We Can Live Like Legends

“you really wanna atone for your sins? tell everyone here you stole drugs and got kicked out of the ED because of it. until then? stay out of my way.”

again, as i’ve mentioned countless times before, trinity has dealt with male authority figures abusing their power again and again. her best friend lost their life because of how fucked up it all was.

she has sins like lashes on her back that aren’t even hers, yet she carries them as proof of it all happening anyway.

and with langdon, she sees him as another male figure taking the easy way out, seeing every interaction as a tick in the box, rather than actually sitting with the reality that he’s back in a playground he abused.

rather than actually sitting with the sins that continuously follow him.

while she gets treated as a pariah, while she had to build herself from the ground up on her first day onwards.

again, i love langdon. but that apology? the switchup to “you know how bad it was for me?? my wife—” do you really think trinity gives a fuck? truly. she does not care. you yelled fucked up shit at her in front of another resident AND an attending. you said passive aggressive comments in front of Other residents and an attending. you tore her down before she could start Being.

If you look at Frank Langdon through the lens of traditional social convention, he did everything right. He checked every single box required of a "successful man." He endured the brutal grind of medical school, secured a highly respected career as an ED doctor, became a husband, a father, and a good son. He followed the blueprint to the letter. In his mind, he built a good life through hard work and adherence to the rules.

And yet, his entire reality is an echo chamber of everyone telling him that everything he does is fundamentally wrong. Look at how the narrative systematically punishes him for trying to meet societal expectations in Season 1:

The Father: He gets a dog for his kids—a textbook "good dad" move. Dana’s response? “You just made more work for your wife, you’re a bad husband.”

The Husband: His wife asks for a specific, expensive gift, so he sacrifices and saves up for it to make her happy. Collins and Dana immediately shut him down, telling him it's a terrible idea and proof he’s a bad husband.

The Doctor: He tries to be a good senior resident. He teaches students, follows protocol, and reprimands subordinates when they step out of line. Yet a cocky intern comes in, completely disregards the hierarchy, and somehow he is the one in the wrong? (Yes, by the third confrontation his behavior crosses the line into being completely unprofessional and abusive, but the first two instances were completely justified protocol).

The Son: He does the dutiful thing and helps his parents move house—and ends up destroying his back.

The Patient: He takes proper care of himself and goes to a doctor for the pain—and gets hooked on prescription drugs.

The Friend/Colleague: He opens up to Robby about his struggles, only to be met with teasing and dismissal.

The Man: He decides to "take it like a man" and fix it himself. It becomes the worst mistake of his life, leading to him stealing drugs, getting kicked out of the ED, and losing his family anyway.

By the time Langdon stands in front of Trinity in Season 2, he is a man operating under a massive psychological defense mechanism. He is drowning in confusion. He feels like he paid his dues, played by the rules, went to rehab, and is trying to rebuild. When he throws his personal ruin in her face—“you know how bad it was for me?? my wife—”—it’s because he genuinely believes his immense suffering should buy him a clean slate.

a lot of ppl say their critique of langdon has nothing to do with his addiction, only his actions, but that's directly ignoring the fact that his actions were influenced by drugs and addiction. you literally cannot separate the two.

as an addict, that makes it abundantly clear to me that you will not be able to see past my addiction and how that influenced my actions during active addiction, even once i'm sober. addiction makes you do fucked up things because it is by definition chemically altering your brain. you are simply not you.

does this mean that an addict's poor behaviour is acceptable? not at all and it is the victim of that behaviour's choice to forgive or not. but we are not victims of langdon's actions, we are people watching a tv show. i know very well how the actions of a fictional character can be triggering, but it is your job as an audience member to exercise critical thinking and consider the nuance of the situations you are seeing on screen.

"This is disgusting to me" is totally valid.

"I don't want to read this because it is disgusting to me" is totally valid.

"Censorship of some topics in fiction and art is good and I would be happy if it were to be enacted in a way I approved of"

and

"some things should be banned from ever being written or read about in fiction"

are both authoritarian viewpoints to hold and express, even if you don't have the power to enact them.

Something being nasty is not a good reason to ban fiction about it.

If we accept that "something being nasty is a good reason to bad fiction about it" then we give a foot in the door for all the people who truly, genuinely believe that queer people are nasty to ban all queer literature.

Either you’re for it or you aren’t.

The moment you agree that something should never, ever exist in fiction is the moment that anything can be banned.

Remember a while back how Tumblr banned a bunch of tags, including many popular innocuous ones that even people who are for censorship used and were upset about?

When censorship happens, stuff YOU like can and will be banned. That’s how it works.

Remember how a bunch of people had their accounts terminated here only last year for writing about their own sexual abuse?

When you ban “pedo” topics, say, any talk of child sexual abuse in any form, that means people can no longer write about their own experiences. It means people cannot educate others so they can learn how to protect themselves or get help from these situations.

Censorship is authoritarian. Full stop.

Even if “everyone” agrees something is “gross” and “shouldn’t exist,” that does not fucking matter.

Do you know who generally believes queer people are gross and shouldn’t exist??

The same people who are banning books left and right solely because they have queer characters or relationships.

The same people who attack and kill queer folk for simply exisiting.

This is not just some fandom matter or a case of being chronically online.

In 2007, Livejournal capitulated to the "pedophilia and sex crimes!" cries of (hate group) Warriors 4 Innocence, and you know what communities got shut down? Slashfic communities. Sexual assault survivor support communities. Authors who'd written non-smut m/m fic even got caught up in it. It was DEVASTATING to fandom spaces. I think pretty much everyone knew at least one person whose account was literally DELETED, or were a member of a community that was wiped off the map because they were considerate enough to include topics like "sexual assault" or "BDSM" in the profiles under the badly-named category of "interests" to indicate that posts on said blogs or communities may include discussion of things like that. Even if it was for a SUPPORT group. And it was because a group of religious bigots came to LJ and said essentially "EVERYONE thinks it's gross and that it's promoting CSA, we should ban it."

Like, strikethrough and boldthrough were a large part of what propelled AO3 out of a more unfocused conversation on one person's blog about hosting a site INTENDED for fandom content, into being an actual archive and nonprofit. And it's a large part of why you won't find AO3 banning topics that you find "gross".

I had a friend. We were 12. We had just discovered fanfiction and were obsessed. We read anything and everything we could get our hands on. One of the stories we read was a "pedo fic." It exposed us to scenarios and language that hadn't ever been touched on in Sex Ed at school or with our parents. To be frank, it "corrupted our young minds with topics we shouldn't have to deal with." It also gave my friend words to finally describe why her neighbor creeped her out so much. "He's creepy and weird" gets a 12 year old scolded and lectured on being nicer. "He's a sexual predator" gets adults asking questions and involving the cops. Her neighbor "moved away."

Censorship is pro-pedo and anti-child-safety. There is no communicating what's wrong if there are no words to describe what's happening. Bad things will happen whether you have the words to ask for help or not. Censorship takes those words away.

It's called Lolita and it's the book that forced people to start confronting pedophilia and CSA instead of "keeping it between us" or just whispering it to make up excuses.

And?

And?

It makes the CSA abuser a sympathetic character. On purpose. Because it's from his perspective.

The whole idea was to let people see him justifying himself while he committed these unspeakable acts. The whole point was to see how he's not a bad guy, really, see how much he loves her? See what he does for her? See how ungrateful she is? Because the point was that nobody, absolutely nobody, proudly says "I rape children!" and walks around wearing a shirt that says CHILD SEX ABUSER. They all have a thousand reasons why they're right. The point was to force people to see how "not a bad guy, really" committed these horrific, monstrous acts, and was sure he was in the right, or at least wasn't wrong.

I would like to say that we shouldn't hate on people with differing opinions.

The point of fandom spaces is to give a safe place for people to have opinions and engage with content.

It is perfectly fine for people who have been in similar situations as Santos to relate with her, but it is also perfectly find for people (such as myself) who have been victims of her kind of bullying to be not-okay with her behavior.

It's ALSO okay to realize that your character of choice makes mistakes. Langdon shouldn't have yelled like he did. Langdon shouldn't have coped the way he did. Santos absolutely had the right to report him, and I'm glad she did.

It's not okay to say that people are sexist for liking Langdon when they dislike Santos. It's not okay to say "Santos fans always blah blah blah" just because they have a different opinion than you.

Frank uses his fake boyfriend on the new doctor who nods and says he understands but continues to talk to Frank, taking it from flirty to friendly, because he actually likes Frank beyond romantically and does respect he has a boyfriend.

Until one day, he tells Frank, "Oh, your boyfriend talked to me, and I didn't realise it was that Michael" and Frank is left confused as hell because he just used the name of a crush he had in highschool completely forgetting Robby actually has a first name and it's Michael. This happens again and again, with people mentioning his 'Michael' and how they didn't realise and how much sense it suddenly makes.

And then Dana starts acting cold towards Robby, and giving him little glares while keeping a closer eye on Frank, suddenly, and Jack is smiling like it's Christmas, and Princess and Perlah make a random comment or two about Robby putting a ring on it, when? and Frank is more and more confused.

Only to find out Robby knew about the new doctor's interest in Frank and has been quietly seething with jealousy, only to find out from the new doctor that Frank has a boyfriend named Michael, and suddenly remembered Frank once confessed Michael is just a name he chose since he doesn't wear his ring anymore and fully reintroduced himself to the new doctor not as Dr. Robinavitch but as Frank's boyfrined, Michael.

In the first season Santos started off her relationship with Langdon by being insubordinate(not presenting her case and starting treatment without the oversight of a senior resident or attending)and while sure, she made the right call, that doesn't matter. She has a job, and part of that job is to follow the correct rules and proceedings to make sure she doesn't make the wrong call and end up causing undue harm. Was his outburst unnecessary? Of course, but if you've ever been a mentor at a job that requires order and clear communication then it's easy to understand where his annoyance with her came from. He could have handled it way fucking better, but that's besides the point. He made a very simple comment to her to begin with: always present first and no, it is not okay that you ignored that. I fully believe that if she had accepted his words, moved on and followed protocol, there wouldn't have been such a problem.

To continue with the first season, Robby had every right to tell Samira she needed to be faster with patients. She was an R3, and that comes with responsibilities. Making connections with people you're treating is great, but not at the expense of other peoples health. The ER runs on speed and quick thinking, it does not have room for lulls in treatment.

Anyway, I got really, really damn good at picking up dogwhistles during that time, which helped a lot over the years as the political climate in general became more polarised. Obviously, I'm not always 100% on the money, but it's pretty rare that I don't get the underlying message and often a quick look at a profile or a few questions will verify that I'm right.

our lives matter more than your fucking nostalgia.

Supriya indicated in an interview that Langdon knew it was a panic attack the whole time, with a deleted scene of him breathing slowly with Mohan to calm her down.

And Langdon STILL said to go get Robby. Because -- despite everything -- he thought Robby would help.

DO NOT BE A DICK TO OTHER ACTORS OR THEIR CHARACTERS BECAUSE OF WHAT’S HAPPENING WITH MOHAN AND GANESH.

So it is not their fault. It is not the fault of the actors that Mohan is being written out. It is absolutely nobody’s fault except for the creators of the show.