It's Okay To Be Romance Repulsed.

🌈 It's okay to be romance repulsed.

💛 Being romance repulsed doesn't make you heartless or evil.

🐥 Romance is not the height of human connection, and romance repulsed people aren't "missing out."

🌻 We all have different ways of relating to people, especially those we care about, and that's okay.

☀️ Romance repulsed people don't need to change. They're perfect as they are.

⚡Romance repulsed people's boundaries, especially around romantic topics, deserve to and need to be respected.

🌙 Amatonormativity is an extremely prevelant construct in our society, and it hurts those who are romance repulsed.

⭐ Romance repulsed people are important members of the LGBTQ+ community, and deserve much more recognition than they receive.

🍋 Romance repulsed people are valid no matter their orientation, whether they're aro, demiro, grayro, apothiro, or any other orientation.

🌈 Having pride is for romance repulsed people too, and it's important to support and uplift the pride of romance repulsed people.

I don’t know why several people I have seen playing Mafia DE make comments about Tommy being a bad liar. He isn’t.

Remember that he lied to people on multiple occasions, including Don Salieri, and no one called him on it. Are you going to tell me that Tommy telling the Don that the Collettis are dead wasn’t one of the riskiest lies he could have told (considering that Salieri had to be looking for the rat at the point).

Tommy is only a bad liar to Sarah (one would hope so; she’s his wife). She’s seen him at his most vulnerable times, so he knows she’ll see through him. Thus, he increases compensating behavior to appear casual. It doesn’t help that he’s convinced they are in danger now and is anxious/scared for the lives of those he cares for. I’m pointing out the beginning of the Death of Art because that’s the scene where most people start declaring it.

Tommy seems pretty capable the occasional times he manipulates/threatens people (even Det. Norman), but is also utterly useless at flirting with Sarah. She exposes his squishy inner bits that are still convinced he’s just a normal guy and a cabbie and I love it.

I’m not sorry (but I am; but I’m not). 

Tommy’s POV time

The Negative Character Arc of Vito Scaletta Part 1: Introduction

Alright. So I said I’d do this in the tags of the last character essay and apparently right now, even though I’m not mentally in a place to write fiction I am to write various character analyses. Probably because I can do this during my five seconds of peace at work and easily put it down. On with the show.

In my last character essay, I described the negative character arc of Ennio Salieri in Mafia: Definitive Edition. This time, for no real reason other than I want to, I will do the same for Vito Scaletta. For this one, I’m going to structure it a bit differently. Instead of listing out the events of the story and putting them in each section, I will talk in broad strokes (acts, turning points, etc) because, unlike Salieri, Vito is the main character. There’s just too much to look at for the former approach.

Quick recap or refresher for those that didn’t read the last essay and don’t know anything about negative character arcs in writing. A negative arc is one where the character ends the story in a worse place than where they started. This does not mean the character turns evil or dies, etc. (even though that is what often happens), simply that the place the story ends on for them leaves them unhappy/worse off in some way, etc. I think some of the most famous examples are Nick from the Great Gatsby and Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader from Star Wars, and Javert from Les Miserable. A negative character arc is based on two central ideas: the lie and the truth. Now, another way to put this is the character’s belief which limits them in some fashion vs the reality of the situation that they do not comprehend (oftentimes this can be put into wants vs. needs, but that does not neatly line up). There are three basic negative character arcs: the Disillusionment (Nick and Javert), the Fall (Salieri), and the Corruption (Anakin/Vader).

Vito Scaletta is a beautiful example of the Disillusionment arc, which is made up of three parts: Character Believes Lie, Overcomes Lie, New Truth is Tragic. It helps his character follows three act structure of this particular type of arc very well (which, by the way, does not neatly line up with the three parts listed above, most of that actually occurs in the third act). Part of what makes his story so interesting is that his disillusionment arc starts off as disillusionment with the Lie of another character: his father. This particular paragraph is a bit of side step, but it is important to what happens before I go into the three act structure proper. Vito Scaletta’s father, from what we know, was a man that came to the U.S. with a dream and the idea that his family could find something better there. He was a working man that turned to alcohol for comfort and drank what little money he could make away and then borrowed plenty before dying. We can see what kind of Lie that Mr. Scaletta believed in the way that Vito’s mother (and to a much smaller extent Frankie) both encourage Vito to work hard just like his father and that, if he does, everything will be alright. That’s the lie that creates Vito’s own: that if you work hard, everything will be alright. 

This is important due to an idea that I didn’t address in the Salieri essay: The Normal World. The Normal World in a negative character arc is the way the world (for the character) is supposed to work outside of the story (the Adventure World being the world of the story). The distinction between the two is not necessarily relevant here, but The Normal World is a huge part of Vito’s Lie, which can be summed up in a beautiful simple quote from Joe: “The working man’s a sucker, that’s for damn sure.” This is Vito’s normal world: the working man is a sucker. They fail, they don’t make money, they don’t have power, they aren’t anybody. This is further pushed by Don Carlo when Vito sees him stop a battle in Italy. Don Carlo has power, influence, he is someone, which is exactly what Vito wants to be. This attraction to influence and rejection of... not hard work but staying within the system is what eventually leads him to take on Leo Galante as a father figure, but I digress. The Normal World for Vito is one where those within the system only end up at the whims of those with power over them and influence, power, and money are the only ways to achieve any sort of worth and/or success. Vito’s Lie is that, because these things are required for success, he needs to have them to be happy... and he won’t get them by abiding the law.

As I mentioned previously, I will be discussing the rest of this story following the traditional three act structure of a Disillusionment negative character arc, so buckle up. This is going to be a stupid long ‘essay’, so I’m going to break it up into four parts: this introduction and each of the three acts. This is purely so a person can come back to a part later if they want to. I’m going to post each of the three acts over the course of the next few days (one per day), so I do hope you enjoy.

Ever get a weird AU idea that makes no sense.

Old man Tommy and Sarah have the ghosts of Paulie and Sam living in their house (both haunting Tommy) and get to navigate weird domestic life with two dead friends living under their roof.

Then Vito and Joe come to kill Tommy and get smacked around with Joe’s  floating shotgun. Conversation happens and the Angelos run away with Joe and Vito since clearly protective custody apparently mean nothing if these two got close and now weird domestic life (with their own children might I add) also includes two adoptive sons (and their ghost friend Henry).

Sorry for the lack of update on eating alone. I know it’s been a few weeks. I’ve just not being doing well headspace wise (I am receiving help, it’s just not fixing stuff; you know how it is) and I am also overwhelmed by school now that it’s finals season. I promise I’ll get back to it