Anonymous asked:

Izzy being ex-navy is a super popular hc but i can't buy it because if Izzy were in the navy i don't think he'd ever leave. i truly don't mean this as an insult to the character i don't mean like "Izzy is evil so he'd love being a colonizer" i'm just saying that dude craves order and hierarchy in a way that piracy is never going to satisfy but military life would be so perfect for him. Izzy would thrive in the military

the military ship he was on got attacked by blackbeard and the options were “join my crew” or “die” plus izzy had an instant boner for the evil villain macho swag thing ed had going on so he joined ed and sucked up to him until he got first mate but does really miss the rigid hierarchy of the navy. that’s why he’s in such a bad mood all the time

I've seen a number of posts about the racial dynamics of the Captain Hands scene, but how about the way we see an echo of those same dynamics during the mutiny against Izzy?

The whole crew (minus Pete) votes to mutiny, along with Ivan and Fang. The Swede is the one who points out Oluwande as the obvious choice for captain, and Button clinches it with the line that "the only good captains are the ones that hate being captains." Everyone is on board and involved with this plan.

But when it comes time for the mutiny itself, who are the characters that are the most hands-on, the ones carrying the tied-up Izzy to the side of the ship? The two brown AAPI men he had serving him while he ate and two of the three Black men he had turning the capstan--while the third, as the new captain, gives them the go-ahead to throw him overboard.

i’ve talked abt this with other fans actually, tho i think only on discord. you are right that all the crew members doing the “hard labor” throwing izzy overboard are people of color, however this labor in question is something that everyone voted to do and that they are all carrying out gleefully as like, a fun ceremony or group bonding activity (compared to izzy relaxing and monologuing with his mouth full about what a great captain he’s going to be while the whole crew has to just listen to him politely or face threats of starvation). ppl i’ve talked to have often referred to ivan, fang, frenchie, and roach in this scene as “the crew members who get to throw izzy overboard,” like it’s a fun task they actively wanted to do. there are other, easier ways they could’ve carried out a mutiny, after all, and it probably took a lot more work for everyone to catch izzy and tie him to an anchor and carry him over to the edge of the ship to chuck him overboard versus just shooting him and being done with it. and izzy’s not that big of a guy, does it really take four people to throw him overboard? they’re doing it this way because they want to have fun with it!

and since you linked a bunch of posts talking abt the izzy’s revenge scene from earlier in the ep, i’ll point out that these two scenes together sort of look like how ofmd s1 approached depictions of racism in general: some character (usually an antagonist) says something racist, and they very quickly suffer consequences in the form of physical violence. think the guy in the pilot who gets a knife through the hand, or when roach slaps that one british soldier guy across the face. so here, we have a scene where izzy gives some self-important speech while several characters of color are turning the capstan, and then then next time we see izzy he’s being carried by most of those same characters as they cheerfully prepare to throw him overboard to his death

(also shoutout to wee john, irish guy who izzy threatened to starve, who gets to hold the anchor during the mutiny)

Anonymous asked:

i think i could have a lot more sympathy for izzy's "unrequited love" if people framed it as being less incel shit about how sad it is to be friendzoned despite your endless selfless devotion and more about how legitimately deranging it would be to spend every single day of your life for years working in close quarters with one of the hottest people in the world while they constantly perform your exact personal fetishes. if taika waititi was my co-worker i'd be insane too

#i was actually surprised at how quickly they dropped their weird version of blackhands #like for over a year now they've been writing blackhands as this abusive relationship with ed as an uncontrollably violent toddler #which. you know. incredibly racist on its own #but then they claim they actually got it in canon and it's too much so they drop the brown guy and ship the white guys exclusively? #very very weird

^^its not actually weird at all!! it’s very simple: the brand of blackhands these shippers loved is when they could portray the relationship as constantly imbalanced in izzy’s favor bc ed needed to do so much work to Atone and izzy was a poor helpless victim to ed’s violence. and when i say they wanted that relationship constantly imbalanced i mean CONSTANTLY constantly, like they needed ed groveling they needed izzy being doted on they needed the entire dynamic of their relationship to be centered around how izzy is finally getting the love he “deserves” for putting up with ed and being ed’s victim for so long.

and now they got the first half of the dynamic they wanted which is ed being a domestic abuser and izzy being the target of ed’s abuse (i mean, they didn’t actually get it, but they THINK they did) but they had a part two to the dynamic that they didn’t end up getting which is “ed is permanently put in the doghouse” and to them, ed saying “sorry bout your leg” was not NEARLY enough groveling.

and!! ed even got to be happy in the season despite not fixing his relationship w izzy!! bc these fans only think abt any aspect in the show when they’re thinking abt “how can i make this about izzy” so like to them the most important part of any narrative analysis of ed revolves around his relationship with izzy (this is why ed leaving in 1x07 is abt missing izzy and not abt him being unsure of his relationship w stede, why they’ve written metas abt how the chain and run from me are edizzy songs, why there were headcanons that thankfully got squashed pretty quickly they DID exist for a minute abt how ed grew out his hair bc izzy had long hair when they were younger and ed thought it was cool) and they expected the show to write ed this way, too.

and then the worst part (and also the part i've seen izzy stans analyze the LEAST which is in no way a coincidence) is that in izzy's dying words he admits to Fueling Ed's Darkness for his own personal gain. he apologizes for being cruel to ed. and outside of their buzzword phrases about how this was a portrayal of "an abuse victim apologizing to their abuser" i haven't seen anyone from the izzy stan crowd dig into what it actually MEANS and what kind of harm izzy caused by feeding ed's darkness and pushing ed to be blackbeard, like they're acting as if izzy’s literal actual last words have no narrative significance whatsoever. but you’ll notice there are MANY posts from izzy stans abt how horrific the violence ed did to izzy was and how tragic it all is for poor izzy :(

so yeah. the three-hit combo of 1. not enough focus on ed atoning for harming izzy, 2. ed being allowed happiness despite not having properly atoned for harming izzy, and 3. the finale directly saying “izzy did bad things in this relationship, too” are why they fully fucking hate ed now and have abandoned ship to start writing stizzy now. like, we have a few stede and izzy interactions in s2, but for the most part their relationship is a blank enough slate that they can create a whole fully-fleshed out (and, lbr, probably very generic and overused) fanon dynamic out of scraps. but ed was given too much attention from the story outside of just being a vehicle to project izzy’s desires onto and also the source of izzy’s trauma and they can’t reconcile their version of edizzy with what happens in canon. thinking abt edizzy means thinking abt how canon didn’t punish ed enough and how ed got a happy ending when izzy didn’t, even tho in their minds ed is the reason for the majority of izzy’s misery.

Avatar
sorry lol “it’s actually very simple” i say before depositing five hefty paragraphs into ur inbox

(this is in reference to my tags on this post)

yeah that is a pretty good summation of everything.

tho thinking about it, i do think there's a secret 4th component as to why they're now dropping ed completely and shipping stizzy, which is how stede became more masc this season. i think the show makes it pretty clear the reason for it is that stede thinks he has to become more masculine and violent to get ed back and keep him, but that doesn't really matter to them. the fact remains that stede is now dressing in muted colors and leather, and pulls out his sword on a dime. so now they're more comfortable enjoying him.

Avatar

(hi cumulativechaos is my main account lol)

that is VERY TRUE i was thinking abt that fact and i didn’t get into it bc the ask was long enough and i was focusing mostly on ed. but yes that’s absolutely part of it.

and there was another bit i cut bc i was thinking abt making a whole post for it but:

aspect of the early script going around that's really great to me. it's very cute and all that Stede is like "i always hear music when i'm with you," super romantic, but the fact that the song scripted to go with that moment is "I'm on Fire" is so on-brand i can hardly believe it. like a glimpse directly into Stede's brain.

what other songs are the soundtrack to this guy's internal life. "Crazy Train" for sure is on a loop in there

i asked bluesky and made a whole playlist with people’s answers

Anonymous asked:

Viewers forget how little Izzy interacted with the other characters in season 2.

Did he even speak with Fang? Did he say more to the headless unicorn than he did to Jim?

Apart from scenes in the first 2 episodes with Ed, and the episode where Izzy was mentoring Stede and Lucius, and the speech to Ricky, were there any meaningful interactions? When it came to Izzy's death, the only person Izzy could have said a goodbye to was Ed.

it’s crazy bc there’s even scenes of the crew hanging out or getting up to shenanigans in like a casual everyday setting (talking abt snakes/redecorating/partying at the start of 2.06, going to get drinks at jackie’s and scamming everybody there) and he’s not included in that at all. the closest is ig in 2.05 after ed’s apology a bunch of the crew are on deck doing stuff and he’s there whittling, but it’s not like he’s chatting with anyone until lucius gets in his face abt letting ed back on the ship. he’s existing in the same space as them, but never hanging out or participating in casual conversation with anyone. he has coworkers and acquaintances but the show never tries to give him any actual friends.

Headcannon: Roach knows about germ theory when no one else does it's just that he thinks microbes are fairies and he calls them fairies and he knows that there's evil fairies that curse you with diseases everywhere and that certain fungus can kill evil fairies and that washing your hands and alcohol can also kill evil fairies and that there are good fairies that live in your body that keep things running with magic. He just also thinks you have to leave gifts out for them. Yeast is also good fairies to him. Everyone except Frenchie thinks he's insane until the greater revenge polycule syphilis outbreak of 1719. Roach makes them eat some gross ass penicillin. But the evil fairies do get banished and they integrate the fey theory of disease into their belief system

frankly a lot of ppl irl in medicine/science fields also have illogical superstitions that they believe despite them being kinda silly and despite the advanced knowledge of modern medicine/science, so roach having an advanced and anachronistic understanding of germ theory but also believing you need to leave gifts out to appease the microbes is just normal medical professional behavior. “fantastic doctor whose patients always have really great outcomes but who’s a little odd and believes in leaving gifts out for fairies” yeah they have one of those in every half-decent hospital in the world

one of the tacks ed takes when he sees stede spiralling is a game he invented which is called "guess which part of my body i just plucked this hair from" and often stede will make his wrinkly nosed scrunchy face about it but every single time he ends up dead serious invested in getting the right answer

ok but how often does he actually get it right

his best first guess ever was within a two-inch radius and most of the time he's uncannily good at identifying whether it came from ed's upper or lower half but when it's the lower half he has a harder time placing it bc ed ruled early on "pubes" is not a valid answer you have to choose a region

Anonymous asked:

Really need to ask my fellow Izzy haters to distinguish between "Izzy doesn't have a redemption arc" and "Izzy has a bad, unconvincing redemption arc." I agree that the arc sucks for a lot of reasons, any "atoning" Izzy arguably does is more symbolic than actually meaningful, his final apology makes sense as what Ed needs to hear but doesn't actually confront the reality of what Izzy did and doesn't acknowledge that Ed shouldn't need Izzy's permission to decide who he is.

That makes it a poorly executed redemption arc. But we very obviously ARE supposed to see it as a redemption arc. We are supposed to think Izzy starts out sucking and then makes up for how much he sucked and his relationship with Ed became healthy just for a moment right at the end. This is not convincing but it's incredibly clear that's the creator intent.

Death of the author etc you don't have to read it the way the creators wanted. I like the idea that Izzy never gets better and we aren't supposed to think he does, I'm just honest enough to acknowledge that's clearly not what David Jenkins or the rest of the writer's room wanted us to take away. It's fine to say "I know this is reading against the text but I find it a more satisfying and coherent read." But it IS reading against the text, obviously, just as much as "Izzy actually has good intentions the whole time" was reading against the text as an interpretation of season one.

This annoys me because I can't stand Izzy or his arc, I think the fact that we're supposed to buy him as being redeemed is the worst part of season two, but pretending you can't tell it's SUPPOSED to be a redemption arc just makes everyone on the Izzy critical side of things look silly. I want us to be smarter than the canyon, but you're making us look exactly as bad. Just embarrassing. Please stop.

Can you clarify what you mean by this?

"Redemption arc" is not a fun, filler word to use as a synonym for any character growth or being less bad. All serious definitions of the phrase use some very close variation as what I posted, and in media discussions, it does mean that very specific thing. It is not a catch all term.

This is a point of contention within OFMD meta because people who say "Izzy has a redemption arc!" has never clarified what they think a redemption arc is, and it is often stated as a fact. Can you clarify what definition you're using for "redemption arc" and how it applies to what we see of Izzy in S2?

[ID: Screenshot of the following tags: #idk i see posts sometimes like "everybody stop calling izzy's s2 arc a redemption arc. he doesn't have a redemption arc" and im just like #by what metric? you're stating this like it's an objective fact but your argument is majorly opinion based #"redemption arc" doesn't have like a distinct definition no matter what some website you googled tells you #there's no checklist of "a redemption arc needs to have these three things or else it's just sparkling character growth” /END ID]

ok i wanna point out that my tags say “redemption arc doesn’t have a distinct definition” and u are asking me. for my definition of a redemption arc. lol.

but yeah ok, ig broadly speaking the definition of redemption arc i’m operating under is just Bad Guy Becomes Good Guy. and sorry but i’m not gonna get any deeper than that right now, firstly bc im really fucking busy and have other shit to do but also bc It Doesn’t Matter. it literally does not matter. this is the same shit as the debates canyonites start about “izzy isn’t a VILLAIN he’s just an ANTAGONIST” like who caaaares, man! who cares. i don’t have the fucking energy to nitpick the exact definitions of specific words and i’m so so so so tired of having conversations that just boil down to “i don’t like the words you use to talk about izzy hands.” like we’re not even talking about the character anymore we’re just nitpicking terminology. this is boring to me.

i am a person who works professionally in narrative, one of the things i do is review pitches, and when i get a pitch that says "this character will have a redemption arc" what it means is "this character is going to start out as a largely unsympathetic antagonist but will eventually become a good guy." if i gave them feedback that was like "well technically this isn't a REDEMPTION arc it's more of a HEALING arc because it doesn't follow this five point checklist that defines all true redemption arcs" they would have no idea what the fuck i was talking about because professionals do not use the terminology that way. (now i COULD absolutely say "i don't think this is a very convincing redemption arc, because the character never really confronts what they did in a sufficiently meaningful way for the audience to feel they can buy into the transformation" or whatever, and i often have given feedback like that! but "it's not technically a redemption arc" would get a response of "okay, i guess you can call it something else if you want, why are you quibbling about terminology.")

now it's absolutely true that if you google "redemption arc" you can easily find several websites that will tell you any true redemption arc has to check every box on the following list. you can also google pretty much any other narrative trope and find similar checklists. this is because hack writers looking for the secret that will improve their screenplay fucking love checklists, it's always tempting to think you can find some sort of rigid template and following it is the secret to breaking into the industry. but that's not how people who are actually in the industry (or, for that matter, people in academia - comp lit or film studies scholars don't have an agreed-on strict consistent definition of terms like "redemption arc" either) use the terminology.

worth noting also this is not something specific to ofmd, this is a general fandom thing; the first place i know it from is asoiaf fandom, the constant drumbeat of "well jaime lannister doesn't have a redemption arc, it's actually an identity arc, because technically -" and meanwhile well-established author and screenwriter george r. r. martin is out here repeatedly saying explicitly that jaime's arc is about the concept of redemption. and if you look at what he says about it he is not trying to establish that jaime follows some specific atonement checklist (and jaime very specifically has not to date done any sort of big confrontation of his worst actions early in the narrative). instead grrm's saying "i presented jaime to you as an unsympathetic bad guy who did super bad things. now i'm telling you that he's trying to be a better person, not always with perfect success. do you think you can forgive him? do you think anyone else should?"

Anonymous asked:

Really need to ask my fellow Izzy haters to distinguish between "Izzy doesn't have a redemption arc" and "Izzy has a bad, unconvincing redemption arc." I agree that the arc sucks for a lot of reasons, any "atoning" Izzy arguably does is more symbolic than actually meaningful, his final apology makes sense as what Ed needs to hear but doesn't actually confront the reality of what Izzy did and doesn't acknowledge that Ed shouldn't need Izzy's permission to decide who he is.

That makes it a poorly executed redemption arc. But we very obviously ARE supposed to see it as a redemption arc. We are supposed to think Izzy starts out sucking and then makes up for how much he sucked and his relationship with Ed became healthy just for a moment right at the end. This is not convincing but it's incredibly clear that's the creator intent.

Death of the author etc you don't have to read it the way the creators wanted. I like the idea that Izzy never gets better and we aren't supposed to think he does, I'm just honest enough to acknowledge that's clearly not what David Jenkins or the rest of the writer's room wanted us to take away. It's fine to say "I know this is reading against the text but I find it a more satisfying and coherent read." But it IS reading against the text, obviously, just as much as "Izzy actually has good intentions the whole time" was reading against the text as an interpretation of season one.

This annoys me because I can't stand Izzy or his arc, I think the fact that we're supposed to buy him as being redeemed is the worst part of season two, but pretending you can't tell it's SUPPOSED to be a redemption arc just makes everyone on the Izzy critical side of things look silly. I want us to be smarter than the canyon, but you're making us look exactly as bad. Just embarrassing. Please stop.

Can you clarify what you mean by this?

"Redemption arc" is not a fun, filler word to use as a synonym for any character growth or being less bad. All serious definitions of the phrase use some very close variation as what I posted, and in media discussions, it does mean that very specific thing. It is not a catch all term.

This is a point of contention within OFMD meta because people who say "Izzy has a redemption arc!" has never clarified what they think a redemption arc is, and it is often stated as a fact. Can you clarify what definition you're using for "redemption arc" and how it applies to what we see of Izzy in S2?

[ID: Screenshot of the following tags: #idk i see posts sometimes like "everybody stop calling izzy's s2 arc a redemption arc. he doesn't have a redemption arc" and im just like #by what metric? you're stating this like it's an objective fact but your argument is majorly opinion based #"redemption arc" doesn't have like a distinct definition no matter what some website you googled tells you #there's no checklist of "a redemption arc needs to have these three things or else it's just sparkling character growth” /END ID]

ok i wanna point out that my tags say “redemption arc doesn’t have a distinct definition” and u are asking me. for my definition of a redemption arc. lol.

but yeah ok, ig broadly speaking the definition of redemption arc i’m operating under is just Bad Guy Becomes Good Guy. and sorry but i’m not gonna get any deeper than that right now, firstly bc im really fucking busy and have other shit to do but also bc It Doesn’t Matter. it literally does not matter. this is the same shit as the debates canyonites start about “izzy isn’t a VILLAIN he’s just an ANTAGONIST” like who caaaares, man! who cares. i don’t have the fucking energy to nitpick the exact definitions of specific words and i’m so so so so tired of having conversations that just boil down to “i don’t like the words you use to talk about izzy hands.” like we’re not even talking about the character anymore we’re just nitpicking terminology. this is boring to me.

ed teach's hear me out cake would be insane

ok i have two suggestions:

[ID: Gif of Venom from Venom (2018) sticking out his long, dripping, prehensile tongue /END ID]

You’re all wrong it’s him:

It’ll keep him warm and bring him breakfast in the morning

a classic hear me out cake contains several deranged picks so we absolutely can and should add A Regular-Ass Toaster to the cake

also @ourfag:

silly little guy who dresses in colorful clothing? 100% going on the cake

Sponsored

You are using an unsupported browser and things might not work as intended. Please make sure you're using the latest version of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, or Edge.