#good damage

I think this can go back to the misunderstanding between myself and the other Anon where they felt the need to respond and assure everyone that they didn't find Medrano a malevolent/malicious person. And that's because I used the word malicious. But I use words in a different way than most people. So I explained how words function for me and what I mean when I use a word like "malicious", but I also still apologize. Because I have the social awareness to see that, on a platform that is seen by dozens of users, my use of words is 1) not universally understood and 2) can give an unfair impression of the Anon to others who see my response.

It's not fair for a misunderstanding caused by me to characterize someone else and their intentions to others. So, of course, I will always apologize for that. Because there is a lot of power we hold over our anons. Everyone who comes to my page will understand the Anon through my myopic perspective based on my response. And that is also filmed over with their own wheelhouse of how they view the world.

Malicious doesn't typically mean "intentional actions that result in obvious negative outcomes". It usually means with cruelty/malice and an intention to do harm.

When I say Malicious, I don't mean that someone does something with the intention of harm. Just that they had intentions, and the obvious outcome would be harmful. I genuinely think most actions I call "malicious" are made from ignorance and a lack of thought.

Ignorant is the same as Malicious to me.

And this is where I think an explanation and an excuse diverge in reality: an excuse seeks to rewrite the events by defining the entire action through one's own intentions while an explanation gives information to share in one's own perspective while understanding that their response did or had potential to cause harm and thus still apologizing for it.

And not an apology like "I'm sorry you feel that way" but taking accountability for the repercussions that may have occurred. Like in the case of myself, I could have accidentally made my other Anon out to be a fanatical hater who thinks of Medrano as the worst person when they really don't. And because I'm the one amplifying that potential characterization, it is my responsibility to correct it and take ownership of the negative impact my actions could have caused.

For Stolas in particular, the reason why the show never gets the feeling of an "explanation" is because it seems that Stolas never faces the repercussions of his own actions.

He is the one who starts the deal with the book, but it is Blitz who is put on trial.

Stolas is the one who instigates the sexual encounters throughout the show, but it is Blitz who is being unfair in New Moon and needs to apologize

It is Stolas who doesn't divorce his abusive wife and subjects his daughter to that home life/lying to his daughter about her own upbringing, but it's Octavia's fault for being hurt by it which is also framed as unreasonable.

There is no point where Stolas actually takes ownership of what he's done, and accept it. In New Moon, he "apologizes" for using Blitz, but when Blitz lashes put in confusion and anger (because he is taken off guard and Stolas is jerking him around by defining their relationship without his involvement, which is hugely disrespectful) Stolas doesn't accept that responsibility. He runs away, literally. He immediately goes into self-pity, which is why the "apology" in Full Moon is an excuse.

The whole problem in their relationship is that Stolas defines every aspect of it alone. He makes the deal up without input from Blitz (who is socially and materially powerless) and in the same way he made the deal, he ends it; entirely without any input from Blitz. The way Stolas doesn't just connect with Blitz about how he has been feeling. Instead he talks down to Blitz by saying the deal is "wrong", as if Blitz is a literal child and wouldn't understand what Stolas has been doing to him.

Stolas' whole apology actively takes agency away from Blitz by the simple way he does it: without consultation.

And this is the exact same problem in his relationship with Octavia. He assumes he knows best for everyone, and then says he isn't valuable enough to take care of himself in the service of others, but that's actually a form of narcissistic grandiosity. He places himself on a pedestal through his martyrdom.

I get if that seems paradoxical but it is something you find most often in people who suffer religious trauma. Jesus Christ is the ultimate martyr who suffered and died for our sins. And in regards to Stolas' behavior, it is a parody of that construct, and it's something a lot of mentally ill people do in real life.

And this is what Bojack Horseman, the show, calls "Good Damage". That someone's suffering and pain happens for a reason, even if it isn't a cosmic reason like being some religious Messiah. Bojack Horseman is a very non-denominational show with no clear religious affiliation, so much of this kind of philosophy is filtered through a godless lens and into existentialism. By which I mean there is not an inherent reason for things to happen. There is no God to will for people to die and there is no afterlife that we are striving to secure. So like Existentialists Søren Kierkegaard and Albert Camus explain, we have to make that meaning for ourselves.

Diane is the best example to show how this sort of martyrdom is a form of narcissistic grandiosity and how trying to make one's suffering mean something is actively harmful to one's own mental health and our relationships.

"Because! If I don't, that means that all the damage I got isn't Good Damage, it's just damage. I have gotten anything out of it and all those years I was miserable was for nothing ... I thought that everything, all the abuse and neglect, it somehow made me special."

This is textbook grandiosity. This is the core of most personality disorders, in fact. Specifically in the sphere of cluster B personality types such as Borderline Personality Disorder and Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

This is a coping mechanism. It's shifting the narrative of what happened so that it wasn't just something unfair and painful that you went through for no reason. It's a way of preserving a sense of self as a child, in the face of abuse and neglect, to just be able to survive and just keep living. It's making some purpose because if you don't have one, why keep living.

It's something I lived through. I'm currently in remission for my diagnosis, but that isn't the same as cured. Being in remission just means a reduction or absence of symptoms, but that doesn't mean that the disordered thoughts are gone. Symptoms are just what others see, not what is going on inside your head. You have to consistently choose to not engage with those disordered thoughts and feelings, and you have to make that active choice to not be that person any longer.

Stolas never has to suffer the costs of his own behavior, instead his character is still very quickly on that downward trajectory. And, frankly, that's not an actual problem!

Stolas maybe hasn't hit his stride as a character, but the issue is that Blitz has. The confusion for most people exists, then, in how the world has changed for Stolas while Stolas has stayed the same. Change comes when the pain of staying the same becomes greater than the pain of changing. It's true in life as it is in storytelling. Mental health doesn't get better until we choose to change.

But Blitz changed for no reason. In fact, his pain has been and still is caused by Stolas. And seeing as Blitz, not Stolas, is the main character, perhaps fans can be more forgiving over the fact that Stolas is still seen as the villain for a good amount of people.

There sure is a lot of emphasis on himself throughout all this "giving" he's done. And all it does is prove Blitz in New Moon correct. This is a bizarre show that genuinely doesn't understand that there is no good damage, just narcissistic martyrdom. And like all narcissism, it is toxic, manipulative, and corrosive.