turmoil because the audience is essentially only being told one side of the story. Privilege plays a huge part in how she processes and deals with emotions, especially heavy ones like grief. One may compare her to the Zaunites, who have experienced much more loss, but loss is heavy. Caitlyn never had the exposure, never had to withstand the suffering inflicted on the Zaunites. The Zaunites never had hope to offer. When someone is lost, that is all there is to it. Caitlyn, sheltered, cradles hope. Nurtures it. Hope is not a delicate thing for long. She only loses so much because she has so much. Loss may be heavy, but hope is heavier. And that’s the whole point; her character is written as a purist, a fallen angel, a privileged princess who insists on ‘breaking the cycle’ like all other characters.

Guilt and privilege are interlinked. Throughout S1, we can observe that Caitlyn prefers not to lean on anyone or rely on her position to assist her in any of her aspirations (in a tangible sense, anyway.) But it happens, indirectly. Her privileged status keeps her safe from real repercussions. It portrays the way that the elite are treated in our society– repentance is the closest they get to redemption, and the non-elites must pay the price. 

Caitlyn is strong-willed. The beginning of S1 shows her outwardly rebelling against any coddling that Jayce or her parents happily unleash on her. As someone who never wanted anything, her character has revolved around her duty. She has no need for positions or titles. When Grayson asked her that pivotal question (what she was shooting for), it became a part of her identity. Her duty is to serve and protect; if she’s not doing that, who is she?

This is where it becomes complicated. The undeniably vital role that Vi plays in her life pushes her into an existential crisis. Caitlyn is selfless for the most part (depending on whether or not one considers acting according to one’s ideals selfish), but Vi compromises everything. During the tea party at the end of S1, she has her gun trained on Jinx, but doesn’t shoot, because she wants to give Vi a chance with someone whom she personally does not believe has a chance, but is willing to make a sacrifice for Vi, who is more important to her than Jinx. She prioritises Vi’s happiness. If Vi wasn’t in the room, she would have shot Jinx. Caitlyn is absolutely broken by the terrible, aching need to keep Vi in her life. When she fails to pull the trigger, she fails to fulfil her duty by not bringing in a wanted criminal. She goes against her moral order, and her values begin to falter. The disastrous outcome of not shooting burdens her with crushing guilt.

  Some may argue that Caitlyn has well lost sight of her purpose in S2, but is that really true? She hesitated before pulling the trigger during the fight in S2ep3, tussling with her emotions, wanting to give Vi a chance. Once again, she mutters, “I had the shot,” blaming herself for not taking it. Her motivation in S2 is redemption; she needs to catch or kill Jinx, to soothe an aching burn. Once again, this is not about titles or positions; she’s willing to sacrifice everything to regain her sense of purpose.  Her faith and hope is shattered. There are no ‘good’ Zaunites. There is only a laughing, leering figure with blue hair and sharp teeth and a life for the taking.

We also often forget that, aside from losing her mother, Caitlyn has directly suffered at the hands of Jinx. She no doubt felt extremely vulnerable and violated in all the positions she was forced into, especially when Jinx broke into her home and ambushed her in the shower. She may have been tortured during the period that Jinx held her captive. She visibly flinches every time Jinx is close to her and bursts into tears. She has also been a victim of many of Jinx’s explosions. These experiences no doubt shaped an important part of who she grew into, and they helped her realise that she was so willing to be rid of the agony and fear that she associated with Jinx that she was ready to sever ties with Vi, and even take the life of a child like Isha. 

Caitlyn and Jinx have their similarities, which are integral to the show. One of the most important ones is this: they are both manipulated by stronger, more powerful leaders while being in a vulnerable state of mind. 

As Jinx has Silco, Caitlyn has Ambessa. Jinx, too, is haunted by guilt, of not only being unable to save her family, but also causing their deaths. Caitlyn may feel the same way, like she inadvertently caused her mother’s death and many others’, by not taking the shot. Not to mention, both of their guiding figures indulge parts of themselves which are destructive to their positive growth.

Jinx has Silco, who indulges her insane ideologies and destructive tendencies. He found her in a moment of weakness, and was able to project onto and mold her into the manic person she became. She’s left adrift without him; you could say it was a parasitic relationship, if not for the fact that while it was unhealthy, he truly loved her like a daughter, and she him like a father. 

Caitlyn has Ambessa, a brutal woman and general who has witnessed the horrors of war firsthand. She’s everything Caitlyn wants; to stop feeling helpless, to grasp and cling onto something and hurt someone and make them pay for what happened to her mother. From self-blame, she looks for someone else to blame, blinded by fury and a desire for revenge. It’s why Ambessa’s manipulation is so effective; she sees someone lost and floating aimlessly, no pillars of purpose left to uphold them, and instills new ones: Noxian ideals of ruthlessness and bloodshed.

Both Jinx and Caitlyn lose people they love, over and over again, until it breaks them, isolated and vulnerable. 

One key development that takes place throughout S2 is Caitlyn’s atonement. There are moments where she centres herself, asks crucial questions, and begins to rediscover who she is and the reasons behind her actions. She doesn’t go from a ruthless officer to a puddle of tears at the first mention of “Cupcake.” 

She begins to realise the consequences of her actions. Singed plays a leading role in helping her rediscover herself. His tragic situation with his daughter sparks a reaction in Caitlyn, and she’s able to understand that the two of them are more similar than she would like. 

Caitlyn: You’re a monster. Why? Why do all this?Singed: Why does anyone commit acts others deem unspeakable? For love.

She observes Singed and Orianna’s state. She understands that he is grieving the death of someone dear to him. Love is deeply connected with grief. To invent grief that doesn’t hurt you is to invent love that doesn’t either. To kill one is to slay the other, to abandon all reconstitution that you have ever experienced. 

Caitlyn talks to Jinx in the prison cell, saying “No amount of good deeds can undo our crimes.” While it is directed towards Jinx, she seems to internalize it herself, and she holds herself accountable for all her crimes.

Her atonement is shown through her actions. She was most likely planning to betray Ambessa at one point, but the opportunity never arose. However, one could argue that her helplessness comes from her inexperience– it’s why she was so easy to manipulate, and why, as someone who has believed in strong-rooted ideals all her life, she was unable to consider any other options. This brings us back to the key difference between her and other characters: the story is rather Zaun-focused and she’s one of the few leading Piltover characters, which sets her apart from the rest. 

Caitlyn removes the guards at the prison, allowing Vi to visit her sister, despite likely knowing how it would go down. She allows Sevika onto the Council, an act of penance for her crimes. Sevika sits on Cassandra Kiramman’s chair. This means that Caitlyn has let go of her frustration and thirst for revenge, now willing to truly bridge the gap between Piltover and Zaun.

Another main reason for controversy surrounding her character is also the classic case of people being prejudiced against powerful queer women. Characters like Caitlyn are often underdeveloped. The stereotype is presented as such: a powerful, inherently ‘bad’ or evil woman who has been altered by traumatic events is reduced to either an object of repulsion or (usually sexual) attraction, depending on the case. 

Her League of Legends body type and skins play a part in this– Arcade Caitlyn’s features are especially different from Arcane Caitlyn’s– she’s slimmer, wears a revealing outfit, and her facial features are slender. It’s evident that League characters were designed primarily for sex appeal. Caitlyn looks like a parody of herself, and by choosing to portray more realistic character designs in the show, Netflix practically invited controversy and outrage from people who were unable to see past Caitlyn’s sex appeal and cardboard character.

Her queerness is essentially the cherry on top. Arcane did female and LGBTQ representation perfectly, and in a way that didn’t essentially make the show porn for male audiences. Media nowadays focuses on creating strong, independent women who can ‘do no wrong’ but Arcane does the exact opposite by creating an array of different characters with their own flaws. They have different appearances, motivations, ideals, strengths and weaknesses.

 Vi is a masculine-presenting character and it’s pleasantly surprising that it was never brought up in the show. As for LGBTQ representation, the very fact that none ‘can be found’ is proof of representation. With a single glance, it’s made evident that Caitlyn and Vi are romantically interested in each other, that they’re queer, and most importantly, it doesn’t hinder their ability to be separate people outside of that. Caitlyn excels at her job, and Vi is a winning pit fighter. Making a spectacle out of non-traditional characters does not equal representation. By doing this, creators are essentially highlighting that something is ‘different’ when it typically ‘shouldn’t be.’  Caitlyn and Vi have done a lot for queer representation in media, but at the cost of mischaracterization and unfaceted thinking. 

However, the complete and utter lack of taboo around queerness, disabled persons and persons of color leads us to question the reality of the Arcane universe; is it a more optimistic world without prejudice? Is it realistic, and should it be supported? Can a universe like that actually exist and should we see more of it in media?

It could potentially desensitize the audience to real world problems that are extremely, far too disgustingly prevalent, sheltering them from their causes and consequences, encouraging them simply to turn a blind eye. 

On the other hand, isn’t a little optimism required, and isn’t it justified? Arcane is a fictional universe with fictional laws, but it mirrors the real world too closely, removing components that are essentially irrelevant to the plot, because the conflict of queerness is not the main focus of the show. Should that mean removing these components, or acknowledging and depicting them as viewed in the real world? There is surely a balance that can be found, and it’s up to the show and the audience to identify it.

In conclusion, while Caitlyn’s character can be considered flawed and underdeveloped, the utter nuance and finery with which she’s written is nothing short of masterful. From skilfully designing her character around the cycle of love and grief (arguably one of the best examples in the show), to boldly creating opportunities for her to lose her values and regain them, all the while facing the consequences of her actions, Arcane has truly done a phenomenal job with one of its strongest female leads. 

Jayce and Caitlyn are not the sole examples of such fantastic character writing– Jinx, Vi, Mel, and Ambessa are also strong characters with solid stories. Arcane truly identifies the areas of the human soul and has reached out to touch it, or better yet, created something from it.