This Is My Mom In A Nutshell. I'm Glad She Always Supported The Things I Liked To Do And I Hope More

Potentially Unpopular Opinion - A character grieving loss is not an excuse for them to be a killer

I'll further specify my points in the following post.

Now here's the thing--I'm not opposed to the trope itself and here's what I mean by that.

Scenario 1: Character's loved one is killed and they kill their loved one's killer. That's fine.

Scenario 2: Multiple people the character loves are killed by different people and they kill their loved ones' killers. That's fine.

Scenario 3: Character's loved one is killed so the character kills innocent people. That is NOT fine.

Grievance doesn't mean dookie if all that's happening is that the character is using it as an excuse to just go on a murder spree. Now these types of characters CAN make for good villains and/or antagonists and that's completely fine. I'm not even all that upset about the trope itself. More so, specifically what ticks me off is when people try to downplay the behavior of the character simply because they're likable.

It's one thing to like a character who does awful stuff. It's another to like a character who does awful stuff and then try to paint them as an angel who doesn't do anything wrong.

Welcome to my blog!

If you're here because I said something you didn't like, or because you want to spew hateful messages in my inbox, please do something more productive with your time.

Any hate speech and threats will be deleted, blocked, and if it is bad enough--I will report it.

Example:

If my existence truly gets you that upset, you have my full permission to block me. I do not care. I'll do what I want with my blog.

I'll apologize for miscommunication. I'll apologize for being unclear in my speech or opinions. But I will not apologize for using my freedom of speech to state them.

You're allowed to think I'm a villain. You're allowed to hate me. You can even call me the devil. I can't change how you look at me nor do I think it's worth the effort to try. But I am under no obligation to tolerate blatant threats that I know for a fact no sane human being would say to another stranger in real life.

My Beef with Miguel O'Hara - A Spiderverse Rant

If you've read the title of this, you already know who I'm gonna be crapping on.

I know some of y'all are gonna flame me in the comments, but I do not care. Now, if you’re willing to bring up counterpoints about a FICTIONAL topic in a respectful manner, I’ll listen no problem because I don't mind being wrong (and I actually HOPE I'm wrong about this since I WAS excited about watching Miguel in action because there was so much hype around him). But if you take me having beef with a fictional character as me having beef with YOU, then I politely ask you to spare your mental health and drink some hot chocolate under a blanket after you click away from this post, thank you. 

Now back to the topic.

Most of us Spider-Man fans have seen the movie, "Across the Spider-Verse" at some point (and if you haven't, what are you doing? Go watch it, it's on Netflix). Excluding everything that makes it a masterpiece aside, there's one character in the movie who really grinds my gears. Not in terms of how they’re written, but more so just how they are as a person in general. 

Miguel O'Freaking'Hara. 

I do not like Miguel. I feel pity for him, but I do not like him. I do like him as a character, though. I feel like he definitely adds to the story and makes it interesting. I genuinely feel like ATSV would’ve been really boring if he wasn’t part of it. But I do not like him as a person. 

Miguel doesn't JUST have a stick up his butt, he has the whole TREE.

I couldn't care less about the fact this dude looks like a handsome statue because of the stuff he was doing to Miles. I think y’all forgot that this dude THREW A TABLE AT A MINOR UPON FIRST MEETING HIM and then has the nerve to throw away the food Miles got for him like it's trash. If that’s already not a red flag, I don’t know what is.

I don’t care if it was just ‘frustration.’ Miguel's 27 years old, he should know better. Unless Miles was attacking him in the beginning (which he wasn’t), there’s no reason he should’ve done that. But oh…I have much more beef with this dude than just a table. 

I understand that his supposed role and whatnot in the Spiderverse is that he has to keep canon events going. He has to get rid of 'anomalies.’ Unfortunately, Miles Morales (from Earth-1610) is an anomaly because he was never supposed to be the Spider-Man of his universe. So, what does Miguel do? He tries to obliterate the guy.

…Ex–freaking-scuse me?

"Oh, but Miguel tried to talk to Miles about everything!" 

Yeah. And he did it in the worst way possible. Miguel had absolutely no empathy towards the whole situation, then has the gall to wonder why Miles is running off and not listening to him. No dip, Sherlock. I'm pretty sure if you harshly told any normal person that someone they loved deeply was going to die and that they couldn't save them without any hint of compassion, they'd go against what you said and try to find a way to save them, bro. 

Miguel's whole schmo is that Miles becoming Spider-Man was bad because it created Spot and Spot's creating a bunch of problems. As a result, Miguel also tells Miles that saving his dad is not allowed. Here's where I have a problem with that logic. If Miles being Spider-Man is an anomaly in the first place, why NOT save Jeff as a way to prevent more anomalies from HAPPENING? If anything, Miles losing his dad would've just been another canon event for him to continue BEING Spider-Man, even though he wasn't supposed to be. Legit, this dude’s logic irritates the pee out of me.

Miguel's approach to the problem is also hypocritical considering that he lost his own wife and daughter in the universe he belonged to, then invaded ANOTHER UNIVERSE he didn't belong to, which honestly in my opinion makes Miguel look even worse to me. I'm willing to bet that Miguel’s alternate daughter could’ve been that universe’s spider hero, but because THIS vampire edge lord stepped into a universe that was NOT his, it prevented the canon event of the classic “Dead Guardian trope,” leading to that universe’s evaporation.

Another thing that irks me about the whole thing is that MILES IS LIKE 15-16 YEARS OLD. So as far as I'm concerned, O'Hara is trying to eliminate a KID. Even though he knows what it's like to lose a KID. No wonder the multiverse prevented him from being a father—he’s violent, unstable, and completely short-sighted. He’s out here chokeslamming a teenager and calling THEM the mistake. Just because you went through grief and trauma with your own children, it isn't an excuse to take the breath of another child. 

(Y'know, considering the events of Multiverse of Madness, I'm kinda seeing a pattern here--)

Miguel, for some reason, refuses to have a smidge of sensitivity for what Miles is going through. Heck, even Gwen and Peter Parker had more empathy for Miles despite them not telling him he wasn't supposed to be Spider-Man because they actually cared about his feelings TO SOME DEGREE.

I hate Miguel’s whole “You’re a mistake!” speech because Miles didn't create the spider. Miles didn't summon the spider. Miles didn’t choose to get bit. He didn’t find it on his own terms. Miles didn't choose to create Spot—the one who’s actually causing them problems. Someone ELSE brought the spider there. Someone ELSE took away a universe’s Spider-Man. Miles is just trying to deal with what he’s been given. So if Miguel wants to go after ANYONE for ‘anomalies’ in terms of Miles’ universe, he needs to track down the person who put something where it didn’t belong.

For crying out loud, he told the boy that HE was a mistake. It’d be one thing if he said “You being Spider-Man was a mistake” or something. But no. He says that Miles IS the mistake.

During that whole speech, it sounds like Miguel is trying to tell Miles that everything is HIS fault as if Miles had a choice in being bit. As if Miles even had a choice in the fact that a radioactive spider from an alternate universe chose to bite him. 

There were so many other ways Miguel could've handled the issue and he didn’t do that. I don’t care what his so-called intentions could/would be because it really put a disgusting taste in my mouth. 

I still have no respect for the fact that he hypocritically and previously invaded another reality where he was dead so he could be with his family--and here's what I mean by that.

Yes, I understand--Miguel's life on his original earth was freaking sad. He lost his wife and daughter. That's obviously a very tragic thing to go through. But it’s the fact that he's cracking down on Miles so badly despite Miguel LITERALLY being the one to pull a Kingpin vexes me. Miles had ALWAYS belonged to his universe. Miguel’s only in the dump he’s in because he was trespassing.

Don't get me wrong, I feel pity but I absolutely cannot stand the audacity of this man to go after a kid who got bit IN HIS OWN UNIVERSE even though Miguel was the one who contributed to some multiversal disaster in the Spider-verse. You could try to say, "Oh, it's because he doesn't want to make the same mistake again and shatter the Spider-verse or something!" While I could understand that, it’s still not a good reason for Miguel to do and say the stuff he did. I thought at the bare minimum, he'd be at least able to RELATE to Miles considering that he also lost people he cared about.

End conclusion: 

Miguel is vexing to me–but I don’t hate the way he’s written. If anything, I think if he wasn’t written this way, the ASTV movie would be very different. Whether that’d be for the better or the worse, I’m willing to bet most of this storyline wouldn’t even exist were Miguel not like this. So even though Miguel absolutely grinds my gears with his mindset and who he is as a character—I’m not mad at his writers. And I honestly feel like that’s just a showmanship of how great the writing for the Spider-Verse movies is. Good writing is when you’re mad at characters for the decisions THEY make, and not at the WRITERS for having them make those decisions. 

I’m out.

Hotel Transylvania is Toxic - [A look into the Dracula Family]

[Spoiler Warning — Duh. I also have the article posted on Medium if you wanna check that out]

So we all know the movie, “Hotel Transylvania” right? For those who don’t, to sum it up, it’s a movie series about this hotel that’s for monsters so that monsters can hide from humans. The owner of this hotel is none other than the culturally known classic Dracula himself — and turns out he has a daughter named Mavis. Her mother died shortly after she was born due to human’s hatred for vampires during that time period. However, I feel like the story tends to be deeply problematic in terms of how the characters treat each other (specifically the Dracula family).

First and foremost, let’s get one thing out of the way: Dracula is a horrible father in these movies.

Legit, I can’t tell which movie he’s worse in. The only movie where I think he’s not entirely problematic is the third one where they go on vacation. And even then, he completely ditches his grandson to date Erica and lies to Mavis (but even that situation was a bit complicated if you watched the movie).

Excluding that, he’s straight-up horrible. Don’t believe me? What did he do in the first movie?

In the first film, Mavis states she wants to travel since she’s now 118 (which signifies her newfound autonomy in the monster realm the same way 18 is the new adult age for humans — gee, imagine having to wait that long?). However, Dracula, remembering his past trauma with humans, is terrified of her leaving because he doesn’t want her hurt. Obviously, this sounds like a caring father, right? But here’s the major issue.

Eventually, Dracula says that Mavis can test the waters by visiting a nearby human village. This obviously excites Mavis considering that she’s quite literally never left the hotel throughout those 118 years (if I was her, I’d also wanna go outside, hot dang).

Mavis flies over to the village. But the most bleeped up part about the whole thing is during that scene where she’s inside the village, it’s shown that Dracula actively set up the village and hired other monsters to pretend to be humans as a way to scare his daughter into leaving — making them seem like they’ll attack her.

Let’s restate that. Dracula — Mavis’ father — hires other monsters to cosplay humans — and scares her into leaving so she goes back to the hotel.

The guy traumatizes his own child into staying with him so that way she doesn’t leave. Deep down–despite Dracula possibly having the good intention of wanting to protect her from humans who hate monsters — only wants to keep his daughter to himself because he’s become dependent on her for his happiness since the death of her mother (Dracula’s late wife). Yes, Mavis does confront him about this after finding out about it (and during her 118th birthday party no less), but it’s still so slimy that Dracula would manipulate and traumatize his daughter just so he could keep her to himself due to his own outdated perception of humans.

I understand that Dracula also avoided humans up until Johnny showed due to his own experience and trauma, but the fact he even went that far just to have Mavis isolated in the hotel with him is all kinds of wrong. It’s one thing to disagree with something that you think is dangerous for your child, and it’s a complete ‘nother to straight up manipulate and traumatize them just so YOU can keep them where you want them.

You think that’s bad? Oh, you haven’t heard the half of it.

In the second movie, Mavis and her human husband Johnny (who she met in the first movie) have a child named Dennis. Throughout the film, Dracula has a creepy fixation on the vampiric aspects of Dennis rather than completely accepting his grandchild for who/what he is. Almost every chance he got, he tried to teach Dennis to be a vampire or try to trigger his vampiric growth. Sure, you could try to paint it as Dracula trying to connect with Dennis or helping him discover more aspects of himself. But he constantly gets progressively more and more shady about it.

It starts off small with Dracula trying to teach Dennis how to turn into a bat late at night while he sleeps. Don’t get me wrong, it’s still icky to wake up a child from their needed rest, but just bare with me here. Then when Dennis got his tooth knocked out during the werewolf children’s birthday party, Dracula — instead of showing concern for Dennis’ wellbeing–acted happy about it, hoping it meant that a vampire fang was growing in despite there being no correlation between the two whatsoever. Even if Dennis would somehow grow a fang as a new tooth, the fact he cared more about his grandson’s vampirisim than whether or not he was okay is incredibly offputting (for lack of a better word).

And then when Mavis trusts her father to look after Dennis while she and Johnny visit his family in California (a plan formulated by Johnny and Dracula), he completely dismisses her wishes and takes him on a trip, hoping to get him to become a vampire while she’s away. He even visits his former vampire camp and throws him off of a high ledge since apparently, he learned to fly by “being thrown and figuring it out.” Yes, he saves Dennis before he hits the ground, but the fact that he’s so willing to throw his toddler grandson off a tower in hopes of him becoming a vampire is deeply concerning — if not immoral and dangerous.

And it makes no sense for him to do this either. Even if it was how Dracula personally learned how to fly, we see in the first movie that there’s a flashback where Dracula teaches a young Mavis to fly in a completely different way. She’s in the comfort of her own home, is wearing a helmet, and Dracula is placed underneath her to catch her should she fall. So it’s definitely not how he taught Mavis. Why would it be any different for Dennis if his method of teaching Mavis was much more considerate and softer? At that point, Dracula may as well have only done that for some sadistic reason. There’s still major favoritism with Mavis going on and I wouldn’t be surprised if Dracula did that out of malice for the fact that Dennis is half-human.

Even when Mavis returns to the hotel and chews Dracula out for it, he still keeps up his antics by attempting to ‘scare the fangs’ out of Dennis by having Dracula’s father, Vlad, possess the mascot playing Dennis’ favorite TV character, Cakey (who most likely mimics or is a parody to Cookie Monster from Sesame Street) and making him act scary. Yes, Dracula ends up stopping it — but the fact that he even agreed to it and dragged Johnny into his mess (don’t worry, I’ll address Johnny later on) is diabolical. He once again attempted to traumatize someone he supposedly loved to gain control. And what is his motive for doing all of this? To control Mavis.

See, in the movie, Mavis states that she wishes to move out of the hotel and go to California since she reasonably believes that it’d be safer for Dennis. Therefore, if Dennis were to be a vampire (and he does become one by the end of the film), Mavis would be okay with allowing him to stay at the hotel. But throughout the film, it makes it seem like Mavis’ desire to move out is unreasonable or a bad thing when she was most likely the only voice of reason throughout that entire movie (but even she’s not without her flaws and I’ll address that as well). Though when you truly think about it, Mavis simply wants to do what’s best for her child and is constantly gaslit in the second movie about it.

Because of the fact that Dennis is half-human half-vampire, he’s obviously going to be weaker than his monster counterparts. Even if not, Dennis is five years old — thus very young — and it was proven he was not even at an actual good strength capacity to survive the chaotic nature of the hotel to begin with. For crying out loud, Dennis got his tooth knocked out during a werewolf party. And considering Dracula’s less-than-concerned reaction to that, it’s no wonder Mavis didn’t want Dennis to be raised in that environment.

Granted, she may have been incorrect about his ability to become a vampire and sure, she might be ‘overprotective’ (a notion I very much disagree with) but at the end of it all, she just wants her child to be safe since she doesn’t know how weak or powerful he could be. In fact, she actually wanted Dennis to be human because she believed it would've given him more opportunities in life than she did. So if anything, Mavis is the only one in the second movie who was ever truly considerate of the well-being of her son for the right reasons — even if supposedly her views were slightly flawed. But, it still doesn’t justify all the stuff that Dracula and Johnny did to Dennis previously.

Dracula was so hell-bent on getting Dennis to be a vampire because it meant that Mavis would stay in the hotel. Even after Mavis gets married and has a kid of her own, her father is still trying to control her. Dracula still refuses to allow Mavis any sort of autonomy over her life and how she wishes to do things.

And Johnny (her husband) is absolutely not in the clear here either because one of the only reasons why he agreed to help Dracula in his manipulative endeavors is because he liked Transylvania so much that he didn’t want to leave.

I’ll say it again.

He liked Transylvania so much that he didn’t want to leave.

Johnny is not even thinking about the safety of his own child and is focused on his own wants. I get that Johnny’s whole character dynamic is that he’s something of a dummy, but there’s a difference between being a dummy and being so outright selfish to the point where you place your own wants above the needs of your child. Heck, the whole reason why Mavis and Johnny were on that trip to California to begin with was because Johnny and Dracula both agreed to trick Mavis into leaving so that way Dracula could keep trying to turn Dennis into a vampire. The one time that Mavis finally has some time with herself and her husband is all because her husband and father are manipulating her.

You’re seriously trying to tell me that Johnny, this selfish incompetent man-child, is Mavis’ zing/soulmate? You’re trying to tell me that Johnny is her one and only love? Because I’m pretty sure if he was, he’d also understand and be willing to discuss the problems with his wife, rather than manipulate her behind her back and essentially betray her trust.

We could call it a ‘lapse’ in judgment all we want, but at the end of the day, what decent father agrees to the traumatization of his own child just for his own personal gain? What Dracula did to Mavis, Johnny is doing to Dennis in a similar format. It’s disgusting.

Sure, the movie has Dennis become a vampire by the end of the movie, but let’s be honest. The only reason why the movie would’ve had to go that direction is because otherwise, the conflict between Mavis versus Johnny & Dracula would’ve never truly been resolved. She still would’ve rightfully been super angry with them for endangering her child to suit their own selfish desires. But when Dennis did become a vampire, there was no longer a point for her to be angry since it then would’ve been better for him to stay at the hotel. Though let’s be clear, Dennis being a vampire doesn’t negate everything that Johnny and Dracula did to her.

Throughout the whole second movie, Mavis is gaslit, manipulated, and her boundaries are constantly being dismissed by her husband and her father.

I know it seems like I’m mainly sympathizing with Mavis here (and that’s because I sorta am) but there’s one thing Mavis does in the second movie that grinds my gears as well.

Why. The heck. Did she invite. Her anti-human grandad. To see her son? In the movie, she says, “He’s never seen Dennis.” But in the grand scheme of things, why did SHE expect a vampire centuries older than her father to be more accepting of humans over her actual father who still has trouble with being unbiased towards them? It makes NO sense. I’m glad she at LEAST acknowledges it in the movie when she says, “I don’t know why I ever invited you,” but it still makes no freaking sense and the only explanation I can think of as to why is because she didn’t want Vlad or Dennis to interrogate her about it later.

In the fourth movie, after Dracula gets married to a human woman named Erica (who was the daughter of a van Hellsing of all people), Dracula realizes that Johnny and Mavis will eventually inherit the hotel. However, Dracula has a problem with the fact that Johnny (a human) would be inheriting the hotel.

So even after all this time, meeting Johnny, letting Johnny marry Mavis, having a half-human grandson, letting the human side of his family visit him (who were all very accepting of the monsters by the way), and even marrying a human woman, he still is discriminatory against them. So this goes to show that deep down, Dracula is just an obstinate racist (well, speciest) who refuses to change his mind unless it suits the situation he’s in. He’ll say, “Doesn’t matter–vampire, unicorn, no matter what.” But he doesn’t actually believe it. Actions speak louder than words. That’s also why in the second movie, Dracula was adamant about calling Dennis “Denisovich’’ which is his vampire name — it subtly removes humanity from Dennis’ identity.

Throughout the movie series excluding perhaps the third one, Dracula consistently shows himself as a manipulative human-hating control freak. Yes, I get that Dracula has had bad experiences with humans, but he’s also had way too many experiences thus far to believe that humans are the same as they were in the 1800s regarding their view on monsters.

This whole family (aside from Johnny’s parents and the children) is so toxic. Sure, Johnny’s parents aren’t perfect, but they were more than willing to let Dennis stay with them and make accommodations to make Mavis and Dennis feel comfortable (even if the said execution was less tasteful than Mavis would’ve originally wanted).

Hey sorry for the horrible anons, have a kitten in your profile!

Glad to meet another Pro-lifer :D

Oh, I like you. This is purrfect.

My Beef with Miguel O'Hara Pt. 2 - A Spiderverse Rant

My goodness, I despise this guy so much I had to make a part two-

If you want the context, you’ll have to read part one because there ain’t no way in HECK I’m repeating myself when I already said everything else.

And once again, I don’t care that this guy has a truckload of simps—I’m gonna beef with this guy till the planet’s gone. And if you read part one, you'd know exactly why even if I do end up being wrong on the 2nd part of this take SPECIFICALLY. I do not care how bonito this man looks, he's major CACA.

Going back to addressing the next point, here’s something I gotta ask y’all:

Don’t you find it weird? Don’t you find it odd? Don’t you find it PECULIAR even... How the one guy constantly going on about the ‘traditional Spider-Man”  Is FAR from BEING the traditional Spider-Man concept?

Look, I am perfectly willing to accept that maybe (just MAYBE) there’s some lore I’m missing here (as I really hope and wish I'm wrong about this as stated in part one), but you can not tell me that he’s a traditional Spider-Man.

First and foremost, the guy has a different hand gesture for even shooting out his webs. He doesn't shoot them in the way Peter traditionally shoots them---no. He shoots them FROM THE UPPER TOP OF HIS WRIST.

And on top of that, the guy didn't even get bit by a spider. HE HAS POWERS BECAUSE HE INJECTS HIMSELF WITH A SERUM! The guy has FANGS that secrete POISON for crying out loud. Which, granted, is pretty cool, but not a 'traditional' Spider-Man.

What other Spider hero within the Spiderverse do you know ALSO acts like a freaking animal after taking their super-meds? NONE---that's some Bane from DC bullcrap.

Even in the gif provided, the guy doesn't look like he's sticking to walls---he looks like he's CLAWING into it in order to stay on it.

He. Doesn't. Even. Have. Spider Sense.

Yep, that's right. The one guy who's hell-bent on the concept of the canon Spider-Man, doesn't even have the STAPLE of the classic Spider-Man powers. Instead he just has 'enhanced eyesight.' Miss me with that bull---

Let's not even get down to the fact that this guy was able to actually have a wife and a kid at some point. That's WAY more than Peter Parker's ever been able to get throughout MOST of his traditional iterations (considering that for some reason it's a canon event for his uncle and/or girlfriend to LITERALLY keep on DYING).

Sure, you could argue that the colors of his Spidey-suit (blue and red) are reflective of the traditional Spider-Man concept, but even then, they're inverted where BLUE is his main color INSTEAD of red.

I have no problem with the fact he strays out of a 'traditional' Spider-Man archetype. My problem is that he fact he strays out of it but then has the NERVE to aggressively police everyone else on standards that he HIMSELF could/can not uphold.

This is why I am so proud of Miles for looking at this man straight in the face and saying, "Are you sure you're even Spider-Man?" Because there ain't no way in DOOKIE that THIS guy---who's so far from the traditional Spider-Man archetype, is the one who's the most obsessed with it.

There's no other way around it for me, this man is a cult leader and that's it.

I'm honestly so tired of how formulaic 'creative mediums' feel now and that social media is honestly one of the very few places where art is appreciated, and even then, it's on thin ice.

Everything has to be written and look a certain way and it's like I'm reading the same thing over and over again.

I understand there's nothing new under the sun but hot dang, at least let people have SOME authenticity.

What happened to the times when art got recognition because it was DIFFERENT? Because of the fact it pushed cultural norms? Because of the fact that it brought problems to people's attention?

I'm not saying this type of art doesn't exist today, but it sure as heck is suppressed and I'm sick of it.

I personally will never understand why Marvel is so consistently trying to paint Peter Parker as this loser dork when the guy is able to pull beautiful/powerful women on a daily basis.

Mary-Jane Watson Gwen Stacy Gwen Stacy's Cousin Betty Brant Liz Allen Cindy Moon Carly Cooper Debra Whitman Felicia Hardy Captain Marvel Silver Sable Black Widow Hawkeye's ex-WIFE Emma freaking FROST

You've got to be out of your darn mind if you think I'm going to believe that the guy who could pull Emma Frost is a loser.

My Take on the Yandere Trope - A Character Rant (kinda)

TW: Mentions of violence, abuse, mental illness, etc. Hello, fellow humans on the internet (or at least I hope you’re human). I’m pretty sure the majority of us anime fans know what a yandere is—but I’m still going to briefly explain for convenience sake of getting my point across in this piece. I’m going to try my best to explain my thoughts here, but I apologize if they’re poorly communicated. I am by no means a psychological expert nor have I had extensive experience with any of the following mentioned topics. So if you have a feeling that some of this content is going to hit a sensitive spot for you, I highly suggest you click off for your own sake. A yandere is typically defined as a character who takes a dangerous obsession with another character. This character is so obsessed to the point of being willing to murder others and do morally dubious things. And despite the overwhelming toxicity of this trope (that should in no way be desirable or considered romantic in real life), I feel like there’s a lot of missing nuance in the ways how this character trope is typically portrayed—of which I will explain. The word “yandere” comes from two words meshed into one. The first half of the word comes from “yanderu” (病んでる) which translates to “mentally ill” or “to be sick.” The other half of the word comes from “deredere” (デレデレ) which translates to “lovestruck” or “to be in love” (at least roughly). Now, let’s get one thing clear: If someone is so obsessed to the point they’re willing to *murder* others just so they can have another person all to themselves, I think it definitely goes without saying that the person is definitely mentally disturbed. Something’s absolutely not right upstairs. But I think there’s more intricate ways for this trope to be written based on its translation—rather than the classic “oh ho ho, stabby stabby, you got too close to Senpai!” (I’m never gonna type something like that ever again—) Call this a bad take all you want, but I think that by the so-called “yandere” trope being strictly contained to abusive murderous stalkers, I think that’s kind of an insult to many varying different measures of mental illness people can take. The word *potentially* translates to “mentally ill.” For the sake of hypothetical/argument regarding this fact, I think it’s rather distasteful to paint all mentally ill people with the same brush—and it kind of paints this picture that people who struggle with mental illness are incapable of loving or caring about others in healthy ways.  That’s not to say that there aren’t mental illnesses that DON’T give people murderous or violent tendencies—but my point is not ALL of them do. If anything, I’d actually be willing to argue that most of them DON’T and that the violent actions come from just how a person CHOOSES to be. So for anime media (or media in general) to oversimplify something as complex as mental illness in this manner I feel is a teeny-bit insensitive. Granted, yanderu also translates to the phrase “to be sick.” So the traditional portrayal of this trope could also very well be justified. Because let’s be honest here: would a person who’s so dangerously obsessed with another that they’d be willing to murder NOT be considered sick in the head? Of course they would. So while in terms of addressing mental illness (should that be the goal of the trope—which I don’t think it is), I believe the traditional handling of this archetype doesn’t do any justice. But when it comes to portraying morally inept individuals that want what they want and don’t care what they have to do to get it—yeah, I’m more than willing to agree the ‘yandere’ trope applies considering how their behavior is often portrayed.

Regardless of what the true English form of the word yanderu could be, there is one thing that’s completely absolute in this conversation—and that is the word “deredere” means lovestruck. So even if yanderu were to completely mean one or the other, the word “love” is still very much in the mix when acknowledging the concept of a “yandere.”

Deredere in itself is also a character trope where a character does not shy away in showcasing their romantic feelings whatsoever. Due to the general nature of their way of doing things in the media, deredere characters typically tend to show their affection or romantic interest in relatively much healthier ways. 

Even if we were to search up information on what healthy romantic love looks (or should look) like, these are pretty much the same traits we run into:

⚫ Respect (especially of boundaries) ⚫ Unselfishness ⚫ Honesty ⚫ Compromise ⚫ Good communication ⚫ Empathy ⚫ Desire to protect Another good outlier for what love is supposed to look like is from religious texts. For example, the Bible even says in 1 Corinthians 13:4-8 (NLT version), “Love is patient and kind. Love is not jealous or boastful or proud or rude. It does not demand its own way. It is not irritable, and it keeps no record of being wronged. It does not rejoice about injustice but rejoices whenever the truth wins out. Love never gives up, never loses faith, is always hopeful, and endures through every circumstance.” We very clearly see here that the traditional handling of yandere characters often include little to none of these characteristics. This is due to the fact that obsession and love are obviously two very different things. So considering what the word “yandere” actually translates to, I can’t say I believe most forms of media have been good at portraying what the concept of a yandere would ACTUALLY entail.  At its base core, the word yandere translates to a mentally unwell human being (regardless of the varying degree of mental unwellness they deal with) who is in love or lovestruck with another. Once again, a person would VERY much be mentally unwell if they were murdering people out of obsession (an understatement, really). But the formula of a classic yandere leaves out the ironically most important aspect of their character—their love. And no, not just a passing infatuation, form of lust, or creepy obsession. I mean ACTUAL love.  How I think a better way of handling this trope based on it’s translation and translation alone, is that it would be a person who—despite having a disturbed way of thinking—does genuinely love and care for another person to the point where they’d push themselves to commit things they normally wouldn’t have considered doing, but do it anyway because they feel it’s NECESSARY.

Sure, you could argue that a traditional yandere would see it as necessary to kill others for their loved one due to their overwhelming need for control/intense insecurity, but that’s the problem—that’s from THEIR perspective and not an OBJECTIVE reality. By a character killing others JUST so they can keep someone else to themselves (whether it be out of jealousy or just wanting to control the person), it’s still not love or genuine protection due to the fact that their justifications are merely just that—justifications. They’re not actually based on a real-time threat. 

And even if they were (like for example, their partner tends to cheat on them with other people, so they kill the people their partner cheats on them with), that only gives more reasons as to why the relationship isn’t love based whatsoever and it would just be toxic from BOTH ends rather than just one like it would typically be. I think a better way of giving justice to the morse-so traditional version of this trope (while somewhat acknowledging the translation due the impending nuance) is to make a character that does genuinely love someone unselfishly and has understandable goals in terms of showing that love, but has messed up ways of going about it. Here’s a character that I think fits what I am trying to explain: There’s a relatively known character within the DC Comics franchise that goes by the title of Mr. Freeze. He’s generally known for going to extremes in order to preserve the life/health of his wife Nora. Regardless of which iteration you interact with, one thing is consistent: Despite his obvious mental unwellness (which is very valid considering the crap he goes through), Mr. Freeze genuinely loves his wife and is willing to do anything for her if it means keeping her one this for longer. 

And while that doesn't justify the crimes he commits whatsoever, the franchise he belongs to DOES often showcase WHY he does what he does instead of chalking it up to oversimplified means. Yes, his actions do vary depending on his alternate versions, but I think the idea is rather clear here. This kind of morally gray form of sacrifice or extension of action I think could make for very dynamic and interesting characters where we understand that while they are doing what they do out of a genuine love for another—it doesn’t justify the potentially morally corrupt things or morally gray things they do. I want there to a LEAST be a very real reason for WHY that makes it easier to—at bare minimum—understand the character’s motivations. I think it would give more incentive to place the audience in this character’s shoes since they’re not doing what they do out of a delusional obsession, but are acting based on a very real reality and threat that their loved one is facing. I think that’s what a true yandere should look like.

Hi, I liked your post criticizing the toxic dynamics in the Dracula family in Hotel Transylvania, and I want to ask for your thoughts on the movies in general, as well as your opinions on the concept of "zing", the way Mavis and Johnny's relationship is written and if the movie handled its message about acceptance well.

Personally I dislike the concept of "Love at First Sight" which zing basically is, because it robs a couple from getting to know each other, but also because it portrays an unrealistic view of love and romance. Real love can't come from mere physical attraction but has to be built.

HT also uses monsters as a metaphor for minorities to tell a message about acceptance and freedom from prejudice, which a lot of other media do, so Im curious about your opinion on if the movies handled this theme well.

Hi~! So sorry for the late response ^^

First of all, it's so nice having asks like this!

In terms of how I feel about the movies generally---they do have some likable characters and they do unfortunately hold some semi-dearness to my heart due to me enjoying it as a child. But as a 20 year old woman, I am MORE than aware of how deeply messed up these movies are---and as someone who does enjoy the intricacies of story writing, the Hotel Transylvania is very disappointing in that regard.

I agree with you on the 'zing' thing. I've come to despise the whole 'zing' concept because it reminds me of 'imprinting' that's used in other supernatural romances. Either way, I see it as a sloppy excuse or shortcut creators use to make characters have 'chemistry' without having it genuinely be earned.

Johnny is the everyman trope---a stupid regular degular dude who gets the manic pixie dream girl. Johnny's a monster fanatic---and Mavis is a vampire with limited knowledge on the world thanks to her piece of dookie father. The way Johnny and Mavis' relationship is written hits all of the wrong notes for me.

Regarding the whole minorities thing, as a woman who is part of a minority group herself, I can say for certain that if portraying metaphors for minority groups and acceptance was the goal, it didn't just miss the target---it actively didn't even hit the circle.

That's not to say that I can't *now* see where that might have been intended. But I think it still doesn't hit if that's what they were going for. Because throughout all of the movies, Dracula never genuinely learns his lesson. And sure, realistically, there are *some* people who never overcome their biases towards certain groups. But the franchise often tries to trick us into believing he's changed when he never does. He doesn't even improve.

Heck, he even mentally, emotionally, and physically endangers his own family for his own personal gain BECAUSE of these biases. From what I've seen, Dracula cares more about his own agenda regarding these groups than he does his own family. And regardless of how realistic it is or not----if the goal was to showcase acceptance (which I have a hard time believing it was), it did AWFUL.

There's a major difference between tolerance and acceptance, and Hotel Transylvania never evolves past tolerance. The humans had already accepted the monsters. In fact, the monsters very VERY beloved by the humans. It's DRACULA and those like him that seemingly never evolve.

Even in the fourth movie, despite MARRYING a HUMAN (a van HELLSING AT THAT), Drac lost his CRAP at the possibility of Johnny inheriting the hotel BECAUSE HE WAS HUMAN. I could understand if it was because Johnny's a doofus (which he is), but for being a HUMAN?!

Yeah, as much nostalgia the franchise brings, Hotel Transylvania fails IMMENSELY in terms of genuinely good writing and supposedly handling minority themes. Which is very disappointing because a (well written) series about a monster hotel would've been so great.

I hope that answers your wonders about my perspectives. I apologize for going on a tangent there ^^