The Deaths in Endgame - Part 2

Sorry for the long wait for part 2 of this post. I had a really crazy week last week.

Anyway, I'm back. First, I want to share something about last post's topic that I found after I made that post. Apparently, Hawkeye was the one who was originally going to die, but when visual effects producer Jen Underdahl saw that draft, she said, "Don't you take this away from her." Here's the link to the story about this.

I agree with what they say; it was right, storywise, for Natasha to fall but it would have been melodramatic for Clint to die.

But I digress. Today we're talking about Tony Stark.

I think this death was a major upset for viewers, but I have to say, I was not surprised and I think most viewers at least had an inkling that this was going to be Tony's last stand. I just think he's such a popular character that most fans weren't exactly happy to watch him die.

As for me, I wasn't exactly happy, but it was well-written and right for him to die, and so I was satisfied.

Here are my reasons.

If Natasha Romanoff's character arc can be defined as "redemption," Tony's is "selflessness." When we first meet him, he is the epitome of selfish. He's a rich playboy who doesn't think about what his weapons company does or who hurts because of it. Until he's forced to see firsthand.

From that point on, Tony's arc is all about becoming more and more selfless. But I argue that this transformation doesn't happen overnight. Which is realistic; patterns of behavior don't magically change. It takes work and time and paradigm shifts before that happens.

For many movies beyond Iron Man, Tony is still pretty selfish. I don't mean he's a bad person; I think a lot of his actions are motivated by how much he wants to help others. But those motivations are still, I think, centered in himself and how he feels and what he wants.

In Iron Man 2, Tony thinks he's dying (and he is) so he acts recklessly and pushes people away, because that's easier for him to do than straight-up tell people, especially Pepper, that he's dying. He takes the easy way out, despite that not being what would be best for them. It's coming in part from a place of love, but it's still an action that is easier for Tony, not for others.

This selfishness is even clearer in Age of Ultron and Civil War. Ultron only happens because Tony is scared, and because he feels scared, he believes he knows what's right for everyone else in the world and he needs to put a suit of armor around the world. Just so he isn't scared anymore. Yes, he has PTSD. The Avengers plot leads to us seeing that heavily in Iron Man 3.

But like I said, patterns of thought and behavior don't change overnight. Tony responds to his PTSD and fears by acting selfishly. By denying his team any knowledge of his plans just so they can't stop him or at least counsel him out of acting foolishly, by creating an evil robot with technology he didn't understand, by deciding that he knows best and everyone needs to go along with it.

There's a reason Scarlet Witch was grinning after she amped up those fears.

Tony's the same in Civil War: he's scared, and he believes he knows what's best. While we see Steve Rogers reconsider his point of view, Tony never does. And, interestingly, although Tony is on the side of the Accords (because, I think, he thinks he needs to be put in check), he consistently breaks them to 1) recruit a minor who, I remind you, does not sign the Accords, 2) join up with Captain America to storm a Siberian fortress, and 3) put General Ross on hold.

That last one may not be deliberately against the Accords, but considering that under the Accords, the Avengers are supposed to do as the governments say, it's definitely frowned on.

The whole movie shows Tony trying to do the right thing, but again and again breaking his own "code" because it's convenient for him, or else trying to force everyone else to join his side because he's convinced he's right.

At this point, I want to address the argument that Tony consistently is willing to sacrifice his life for the team. I agree, but I would also point out that in those situations it's not an inevitable sacrifice, and in many of these movies Tony is likely at a point where he doesn't really feel like he has much to lose by dying.

Which brings me to Endgame. In this movie, Tony gets married to Pepper and has a daughter. So, when the Avengers come to his door and say there's a chance they can fix everything, he says no.

Why? Tony has come out of the Snap with the woman he loves alive, and he has a daughter. He doesn't want to time travel and risk ruining his present. An understandable reason, but pretty selfish, especially when you consider what everyone else in the UNIVERSE has lost. Scott Lang actually calls him out on it, reminding him that he has lost people he cares about, and so have trillions of others.

I don't condemn Tony for being human; I think it makes him a really compelling character. But you have to admit, it's pretty selfish.

You see this highlighted when Tony comes to help, finally, after much deliberation and considering burying what he discovered about time travel (he wouldn't, and we know it, because he's a good guy at heart). When Tony arrives at Avengers HQ, he says his priorities: to get back what they lost, if they can, but he can't lose what he has now.

Contrast this with Natasha's "whatever it takes." Tony is not willing to do whatever it takes.

But then Natasha, the Avenger who is probably emotionally closer to Tony than anyone else, dies. Remember what I said: she's the one with the strongest ties to all of them.

I think this is where Tony starts to see the stakes in a new way. If Natasha died for this, and he doesn't go through with it "whatever it takes," then her death may have been for nothing. It's no longer a choice of "if we can"; they can no longer fail and say, "Oh, well, we took a good stab at it. Time to go home, everyone."

No. Natasha gave it everything she had. To give less now, and fail, would make her sacrifice meaningless.

So, fast forward to the end. Dr. Strange tells Tony that he can't yet tell him if this outcome is the one where they win. Then Thanos gets the stones again, and Tony looks over at Strange, who is holding up one finger.

This is it. This is the one.

I think it's at that point that Tony realizes why Strange didn't tell him earlier: they only win if Tony takes back the stones and uses them, which would absolutely kill him. If he does this, he is saving the universe but losing his wife and daughter, who are what he has to live for now.

But he does it.

 
In this moment, Tony is making a completely selfless sacrifice. He's finally doing "whatever it takes" to save the universe, knowing he won't see the good come from it. He's thinking about others first, putting them above himself, even though he's probably scared. He's letting Dr. Strange be the one who knows best, and he's listening instead of pushing through what's better for him at the time.

And that's why I liked this death, how it's written. We see how much Tony Stark has grown, and we see him complete the arc toward selflessness. We see the funeral and how many people care for him now, in contrast to where he started. The story ends, and it ends in a blaze of glory as is appropriate for Tony.

Tony's death also helps complete Steve's arc, which is the opposite of Tony's: toward more selfishness, toward finding a life outside of self-sacrifice. This movie does a great job of using the deaths to impact the other characters. Death is a weighty thing; it makes sense that it would make large ripples.

Anyway, that's it on Endgame. If you have comments, share them. Next week I'll be back with analysis of a more literary nature.

The Deaths in Endgame - Part 1

Okay, folks, if you read the title, you know there are Endgame spoilers in this post. Consider yourself doubly warned.

I've been sitting on this post for a little while but now the time has come! I want to talk about how Endgame uses character deaths well to end character arcs. Character death is a writing topic that isn't easy; characters should be killed to further story and character development, not to add shock value. Even when they add to the story, I think they should be seriously considered because characters will likely do what they can to avoid a death, just like real people will. Deaths should be inevitable and add to the story in some meaningful way.

If you've seen Endgame you know that 2 characters die: Natasha Romanoff and Tony Stark. These characters are beloved and lots of people are upset that they're gone. However, these deaths, in my opinion, close off the arcs of these two characters well and impact the other characters in the right ways to further the story.

Let's begin with Natasha.

 
If I had to pick a word to define Natasha Romanoff, aka Black Widow's, character arc, I'd say "redemption." In the first Avengers movie we hear her say, "I have red in my ledger," a few times over, both to Loki (who she is playing for information) and also to Clint (her best friend), so we can probably trust it as true. We know she has a dark past and Clint was sent to kill her, but "made a different call" and brought her in to work for SHIELD, leading to her becoming one of the good guys and finding a family in the Avengers.

Natasha becomes the Avenger that has the most, and closest, ties with the other Avengers. We see her befriend them all, being the confidante for the rest of the team. She's the one who's there at Peggy Carter's funeral just so Steve isn't alone, despite their dispute over the Sokovia Accords. (This will be important later, so remember it.)

Okay, let's fast forward to Endgame. By this point, the Avengers have taken it hard, and Natasha especially. Five years after the snap, she's still depressed and doing everything she can to hold on to the little family she has left. She's looking for Clint, who has lost his family and gone off the deep end, murdering bad guys in vicious ways. (This is relevant later as well.) If there was any way to get everyone back, to fix this enormously red ledger (because Natasha may feel that this failure is only more she needs to correct), she'd take it. And when Scott Lang shows up with a solution, she jumps on it. In her words, she'll do "whatever it takes" to bring everyone back.

Let's talk about Clint now. He has become a dark version of himself. He's killed a lot of people, just like Natasha had, once. But she goes to find him, and bring him back, just like he did for her. The person saved becomes the savior and she goes further on Vormir.

Natasha dies on Vormir, getting the Soul Stone. We know, but the Avengers don't, that the price for the Soul Stone is a sacrifice of a person you love, a soul for a soul. In this way, it makes sense narratively that the team that goes for it is Natasha and Clint because as super SHIELD agents they're trained to handle dangerous and unknown situations and also because we the viewers would trust the love that Clint and Natasha have for each other more than we would the love between any of the other Avengers. (Their friendship is such that 1) Natasha is called "Aunt" by Clint's kids and 2) it survives Civil War when Tony and Steve's friendship did not.)

It makes sense that once there, once they know the price, Natasha would be the one to die. First, in an all-out fight between her and Clint, who do you think would win? And she does, choosing to be the one to sacrifice herself. Again, this makes sense narratively, since as the Avenger who has built up so many relationships with the others, her death would impact them way more than Clint's. But it also works thematically in her character arc.

Her arc is "redemption," remember? In Endgame, we have a Natasha who has moved away from her past to the point that she has found purpose and family in doing good. Then we have Clint, who has moved in the opposite direction. On Vormir, Clint is quick to write himself off as ruined. He's killed, he's done horrible things. He deserves to die, while Natasha deserves to live. (I acknowledge this truth; that's what adds meaning to what happens next.)

Natasha responds with, "I don't judge people by their worst mistakes." She's willing to sacrifice herself because it will save trillions, yes, but it also gives Clint another chance to redeem himself, like she did. To go back to his family and find purpose again.

If she's not judging Clint, if she finds value in him even after everything he did, that means that she has come to find value in herself.

Clint is her foil in this film; he's the one with red in his ledger, and he's ready to die as punishment to himself. He's ready for it, since he doesn't like what he has become. But if he had, his arc would have been halted: he is not at peace and is self-hating at this point. But Natasha has finished this arc; she doesn't hate herself anymore. She sees value in people who have made mistakes, including herself. Maybe seeing Clint fall (metaphorically) was enough for her to see herself in a new light and make the fall (literally) as proof as her own peace but also to "redeem" Clint from what she has also experienced.

I've heard criticism that this death was unnecessary, or that Natasha died just to further the character arcs of the other, male, Avengers. While I agree that it did affect the other characters (death is weighty, people! You can't have a death that doesn't affect the other characters. It doesn't work that way), I disagree that it was all about them. At the end of Natasha's arc, we have a Natasha who "doesn't judge people by their worst mistakes" and I think that applies to her, as well. She has found her value and purpose, and she is at peace with herself now. Her last words tell Clint to let go because "it's okay." She chose this, and it's very in character, given the circumstances, for her to choose this.

I think this death works because it marks the end of the character's arc, it exemplifies the theme of redemption (for herself, but now for someone else) that has defined Natasha's arc, and of course, because it's true to what the character would do when put in that situation. It also works narratively because of how it works on the other characters as well, but that's an idea for Part 2. This post is getting long.

So, see you next week, with a little more on dead people in Endgame.

Dealing With Insomnia

So, yes, the barrier of spoilers for Endgame is officially down today, but I believe in the 2-week rule, so I'll wait another week to give you my full review. I've seen the movie twice, so I have some thoughts to share pretty well developed. But again, I'll wait until over 2 weeks have passed to share spoilers.

I also saw Shazam! this week and I'm wondering why no one told me that it took place in Philadelphia. That's my home town (kind of; we're in the suburbs)! I'm so excited to have a superhero in Philly, so that was cool. It was a fun movie, and I really enjoyed it.

Due to these fun movies I watch too close to bedtime, and a host of other issues, including the wedding preparations and irregular sleeping schedules, I'm dealing with some bad insomnia lately. I have a problem with insomnia and when I'm stressed (doesn't matter if the stress is negative or positive), I don't sleep well. It ranges from falling asleep right away, to lying awake for an hour or two, to being awake until 3-4 in the morning with a necessary wake up time of 5:45 am.

It's awful and I don't always know what the reason for the sleeplessness is or if the night is going to be a hard one. Here's what a typical really bad night looks like:

- I get into bed, feeling tired.
- I start to drift off.
- Something wakes me, a sound or hunger pang or cold feet or just my stupid brain deciding to rouse itself.
- I try to ignore the problem or deal with it quickly and go back to sleep.
- NOPE! Totally awake now.
- Become very aware of sounds. I can hear everything.
- Become very aware of sensations. I can feel everything.
- Get annoyed that I can't sleep. Annoyance sticks around.
- Tell myself to relax. It doesn't work. Get more stressed.
- Try to distract my mind. Doesn't work. Get more stressed.
- Pray.
- Try to relax. Begin breathing and yoga techniques. Doesn't work. Get more stressed.
- Try hard not to check the clock. Check it anyway. Get more stressed.
- Give up. Decide no sleep is happening tonight.
- Finally sleep. For 2-3 hours.

Clearly, it's a stress issue. Sometimes I have some physical problems that need addressing, like hunger or being riled up (see note about Endgame) and I have to cool down before bed to relax. But most of the time I wake up waaaay too early and my mind decides we need to get up now. Which is not a good idea at 11 pm and so I start to stress.

I know it's not rational, but once I'm in that state my thoughts and feelings are completely separate. I can think myself relaxed, and believe it, but still feel annoyed and stressed until I just give up. Lately I've been getting a little better, but I'm still struggling. I'm hoping that once the stress lessens the sleep will come. And, I'm trying to trust in God and my body, that I'll get enough sleep. Not lots, but enough.

Anyway, I'm taking it into my hands a little more, as well. This is what I do now:

- Cool-down period before bed where I slow my breathing with meditation, yoga, or calming activities like reading.
- Some sleeping pills for the bad nights (I dislike using them because they leave me groggy the next day, so fortunately I don't need them more than once or twice a week).
- Never go to bed hungry, and wear socks in case of cold nights.
- Earplugs and eyemask.
- Calming music.
- When it gets hard, getting out of bed and sleeping on the floor, or putting my pillow at the foot of the bed to reverse position - trick myself into thinking sleeping circumstances are different and this is not the bed that causes so many problems.
- Get out of bed and read a little.
- "Reset." Get out of bed, walk to the bathroom, kitchen, etc., like I'm about to go to bed the first time, again.
- No naps during the day unless they cannot be avoided due to excessive exhaustion.
- No sugar or salt too close to bed.
- No caffeinated beverages. Ever.
- No stimulating discussions too close to bedtime.

I don't do all these things every night, but I do what I can when I think it's appropriate for the circumstances. If it's a physical thing keeping me up, I deal with it, or if it's me too energized for sleep, that may be the time for the sleeping aids, like pills. If it's loud, the earplugs. When I'm tired but starting to stress, I'll change position and that tends to work.

Sleep is important to me, because I know I'm a better person and can do more, think more clearly, when I'm rested. I also run better and feel healthier. Still, I know fixating on it too much can cause more stress, so I'm trying to find a good plan that works for me. If you have any advice on how to eliminate the stress and be more patient, I'm all ears.

We'll be back next week with the Endgame review, and I hope to soon have another installment of Mario Kart Monday shenanigans to tell you about.

Fandom Pains

Guys, I saw Endgame.

I am not commenting on it this week because spoilers and I DO NOT want to spoil it for you. So, that is all. Hear my thoughts in a couple weeks.

So, today, I'm taking on a subject that is a little hard to handle, at least for me: the fandom.

A fandom by popular parlance is the community of fans around a certain subject, usually books, movies, TV shows, etc. You have your Harry Potter fandom, your Marvel fandom, LOTR fandom, and on and on and on. The fandom often will talk about their subject of choice online and in person, make/buy merch for it, make/buy fan art, write/read fan fiction, and in general celebrate their favorite franchises of entertainment.

I like fandoms. I'm part of a few. I enjoy looking at fan art and while I avoid fan fiction (it's just not my thing), I think there are a lot of great things coming out of fandom culture. I love that fans are celebrating and interacting with the material they love, and exploring the nuances of plot, character, and setting in such a collaborative way. (And, as a writer, may the universe bestow my works with a fandom!)

That said, I also think that there are a lot of toxic things in the fandom culture because toxicity can arrive in any group of people because people are people no matter what they do or love. Any group can have its unhealthy aspects, and fandoms are no exception.

For example, the ideas that only certain people can be fans. Like, if you're a girl, you can't be a fan of video games, or the flip, that boys don't like that kind of book or show and therefore can't really be fans. Or, if you didn't come in at the start you're not a real fan, or if you don't know everything about the subject you're not a real fan. The idea that some people are "better" because of some arbitrary level of "fanness" and then the policing of that superiority is certainly something I'm not proud of in fandom circles.

Another thing that I take major issue with is part of the shipping culture. "Shipping" is a term that refers to the reader/viewer wanting two characters to be in a relationship. It can refer to platonic relationships, but more often than not it means romantic ones. It's pretty much the reader holding up to characters and saying, "Now kiss."

Everyone can be shipped. Everyone. I have ships of my own, and not all of them are canon (actually real in the book/show/movie I'm a fan of). I take issue when the ships are:

- Incestuous
- Actively abusive (in canon or in "fanon")
- CHILD pornography

I think fans who want illegal or harmful practices in the relationships they admire really need to...talk to someone, for many reasons.
 

It also might not be a bad rule of thumb that if the character themselves, in canon, would hate your ship, it's worth a rethink.

The last thing I find problematic in fandom culture, and this one is really open for debate, is the clash of canon and "fanon," the characterizations/plots/ideas/themes present in the canon of literature, and the characterizations/plots/ideas/themes that exist only in fan culture.

This is NOT me saying don't make your own AUs and headcanons and fan fiction of an existing work! Interact with the text, have fun. This is remembering what canon is and what, at the end of the day, never really happened, and not getting angry with the canon for not being fanon.

I see this online, a lot, and lately with the Star Wars movies. Fans get hyped and start developing ideas about what they want the franchise to do next, and make art and write fics and basically create their ideal version of the franchise, even rewriting characters and situations in the process and spreading these ideas until the fandom as a whole accepts them (remember, these are not canon), and then the next installment of the franchise comes out...and it does none of these things.

Don't get me wrong, I think The Last Jedi was a deeply flawed story, but because of what it was by itself (the Poe and Finn narrative was unnecessary). I think Solo was a very fun movie but many fans hated it because they had different ideas of who Han Solo is and how he should have been portrayed. From ideas that were not canon.

Okay, getting out of that one before I slip into the Extended Universe hole. I acknowledge that is real and entertaining. But I also acknowledge that when it comes to Solo, all of that is not canon.

But I see this in other fandoms. Some fans create this overhyped ideal in their minds, and get angry because they don't get what they want. Or they spend years rewriting characters to fit their own views and ideals better, and when the canon proves that those characters aren't those ideals, they get angry. Fans not accepting canon, when the canon is in fact well-written and true to theme and character, just because the fans didn't get the ending they wanted for their favorite characters or because they misread the story and didn't realize it, doesn't seem healthy to me.

Like I said, this one is open to debate. Fans should headcanon and have fun with the stories they love. And writers should be held to bad writing if they forget their characters and fail to write realistically. But I do struggle, as a writer, with fans who rewrite stories to their own specifications and then get upset when the writer, with their own vision and perspective, does something different. I just think a healthy understanding of "canon" and "fanon" may help, as well as the ability to take a piece of art's value for what it is by itself, and not what fans wanted it to be.

After all, if the story is not compelling enough, or the characters not interesting enough, or the setting not impressive enough, then why did you all become fans in the first place? Let the writers do their work, and do your own, but don't be upset if the writers decided to go in a different direction.

(If you have an idea for a great story, but the characters are acting out of character, related to canon, and the story would never happen, and the ships make no sense...may I suggest that you, as a writer, are actually creating original concepts and maybe should embrace that?)

Anyway, I love fandoms and the jokes and perspectives they bring to stories I love. I enjoy the fan art and the AUs that put the characters in new situations we don't get to see in the canon. (The Avengers at Disney World is one of my favorites.) But I'm given pause by a lot of the toxic mindsets and actions I see in fandoms that can rob the fandom of what gave it rise in the first place: the story fans love and the fun of interacting with it with other people who love it just as much.

I'd love to hear your thoughts on this, and may you and your fandoms thrive!