|
Post by vectoring34 on Apr 6, 2021 13:40:11 GMT -5
okay i see a lot of comments on this board about being careful about portrayals because younger audiences might not know the difference, but am i the only one who never struggled with that as a kid? like even as an eleven year old, i could look at bramblexsquirrel fighting or squirrel lying about the threes parentage and go “yep thats not good”. maybe i just had the benefit of good moral education or something that others dont. but i do get kinda wigged out when people talk about kids like theyre all really dumb and just accept anything they read in a book without critical thought at all. my under 8 nephews can do as much. “bramblestar’s mean but the book says he also has good qualities so being mean must have a good quality!” ??? kids are smarter than people generally think It's completely true children are way smarter than people give them credit for. A lot of kids know/realize something is bad despite what the text says and have a good grasp on various things. For example, the middle school-aged daughter of one of my coworkers has talked about some of the unhealthy relationships in Warriors with me before. I think it was BrambleSquirrel specifically, but I really don't remember. Point is, kids are very smart and can understand something's bad without it being shown in text. With that said, the people saying what the audience being told versus what is shown have a point. Case and point, Ashfur. I got into the fandom kinda late (a few months before TLH was released) and people were still very vocal about Ashfur being misunderstood and that his actions were okay while Squirrelflight was some awful monster for breaking his heart. While his actions are deplorable and many people (both kids and adults) acknowledged that he was a terrible person, many believed he was justified and even right. That the ridiculous excuse of "he loved too much" was an acceptable reason for attempted murder and trying to ruin some lady's life. So yes, children are very smart and can know the difference between what's said in the text versus what's shown. Most children raised in a healthy environment* will be able to see and acknowledge this. However, let's not pretend that the argument of show versus tell is unfounded because it can definitely skew how people (mostly kids in this case) view something. *This isn't to say children in an unhealthy environment wouldn't be able to tell this either. They definitely can, however if something like the BrambleSquirrel dynamic (I'm not exactly sure what it is beyond toxic and unhealthy as I haven't read the newer books) is normalized for them, they may have a harder time understanding or realizing it's unhealthy. (Sidenote, I really hope this didn't come across as rude or preachy. I really wasn't trying to be either of those things and just wanted to get my two cents in.) But that may well have happened regardless. Some people shill for Mapleshade as an embodiment of empowerment despite the text itself strongly refuting that idea. I don't think you can necessarily imply responsibility on the books. Some people will always have that take, textual evidence or not.
|
|
foxstep
loves squirrelflight way too much
|
Post by foxstep on Apr 6, 2021 15:05:11 GMT -5
I think it's important to acknowledge that not every kid picks up on things the same way not every kid blindly believes what the text says. I can personally say that I couldn't recognize some of the toxic messages and couples in Warriors the first time I read it as a 10 year old and it was only when I was 13/14 and started watching analysis posts and videos that I realized how harmful some messages were. Of course this isn't the case for everyone but I think it's still important that books targeted at kids be careful about how they're portraying things because while one book won't change a child's views on a certain topic forever, they will absorb that message and with many sorts of media with the same message building up, they'll find the problematic message normal or defend it. I've seen this happen many times with Thistleclaw apologists and similar characters outside of the Warriors fandom.
While there's nothing wrong in portraying toxic characters/relationships, the book really needs to stop defending them. Bramblestar is constantly praised and called noble while some of his actions are appalling especially in SqH and Twilight/Sunset. If they're going to make him mentally abusive, they should at least let that be known or have him and Squirrelflight have a healthy discussion about their relationship. I can't remember when they did that since Sunset.
|
|
|
Post by vectoring34 on Apr 6, 2021 15:42:41 GMT -5
I really don't buy the "what about the children?" narrative because there's a lot of other stuff endorsed by the books(and children's entertainment in general) that is also not great. The best form of government being an autocratic monarchy? Zero repercussions for murderers so long as they changed sides at the right time? Unity being impossible because fighting is our nature(this one's kind of a unique Warriors one admittedly lol)? And so on.
It's not the job of media to raise children, that's the responsibility of their guardians. If we foisted the responsibility onto Warriors, it'd be raising a society of neo-feudalists.
|
|
foxstep
loves squirrelflight way too much
|
Post by foxstep on Apr 6, 2021 15:47:36 GMT -5
Still, media targeted AT children should be more mindful about what they portray. Media that isn't meant for children has fair game to do what they want. But Warriors has ages 8-12 on their book cover and if it's a topic that's too mature for their target audience, they need to do a better job of portraying it or not include it at all.
Parents don't know what childrens' books contain. For all they know, this could be an innocent book series about cats and while it is their responsibility to check what their child is reading, they can't possibly know every single detail unless they read the books themselves which a lot of parents don't have time for.
|
|
Aroace
#ffa100
Name Colour
𝕱𝖑𝖚𝖙𝖙𝖊𝖗𝖋𝖆𝖑𝖑
Villain Enjoyer
Taking a break from the forums because my cat died. Will probably be back mid to late October.
|
Post by 𝕱𝖑𝖚𝖙𝖙𝖊𝖗𝖋𝖆𝖑𝖑 on Apr 6, 2021 16:15:22 GMT -5
Still, media targeted AT children should be more mindful about what they portray. Media that isn't meant for children has fair game to do what they want. But Warriors has ages 8-12 on their book cover and if it's a topic that's too mature for their target audience, they need to do a better job of portraying it or not include it at all. Parents don't know what childrens' books contain. For all they know, this could be an innocent book series about cats and while it is their responsibility to check what their child is reading, they can't possibly know every single detail unless they read the books themselves which a lot of parents don't have time for. I completely agree with that. My parents gifted and later continued to buy me the books because they thought it was just about wild cats going on harmless adventures/quests and they only realized that these characters actively fight/murder each other after I asked them what Firestar actually meant when he said "to make an example of" in the German version of Eclipse which twelve year old me was not aware of the definition at all. My mother is still apologizing to this day and thinks that these cat books are responsible for messing me up.
|
|
|
Post by Saint Ambrosef on Apr 6, 2021 16:57:37 GMT -5
I guess the question is, where is the line between what is appropriate to publish in children's fiction, and what isnt? I think we all agree that kids from healthy homes are more likely to critically appraise their literature and make good moral judgements, while there are also lots of kids without that skill yet. But at what point do we stop depicting certain moral topics in children's books for the sake of the latter? Because as someone pointed out, even the most (supposedly) obvious evils like Mapleshade can be wrongly understood by a large crowd.
Legitimate question.
|
|
|
Post by αɳσɱαʅყ on Apr 6, 2021 17:59:36 GMT -5
I guess the question is, where is the line between what is appropriate to publish in children's fiction, and what isnt? I think we all agree that kids from healthy homes are more likely to critically appraise their literature and make good moral judgements, while there are also lots of kids without that skill yet. But at what point do we stop depicting certain moral topics in children's books for the sake of the latter? Because as someone pointed out, even the most (supposedly) obvious evils like Mapleshade can be wrongly understood by a large crowd. Legitimate question. It's a good question. We could refer to how TV shows and movies are rated. What is the line between a show rated G, PG, T, and so on? PG involves more fantasy violence than G, for example. And a T-rated show may have certain language, more graphic depictions of violence, and themes like abusive relationships, while a PG show would not, or keep it to a minimum. In a case like BrambleSquirrel it's hard to judge, because their relationship in-text is supposed to be functional, however as readers we've observed that it contains elements of toxicity and even abuse in it. Would that mean Warriors takes a T (13+) or PG (8-12) type rating? This is where media critics are very important. There isn't a hard and fast rule about what should or shouldn't be allowed in children's media, BUT it's very important for a publisher to be very mindful about what ideas their media will pass. As critics and readers, we are the ones who determine what ideas have been expressed since we live in this societal context and engage with the media. No one is saying Warriors is wrong for writing BrambleSquirrel this way, but at the same time we're acknowledging this is a pretty bad portrayal and has the potential to mislead/skew readers, especially young ones. I grew up in a household where my parents fought a lot, so even until I was 16 years old, I didn't really notice BrSq was unhealthy until I got back into Warriors and started looking at reviews, fan discussion etc. The role of this critical discussion is to dissect what ideas are being presented by a piece of media. There is a lot that goes into it. I'm setting an extreme example here, it's pretty bad taste for a character to have yellow skin, buck teeth, narrow eyes, and be Asian-coded, because in our society this design carries the baggage of a specific idea with it. But in an idyllic society where there isn't a history of racism, this kind of design wouldn't carry any meaning and nobody would be bothered by it all. On a less controversial scale, that's where we need to evaluate what kind of story elements and characters do contain this loaded extra meaning, and what doesn't. A kid's show portraying a murderer sympathetically because they "joined the good guys and changed in the end" isn't loaded. As a society, murder is illegal and condemned as a whole, so in this context, the show is writing a character that assumes the audience already knows what they're doing is wrong, and casting them in the light that "even if you do bad things, you can learn to be better and change", and that is a hopeful message to have in a children's story! A relationship that is presented as normal, despite the characters often being unhappy in it, going into a cycle of fights and honeymoon phases, and meets the general criteria of toxic, in the context of a society where many people are not taught good relationship skills, and real children are struggling in families with a similar dynamic, on the other hand, is not very tasteful. The idea being presented is "this relationship is normal, and good" or even "it's fine to fight and hurt each other, as long as you say sorry in the end". We can then decide if the piece of media handled it with tact or executed it well. If it was poorly handled, then as an audience we would make sure others are aware of this problematic aspect and encourage creators to be more aware on how to write this theme better and not make the same mistakes. So, it'll be criticised and even condemned, but not outright censored. This is why media critique is so important, this is role it plays in media creation. Unfortunately, not every poorly executed point in a story will be caught by a publisher. There will be problematic portrayals of things in children's media that go unnoticed. But the important thing is to bring awareness to any relevant people, including parents, authors, audience members, and make it very clear that it did not have the intended effect that it was going for. A somewhat recent example I can think of is the film The Green Book. It wanted to portray a true sentimental story where a taboo friendship blossomed in a setting of 1960s/Jim Crow USA. It won an award, but critiques expressed concern over the portrayals of the characters, if they were accurate to the real people they were based on, and if the movie was a white-saviour narrative (the director wanted to avoid this, so they were aware of it). Overall, there is debate over whether or not the film handled the subject matter well, that the film producers, writers, and director got involved in. And it's meant to help anyone who watches this film think about the topic more deeply. Regardless of what stance you take on the film, I sincerely doubt another film maker would try to write a movie like this without doing more research about, as the critique is meant to encourage creators to think hard about what ideas do they want to deliver, and how will it be executed.
|
|
|
Post by Amber on Apr 6, 2021 18:16:23 GMT -5
I guess the question is, where is the line between what is appropriate to publish in children's fiction, and what isnt? I think we all agree that kids from healthy homes are more likely to critically appraise their literature and make good moral judgements, while there are also lots of kids without that skill yet. But at what point do we stop depicting certain moral topics in children's books for the sake of the latter? Because as someone pointed out, even the most (supposedly) obvious evils like Mapleshade can be wrongly understood by a large crowd. Legitimate question. Now that is an excellent question, which I don't think has a cut-and-dry answer. Personally speaking, I think as long as there's a clear protryal in text and has the characters calling out the bad thing, then it should be okay to present to children(within reason). For example, I think toxic and unhealthy relationships should be portrayed in children's media as long as it's called out by the narrative and characters. This can either be done by the characters involved in the relationship or one of the characters outside said relationship (which doesn't have to be romantic) pointing out the issues. I think having both narrative and characters pointing out the bad thing works fine. Others may want more while some may just want none of that protrayed. In the case of someone like Mapleshade, I wonder if her defenders/people claiming she did nothing wrong has something to do with her story. From what I understand (I haven't read her novella, so I may be way off base with this) her mate cheated on her (and Reedshine), all her kits drowned, the people she killed were also kinda terrible to her, and I'm pretty sure she started hallucinating her kits at some point as well. My guess is people may excuse her actions because the narrative gives many reasons about why she is the way she is, shifting blame from solely on her to the people around her as well. Again, as I haven't read the novella or seen people defend Mapleshade (doesn't mean it doesn't happen, I've just never seen it) I can't really say much beyond speculation.
|
|
#a3c5e6
Name Colour
𝓣𝓲𝓷𝓾𝓿𝓲𝓮𝓵
Warrior Fanatic
All hail me, the flower-flushing queen of Prague
|
Post by 𝓣𝓲𝓷𝓾𝓿𝓲𝓮𝓵 on Apr 6, 2021 18:44:43 GMT -5
αɳσɱαʅყ, nothing to add, just that I agree with you! Children are so much smarter than we give them credit for, but they're still impressionable. At the same time, we also really shouldn't be underestimating how powerful media is, either. I feel like the Ashfur Wars are a great example of this in terms of this series and it's a big reason why I'm glad he's finally being treated like an actual villain instead of this misunderstood cat who just made a mistake (and calling it a mistake is putting it lightly).
|
|
|
Post by mapleleafsunset on Apr 7, 2021 9:12:41 GMT -5
I really don't buy the "what about the children?" narrative because there's a lot of other stuff endorsed by the books(and children's entertainment in general) that is also not great. The best form of government being an autocratic monarchy? Zero repercussions for murderers so long as they changed sides at the right time? Unity being impossible because fighting is our nature(this one's kind of a unique Warriors one admittedly lol)? And so on. It's not the job of media to raise children, that's the responsibility of their guardians. If we foisted the responsibility onto Warriors, it'd be raising a society of neo-feudalists. The big differences between portraying abuse or an unhealthy relationship in a positive light and portraying a murderer with 0 repercussions is that it is easier for people to understand that murder is a negative thing than in subtle cases of emotional abuse. Seeing a couple who are going through the cycle of abuse but it's not condemned by the narrative may instil the idea that this behaviour is ok as long as they "make up" like it shown by the books. It can be hard to identify red flags in abuse so when portraying relationships in children's media there needs to be some caution that the relationships don't ignore any red flags, or make them seem like they aren't issues. However murder, is clearly wrong. Every child would know that taking another human life is blatantly wrong. And even if they didn't know that it won't take long until they do, everyone knows it's against the law to kill someone else. Therefore there's less harm in forgiving a villain who has committed murder because children watching know the actions were wrong. They won't go out and kill anyone just because Breezepelt in warriors gets away with it (that was a random example I can't remember if Breezepelt actually kills anyone) Abuse isn't as easy to identify, so we need to be cautious to not portray relationships that are abuse as positive so that children don't grow up with these ideas. Parents aren't always the best at educating them, and to be honest it's not only children who wouldn't want to read these things portrayed in a positive light. Abuse survivors may be triggered by reading abusive scenarios in a positive way. Murder will never be endorsed in real life, and you will always know whether or not someone has been killed. You may not know if you are in an abusive relationship especially if the media has always shown you the type of relationship you are in is "healthy" when it's really not
|
|
|
Post by vectoring34 on Apr 7, 2021 9:32:19 GMT -5
I really don't buy the "what about the children?" narrative because there's a lot of other stuff endorsed by the books(and children's entertainment in general) that is also not great. The best form of government being an autocratic monarchy? Zero repercussions for murderers so long as they changed sides at the right time? Unity being impossible because fighting is our nature(this one's kind of a unique Warriors one admittedly lol)? And so on. It's not the job of media to raise children, that's the responsibility of their guardians. If we foisted the responsibility onto Warriors, it'd be raising a society of neo-feudalists. The big differences between portraying abuse or an unhealthy relationship in a positive light and portraying a murderer with 0 repercussions is that it is easier for people to understand that murder is a negative thing than in subtle cases of emotional abuse. Seeing a couple who are going through the cycle of abuse but it's not condemned by the narrative may instil the idea that this behaviour is ok as long as they "make up" like it shown by the books. It can be hard to identify red flags in abuse so when portraying relationships in children's media there needs to be some caution that the relationships don't ignore any red flags, or make them seem like they aren't issues. However murder, is clearly wrong. Every child would know that taking another human life is blatantly wrong. And even if they didn't know that it won't take long until they do, everyone knows it's against the law to kill someone else. Therefore there's less harm in forgiving a villain who has committed murder because children watching know the actions were wrong. They won't go out and kill anyone just because Breezepelt in warriors gets away with it (that was a random example I can't remember if Breezepelt actually kills anyone) Abuse isn't as easy to identify, so we need to be cautious to not portray relationships that are abuse as positive so that children don't grow up with these ideas. Parents aren't always the best at educating them, and to be honest it's not only children who wouldn't want to read these things portrayed in a positive light. Abuse survivors may be triggered by reading abusive scenarios in a positive way. Murder will never be endorsed in real life, and you will always know whether or not someone has been killed. You may not know if you are in an abusive relationship especially if the media has always shown you the type of relationship you are in is "healthy" when it's really not I'm not going to get too real by pointing to any current events but I assure you that the legality of killing a person and morality thereof is still a huge topic of debate as to where the line is drawn. The justification or not of killing is a very salient topic and you could easily make the same arguments made about abuse in the books and relate them to the way killing is portrayed. Killing is not as cut and dry as to what is good killing and what is bad killing in society as one might think. If parents aren't the best at educating their kids, then the problem is the parents and that's what should be targeted rather than a symptom of this. As far as triggering goes, while this is true, one could also easily make that argument about almost anything. I know some people triggered by the mere death of cute animals like cats, they'd surely be triggered by the books too. Triggers are tragic and warning people about them is fine, but a warning isn't what's being discussed here as far as I can tell.
|
|
|
Post by mapleleafsunset on Apr 7, 2021 10:29:32 GMT -5
The big differences between portraying abuse or an unhealthy relationship in a positive light and portraying a murderer with 0 repercussions is that it is easier for people to understand that murder is a negative thing than in subtle cases of emotional abuse. Seeing a couple who are going through the cycle of abuse but it's not condemned by the narrative may instil the idea that this behaviour is ok as long as they "make up" like it shown by the books. It can be hard to identify red flags in abuse so when portraying relationships in children's media there needs to be some caution that the relationships don't ignore any red flags, or make them seem like they aren't issues. However murder, is clearly wrong. Every child would know that taking another human life is blatantly wrong. And even if they didn't know that it won't take long until they do, everyone knows it's against the law to kill someone else. Therefore there's less harm in forgiving a villain who has committed murder because children watching know the actions were wrong. They won't go out and kill anyone just because Breezepelt in warriors gets away with it (that was a random example I can't remember if Breezepelt actually kills anyone) Abuse isn't as easy to identify, so we need to be cautious to not portray relationships that are abuse as positive so that children don't grow up with these ideas. Parents aren't always the best at educating them, and to be honest it's not only children who wouldn't want to read these things portrayed in a positive light. Abuse survivors may be triggered by reading abusive scenarios in a positive way. Murder will never be endorsed in real life, and you will always know whether or not someone has been killed. You may not know if you are in an abusive relationship especially if the media has always shown you the type of relationship you are in is "healthy" when it's really not I'm not going to get too real by pointing to any current events but I assure you that the legality of killing a person and morality thereof is still a huge topic of debate as to where the line is drawn. The justification or not of killing is a very salient topic and you could easily make the same arguments made about abuse in the books and relate them to the way killing is portrayed. Killing is not as cut and dry as to what is good killing and what is bad killing in society as one might think. If parents aren't the best at educating their kids, then the problem is the parents and that's what should be targeted rather than a symptom of this. As far as triggering goes, while this is true, one could also easily make that argument about almost anything. I know some people triggered by the mere death of cute animals like cats, they'd surely be triggered by the books too. Triggers are tragic and warning people about them is fine, but a warning isn't what's being discussed here as far as I can tell. Where I come from (UK) and without again going too much into real events, the legality of murder (at least in the way which I think you are alluding to) is a lot more cut and dry, which is where my understanding of the world and the perception of these books come from. It appears a lot of the differences between our views on this topic are laid out by cultural differences which makes me believe it'll be hard for either of us to reach a conclusion on the portrayal of murder in books. It's probably best we try not to use the morality of killing as an example here as it likely won't aid the discussion any further. Whilst targeting problematic parents could be a good idea and is absolutely a reasonable suggestion, in reality not every parent would listen to suggestions and not every parent will have a healthy relationship with their children. Some may even be abusive. Therefore I believe it is best that media takes at least some responsibility for not idolising harmful behaviours. I'm not saying these behaviours can not be shown, I feel as if they just don't need to be idolised. There really is no reason to portray abusive behaviours in a positive light, they absolutely can be portrayed in fiction, and I think it is important to write about topics like this, but there is no good reason for the narrative to excuse actions which can so often be hard to interpret the morality of for people in those situations. (I apologise if that made no sense I feel as if I went off on a tangent there !) Portraying toxic relationships in kids media can be good if it is condoned by the narrative, however in the case of Bramble and Squirrel the behaviour is romanticised by the books. Physical abuse is easier to identify and spot,as well as being more frequently talked about in media , but the negative impacts of emotional abuse are rarely touched on
|
|
|
Post by Saint Ambrosef on Apr 7, 2021 10:31:48 GMT -5
yeah i suppose the other question is how much moral responsibility falls on authors? obviously everyone in a community has some responsibility to be a good model for children they may influence or interact with, but i think people need to distinguish between the levels of blame. at a certain point, it's up to the parents to be policing what media their kids consume. authors and publishing firms can be clear in targeting certain aged audiences and write accordingly, but if 12yro kids are reading a young adult book and are not capable of the necessary moral criticism, that's nobody's fault but the parent(s). (not saying Warrior is YA, just a general thought)
|
|
foxstep
loves squirrelflight way too much
|
Post by foxstep on Apr 7, 2021 10:50:26 GMT -5
i still stand by my point that if a book is written for and targeted at children, the people working on it hold responsibility to make sure they are not spreading any harmful messages. you can't write something for children and then completely disregard the impact that your writing has on children. if they wanted to write about mature topics assuming the readers already know it's wrong, they should have aged up the reading level. but even so, it's generally wrong to portray abuse in a positive light as anyone who is in such a relationship or has been in one could possibly further question the reality of their situation.
i think media should be held accountable for normalizing many things not limited to but including the romanticizing of toxic relationships, racism/sexism/colorism, etc. media whether it's books, tv shows, or movies can heavily influence people's thought process and lifestyle choices more than people realize because media seems so trivial when it's actually not.
|
|
|
Post by 𝐛𝐥𝟒𝐜𝐤𝐬𝐨𝐥 on May 7, 2021 5:29:58 GMT -5
The only time were Squirrelflight was in the wrong was in Bramblestar's Storm. She was jealous, and acted a bit immature, but that didn't last long. Squirrelflight is 100% a victim. Can anybody please give me an example of something that Squirrelflight did what maked her 'not good for Bramblestar'. I can't think of a thing. Squirrelflight is absolutely a flawed character, but it's her personality. Bramblestar mentally abuses her. If he can't handle Squirrelflight's personality, he shouldn't be with her. Squirrelflight on the other hand is in a position that she can't get out of this relationship. If she does, Bramblestar will continue treating her badly, like in The New Prophecy. I don't see what Squirrelflight is doing wrong. Like I already said, if Bramblestar can't handle Squirrelflight's personality, he shouldn't be with her. And don't say that Squirrelflight can get out of this by breaking up with Bramblestar. Like I already said, she's done that before and he continued treating her badly after she broke up with him in The New Prophecy. Bramblestar is really disgusting.
|
|
|
Post by fishbreeze on May 7, 2021 7:46:16 GMT -5
The only time were Squirrelflight was in the wrong was in Bramblestar's Storm. She was jealous, and acted a bit immature, but that didn't last long. Squirrelflight is 100% a victim. Can anybody please give me an example of something that Squirrelflight did what maked her 'not good for Bramblestar'. I can't think of a thing. Squirrelflight is absolutely a flawed character, but it's her personality. Bramblestar mentally abuses her. If he can't handle Squirrelflight's personality, he shouldn't be with her. Squirrelflight on the other hand is in a position that she can't get out of this relationship. If she does, Bramblestar will continue treating her badly, like in The New Prophecy. I don't see what Squirrelflight is doing wrong. Like I already said, if Bramblestar can't handle Squirrelflight's personality, he shouldn't be with her. And don't say that Squirrelflight can get out of this by breaking up with Bramblestar. Like I already said, she's done that before and he continued treating her badly after she broke up with him in The New Prophecy. Bramblestar is really disgusting. Lying to Bramblestar about something as serious as children seems like a pretty shitty thing to do imo. You're asking why Bramblestar is still with Squirrelflight if he can't handle her personality, but why is she with him if she can't handle his?
|
|
|
Post by The One and Only Moongaze on May 7, 2021 8:53:02 GMT -5
Please do not necropost- instead, create a new thread.
|
|
|
Post by fishbreeze on May 7, 2021 9:13:45 GMT -5
Please do not necropost- instead, create a new thread. Is it a necro though? The last post was april 7th, it's now may 7th, that is a month, but not more than a month
|
|
|
Post by The One and Only Moongaze on May 7, 2021 9:37:15 GMT -5
Please do not necropost- instead, create a new thread. Is it a necro though? The last post was april 7th, it's now may 7th, that is a month, but not more than a month I mean, nobody has posted on it for ALMOST a month, so it means the thread is pretty much dead now. But ok.
|
|
|
Post by fishbreeze on May 7, 2021 9:59:24 GMT -5
Is it a necro though? The last post was april 7th, it's now may 7th, that is a month, but not more than a month I mean, nobody has posted on it for ALMOST a month, so it means the thread is pretty much dead now. But ok. You okay?
|
|
#a3c5e6
Name Colour
𝓣𝓲𝓷𝓾𝓿𝓲𝓮𝓵
Warrior Fanatic
All hail me, the flower-flushing queen of Prague
|
Post by 𝓣𝓲𝓷𝓾𝓿𝓲𝓮𝓵 on May 7, 2021 10:22:50 GMT -5
The only time were Squirrelflight was in the wrong was in Bramblestar's Storm. She was jealous, and acted a bit immature, but that didn't last long. Squirrelflight is 100% a victim. Can anybody please give me an example of something that Squirrelflight did what maked her 'not good for Bramblestar'. I can't think of a thing. Squirrelflight is absolutely a flawed character, but it's her personality. Bramblestar mentally abuses her. If he can't handle Squirrelflight's personality, he shouldn't be with her. Squirrelflight on the other hand is in a position that she can't get out of this relationship. If she does, Bramblestar will continue treating her badly, like in The New Prophecy. I don't see what Squirrelflight is doing wrong. Like I already said, if Bramblestar can't handle Squirrelflight's personality, he shouldn't be with her. And don't say that Squirrelflight can get out of this by breaking up with Bramblestar. Like I already said, she's done that before and he continued treating her badly after she broke up with him in The New Prophecy. Bramblestar is really disgusting. Lying to Bramblestar about something as serious as children seems like a pretty shitty thing to do imo. You're asking why Bramblestar is still with Squirrelflight if he can't handle her personality, but why is she with him if she can't handle his? Yeah, I don't like Bramblestar either, but it does feel like you're giving Squirrelflight just a bit too much credit, 𝐛𝐥𝟒𝐜𝐤𝐬𝐨𝐥. To add onto what Fish said, she was also in the wrong with the Hawkfrost situation, specifically how she handled it. Brambleclaw shouldn't have been so trusting (especially after Mudclaw's confession), but she also wasn't giving him much of a reason to be suspicious of him, either, at least before Mudclaw's rebellion (quite frankly, I still think she should've at the very least gotten Leafpool and maybe even Sorreltail to vouch for her). Just because she turned out to be right in the end doesn't mean she was also right in how she acted. The only time I was on her side was during SqH with the Sisters, and even then, she could've handled things better (ex: good intentions or not, she shouldn't have asked Sparkpelt to lie to the Clan about where she was going).
|
|
|
Post by 𝐛𝐥𝟒𝐜𝐤𝐬𝐨𝐥 on May 7, 2021 13:32:40 GMT -5
The only time were Squirrelflight was in the wrong was in Bramblestar's Storm. She was jealous, and acted a bit immature, but that didn't last long. Squirrelflight is 100% a victim. Can anybody please give me an example of something that Squirrelflight did what maked her 'not good for Bramblestar'. I can't think of a thing. Squirrelflight is absolutely a flawed character, but it's her personality. Bramblestar mentally abuses her. If he can't handle Squirrelflight's personality, he shouldn't be with her. Squirrelflight on the other hand is in a position that she can't get out of this relationship. If she does, Bramblestar will continue treating her badly, like in The New Prophecy. I don't see what Squirrelflight is doing wrong. Like I already said, if Bramblestar can't handle Squirrelflight's personality, he shouldn't be with her. And don't say that Squirrelflight can get out of this by breaking up with Bramblestar. Like I already said, she's done that before and he continued treating her badly after she broke up with him in The New Prophecy. Bramblestar is really disgusting. Lying to Bramblestar about something as serious as children seems like a pretty shitty thing to do imo. You're asking why Bramblestar is still with Squirrelflight if he can't handle her personality, but why is she with him if she can't handle his? She wanted to tell Bramblestar about it. She was guilt-tripped into taking the kits by StarClan. StarClan told her not to tell Bramblestar. She felt really guilty about it. And to answer your other question, the answer is pretty obvious. Bramblestar abuses Squirrelflight because he can't handle her behaviour or something. Which is not a justification. But, if he can't handle that, he shouldn't be with her. If Squirrelflight actually has the power to break up with him, everything would be a lot easier. Ofcourse, she CAN break up with him, but Bramblestar will do the same thing as he did in The New Prophecy. Squirrelflight will still be treated badly. The best is that Bramblestar breaks up with her after a good and mature conversation with her. We all know they are able to have these.
|
|
|
Post by 𝐛𝐥𝟒𝐜𝐤𝐬𝐨𝐥 on May 7, 2021 13:40:26 GMT -5
Lying to Bramblestar about something as serious as children seems like a pretty shitty thing to do imo. You're asking why Bramblestar is still with Squirrelflight if he can't handle her personality, but why is she with him if she can't handle his? Yeah, I don't like Bramblestar either, but it does feel like you're giving Squirrelflight just a bit too much credit, 𝐛𝐥𝟒𝐜𝐤𝐬𝐨𝐥 . To add onto what Fish said, she was also in the wrong with the Hawkfrost situation, specifically how she handled it. Brambleclaw shouldn't have been so trusting (especially after Mudclaw's confession), but she also wasn't giving him much of a reason to be suspicious of him, either, at least before Mudclaw's rebellion (quite frankly, I still think she should've at the very least gotten Leafpool and maybe even Sorreltail to vouch for her). Just because she turned out to be right in the end doesn't mean she was also right in how she acted. The only time I was on her side was during SqH with the Sisters, and even then, she could've handled things better (ex: good intentions or not, she shouldn't have asked Sparkpelt to lie to the Clan about where she was going). I absolutely agree with you. Only, it doesn't change the fact that Squirrelflight is a victim. No matter how annoying and immature her behaviour (and trust me, I will always defend Squirrelflight, but I will not defendthat she could be immature while trying to handle things. This makes her relatable for me, because I'm also like this. Which maybe is the main reason I like her, but that's off topic). It doesn't make Squirrelflight bad however. (I'm sorry if I will sound things like I'm the biggest Squirrelflight defender ever. Bramblestar just angers me so much, and online things will be interpreted different than what I actually mean.)
|
|
|
Post by Aqua on May 7, 2021 14:07:41 GMT -5
Lying to Bramblestar about something as serious as children seems like a pretty shitty thing to do imo. You're asking why Bramblestar is still with Squirrelflight if he can't handle her personality, but why is she with him if she can't handle his? She wanted to tell Bramblestar about it. She was guilt-tripped into taking the kits by StarClan. StarClan told her not to tell Bramblestar. She felt really guilty about it. And to answer your other question, the answer is pretty obvious. Bramblestar abuses Squirrelflight because he can't handle her behaviour or something. Which is not a justification. But, if he can't handle that, he shouldn't be with her. If Squirrelflight actually has the power to break up with him, everything would be a lot easier. Ofcourse, she CAN break up with him, but Bramblestar will do the same thing as he did in The New Prophecy. Squirrelflight will still be treated badly. The best is that Bramblestar breaks up with her after a good and mature conversation with her. We all know they are able to have these. Just because Squirrelflight felt bad for lying to him about something that's a pretty big deal (she allowed him to believe the kits weren't his, seriously, any normal person would be pissed about that) doesn't mean it's okay. She has a mouth and could've straight up told StarClan "I'm not lying to Brambleclaw!" And even if keeping the Three really was their only choice to protect them, Squirrelflight still should have been honest. Bramblestar was hurt when the truth came out because she didn't trust him. He even says that he'd help her if she told the truth. Look, Bramblestar and Squirrelflight are both crappy to each other. NO ONE is innocent in the relationship. However, Squirrelflight also treated him like garbage, and I feel like a lot of her fans forget that. I'm rereading TNP now, and Bramblestar doesn't even break up with her, in fact there's even times when he misses her and Squirrelflight doesn't want to speak to him because he wants to be with his own brother. Leafpool calls her out for this behavior, saying she isn't being fair to him, and even Ashfur of all cats defends Brambleclaw and says he's just being loyal to his brother and he's a good deputy. Squirrelflight doesn't listen. She continues to avoid him and then complains to Leafpool about why he isn't talking to her, but seriously? I can't entirely blame the guy. She's not even letting Bramblestar talk to her when he clearly wants to be with her, and dismissing everything he does just because he's spending time with Hawkfrost. Squirrelflight constantly treated him like shit in TNP because she acts entitled about Hawkfrost and yet she has no proof of that. We as the readers know she's right because we read that for ourselves, but Brambleclaw didn't see the evidence, Leafpool didn't either, and to Brambleclaw, she's being unfair to Hawkfrost over something a WindClan warrior they don't even know, said. Bramblestar is going to trust his brother over a WindClan cat; it's natural for one sibling to pick their other sibling over someone they don't know. Brambleclaw may have been stupid a few times, but I really can't blame him. There was no actual evidence for Squirrelflight's accusations, and because there's no evidence, she came off as an asshole, and the way how she treated him about it and constantly picked fights over it with him, I can't blame Bramblestar for being angry with her in TNP. I don't care if Squirrelflight is right about everything. It doesn't excuse her crappy actions. Bramblestar's own behavior doesn't make hers any better. They're both bad to each other, and each of them deserves someone better than what they have for each other now. Bramble honestly should have stayed broken up with her.
|
|
|
Post by 𝐛𝐥𝟒𝐜𝐤𝐬𝐨𝐥 on May 7, 2021 14:26:10 GMT -5
She wanted to tell Bramblestar about it. She was guilt-tripped into taking the kits by StarClan. StarClan told her not to tell Bramblestar. She felt really guilty about it. And to answer your other question, the answer is pretty obvious. Bramblestar abuses Squirrelflight because he can't handle her behaviour or something. Which is not a justification. But, if he can't handle that, he shouldn't be with her. If Squirrelflight actually has the power to break up with him, everything would be a lot easier. Ofcourse, she CAN break up with him, but Bramblestar will do the same thing as he did in The New Prophecy. Squirrelflight will still be treated badly. The best is that Bramblestar breaks up with her after a good and mature conversation with her. We all know they are able to have these. Just because Squirrelflight felt bad for lying to him about something that's a pretty big deal (she allowed him to believe the kits weren't his, seriously, any normal person would be pissed about that) doesn't mean it's okay. She has a mouth and could've straight up told StarClan "I'm not lying to Brambleclaw!" And even if keeping the Three really was their only choice to protect them, Squirrelflight still should have been honest. Bramblestar was hurt when the truth came out because she didn't trust him. He even says that he'd help her if she told the truth. Look, Bramblestar and Squirrelflight are both crappy to each other. NO ONE is innocent in the relationship. However, Squirrelflight also treated him like garbage, and I feel like a lot of her fans forget that. I'm rereading TNP now, and Bramblestar doesn't even break up with her, in fact there's even times when he misses her and Squirrelflight doesn't want to speak to him because he wants to be with his own brother. Leafpool calls her out for this behavior, saying she isn't being fair to him, and even Ashfur of all cats defends Brambleclaw and says he's just being loyal to his brother and he's a good deputy. Squirrelflight doesn't listen. She continues to avoid him and then complains to Leafpool about why he isn't talking to her, but seriously? I can't entirely blame the guy. She's not even letting Bramblestar talk to her when he clearly wants to be with her, and dismissing everything he does just because he's spending time with Hawkfrost. Squirrelflight constantly treated him like shit in TNP because she acts entitled about Hawkfrost and yet she has no proof of that. We as the readers know she's right because we read that for ourselves, but Brambleclaw didn't see the evidence, Leafpool didn't either, and to Brambleclaw, she's being unfair to Hawkfrost over something a WindClan warrior they don't even know, said. Bramblestar is going to trust his brother over a WindClan cat; it's natural for one sibling to pick their other sibling over someone they don't know. Brambleclaw may have been stupid a few times, but I really can't blame him. There was no actual evidence for Squirrelflight's accusations, and because there's no evidence, she came off as an asshole, and the way how she treated him about it and constantly picked fights over it with him, I can't blame Bramblestar for being angry with her in TNP. I don't care if Squirrelflight is right about everything. It doesn't excuse her crappy actions. Bramblestar's own behavior doesn't make hers any better. They're both bad to each other, and each of them deserves someone better than what they have for each other now. Bramble honestly should have stayed broken up with her. For me, I'm mainly talking about Squirrelflight's Hope. It's a while ago I read The New Prophecy, so I may have forgotten a lot of things, so I'm just gonna answer the part of your message about Power of Three and Omen of the Stars. That Bramblestar was hurt didn't mean it was okay to give her the cold shoulder and ignore her for a whole year. Also, the fact that I say that Squirrelflight is a victim, does not mean that I say that she's entirely innocent. I also agree with your last two sentences. They are in a bad relationship, and they should have never got back together. I am not a big fan of arguing, so I'm trying to point out that I also agree with you, even though our opinion is still a little bit different. I do not want this to get in a very heated discussion. My message may have been giving off the wrong idea, that Squirrelflight is 100% innocent. I didn't mean this.
|
|
|
Post by Aqua on May 7, 2021 14:43:26 GMT -5
Just because Squirrelflight felt bad for lying to him about something that's a pretty big deal (she allowed him to believe the kits weren't his, seriously, any normal person would be pissed about that) doesn't mean it's okay. She has a mouth and could've straight up told StarClan "I'm not lying to Brambleclaw!" And even if keeping the Three really was their only choice to protect them, Squirrelflight still should have been honest. Bramblestar was hurt when the truth came out because she didn't trust him. He even says that he'd help her if she told the truth. Look, Bramblestar and Squirrelflight are both crappy to each other. NO ONE is innocent in the relationship. However, Squirrelflight also treated him like garbage, and I feel like a lot of her fans forget that. I'm rereading TNP now, and Bramblestar doesn't even break up with her, in fact there's even times when he misses her and Squirrelflight doesn't want to speak to him because he wants to be with his own brother. Leafpool calls her out for this behavior, saying she isn't being fair to him, and even Ashfur of all cats defends Brambleclaw and says he's just being loyal to his brother and he's a good deputy. Squirrelflight doesn't listen. She continues to avoid him and then complains to Leafpool about why he isn't talking to her, but seriously? I can't entirely blame the guy. She's not even letting Bramblestar talk to her when he clearly wants to be with her, and dismissing everything he does just because he's spending time with Hawkfrost. Squirrelflight constantly treated him like shit in TNP because she acts entitled about Hawkfrost and yet she has no proof of that. We as the readers know she's right because we read that for ourselves, but Brambleclaw didn't see the evidence, Leafpool didn't either, and to Brambleclaw, she's being unfair to Hawkfrost over something a WindClan warrior they don't even know, said. Bramblestar is going to trust his brother over a WindClan cat; it's natural for one sibling to pick their other sibling over someone they don't know. Brambleclaw may have been stupid a few times, but I really can't blame him. There was no actual evidence for Squirrelflight's accusations, and because there's no evidence, she came off as an asshole, and the way how she treated him about it and constantly picked fights over it with him, I can't blame Bramblestar for being angry with her in TNP. I don't care if Squirrelflight is right about everything. It doesn't excuse her crappy actions. Bramblestar's own behavior doesn't make hers any better. They're both bad to each other, and each of them deserves someone better than what they have for each other now. Bramble honestly should have stayed broken up with her. For me, I'm mainly talking about Squirrelflight's Hope. It's a while ago I read The New Prophecy, so I may have forgotten a lot of things, so I'm just gonna answer the part of your message about Power of Three and Omen of the Stars. That Bramblestar was hurt didn't mean it was okay to give her the cold shoulder and ignore her for a whole year. Also, the fact that I say that Squirrelflight is a victim, does not mean that I say that she's entirely innocent. I also agree with your last two sentences. They are in a bad relationship, and they should have never got back together. I am not a big fan of arguing, so I'm trying to point out that I also agree with you, even though our opinion is still a little bit different. I do not want this to get in a very heated discussion. My message may have been giving off the wrong idea, that Squirrelflight is 100% innocent. I didn't mean this. When someone lies to you, and hurts you a lot, and you basically cut them off, you don't owe them anything. Squirrelflight literally betrayed him. Bramblestar made it clear he cut her out of his life after the truth came out. And that's perfectly fine. I don't think anyone would want to stay with someone who constantly lies to them about something as big as her own kids. The lie alone destroyed his daughter's life. And I'm not trying to be mean or argue with you myself, but I'm tired of her fans (not you specifically) acting like she's innocent when she's not. They're both bad for each other but a lot of people trash Bramblestar because they like Squirrelflight. It's all fandom bias.
|
|
|
Post by 𝐛𝐥𝟒𝐜𝐤𝐬𝐨𝐥 on May 7, 2021 16:03:55 GMT -5
For me, I'm mainly talking about Squirrelflight's Hope. It's a while ago I read The New Prophecy, so I may have forgotten a lot of things, so I'm just gonna answer the part of your message about Power of Three and Omen of the Stars. That Bramblestar was hurt didn't mean it was okay to give her the cold shoulder and ignore her for a whole year. Also, the fact that I say that Squirrelflight is a victim, does not mean that I say that she's entirely innocent. I also agree with your last two sentences. They are in a bad relationship, and they should have never got back together. I am not a big fan of arguing, so I'm trying to point out that I also agree with you, even though our opinion is still a little bit different. I do not want this to get in a very heated discussion. My message may have been giving off the wrong idea, that Squirrelflight is 100% innocent. I didn't mean this. When someone lies to you, and hurts you a lot, and you basically cut them off, you don't owe them anything. Squirrelflight literally betrayed him. Bramblestar made it clear he cut her out of his life after the truth came out. And that's perfectly fine. I don't think anyone would want to stay with someone who constantly lies to them about something as big as her own kids. The lie alone destroyed his daughter's life. And I'm not trying to be mean or argue with you myself, but I'm tired of her fans (not you specifically) acting like she's innocent when she's not. They're both bad for each other but a lot of people trash Bramblestar because they like Squirrelflight. It's all fandom bias. I absolutely didn't mean it like that. I understand you, and I respect your opinion.
|
|
Asexual
#07B04C
star_black.png
Name Colour
Ṣanɗypaw™
The Shiny User
🎵Guess that's just the way it goes, easy come, easy go🎵
|
Post by Ṣanɗypaw™ on May 7, 2021 17:10:44 GMT -5
For a moment I thought that this was a new thread. Is my memory really that bad?
|
|