a history of the hundred year war

There are a few canon facts to work with. Firstly, the last time the North acquired a Fire Nation uniform was 15 years into the war. Actually, that’s the only fact I have to work with. My own additions are that:

a) the North would have been able to seriously damage (or even defeat) the Fire Nation if they had wanted to – but something stopped them.

b) the Fire Nation was slipping into economic trouble on the homefront. I’ve never gone into it, but Sozin’s war time economy plan was failing, even when his armies were victorious. This is why Azulon would “put the war on hold” to get the Fire Nation back on solid footing.

Why did Sozin attack in the first place?

Invading the North was always a part of Sozin’s plan, but it was something for the distant future. His unexpected successes in the Earth Kingdom made him believe that the Fire Nation could take on any threat.

In 13 ASC Sozin ordered the bulk of the Fire Navy north in preparation for an invasion. It’s worth noting that while he (thought he) had the ships to launch an invasion, it’s debatable whether or not he had the ground troops to maintain one. It was a rash decision, perhaps even uncharacteristically so, and in the end the Fire Nation paid for it.

The defeat of the Fire Nation by 15 ASC

Things did not go well for the Fire Navy.

Fighting waterbenders on open sea is just about the worst thing you could do. The waterbenders used many small ships, each with a crew of less than a dozen. These ships were designed for speed and require no armament, as it was the waterbenders who’d jump off and waterbend their way around the enemy.

The reality is that a handful of waterbenders can disable a Fire Nation ship easily. With a crew of over 100 and virtually impenetrable metal hulls, how did the waterbenders do this? They froze the bottoms. Given enough time, the waterbenders could build up so much ice on the bottom of the ship that it’d capsize. They’d create icebergs with ships embedded in the bottom.

Two things on part of the Fire Nation allowed the situation to spiral out of control. Firstly, the naval brass that wasn’t about to get shamed by the Army. The Army had claimed glorious victories in the Earth Kingdom, and the Navy was desperate for its share. Secondly, the leadership at every level was unwilling to pass on accurate information about what was truly occurring. We have to remember that at this time, most of the Fire Nation was a conglomeration of forces of the technically not noble Nobles. Official titles had been abolished a few generations before, but the aristocracy still held wealth, social influence and armed power. This situation kind of worked out in the Earth Kingdom, but in the North it was an absolute disaster. The exact strategy that the Fire Nation used against the Earth Kingdom, of dividing and conquering the individual provinces, was adopted by the Northern Water Tribe. They divided and conquered the independent navies of the different Fire Nation lords – something they were able to do due to a distinct lack of communication amongst lords.

Sozin departed the Earth Kingdom around the middle of 14 ASC to personally take charge of the mess that was the northern campaign, but it soon became apparent to him that the Fire Navy simply couldn’t win. The economic situation in the Fire Nation was rapidly deteriorating and even the ambitious Sozin recognised that he had to cut his losses.

Why didn’t the North go on the offensive?

If the North was able to inflict massive damage to the Fire Navy with comparatively small losses, why didn’t the North keep fighting after the Fire Nation withdrew? The reason is this: for the NWT, it was a Pyrrhic victory. True, the Fire Nation’s losses far outweighed the North’s. But the North had a much smaller population, and their losses in a cultural context were unacceptably high. For hundreds of years, killing hadn’t been part of the repertoire for conflict. They considered that barbarity worthy of only the southern tribe. The main reason for this is that the NWT was a single unified tribe – conflict happened within the community, not between communities. So while the NWT’s losses were comparatively small, the social impact was far larger.

We both agree that Air Nomads as they are in the show is a bit wonky.

Where we might not agree is that I don’t really have plans to depict Buddhism accurately. I think Lion Turtles, active beings from another realm and bending would really change how humans think, and so religion would be very different in that world. And even if I did want to implant Buddhism into the world, I don’t really know enough about Buddhism to do that.

The Air Nomads in the show don’t satisfy my world at all. I’m reinventing the Air Nomads.

In my opinion, the Air Nomads in the show are constructed to be a punching bag for the Fire Nation. The other nations all have their own issues, but the Nomads are painted as some sort of wonderland to be ravaged by the Fire Nation. I want to give the Air Nomads are bit more character.

Basically, the Air Nomads we see in Aang’s flashbacks are just a small sub-section of the air nomad society. I make the distinction between “air nomads”, which is used to describe all peoples of what we might otherwise call the Air Nation, and the “air monks”, which is what we see in the show.

The air monks

The reason that all monks are airbenders is that all air nomad newborns are tested for their ability to airbend (via ancient talismans or whatever you want). If they are airbenders, they are taken by the Temple and raised as monks. This makes the Air Nomads quite odd in that we have a complete separation between benders and non-benders.

Now that I think about it, the show never really explains why the air monks are monks. The monastic life is associated with asceticism as a method for study and devotion. But what are the air monks doing this for? What is it that the monks study and are devoted to?

Tibetan monks and Guru Laghima’s “let go your earthly tether” are obviously Buddhist – but what does this mean in the context of the world of Avatar? One understanding might be that the end goal of enlightenment is to become a spirit, or something of that nature.

Whatever theology the air monks once followed, by the time we join the story through Aang and Roku’s flashbacks, the air monks are entirely focused on airbending. Aang is able to become a master purely through being a prodigy airbender. Individual, theological and perhaps even spiritual development are all secondary to the art of airbending in Aang’s time. What we have to remember is that the monks have apparently been around for over 8000 years. That their culture shifts with time is quite normal, and it’s quite possible that given enough time the monks would have swayed back to Laghima’s culture.

Air bison

Air bison are ridiculous. They can fly with very few caveats.. They can be domesticated. The air nomads had the potential to be commercial and military powerhouses. I can’t help but think of an alternate universe where “everything changed when the Air Nomads attacked”, and they come swooping in like the Mongols but if Mongols could fly.

The main problem I see with the air bison is that the other nations didn’t get in on this air bison business. There must be something that not only prevented the other nations from domesticating air bisons for themselves. Considering what we see in the show, it makes sense that only airbenders have the ability to truly tame and control the bison. Apparently anyone can fly one, but bison are only truly loyal to an airbender.

The air nomads

I guess it’s pretty straight forward. There were nomads, and they were of the “air nation”. Like most real-world nomadic societies, the air nomads were made up of many different and independent nomadic communities. There were pretty much no nomad airbenders because they all went to the prestigious Temple.

The natural question is: how did these nomads maintain a lifestyle in the mountains, especially since the nomads are unable to tame air bison. I think the answer is that air monks were attached to nomadic communities (similar to missionaries). These monks provided their bison to the nomads. It’s not clear to me if the nomads relied on some sort of scavenging or herding, but either way the reliance of the nomads on the monks makes for some interesting dynamics. For example, warring nomads would have to be conscious of the politics within the Temple in order to maintain the support of their attached monks (I don’t think the monks were always pacifist).

Although I don’t possess the skills of creative writing, sometimes I like to storyboard stuff out anyway. One of the ideas I’ve been entertaining is a grand antagonist for an aged Korra, or another Avatar.

The overall worldview is what I’ll call “Separationism”, and it’s the view that the physical world and spiritual world shouldn’t have anything to do with each other.

Korra and the Red Lotus had the same goal: to achieve a state of “balance”. Korra desires for the spirits and humans to coexist peacefully, while the Red Lotus desired for spirits and humans to coexist “organically”. Separationism is similar in that it supports a sort of balance, but it proposes that balance is one where the two worlds have nothing to do with each other.

Previous to thinking about the following ideas, I hadn’t read the Turf Wars comics. Now that I have, it seems like you could push the ideas explored there further into what I’m about to describe here. I doubt that it will, considering how dark it is.

History behind spirit world interaction

The canon is that the spirit portals were opened by Raava and Vaatu after their conflict boiled over into the physical world. Once the portals were open, spirits occupied much of the world and humans sought refuge on the lion turtles. Lion turtles temporarily granted humans bending in order to allow them to defend themselves when they ventured into the world for resources. Wan became the Avatar, closed the spirit portals and humans retained the ability of bending after they populated the world once more.

When we put it like this, we can see how one might view the spirit world as having interfered or even having invaded the physical world. The original state of the worlds was a state of separation, of non-interaction. The world of Avatar, with spirits and bending, is something of an accidental result of a brawl.

The stances of Separationism

We can build an understanding of Separationism by examining some of the different issues and stances that can be taken within Separationism. I think there are three main points of contention for the Separationist. These are the matters of: human interests in the face of spirit world encroachment, spirit interests in the face of human encroachment, and bending.

The human aspect is the focus on human wellbeing. One stance is some sort of human-supremacy, where the spirit world is detracting from the purity of physical existence. These people would say that it’s wrong that humanity is reliant on the spirit world for some things. Another stance is that the spirit world is in fact encroaching on the physical world, and that human existence is at the mercy of a power that could destroy it. Every 10,000 years the fate of humanity for the next 10,000 years is determined by a spirit fight. The two alternatives are: a. Raava wins and the world is normal with the added “benefits” of spirit influence; b. Vaatu wins and humans risk becoming extinct.

The spirit aspect usually involves some sort of reverence for the spirits. While Raava and the Lion Turtles might have no problems being involved in the physical world, there are spirits who don’t like the situation. I don’t think these spirits pull the strings (although this is an interesting thought), I think they’re like the patron spirits for the movement. There are all sorts of reasons humans might be concerned for the spirit world: from the practical concern about exploitation (as explored in Turf Wars and Kuvira’s energy weapon) to more theological concerns about the purity of the spirit world.

What is bending to the Separationist?

The Separationist view on bending needs its own section.

According to my mechanics of bending, benders are unique in that they have a connection to the spirit world that is present at birth. Spirits of high order use their methods to pick these humans, which from the human perspective is totally random. Spirits are the proxy of power for benders.

There are two views that I think a Separationist can take on benders. One is that the bender is an unfortunate human being, who is cursed to have an unnatural connection with the spirit world. The second is that benders are the unnatural things themselves. Either way, Separationism holds that bending was a mistake. I point out that this is different to Equalism. Equalism was/is a social movement, concerned with how humans can use a spirit-given power to mess with other humans. I suppose a Separationist might agree with an Equalist, but Separationism finds its foundation more in the clash of the physical and spirit world.

Why is this the point of contention on benders so important? Because it’s the one which can truly separate any group of Separationists. Separationists who thinks humans ought to be independent and free from the meddling influence of spirits, and those who believe that spirits are so sacred that humans shouldn’t directly interact with them might have radically different reasons for being Separationist, but their ultimate goal is the same. For pragmatic reasons they can work together. But if one group thinks benders are a blight to be destroyed, and another thinks they need to have their curse lifted… They can rarely fraternise.

I want to talk about Amon, equalism and how the show skipped and glossed over some deeper questions. This is different to an earlier post where I wrote about how the show didn’t really conclude the storyline of equalism as a social movement. Here, I want to examine the assumptions the show made in its presentation of Equalism. There were questions posed about the morality of bending, but these weren’t taken seriously.

I feel I should add that I don’t expect the show to go into this sort of thing. We can’t expect a Nickelodeon television show to explore moral intricacies – that’s our job as viewers.

Amon’s Equalism as two morally distinct actions

I feel it’s very easy to watch Amon bloodbend someone’s bending away execution style and think “this is wrong”. After all, this is what the characters in the show do. The bloodbent contorts in pain and slumps to the ground as sad music plays. But this conceals the two things which are actually occurring. One is the removal of the individual’s bending, the other is the painful and distressing manner in which it is removed. I think this distinction was lost on most viewers. What was actually wrong about Amon was that he forcibly removed bending from individuals who didn’t desire it in a process that caused suffering. The reason I point this out is that the show’s depiction of equalism essentially equated Amon’s act of removing bending with the concept of equalism itself – pretty bad. The badness of the action and the supposed badness of the concept were treated the same.

Okay, so what exactly am I trying to say? This: it is not immediately clear that removing bending from the world is an inherently bad thing. The reason I say “not immediately clear” is because of the show’s singular treatment of the dual two things. I imagine the show left most people with the impression that bending is valuable and should be kept, but upon closer inspection we realise the show said nothing about it at all.

To put all of this into perspective, I’ve got an alternative storyline for Amon’s Equalism. By creating an example where Amon isn’t comically villainous, the point might be clearer. Let’s say Amon discovered some way of preventing any newly born humans from having the ability of bending (something harmless like convincing a spirit to end bending). In a single generation, bending could be phased out of existence and all of this without physical suffering. If people tried to stop him, what are they fighting for? The practical importance of bending (lightning bending for electricity, earthbending for construction etc)? The cultural importance of bending? All of these things are merely status quo. Is this status quo more valuable than stopping oppression?

I think this is a serious question. If you’ve read my previous post on the Equalists, I think you’ll understand that it won’t be so easy to resolve the societal imbalances that exist because of bending. Sure, some of them are issues that can be fixed, but some don’t have a clear solution. Phasing out bending is pretty clear cut, so it’s at least worth considering.

Amon the bloodbender

The show assumed was that as viewers we should see Amon’s waterbending as hypocritical. Despite being an Equalist, he was a waterbender all along. The show was happy to let us think that no bender could simultaneously be an equalist. This made things simple, but unrealistic.

It requires a considerable degree of introspection for a bender to convince themselves that their own abilities are a part of a larger problem. It’s quite reasonable for a bender to be partially sympathetic to the equalists, and it’s even conceivable that some benders would voluntarily forfeit their bending.

I don’t think Amon’s accidental waterbending show should have obliterated his credibility. Okay, his fabricated story with the scar would have raised some eyebrows. But his real story of being abused by a bloodbending father is just as harrowing and just as good of a motive to support equalism.

The main issue I have with Amon being a bloodbender is that his equalist society is reliant on there being bloodbenders to take away bending. This is a terrible long term plan.

Is violence justified for a social revolution?

I’ll keep this short because there’s already plenty of real-world literature on the matter. At what point does violence become acceptable in order to prevent oppression? What degree of oppression necessitates violence in order to bring about change?

I think my explanation has been a bit dodgy: Ozai was against Azulon’s colonialism, but he was okay with a different sort of colonialism.

Ozai rejected Azulon’s (and Sozin’s) goal of a Fire Nation that encompassed the Earth Kingdom not just as colonies, but as a single unified nation. Ozai was more interested in exploiting the Earth Kingdom for resources and labour. I understand why these two aims might appear practically the same, but I haven’t yet delved into the after effects of the war.

What complicates things is that so much of the Earth Kingdom was destroyed. Basic infrastructure and much of the agricultural base of the Earth Kingdom was incinerated in the flames of war. In order for Azulon’s goal to be realised, the Fire Nation was pouring resources into the Earth Kingdom to bring it up to the standard of the Fire Nation. Ozai “dismantling the colonies” was more specifically withdrawing assets from regions that weren’t yet “functional”, and re-installing military control over functional regions (which had civilian governments of both Fire and Earth natives).

In other words, Ozai was quite happy to set up labour camps where they were easy to set up and leave the rest of the Earth Kingdom to descend into a trash heap. While Azulon has the foresight (or perhaps even compassion) to develop the Earth Kingdom, Ozai was only ever thinking about short term Fire Nation interests.

Ozai is important as a character in my history because he links it together with canon. He’s responsible for essentially destroying Azulon’s legacy (of a powerful Fire Nation and almost conquered Earth Kingdom) and creating a world in which the Fire Nation has no redeeming qualities.

According to the timeline, Ozai is crowned Firelord in 95ASC and within five years manages to create the anarchy that we see in the show. Five years isn’t quite enough time for the changes of Azulon’s reign to Ozai’s reign to take shape, so I need to rectify this timeline issue.

The canon story

Following General Iroh's withdrawal from his siege of Ba Sing Se as the result of the death of his son, Lu Ten, Ozai asked Azulon for the rights to the throne. Ozai argued that Iroh's lack of heir would mean the end of the lineage. Azulon, enraged by this, commands that Ozai "feel what it's like to lose a son". Ozai interpreted that this meant that if Zuko is killed then Ozai can receive rights to the throne. Ursa, Ozai's wife, discovered this and begged Ozai to not kill Zuko. She offered a poison to Ozai to do "whatever" with – implying that Ozai should poison Azulon. Azulon dies and the Fire Sages announce Azulon's supposed dying wish: that Ozai should ascend the throne.

I've never really liked this story for two major reasons. The first is that Ozai’s interpretation of Azulon’s “command” is super wonky. Azulon was outraged that Ozai would suggest something like this, but it’s not clear that Azulon meant either a) literally kill your only son or b) if you do kill your son I’ll give you the throne. The second reason is that the implied assassination of Azulon leading to Ozai’s ascension has no real explanation. Why would poisoning Azulon solve Ozai or Ursa’s problems?

The other issue is that my Azulon is a bit different to what we see in ATLA. Frankly, he’s not an evil supervillain. I might not call him virtuous, but he’s certainly principled and competent. If his desire was to see the conquest of the Earth Kingdom completed, then why would he be willing to hand over the reigns to Ozai? Whether or not Iroh was Azulon’s choice requires development of Iroh’s pre Ba Sing Se character. And even if Ozai was preferable, would the killing of Ozai’s only son be something that my Azulon would ask?

Azulon’s cognitive decline and power transition

My solution is the cognitive decline of Azulon. Whether he had a neurodegenerative disease, a mental health problem or just plain old aging is something to work out later. Whatever the reason, in his late 80s Azulon’s mental prowess began to decline. I wouldn’t say he was mad, but he was unstable in the way senility is unstable.

As Azulon declined, his grip on Fire Nation affairs weakened. The sharpness which allowed him to be the master of all affairs was gone. Ozai stepped up and as Azulon’s condition worsened Ozai’s role widened in scope. Iroh was off fighting in the far east, so Ozai was the one who naturally accrued power. Ozai begun the dismantling of the colonies even before he was Fire Lord, and Azulon wasn’t able to see what was happening. This resolves the five year timeline issue.

As a side note, this can also potentially feed into Iroh’s withdrawal from Ba Sing Se. Lu Ten was just the final straw for a man who could see that whatever the future held for the Fire Nation, it wasn’t bright.

Other necessary elements

There are other pieces of the puzzle that are worth mentioning, as Ozai couldn’t have become Fire Lord all on his own.

The most important was the existence of anti-Azulon and anti-globalist factions within the Fire Nation. There are all sorts of reasons that some group might be divided on the issue of whether or not the Fire Nation ought to be devoting resources to colonisation. For example, there was a group within the Navy that believed an oceanic expedition to the west would lead to discovery of new land – better to develop that for Fire Nation natives than to develop what was the Earth Kingdom. Of course, you can see why the Navy might have a vested interest in diverting resources away from the colonies on land. Ozai was certainly against development of the colonies, although I’m still not sure about his position on Azulon’s rule as a whole.

A key development that allowed the general public to accept Ozai was Iroh’s withdrawal from Ba Sing Se. The Fire Nation was on the cusp of total victory in a conflict that had spanned three generation. Iroh’s withdrawal was met with shame and ridicule, so Ozai’s rise was acceptable to the people at the time.

When people change ships, which ship do they move from and to where?

In 2012, aoinoue (now deactivated) made a comprehensive shipping analysis. In 2016, avatarsymbolism finds it and muses that they “wonder how many of respondents switched ships between the time they began shipping and the time this survey was made–and to what ship?”, going on to include a question about it in their survey made in the same year. In 2017, I find avatarsymbolism’s survey. In a thread of thought stretching back 5 years, I can finally bring you the results.

And honestly, it’s kinda underwhelming.

Primary ATLA F/M Ship by Original ATLA F/M Ship Considering we have the same item types on the x-axis and y-axis, I’ll explain what exactly is going on. Along the x-axis we have the original ships, and on the y-axis we have the primary ships. In other words, x-axis tells us what people used to ship, and the bars show us what they moved to.

I’ll cut to the chase: this chart is practically useless for the reason that we’ll see in the next chart.

Count of Primary ATLA F/M Ship by Original ATLA F/M Ship This chart contains the same information as the one above, but this time it indicates the raw count. For example, we can see that 40 Katara/Zuko shippers were originally Katara/Aang shippers.

As we can see, the vast majority of people are in the No answer category, which is essentially the “I didn’t have an original ship I moved from in the first place” category. This isn’t really surprising, considering 94% of respondents answered no to “In regards to your primary ship preference, did you used to prefer a different ship?”

The most common ship jumping is from Kataang to Zutara, which also shouldn’t be surprising as it’s a movement from the canon ship to the most popular non-canon ship. There are interesting questions to be asked: such as what’s the difference between people who moved from Zutara to Kataang and Zutara to Maiko, but there’s no way to delve into this with the current data.

In the end, this question couldn’t reveal anything interesting to us simply because there weren’t enough people surveyed who had changed their preference. If we assume the 94% figure is accurate, I estimate that a survey would need upwards of 5000 responses for a barebones overview of ship jumping.

I’ve thought about this before, and my answer is yes – but with some conditions.

The main thing is that I’d have to be sure there’s a payoff for my effort. It’d probably involve watching something new, coming to understand a fandom, formulating as many questions/problems as I can and then creating questions which can be used to explore them. Creating a survey for my purposes wouldn’t be just asking asking a bunch of questions, it’s formulating questions which are crafted to measure something we’re interested in. It’s a considerable amount of effort, so I’d only do it if I was confident that that the survey would yield usable data (ie. 1000+ responses).

And to be honest, I can’t be bothered ensuring that’ll happen myself. I’m not that interested in trying to peddle my wares to a fandom and its communities. Someone else would have to come to me and say “whattup I’ve got 1000+ people who are willing to do a survey that asks questions like ‘what is your age?’ and other personal-ish questions”.

There’s also the question of what fandom it’d be. Doctor Who wouldn’t be a good choice because it’s so big – it’d be surprising if a majority have seen everything. Avatar is good in that way, it’s short enough that everyone’s seen everything and there aren’t too many things that fade entirely from memory. I suppose music groups would be pretty interesting, although the prospect of listening through a whole catalogue from a genre that isn’t mine isn’t too enticing.

But yeah, if there looked like there was something interesting that could come out of it, I’d do it.

Is Kataang a Nice Guy ship? | Kataang vs Zutara

In a previous post, theadamantdaughter proposed that my understanding of Zutara could be applied to male preference for Kataang in relation to Nice Guys. I encourage you to read the previous post as this post will test and build on a lot of the ideas presented in that thread. In particular, my (perhaps misguided) definition of “self-insert” and then the rebranding as the word “relationality”.

I thought I wasn’t able to test their theory (whether proposed in earnest or not), but it turns out that I have data on romantic relationships. Let’s see if this can reveal anything to us.

Primary ATLA F/M Ship by “Have you ever been in a romantic relationship?” and Gender Notice that there might be an increase in Kataang preference in males who haven’t had romantic experience. It’s difficult to tell simply by looking if these two proportions are actually different or just the product of natural randomness. Normally, I’d say “we can’t know”, because there’s no pattern to compare it to. But, since the idea of Kataang being linked to Nice Guys was in my head, I noticed that the difference is larger than 10 percentage points. This is relatively large – perhaps large enough to be identified with a statistical test.

Using a contingency table (a type of statistical test), I’ve found that there is a significant difference between the two groups. If you’re familiar with the test, I found chi-square(df = 3, N = 195) = 4.00, p = .046. Good enough for me.

What this means is that we can be 95% confident that males who haven’t been in a romantic relationship actually do prefer Kataang more than males who have been in a romantic relationship. This statistical test makes no claim about why we see this difference, but merely that we are in fact seeing a difference. At this point, these results could be used to support a link between Nice Guys and Kataang. It’s prudent to do a bit more digging, so let’s take a look at another comparison.

Primary ATLA F/M Ship by Primary ATLA F/M Ship by “Have you ever been in a romantic relationship?” and Age and Gender A key observation in this chart is that the correlation of romantic experience to Kataang isn’t observed in males aged 18 and under.

We might understand this as indicating a relationship to Nice Guys. We can reason that “Nice Guys” (definition which is yet to be clarified) are going to be these males who haven’t been in a romantic relationship after becoming 19. We could then argue that <18 males who haven’t been in a relationship have no reason to adopt a Nice Guy viewpoint, which is why there isn’t a difference in Kataang preference. Hold this thought, as we’ll return to it later.

Speculation about why we see the pattern So now we have something that needs to be explained: that 19+ males who haven’t been in a romantic relationship tend to prefer Kataang more than those who have been in a relationship. We’ve approached the data with a hypothesis regarding Nice Guys, but it isn’t really a defined model. I think we have a general understanding of what it’s suggesting, but I want to get into the nitty gritty of what’s going on.

The basic idea is that if a male hasn’t been in a romantic relationship, then their views (particularly if they’re older) on romantic relationships are likely to be different to males who have. Of interest to us is the Nice Guy: a male who is frustrated because (as they see it) for some males it’s easy to enter into a relationship, while they themselves as “nice guys” haven’t been able to find a girl. Possible additions to this model of a Nice Guy include the view that females can be shallow, and that males can behave badly or disrespectfully in order to woo a female. While I think we can think that 19+ people (regardless of gender) who haven’t been in a romantic relationship could be frustrated with that situation, it’s not entirely clear to me that these additions of how they might view other people is necessarily a part of the Nice Guy. It’s hard to separate the meme from reality.

In the context of Kataang, Aang could be seen as a nice guy getting the girl in the end. Using my understanding of relationality that I explained in the previous post, these males are personally engaging with the relationship between Katara and Aang. This relationality could take multiple forms, from relating to Aang, to being attracted to Katara, to seeing value in the destined nature of their relationship.

In the previous post, I reasoned that we make our decisions first and then justify them later. We could use the current findings to challenge this theory, as we could argue that not having been in a relationship at 19+ is a draw towards Kataang. We could reason that <18 males don’t exhibit this Nice Guy effect because there is little expectation regarding relationships, so they aren’t Nice Guys.

But this chart suggests otherwise:

["Have you ever changed primary ship?" by "Have you ever been in a romantic relationship" and Age and Gender]

The majority of people don’t change their shipping preference. This supports my theory that we make our decisions early and then justify them later. A choice that a male made up to 9 years ago about a children’s TV show may be linked to whether or not they have been in a romantic relationship by today. That’s freaky. But having or not having been in a relationship isn’t causing people to choose Kataang – they’re just correlated. We want to find the reason that these two are linked.

I’m beginning to suspect that we are actually making a measure of personality. If the likelihood of entering into a romantic relationship is linked to certain personality traits, then perhaps this relationship/no-relationship comparison is actually a personality-type/personality-type comparison. For example, extrovert/introvert in a broad sense.

But, as you may have noticed, this puts us at odds with what we observed when we included Age. <18 males didn’t exhibit any difference. According to the reasoning I just put forward, <18 males should still exhibit these personality traits and so we should see an increased preference for Kataang in those who haven’t been in a relationship. Let’s look at this chart:

70% of <18 males haven’t been in a relationship, so I reason that we’re observing a dilution effect. If we took these <18 males and fast forwarded 9 years, my model predicts that we’d see the relationship/no-relationship pattern present in them too.

This is the model that I put forward. Males who haven’t been in a romantic relationship tend to prefer Kataang because of yet unidentified features of their personality. This type of personality tends to prefer Kataang, and also tends to result in no romantic partners. Personality is higher up in the causal network, and romantic experience and shipping preference are influenced by personality. In terms of the Nice Guy Hypothesis, I think it’s reasonable to suggest that males 19+ who haven’t been in a romantic relationship are more likely to be Nice Guys. So the answer to the question “is Kataang a Nice Guy ship?” is: these two things seem to be linked in some way.

theadamantdaughter’s proposal, if taken seriously and literally, can be understood as the idea that being a Nice Guy increases the likelihood that the male to “self-insert” (in the hard or soft sense of the word). Using the terminology of my previous post, this can be converted into the less dramatic proposition that Nice Guys have increased relationality with Kataang. However, there’s an important distinction between these two things being related, and these two things interacting. If we adopt my personality model, then it’s not immediately clear that the Nice Guy mentality was applied in the original preference for Kataang. If someone becomes a Nice Guy later in life, then how could a Nice Guy-related relationality be relevant to a decision made prior to becoming a Nice Guy? My model seems to suggest that this relationality isn’t important.

Do Zutara shippers self-insert? | Kataang vs Zutara

In a previous post, I received a comment which I want to explore:

Can we stop saying that female zutara shippers self insert? It's 2017. We've written a thousand and one metas about why we support the ship and none of it has to do with self-inserting as Katara. … You're basing statistical analysis on the reasoning that Zutara shippers 'self-insert,' when even casual shippers in the current fandom will attest that they like the dynamic Zuko and Katara have, as opposed to wishing they could date Zuko.

Let’s take a look.

Primary ATLA F/M Ship by Sexuality and Gender It’s very apparent here that heterosexual females have a much stronger preference for Zutara. The question is simply: why do heterosexual females tend to prefer Zutara?

As identified in previous posts, Zutara is more popular among people who prefer ATLA. Additionally, heterosexual females tend to prefer ATLA. A concern that you might have is that, rather than being a matter of sexuality, the results are actually matter of preference between ATLA/LOK. But this isn’t the case:

This chart shows primary shipping preference, categorised according to preference between ATLA or LOK, and is only using data from heterosexual females. There are only 19 respondents that fit into the LOK category for this chart, so I wouldn’t put much stock into the differences. At the very least, there is no evidence that runs counter to the idea that Zutara preference is linked to sexuality.

What I mean by “self-insert” I admit that it’s probably a poor choice of words by me, because I think that what I mean by “self-insert” and what other people mean by “self-insert” are different things. I have to say that I’m disconnected from the Avatar fandom – I only arrived on the fandom scene a couple of months ago. I don’t read fanfics and I rarely read metas. On one hand, this gives me the benefits of a fresh perspective and a complete lack of desire/bias to protect any particular fandom group. On the other hand, I’m ignorant of all the history and development of the fandom.

To me, self-insert is a particular sort of personal preference – of which literally self-inserting is the most extreme form. My definition of self-insertion is broader, and basically it’s about wanting something that’s in a work of fiction for yourself. My definition of self-insert is by no means a negative one. One of the appeals of Harry Potter is to imagine oneself in the world of magic – a self-insertion. It might not be a literal desire for the world of Harry Potter to be real, but it certainly is an interesting thought or fantasy.

In the context of Zutara, I don’t think it’s a matter of literally wishing that they could “date Zuko” (although I’m sure these people exist). I think it’s something to do with the desirability of that romantic relationship. More extreme forms of self-insertion might focus on Zuko, but I think it’s about “the dynamic”. There’s a difference between appreciating a dynamic in some literary sense, and seeing a dynamic as having value in a more personal sense. I think we’d be hard pressed to argue that heterosexual females somehow have a greater literary appreciation for Zutara, so I opt for an explanation through personal appreciation.

Another way to understand my thinking is this expectation I have. If we were to take all heterosexual females who ship Kataang or Zutara and ask them “if you had to be in a relationship with Aang/Zuko, how would you feel?”, then I expect that the Zutara shippers would be less averse to that situation.

So what’s the answer to the question? Do Zutara shippers self-insert? I feel that we can say that self-insertion as I define it is at play for heterosexual female Zutara shippers. This doesn’t mean that all heterosexual females self-insert, but I do think that it’s happening to such a degree that it can produce the results that we see.

How self-inserting relates to metas The comment argued that the shippers have justified their choice through metas, so it can’t be a matter of self-inserting. While I think that most people don’t write extensive metas, I do think that this argument is worth examining. Even if most people don’t write metas, it still seems reasonable to suggest that they would use metas to support their decisions. Additionally, it is 2017. It’s been 9 years since ATLA finished airing, so surely the earlier passions have cooled to leave only the more analytic mindset.

I think it’s a really good argument, but after some consideration I don’t find it convincing. I think the majority of us form the opinions that we will go on to justify analytically (eg. by writing/reading metas and discussing) through early and intuitive initial impressions. I think this is particularly true for something as subjective as romantic relationships. Of course there are people who change preferences, but my expectation is that for most people these preferences don’t change.

There are two reasons I haven’t been posting any recently. The first is I’m a uni student, so in terms of time it ain’t always easy. Doing the data stuff is also a lot easier on my mind, because I just follow the number trail.

Are Korrasami shippers Kataang shippers, and Makorra shippers Zutara shippers?

A theory I received from a follower:

I have a theory that the groups who ship Korrasami and Makorra are the same groups who ship Kataang and Zutara, respectively.

This sounds pretty fun, so let’s take a look.

Why I haven’t examined LOK ships You might have noticed that I haven’t really touched shipping in LOK, and that’s because of this chart.

Over a third of the respondents ship Mako and Opal, leaving the other ships to scavenge the scraps in the data. Maybe I’m biased, but I don’t find this chart too interesting. I don’t feel like I need to pick it apart as I do with ATLA Primary F/M Ships.

As for F/F ships, the second most picked answer was “No answer”. And then the third most picked F/F ship was (blank), who are the people that didn’t even answer the question.

Maybe if there are some diehard LOK shippers out who want it I can just post a stack of charts without analysis.

Examination of reasoning I think the theory is a fair guess. Korrasami and Kataang are the two canon ships, and Makorra and Zutara are the moody fire boi ships.

But there are a few differences to note. A possibility I’ve examined before is that Kataang is popular because of its fairytale like inevitability. I reasoned that maybe people ship Kataang because, from the outset, it was a traditional choice. But if Korrasami and Kataang are linked, then this might suggest that being canon is what drives these people – not some sort of inevitability.

Makorra is a complicated fit. Using  reasoning I’ve put forward before, we can justify it being linked to Kataang or Zutara. If people prefer Kataang because it’s traditional, then Makorra seems to fit the bill pretty well. At least for me, I expected Makorra to become canon. But Makorra also resembles Zutara. One of my reasonings has been that heterosexual females might be inclined to self-insert into Zutara, and Makorra is probably the closest that can be gotten to that.

Comparison of three pairs of charts A problem for this particular question is that Makorra has 90 primary shippers, and Korrasami has 771. Another problem is that there is no comparative data for Makorra and Korrasami, as they’re separated into the two F/M and F/F questions. To get around this issue, we have to do a comparison of two charts. To do a comparison of each pair, click on the photoset to bring up the slideshow view and use the arrow keys to flip between the two charts.

What we have are three pairs of charts. All three pairs compare Korrasami and Makorra ratings. There are basically two ways we can conduct a comparison: looking at a single rating group, or looking at a string of rating groups to find a trend. When looking at a single rating group, it’s usually only worth paying attention to the extremes of 1 and 7. Finding and comparing trends isn’t always easy, and in the case of these pairs I don’t think any trends are easy to identify.

Let’s get straight to the point: the data supports the theory. Korrasami and Kataang are positively linked, and Makorra and Zutara are positively linked.

7 Korrasami’s primary ship is Kataang and 7 Makorra’s primary ship is Zutara. And for both 7 Makorra and 7 Korrasami, the difference between their primary ship and the other ship is 20% – a fairly large margin. Not only that, the data is suggesting that low Korrasami raters have an increased preference for Zutara.

I won’t go into the detail, but if you examine the Kataang 1-3 and Zutara 1-3 comparison pairs, you’ll see that these findings are supported. The reason I’ve included these two pairs is that they allow cross-referencing, which ensures that our findings aren’t just a fluke.

Future analysis What these findings suggest is that if we were to do the sort of analysis that we’ve done to Kataang and Zutara, such as demographic analysis, ATLA/LOK preference comparison, shipping behaviour analysis, then we can expect the findings would be similar. Unfortunately, these comparative analyses can’t be done in exactly the same way because Korrasami and Makorra don’t feature together in a comparative question.

I know that earlier I said I didn’t really care for LOK ships, but after this I am interested to see if this theory holds. LOK shipping data is very subtle, so it’s hard to work out if something is telling you something or if it’s just noise. But with this corner stone, I have expectations that I can examine when I rummage around the data.

Demonstration that Kataang and Zutara are different groups | Kataang vs Zutara

This next series of weekly posts is dedicated to Kataang and Zutara. It’s not Kataang vs Zutara in the sense of “which one’s better” – it’s in the sense of a more general comparison. What sort of people tend to ship one or the other? What sort of behaviours make Kataang shippers and Zutara shippers different or the same?

Before we get into it, I think I need to disclose my own opinions, since they’ll likely colour my analysis. If I had to pick, I’d say Zutara. I think Zutara is more interesting for two reasons: it’s unorthodox and it’s more chemical. But all in all, I’m not too invested in one or the other. I wouldn’t call myself a shipper. The reason that I make a point of “Kataang vs Zutara” is that the data has interesting things to say and that there’s enough people that fit into both categories to make for interesting analysis.

Zutara 1-7 by Kataang 1-7; Kataang 1-7 by Zutara 1-7 To understand these charts, let’s first understand how they’re named. It’s [thing measured on the y-axis] by [categories along the x-axis]. So along the x-axis I’ve divided all of the responses into groups, and along the y-axis we see the percentages .

The Zutara 1-7 by Kataang 1-7 chart is the real reason that I think Kataang vs Zutara is worth looking at. It’s very clear that there’s some sort of either/or relationship here, because we can see the extremes of Zutara 1 and 7 increasing in one direction and decreasing in the other. The Zutara and Kataang appear to share some sort of polarising relationship – the majorities are people who either love or hate.

What surprises me is that Zutara shippers are more forgiving towards Kataang than Kataang shippers are towards Zutara. If we take a look at 7 Kataang in Zutara 1-7 by Kataang 1-7, we see a downward trend in the Zutara ratings. This trend is continued to a limited degree in 6 and 5 Kataang. But if we look at Kataang 1-7 by Zutara 1-7, a downward trend is nowhere near as defined.

My expectation was that as rating for Zutara increased, we’d see very low Kataang ratings. I reasoned that to ship Zutara you really need to commit to it, and the committal would mean some degree of stubbornness or even a feeling of superiority. But what I expected to see has been flipped. I suppose this could mean that Kataang shippers are actually the ones who are more stubborn.

But, there’s a different possibility. We return to a problem that we’ve identified in previous analyses, where the 1-7 rating system doesn’t tell the whole story. We can’t know if the people rating 1 are saying “I think Zutara is bad” or “I don’t ship Zutara”. My reasoning is that many Kataang shippers don’t really think about Zutara that much, because Kataang is the canon ship. I think many Kataang shippers rate Zutara lowly without even thinking about it. On the other hand, shipping a non-canon ship (eg. Zutara) is already a demonstration that the person thinks about shipping. I think Zutara shippers are being truly ambivalent, while Kataang shippers simply aren’t considering.