If there was one aspect (a certain character, a relationship, the plot of a season, etc.) of the 100 that you had control over (aside from Blarke), what would you choose and why? It can be something that's already happened in a previous season that you would change and replace with something else. Like, if you didn't like a certain storyline from a previous season or something. You can also pick a dead character and make it so they're alive.

bombshellsandbluebells answered:

One?!?! There are so many things I want to change, but since @mehmori mentioned my argument for this, I decided to focus on it. (I almost went with my “Luna should have become the commander” argument, but I’ll have to bring that up another time.)

a. Jasper should never have taken the chip in season 3.

We’re all aware of the issues in season 3, but for the most part, the ALIE plot and the second half of the season were done really well. With one glaring exception: Jasper taking the chip despite it contradicting literally everything about his character arc.

Here’s the thing, Jasper’s storyline is closely tied with the ALIE plot before the ALIE plot really kicks off or he even knows about the chip, because Jasper is doing to himself exactly what ALIE did to the people who took the chip: he was drinking himself into a stupor to try and forget the events of Mount Weather and Maya’s death and numb himself to the pain. He wasn’t grieving, he was trying to erase his pain completely. Everything in Jasper’s 3a storyline is foreshadowing what taking the chip would do to people.

Which makes it so interesting how Jasper responds once he actually comes in contact with the chip - once he actually has a real way to do exactly what he wanted to.

Jasper is around to watch Raven deal with the chip. He’s the one to point out that she forgets Finn. He’s the one to see how much it changes her. He’s the one to see how much she’s suffering when she tries to get ALIE out of her head, and he’s the one that jumps into hero mode to save her. Jasper being tied with Raven’s story allows him to actually witness the reality of what he was trying to do, and through those interactions, he realizes that despite his pain, he doesn’t want to forget those memories. He doesn’t want to numb himself to it and erase it like Raven did.

Jasper’s storyline was on a track of healing - the greatest thing he was struggling with wasn’t Maya’s death (though I believe Jasper thought it was), it was the trauma of the whole experience and his inability to save everyone like he believed he could. That’s why him being able to jump back into hero mode (like he always naturally does) was so important for him and so healing - he was able to save his friends and help save everyone after feeling like he had failed to do that. Jasper’s love for other people always outweighs his own grief and issues ~~until the abysmal writing of him in s4~~.

He was also on the track to healing because he was forced to confront the fact that forgetting and numbing yourself is not the healthy response to pain. The person who was most affected by ALIE might have been Raven, but I think the second person most tied to her was Jasper, because ALIE represented everything he had tried to do.

Keep reading

#hell yes #everything about this #the 100 #meta #Jasper Jordan

jewelleighanna

Anonymous asked:

Do you think Clarke could make a good politician in an AU or something?

Clarke has many natural qualities that would make for a good politician: intelligence, determination, passion, toughness, good instincts, goal-focused, takes responsibility, etc.Our Clarke - if suddenly thrown into our world - wouldn’t make a good politician. She lacks… tact, listening skills, likability, diplomacy (and the patience for political hoops). I think she just hasn’t learned that. She spent formative years 17-18 learning the grounder way: take leadership by force, make a show of strength, do things even if your constituents don’t want you to or even if it’s “illegal.” You don’t need to listen if you believe you have the answers: because it’s all about doing whatever it takes. Clarke learned leadership by distance and not by working with people. Because of that, she wasn’t a great ambassador in 3a in Polis, for example.

Clarke in AU would be trained very differently. She might start in student politics, go to a university, get a low-ranking job, which she would have to pay her dues for years before moving up. Never would she be told it was her birthright to lead and at every moment she would be held in check. I think it would result in a softer, more diplomatic Clarke. Still passionate and focused on achieving her goals but using political means to get there.

Actually, now that I think about, if Clarke had lived on the Ark for her whole life, she would have made for a good politician there. I think she would certainly have joined the council, where would have learned the parameters of politics. If she had come to earth at age 45, I could see her being more like Kane in her approaches. I mean, I think there are personality differences between Clarke and Kane as well, but if you consider their backgrounds, it works as an explanation for their differences in explaining themselves. Kane explains himself like a politician… like he is making a case for his point and perspective. Clarke doesn’t.The biggest question with Clarke is, would she WANT to be a politician? I think on the Ark, definitely, because there’s limited options of what she could do. She would be a doctor, but being on the council would give her the outlet she really craves: making a difference, changing laws, etc.

An AU with Clarke growing up in our world would have infinite options. There’s plenty of businesses and organizations who could give her that same outlet for making a change, for example, and she would be given more freedom and flexibility to choose her own way to be in charge. So… guess it depends on the AU whether politics is a good fit.

#the 100 #Clarke Griffin #meta

jewelleighanna

Percent likelihood of characters dying in season 5 of The 100

Who I think is most likely to die on The 100 Season 5, from least likely to most likely. I try to base this on possible character arcs and patterns from past seasons, but ultimately, this is a game of guesses and odds. What’s your bet? Unlikely: .1% - Clarke .2% - Bellamy 2% - Raven 2% - Monty 8% - Murphy

Neutral: 15% - Jackson 20% - Kane 20% - Madi 30% - Emori 35% - Niylah 40% - Zeke 40% - Indra 45% - Miller 50% - Ethan 50% - Harper 50% - Gaia

At risk: 40% - Abby 45% - Octavia 60% - Echo 70% - Charmaine 95% - Kara Cooper 95% - McCreary 100% - Jaha Unlikely: These characters are unlikely to die. I can only see it happening if one the actors wants to leave or there’s a crazy twist at the end of the season.

Neutral: If the writers need an impactful death (without going so far as a main character), it will be someone or more than one someone from this list. These are all guest stars whom the audience has grown attached to. The writers have no obligation to keep them (and actors have no obligation to stay), so there is always a higher risk for them dying. The only non guest star on this list is Kane (see my thoughts on him below).

Madi and Ethan In the neutral category but not for the same reasons as the rest, so I wanted to talk about these two in particular. I think Ethan is in danger; Madi less so. Here’s why: over the seasons we have gotten multiple leaders who have had a preteen/young teen in their care or under their mentorship (Anya, Lexa, Luna, Clarke, Octavia). Aside from Anya, the younger person hasn’t technically been their “second” nor has the relationship been strictly parent/child (the younger person is always half a generation or an average of 10 years younger than the older one). In some of the cases, there is a strong level of care, but the thing that ALL of them have in common is that involves the older person teaching the younger one. The fate of the younger person is tied to older person’s leadership and fall.

#the 100 #the 100 meta #Clarke Griffin #Octavia Blake #Kabby #meta

jewelleighanna

Anonymous asked:

But will she ever come back from her true neutral self though? I mean, from what we've seen I suspect this will be her arc this season. I just can't imagine how a person with so much trauma, who has adopted a certain ruthless, cynical and cutthroat way of living, someone who was isolated for 6 years, is going to be like "okay i'll be a good girl now because there's another way". I mean it can happen, and it probably will, but girl is gonna have to do A LOT of self-reflection.

That’s the question, isn’t it? I don’t see her returning to her season 1 self and on this show, “good guys/bad guys” are always relative because they are forced to make morally gray choices. That doesn’t mean there is never a right or wrong and that doesn’t mean characters can’t look for better ways. The latter is a quality essential for their survival. Every character who has gotten to the point where all they can do is kill and won’t adapt eventually lead their people to their deaths before being killed themselves (Cage Wallace, Charles Pike [nearly killed his people], Roan [everyone who fought in that conclave were leading their people to their deaths because they would rather have war than adapt]). Right now, Octavia is more in danger of following those paths, but this can be a warning for all characters. Even in 5.03, Clarke’s kill mentality led her people to danger (first Madi then spacekru), though Clarke tried to adapt when she had to. Anyway, they live in a world of less than 1500 people. Killing one another is not sustainable. Clarke is an adaptable person… I consider that one of her stronger attributes. So I’m not worried that Clarke can’t change or look for alternative paths. Now, the moral implications are much more difficult, and I’m not certain her viewpoint will change considering how long Clarke has been justifying herself and others. Possibly Madi will be the wake-up call if Clarke can realize what she is teaching (though she seemed unconcerned about letting Madi watch a man be spiked and used as bait to lead his people to the open to be slaughtered). So no, Clarke’s definitely not going to change her viewpoint overnight. I do think connections with people will help her – her friends and family to show her that they can have a society again…. and then people like Zeke to show that Eligius people aren’t just targets or threats but people too. But a slow process for sure.

#the 100 #Clarke Griffin #meta

jewelleighanna

Anonymous asked:

I know you're not a huge Clarke fan, but you're doing such a good job at analyzing her. So I wanted to ask you what do you think of her development so far? I feel like she's much more ruthless and cutthroat than before

Clarke’s moral compass, for lack of a better term, is gone. She is true neutral. No good guys and no bad guys, kill or be killed, be like an animal with no conscience or guilt. She is a LONG ways from her stance in season 1, “there has to be another way” and “this isn’t who we are.” She’s embraced her new life and she doesn’t have a real reason to look for another way. She negotiated when Madi was in danger but that was an adaptive tactic. Kill or not kill… doesn’t make a moral difference to her.

I think this shift in philosophy isn’t new so much as been shifting this way through the seasons. She killed so much it’s worn her down. She spent a long time trying to justify her actions and now she accepted that this is what survival means. I think being isolated, outside of Madi, has increased this view. She hasn’t been around people to restore her faith in humanity and no one to challenge this viewpoint either.The exception, again, is Madi, which I find very interesting because Madi is very much where Clarke was in season 1, wanting a different way, believing what they are doing is wrong. Madi has an innocence and a conscience that Clarke has lost, which is a deliberate mirror between who Clarke has been and where she is now. However, Madi isn’t in much of a position to influence Clarke, because Clarke is so set believing she has to do whatever it takes and because Madi is a kid and more naive. On the other hand, Clarke is a position influence Madi. That influence is thematically interesting as well, because Clarke is guiding a person who is where she use to be. To what end? The fandom seems to be focusing almost inclusively on Clarke the “mom” but ignoring Clarke the “teacher.” I think the question we should be asking is Clarke going to be the protector or the corruptor? Or both? At what cost?

Another reason for Clarke being so cutthroat is she is in ultimate survival mode. Brought about by so much trauma, all Clarke can see is threats. Likely increased by isolation as well, people are targets not individuals. I think once she makes connections with people again, she will be jarred out of this. Both because she will have friends again to shift her view and because she will have backup for a security. What we got from her in episode 1 and 3 was very much survival in the moment.

My main reservation of her development (or plot really) is Clarke the “grounder.” Parallels at the cost of being true to a character? Those tactics she used didn’t work with grounders, so why would they work for her? Especially because she is outmatched. Like I said, I understand she is in survival mode but I haven’t decided if it really works for her as a character. That might be one of those things that works once we can watch the season as a whole.

Anyway, I think her season arc will be about her being a survivor and relearning the knowledge between good and evil (to borrow from the Eden story). Clarke has a long ways to go. Promos have suggested that Octavia and Charmaine are the “serpents” of the garden, but Clarke is her own serpent. Clarke has bought into the survivors lie, life is just surviving, there are no lines she won’t cross… and with tagline #NoHeroesJustSurvivors, this isn’t necessarily going to change right away. Still, one of the questions that hasn’t been answered is, can Clarke step back or has she crossed a point of no return? Clarke may remain ruthless and cutthroat but her heroic moment coming from choosing to walk away (leaving Eden permanently if they really lay on the symbolism). Less on the nose symbolically, Clarke has to learn to reconnect with people and with humanity and find more to live for. Considering where she started the season, I think it has to bookend with her being with her people and friends.

#the 100 #Clarke Griffin #meta

jewelleighanna

Anonymous asked:

If Kane is an INTJ, then i think it's safe to say Clarke is not. Because these two have some fundamental differences

I like your reasoning. If we look at the descriptions as a whole, then it’s easy to see how INTJ describes Kane, not Clarke.

I had to check my sources again to confirm what I am agreeing about, so I grabbed a few quotes about INTJ. Take a look:

“INTJs are natural leaders, although they usually choose to remain in the background until they see a real need to take over the lead.”

This describes Kane so much and Clarke not so much. Kane is the “background” leader, the thinker and planner, rarely the executor. Season 1 he was on the council and advisor to Jaha. Season 2 and 3, he was in the same position with Abby and with Clarke. He tried to be that with Pike (though Pike wouldn’t listen to anything he had to say). His arc got cut short in season 4, but I think the idea was that he would be on the council with Roan. “Advisor” isn’t all Kane can be, but being in the background as opposed to the spotlight gives him the flexibility to, as the rest of the quote says: “[scan] available ideas and concepts and weighing them against their current strategy.” That’s the part that matters to Kane, so he steps forward and back in leadership as needed.

Clarke on the other hand? She has never been in the background. At one time she said “do you think I care who is in charge?” but she does care. To quote her another time, “I’m in charge” – a position, I might add, she usurped. She continually takes the lead, rarely deferring to anyone. While she takes advice from others and sometimes will share equal partnership, she is always at the front of any mission. She believes if she doesn’t take charge no one will, and I could give countless examples of this and barely one when she steps back and lets someone else lead.

“Once [INTJs] have arrived at a conclusion they fully expect others to see the wisdom in their perceptions.”

Kane to a fault. When he lays something out in a way that makes logical sense to him, he fully expects people to see it, will call them out if they don’t, and ends up frustrated if they still can’t see it. When he sees himself as right, he is right, but he doesn’t know how else to explain it other than following his data and conclusions. – this was at a forefront of his communication both with Abby in season 1 and with Bellamy in season 3.

Clarke has never been shown expecting people to agree with her conclusions. She wants people to follow her commands. She has plans but they are far more sparotic and in the moment than Kane’s way of planning. “Perception” and “wisdom” are not the first words associated with Clarke, at least in the ways of her speech (she doesn’t give long drawn-out conclusions in the same way Kane does.).

“INTJ parents don’t just tell their children what to do, though – they prompt them, make them use their own minds so they arrive at the same conclusions, or better ones still.”

Remains to be seen what kind of “mom” Clarke will be, but this is Kane as a “dad” to a T. Kane “prompts” because he wants the kids to become better people on their own; he rarely commands (except that one time with Octavia….).

In general, Clarke is very direct – she tells people what to do and only offers an explanation if asked. For example, Monty wanted to help save Jasper in season 1. Only when he was being insistent did Clarke tell him her reason.

“INTJs are clueless in romance”

Seems applicable to Kane based on what we know. The quote continues: “[INTJs] are most attractive when they aren’t trying to be attractive, working in a familiar environment where their confidence and intelligence can be seen in action. Allowing others to come to them is often INTJs’ best strategy, and if they perceive a potential to the relationship, they will spare no effort in developing and maintaining stability and long-term satisfaction.”

Clarke with love is more… up front. She has certain safeguards with emotional intimacy but falls in love quickly and with social ease. Sadly, she hasn’t had a chance to have a long-term relationship (long-term in her case meaning more than a few days!). For now, I’m inclined to say that she has been hurt which affects how she is now but she isn’t clueless.

—-

SO WHAT DOES THIS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN KANE AND CLARKE AMOUNT TO? My thought? It’s introvert vs extrovert. And I’m not talking about socially at this moment, but their focus on the internal vs external world.Kane’s focus is internal (introverted). Clarke’s focus is external (extraverted). Or perhaps “focus” isn’t the right word? Process? Kane is slow in thought and slower to action because he is looking at the internal – all the what-ifs and will-this-work. Clarke is quick in thought and action because she is both reacting off that external world and desires action to make the external effect. Of course, Kane is affecting the external world, but process of getting to that point is first in theory. And Clarke is using thought and logic, as it affects the world directly.I don’t know how else to explain it. I thought about Kane as INTP, but I think that’s a little too impractical for him. He likes ideas but not endlessly without application.

Anyway, I encourage anyone to read up more on the types and see what they think:INTJ: X and X

ENTJ: X and X

#the 100 #Marcus Kane #Clarke Griffin #myer-briggs #meta

jewelleighanna

Anonymous asked:

So knowing C's abilities, strengths and weaknesses, in your point of view, in which domain she has the potential to excel in The 100 universe?

Well, that’s the question, isn’t it? The world of The 100 is always shifting, entire societies rise and fall each season. Where does domain fit in there? If Clarke had stayed on the Ark, she would have been a doctor. On the ground? Clarke is unique because she has a flexility about her - she’s more of a generalist than a specialist. In contract to Abby, for example, who is consistently a doctor even when her world shifts from under her. Rather than try to find one role for Clarke, I will say this: Clarke’s goal and arc each season has been about her saving people. As far back in the pilot episode, her first actions were to tell people to keep their seatbelt on and warn about opening the door. Her first big quest was her attempt to get to Mt Weather to prevent starvation. Then there’s the deeper meaning of Wanheda. Her first duality between being a death-bringer while also being a life-saver is her killing Atom but saving Jasper. And of course season 1 ended with the battle for their lives, pulling the lever to kill the army and save their lives. Clarke’s goal in season 2 was to save her people in Mt Weather, and she succeeded by killing the mountain people and saving her people’s lives. Both Season 3 and 4 was about her saving humanity. Interestingly, while she succeeded in saving everyone in season 3 (and killed no one to do so), season 4 brought her multiple failures and ultimately it was Octavia who was able to save people from all the clans. Clarke’s climax in the story was her choice to save her friends. That transitions nicely to where she is in season 5, just her and Madi.

The serpent trailer asks: who is Wanheda with no one to kill? The duality of that question is: who is Wanheda with no one to save?So Clarke’s domain? Assuming what? That Wonkru will come out of the bunker and say “Eden? Cool. Let’s live in peace!” Not going to happen but assume for a second. I think Clarke would be in a management / task management role. However, that is dictated by circumstance - her familiarity with Eden, plus her natural inclination for leadership makes her suitable for something like that. I don’t think she is ready to be leader of Wonkru (side note: neither was Octavia so it means nothing in terms of plot). Clarke isn’t ready because she hasn’t shown an ability to be able to connect with, anticipate, or even understand what the people want. Part of it is that she has spent little time with one group of people; she is always away. Also, her leadership style is task-based and often team-based (she leads the team in a goal).The question going into season 5 is about where she is in terms of balance. Being with Madi means she did have to understand someone’s day-to-day needs, but will all her of focus be just on the individual? Will it still be about saving people? From what? Themselves if they are determined to kill one another?So I do see Clarke’s domain being “leadership” in a vague way, but I don’t see that merely meaning sole person in charge. Leadership is fluid and in Clarke in particular is a flexible person. It’s because she has always been on the outside of a particular group that it has allowed her to go between various groups… and simultaneously destroy and save. Kind of a unique role to her world, and I’m not sure exactly how to classify it.

#the 100 #Clarke Griffin #meta #Octavia Blake

jewelleighanna

Anonymous asked:

Huh, so you think eagle represents Clarke?

In some ways. Like an eagle, Clarke is intelligent, powerful, and strong. She will swoop down on her prey - I mean her enemies - before they even know what happened. She can move fast and being in the air means she has a different view of the world with the ability see the big picture. That also means that she can be a little detached and can even be temped to fly away when she feels like the world is pulling her down.

If I had to pick a bird, an eagle is a good choice, but as a whole, I don’t know about Clarke being like a bird. Birds symbolize freedom, detachment… also, communication. In many cultures, they represent spirituality, being a bridge between the earth and the gods. Birds are associated with the element air, the element of ideas and the abstract. Some of that describes Clarke to some degree, but Clarke also very much lives on earth in the present. She isn’t about abstract thought and hypotheticals but about action and moving forward towards a specific goal.

Like so many things with Clarke, I find her difficult to pin down. I don’t know if I can pick only one animal that represents her. However, if hybrid animals are an option - and this may be too obvious - but I think a griffin represents Clarke really well. A griffin is part-eagle, which describes her for all the reasons said above, and part-lion. Lions represent courage and leadership, and like a lion, Clarke is fierce and bold and ready to defend her pride. The griffin, therefore, is a blending of the King of the Earth and the King of the Sky, which is applicable to Clarke. She has the strength of a lion but can attack from the skies, which gives her power and flexibility, making her formidable in wars. A griffin represents a perfect blending of intelligence, perspicacity, strength, and bravery.

#names are chosen for a reason right?#the 100 #Clarke Griffin #meta

jewelleighanna

Anonymous asked:

Who do you think is the most slytherin character in the show?

Depends on what you mean by “most slytherin.” Has overall more Slytherin traits than other characters? Has at least one Slytherin trait that is stronger than other characters? Has the fewest amount of traits from other houses? Would be the quickest character sorted into Slytherin? Slytherin personality? Slytherin desires? My subjective opinion?My first instinct is to say “Clarke”… but I think she has strong traits from a secondary house (Gryffindor) as well. She becomes more Slytherin as seasons go on, but if she were to be sorted in season one, I see the hat pausing to talk with her before sorting her. Not a hatstall, but a discussion about options because of her multi-facited traits and personality. The end sorting would be based on choice/desires/potential, which is how the hat sorts, but that can spark some debate on whether that is who a person is (even Harry wrestled with that question).So how could Clarke possibly be the most Slytherin? Well, because she has some Slytherin traits that are stronger than any other character on the show (and would rival the strongest of any show ever). Those traits are determination and willing to do whatever it takes to achieve her goals. And so much WHATEVER IT TAKES. She will do anything. She will tell herself that she had no choice in order to do it, but no matter what she will pull that trigger (or lever as it usually goes). Her resources can include cunning and manipulation… and it can include forwardness and quick-thinking, but always, always a relentless pursuit of a goal. In so doing, she quickly achieved “greatness.” If Salazar Slytherin were watching, he would quickly pick her out as great, someone who made her mark after only a month of being on the ground and earned a legendary title after only two months. On the other hand, personal “greatness” was never Clarke’s goal, which sets her apart from stereotypical Slytherin self-involvement, but nonetheless, Clarke has always had great ambitions - ambition for her people, which is different but also the very thing that makes her so “great.” I want to give a shout-out for Murphy (and Emori) for “most Slytherin” as well. They are more your average Slytherin, which I think deserves recognition too. Neither of them have strong secondary houses; they would be sorted into Slytherin fairly quickly. But their ambitions are small. Their “whatever it takes” is.. whatever it takes to survive. While it may seem small-scale in comparison to Clarke, self-preservation is a Slytherin trait (which Clarke can lack at times). Murphy has loyalty to himself and a few (Emori), and his actions are always based around what will benefit himself. So very Slytherin.

#the 100 #Clarke Griffin #John Murphy #hogwarts houses #meta

jewelleighanna reblogged

stonelandon

Just a reminder that you can still headcanon Monty (or any character) as ace even though he has had sex. Asexuality is a broad spectrum and ace people can still enjoy the act of having sex and being in relationships without feeling sexual attraction. A character being ace does not always mean they are excluded from having a romantic arc, nor does it mean that other characters can’t be sexually attracted to them.

jewelleighanna

Sure, a viewer can headcanon either way. I’m asexual, and personally, I can’t see Monty as asexual within the context of Monty/Harper. Not because they had sex but the how and why they did. They weren’t in a relationship, they kissed all of one time before jumping in bed together, and build-up to that was weak at best (though you could fill that in with off-screen interaction, but I failed to see Monty having romantic feelings for Harper [prior to having sex] based on what we saw on the show). And after sex, that immediately led to a relationship. Hard to headcanon that as asexual when that is exactly like every other allosexual relationship on the show. I still like to think of Monty as asexual but I have to ignore M/arper. And having to do that, just make me feel like having representation of asexual Monty is dead. Having people say I can still head canon him as asexual is true, but at the same time, it can be frustrating because it seems like people are saying that I should be content with that. Because there’s nothing to say that Monty can’t be asexual, then that means it’s good enough. All of this makes me (or representation of asexuality) feel invisible. Not just with Monty, but in multiple fandoms, there are fans says “X character is asexual. I head canon them as asexual, etc,” which is cool that asexuality is becoming noticed, but not cool because people are seeing asexuality as this invisible thing. By saying it is a spectrum, that asexual people have sex, that they have romantic relationships, it can mean anything, basically they are saying that there’s no visible difference between that and allosexual relationships. It’s complicated because that can be true, but at the same time, it’s a poor case as to why writers should even bother to write asexual characters or why viewers should care. In some cases, this can lead outright to misrepresentation -- asexuality being made into something it is not. Please know this isn’t about your comment so much, but a reply to more general things on the topic. I’ve headcanoned Monty as asexual since season 1. I wanted him to have a relationship, but I wanted it to be “different” in some way. Something that denotes him as asexual without having to do cartwheels around it to make it so (like saying that he had sex with Harper for the experience. “Enjoying the act of sex” doesn’t seem applicable in context if he never had sex before, and they weren’t in a relationship, so it wasn’t about that.)

Anyway, I’m on board with headcanoning Monty as gray-sexual or demisexual. I find that works better within the context of the show.

#the 100 #Monty Green #meta

jewelleighanna reblogged

sly2o

Anonymous asked:

do u think octavia will still be a leader by the end of s5 ?

sly2o answered:

Hi Anon,

This is SUCH an interesting question to me. So here comes some word vomit because I have a lot of thoughts that are all over the place…

1 - Leader of what?

Ok so I’m asking this question to your question rhetorically because leadership means a lot of things.

Something that IMO has to be part of the plot next year is the testing of whether Wonkru can/will hold after they are released from the bunker. Will they fraction? How will they fraction?

To be honest - with what we’re being told about her cruel rule… I don’t know if Wonkru will hold when they get out.

Some things I do think we’re going to see:

1 - a lot of people run away. They are going to flee to the desert and take their chances there - Wonkru be damned (hey, maybe this is where Shannon Kook’s character will come from?)

2 - those who are too timid to run away, may get coaxed into following Eligius - as I imagine they will have a hard time answering to anyone after finding out all their friends and family are dead when they return to a nuked earth 100 years after they left.

3 - at minimum an awkward interfacing between Octavia and the rogue element that is the reintroduction of Clarke/Madi, and Spacekru. Essentially Clarke is having her really big estranged family suddenly moving into her house… it’s gonna be… grating. Will Octavia get a roommate agreement on behalf of Wonkru with Clarke? Alright that’s phrased a bit flippantly… but I hope you get the idea.

2 - Born leaders vs Made Leaders

Ok Anon I don’t know how old you are and if you remember this… but back when Survivor first aired there was “the map curse”. This was where originally the survivors got dropped off, given a map, and told to find their camp and then get started.

What ended up happening, is someone would grab the map, inevitably get a bit lost because they are in unfamiliar territory/with few obvious markers, and then they would eventually arrive at their site in the middle of the night. Then, whichever tribe lost the immunity challenge would inevitably vote out the person who grabbed the map. The map curse was so bad that they started just dropping people off in the ocean next to the site because it was so damn predictable ~~and watching these poor fools bicker while lost in the forest wasn’t very good tv~~.

So here’s the thing - there are people who just - feel they need to grab the map. I can 100% tell you I’d be voted out in the first week in survivor because I would grab the map. I would have gone with Clarke to find Mt Weather in episode 1 (hell, I probably would have been her hype-man on lecturing everyone on ignoring flowers/walking faster to get there).

In The 100 - we saw Clarke literally grab the map in the first episode. We know she is a natural born leader. Octavia is someone who would not grab the map. I mean yeah, she went with Clarke to Mount Weather in ep 1 - but that was an act of rebellion.

Octavia is not a born leader - she is a made leader.

3 - Where do leaders go?

So after a certain popular character abruptly left the show in the middle of S3, I thought a lot about about the forced destiny of characters that are “in charge” in shows.

So what (eventually) happens to captains, commanders, and other people in charge?

1a - violent death (see: Mufasa, The Lion King)

1b - peaceful death (see: Odin, Thor: Ragnarok)

2 - running away, eventually they return to even the score or whatever their story is about and then they probably die. (see: Maximus, Gladiator)

3 - retirement, followed by an eventual attempt to return to power and then death. (see: Captain Kirk, Star Trek)

4 - they choose to go on a journey to prove something, and die (see: Boromir, LOTR)

5 - they choose to go on a journey to prove something, and actually succeed! (see: Aragorn, LOTR)

6 - they are forced to go on a journey, and actually succeed! (see: Harry Potter, Katniss Everdeen, Frodo Baggins)

Bringing this back to my question - in numbers 2 - 5, none of those characters really stopped being leaders even when they abandoned or left their post.

But the thing is… almost all those characters I listed above would fight over the map ~~and let’s be real Kirk would sabotage everyone into going where he wanted regardless of whether he got the map or not~~.

I say almost because the exception is category number 6. Katniss, Harry, and Frodo all got to finally retire. But they never wanted any sort of leadership to begin with. The map (or the ring, or the scar, or the mockingbird) was thrust upon each of them, and they thrust it back off as soon as their duty was done.

I’m going to need to… cut myself off from rambling more. But I think I might have stumbled upon more evidence to support my “writers hate ambition” hypothesis.

4 - so what about Octavia?

The big difference between Octavia and Katniss/Harry/Frodo - is that.. well this is the part where Octavia was supposed to retire. But instead she chose to hold onto the map given to her.

And this is weird to me.

Because let’s be clear - Octavia didn’t have to be the leader of Wonkru.

She didn’t have to make that speech at the start of 4x13. She could have said “Even though I won the conclave, I remember mom’s stories about how Julius Caesar died so I’m going to let someone else be in charge”.

So in conclusion… I have no idea?!? (oh god I’m sorry you read all of this to get such a crap answer…) But I just can’t think of someone else from media like her. As far as I can think of for past examples… I think we’re in uncharted territory.

I will say, that I strongly suspect she will run away or die this season… and I err towards the side of run away because I don’t think she will truly die until the show is over (but I could be wrong! this show likes to subvert tropes).

Thanks for your ask,Lynne

P.S. I’m sure I’m going to end up dreaming about this tonight so I might have some counter-examples for myself tomorrow. Don’t hold me to any of this!

P.P.S. I find it VERY interesting that The 100 has subverted some of the other “what happens to characters in charge?” examples I had (e.g. Jaha went on a quest to prove something - and then almost killed everyone, or Clarke ran away - but was literally dragged back kicking and screaming), but also I find that makes me even more confused about what will happen to Octavia.

jewelleighanna

Fascinating analysis.

Adding to what you said, I tend to see leadership as fluid. There aren’t two types of people being leaders and followers. I see leadership as a chain of command. Good leaders will be leaders but step up to whatever role is needed from them. The 100 is fairly good about showing this fluidity. Viewers sometimes act like there an “end” leadership goal but that not exactly the case on this show. Every season characters step up and back into various roles and entire societies began and end.

#the 100 #meta #Octavia Blake #Marcus Kane #Abby Griffin #Thelonious Jaha #leadership

jewelleighanna reblogged

bellamiblaeke

a little speculation....

so as everyone studies all the details of the bunker set of the 100 s5 cast/crew photo, this “New WONKRU symbol” is pretty interesting and if you look closely…

The symbol looks a lot like Lincoln’s back tattoo…

and those other lines are upside down or in the wonkru symbol they are the same ones as in the photo below except they are now pointed upwards….

and then the other additional lines look a little bit like the second dawn logo but just a little

so everyone already knows that Octavia is the “leader” of Wonkru and everyone remembers when she drew Lincoln’s tattoo symbol on her face in the battle, and there are a lot of things that are going to be going on with her again this season that are surprising and scary, so I am not sure what the purpose of this symbol represents for her or Wonkru. Is it in memory of Lincoln or there something more to this?

jewelleighanna

Ah, I love this! I think we need to remember that regardless of where O’s arc takes her this season, she didn’t found Wonkru with vile intentions and the idea behind it was largely inspired by Lincoln. So Lincoln being worked into the symbol makes sense, both as a way that O chooses to remember him and because Lincoln himself has become a symbol of peace, of being one people. Depending on where this season takes us, we may be able to read more into this symbol. First, while Octavia was inspired by Lincoln, she isn’t a peacemaker like he is, so we could see this as a sad memory that has now become faded/twisted. Speaking of twisted, his chest tattoo is featured upside down. In many cultures, turning a symbol upset down (inverted) is a sign of perversion. That seems very appropriate for Wonkru. Yes, bringing the people together was inspired by Lincoln, and it seems that O is holding them together so they are still “one,” but at what cost? Also, I was curious what the Wonkru symbol would look like if everything was featured upright, same as Lincoln’s tattoos. Here it is:

Looks like a person, right? A person being lifted upward. This means that the reverse could be seen as an upside down person. A person being... hung? Oppressed? This definitely confirms my perverse theory. Whatever is happening in that bunker is NOT what Lincoln would have wanted. The idea and concept of being one people is still there, but it’s a twisted view of it, taking certain parts of his ideals but using means he would never approve of. So the symbol being an perversion/inversion of Lincoln may be very appropriate and almost certainly deliberate.

#the 100 spoilers #Octavia Blake #Lincoln #symbols #meta

jewelleighanna

imruination

Anonymous asked:

So Octavia was a hero at the end of last season now she’s a villain?? I rlly can’t keep up with them tbh i’ll Get whiplash

imruination answered:

I totally understand your frustration.

One thing I often have to remind myself of when watching this show, is to follow my instincts. I like to just let myself feel, and if I find myself feeling a certain way than surely there’s a reason. Don’t doubt yourself because you feel like the show is telling you to feel something else.

You’ll remember we all thought we were supposed to see Finn as the good guy and hero as well, only to find out much late that that wasn’t necessarily the case. Finn being the hero was one layer of the story. (Perhaps because at one point that’s what Clarke believed?) But this other side of Finn- the one that cheated in Raven, the one who always thought he was right, the one who eventually snapped and massacred a village, he was 100% there too. The writers wrote that. That’s another layer of the story, and another layer of Finn, that’s just as important.

Similarly with L/xa, we have this version of the character who is a brave revolutionary, which is valid. (Again, perhaps largely what Clarke sees?) But we have another layer there that’s there too, one that’s violent and manipulative. All these parallels that are in the narrative between L/xa and Pike are 100% there. We didn’t pull them out of thin air, the writers put them there. Even if it’s subtext, a deeper part of the story, it’s there and we shouldn’t feel wrong for seeing it.

So yeah it’s the same thing for Octavia. Unless I’m mistaken Jason has never explicitly said she was a hero, who’s word is gospel. The only time we’re explicitly told that she is a hero, is from Madi (Clarke) in the sizzle reel, but Clarke is definitely an unreliable narrator here.

I think there’s definitely a dark side to this sort of epiphany she had at the end of season 4. She made up with Bellamy, created Wonkru, wanted to honor Lincoln, those are good things yes. But on the other side of things she hasn’t really healed, and I think the bloodlust is still there. She showed up to Polis simply because she wanted to fight people, and then ended up becoming leader. All the darkness we’ve seen from her all season is still there. She totally severed any connection she had to anyone besides Bellamy and Indra, didn’t make sure any of her friends were in the bunker, she told everyone else to figure things out.

She basically said, “Someone’s gotta die, you people deal with it.” That felt at least to me, not like someone who was empowered and finally finding herself in a healthy way, but someone who is cutting her ties and embracing this new version of herself that’s kind of of just been thrust upon her. She’s allowing herself to be who she thinks she has to be, which we now know is a dark and twisted version of a leader.

I think we forget because we don’t see it very often, that just like how people can have regressions while on a path to redemption, they can also have temporary progressions while on a downward spiral. We’ve seen it before with characters like Jasper and Luna. It can be frustrating, because it feels like it muddies the arc that we feel like the character should be going through, but I do think it’s pretty realistic. People are really freaking complicated okay.

Anyways… Long answer short, I think Octavia is still on the same descent she’s been on since Lincoln died. I think they’re crossing a line now that I’m not sure she can come back from. Every time I discuss my thoughts about Octavia in S5 with someone, I end up equating her to Morgana from Merlin. Which well… if you’ve seen the show you know how that turns out. I feel like she’s been on her way to “villaindom” for a while now, we’ll see if they are brave enough to do what I think they’re doing.

jewelleighanna

Great post! On “The 100,″ I would be hesitant to call anyone a “villain” as that implies a dichotomy of good and evil that’s not really a part of the show. But “The 100″ certainly has characters as antagonists and characters who do actions we as viewers disagree with. I think O will likely fall into both of those categories. If she is the antagonist of the season though, that’s setting up for her death - and if the writers want her around for season 6, then her actions will likely have a less impactful end for the finale, for good or less good. Then she can continue a downward spiral in season 6 (or possibly an upward spiral if she hasn’t passed the point of no return). For this season though, I’m guessing she will antagonistic but not the agonist. Sounds like she is being set-up for conflict for the bunker-kru and maybe for Bellamy, etc, but too soon to say what her overall arc will be. If it’s set-up right, then hopefully it won’t feel like whiplash. If the writing is “she’s evil! The end,” It might feel like whiplash, but that doesn’t really sound like the show, does it? (Okay, maybe with Pike a little. *grumbles* Show, keep the nuance). Anyway, The “darkness” in Octavia has been apparent since season 1, episode 1 - her first introduction in fact. Her first instinct when someone said one thing she perceived as an insult was a desire to punch them, to fight with them. It was through the connections that she made with others - Bellamy, the delinquents, Lincoln and later mentors like Indra and leaders like Kane, that she found a more positive outlet to direct her energy. At the end of season 1, she was taken away from the delinquents and has never found that level of belonging somewhere again. In season 2, she tried with the grounders and was ultimately rejected. I would actually mark the BEGINNING of season 3 as the start of her decent, not the moment when Lincoln died (though that was her breaking point). She was becoming increasingly isolated all of season 3, expressing dissatisfaction about living with the sky people (yet unable to live with the grounders because of Lincoln). Then Lincoln was in prison, she stopped trusting Bellamy, and even when she was back with the delinquents, it didn’t feel the same to her. When the moment came when Lincoln died, she had nothing else. She only barely held in her emotions enough to help save the day. She was definitely dark and ruthless in season 4. The ONLY reason viewers didn’t see her as worse than that is because she was on the side of our protagonists.

At the end of season 4, she was given the ultimate power - being leader of all of humanity. She was given this at the young age of 17, with no leadership experience and very little experience dealing with people, who has been shown to have violent tendencies and no concept of how to deal with her emotions. She’s a girl who has isolated herself and has almost no real connections with anyone and who has major issues with authority. HOW DO YOU THINK THIS IS GOING TO GO?

It’s not even (entirely) her fault when this goes bad. Honestly, I blame the grounders for putting her in charge. The conclave was supposed to be about winning the bunker, not being commander (but I think when O united the clans, they automatically saw her in that role). At least with Heda (as dumb as it is to put kids in charge), those kids were trained for years to prepare for the role AND had advisors to guide them. Octavia has advisors… if she wants them. This is a new role, not commander as such, so I think she will have a lot of influence on how the entire leadership structure will work going forward.

Octavia should have never been put in charge - she didn’t even want it but I think once she gets a taste of the power, it’s going to go to her head.

Yeah, I usually use the terms “hero” and “villain” with a grain of salt as this show likes to live in the grey.

I totally agree with you, Octavia has been struggling with darkness in some sense since he beginning. It’s all a matter of how it’s framed, and well, whose biased lense are we looking through? Because yeah, our Delinquents are biased therefore so are we.

So I think this isolation, this feeling of not belonging, made it easy for her to spiral the way she did. She’s always felt like this sort of outlier, so why not be a violent one? Why not let this bloodlust consume you when you feel like it’s all you have?

Um, I do think she is considered the commander in some sense now? People have asked Marie questions about it and she hasn’t corrected them. Obviously she’s not a nightblood, she wasn’t given the flame so the religious aspect isn’t there? Maybe some of the grounders are angry about that? I don’t know. But she won the conclave, she wears L/xa’s headpiece, that is very indicative of her status now.

But you’re 100% right she wasn’t prepared for this role, and she knew that. But the grounders have never picked their leaders based on who they thought was the most qualified, and able to do well. She won the conclave, so she’s in. That’s always been their tradition for better or worse. So yeah, she didn’t ask to be put in charge, but she took the position. Now she’s been a leader for 6 years, this is her identity now, and if she’s challenged I can’t imagine her just giving it up. I think she’s going to push right back.

jewelleighanna

In some sense she is the commander, I think? But I was going by what Indra said which is (paraphrasing): “the time of the commanders is over. Now it’s your time.” That may mainly be referring to the Flame. If Octavia can’t take the flame, then the concept of reincarnation and having the past commanders there to give advice is over. Even if O takes the title “commander,” she isn’t part of the succession of commanders. So she’s not commander in that sense. As such, I think the nature of her role as a leader could be flexible, but the issue was having the 11 grounder clans together already makes for an uneasy society. (There’s also Skaikru, but I actually think they will be the least likely to want to listen to her seeing that it was her choice that led so many of their people dying.) But most of the bunker is grounders, so if she didn’t step up as a commander-equivilant leader, all war would have probably broken out. It wouldn’t surprise me that, along with the role of commander, she also takes the title “commander” (though I think it would be cool if they come up with a new title all together). The grounders have their tradition, so I can see them calling her that because they don’t have any other concept of what her title could be. Also, from a writing standpoint, her title will depend on what her role is this season. If she takes on the brutality and sense of justice from the grounders, then “commander” is appropriate. A new title will occur when a new society is formed. I feel that could be true with Wonkru. After all, they are “Wonkru” and that of itself means they are a blend of societies. They are living similarly to they did in space. I think it would be fascinating if O took on leadership traits from both the sky people and the grounders. Give her something to wrestle with as well highlighting the mixed identity she has. That can be true regardless of title though.

#the 100 spoilers #muses #Octavia Blake #meta