Shop Forum More Submit  Join Login
Azula on the Throne by LOrdalie Azula on the Throne by LOrdalie
new pict add to the gallery 
hope you like it
:D (Big Grin)
Add a Comment:
Kelseyalicia Featured By Owner Jun 22, 2018
She's still a demon. Daughter of Death. 
LOrdalie Featured By Owner Jun 22, 2018  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
"She was born lucky. I was lucky to be born." 
From far favorite vilain of all time for me !

Kelseyalicia Featured By Owner Jun 23, 2018
doesn't change the fact she is a demon and a psychopath! 
LOrdalie Featured By Owner Jun 23, 2018  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
It's not her fault, she was born in a psychopath family and her mother hated her and her father used her...
She is brillant and have empathy..she could be fun, look a the beach episode
She is not worse than kuvira
Kelseyalicia Featured By Owner Jun 23, 2018
Her mother did love her. It broke Ursa heart when she was forced to leave both Zuko and Azula behind and when she finally regained her true face and she apologizes to Azula saying she was "Sorry I didn't love you enough".

Azula had the misconception that Ursa loved Zuko more. It was more the fact that Ursa got along with Zuko and was protective of him because everyone seemed out to hurt him and all Ursa was doing as a mother was trying to discipline Azula and get her to understand people having feelings and that you need to be respectful and take into account feelings.

But because of Azula never understanding the concept of love, family or friendship she couldn't accept or understand what love was or that her mother truly did love her and convinced herself past the point of no return her mother hated her and thought she was a monster and there was nothing ever gonna change that mindset in her despite it wasn't true. 

But people who are psychopaths or sociopath are unable to understand emotions and simply don't care about people or feelings and can't feel love or remorse. And as Azula is the definition of a psychopath she is truly incapable of understanding or accepting love and will never feel remorse or able to understand that someone loves or cares for someone or something. It's beyond her abilities to do so. 

Azula lacks empathy and is incapable of basic human emotions or understanding love or feeling it herself from another. She'll never be able to do it or understand it. It just not possible. 

  1. a person suffering from a chronic mental disorder with abnormal or violent social behavior.
    synonyms: madmanmadwomanmaniaclunaticpsychoticsociopathMore
    • informal
      an unstable and aggressive person.
      "schoolyard psychopaths will gather around a fight to encourage the combatants"

See that describes her to T. She can't be changed and can't feel. 

Here are five things psychopaths do:

1. They're extremely charming.

Psychopaths are almost always well-liked. They come across as delightful people great at making small talk. Their quick wit tends to draw people to them. They usually have interesting stories as well. Their convincing tales portray them in a favorable, yet believable light. People walk away from conversations with a psychopath feeling pretty good.

2. They don't experience remorse.

A lack of guilt might be the first red flag that signals someone might be a psychopath. Psychopaths aren't capable of feeling any genuine remorse. They don't accept any responsibility for hurting other people's feelings. Instead, they blame other people and deny responsibility. A psychopath may say that someone "deserved" to be treated poorly. Or, they may shrug off reports that they offended someone by saying, "She needs to be less sensitive," or "I guess he can't handle the truth."

3. They're really arrogant.

Psychopaths have an inflated sense of importance. Much like narcissists, they think the usual rules don't apply to them. They also tend to have grandiose ideas about their potential. They believe they deserve to be the CEO, or they're convinced they're the best at everything they do.

4. They take big risks.

Psychopaths have little regard for safety, especially other people's. They often lie, cheat, and steal to get ahead. This behavior can be especially toxic. While not all psychopaths engage in illegal activity, those who do plan their crimes well in advance. Their misconduct is usually well-organized, and they leave few clues behind. Psychopaths tend to be very intelligent, which makes them great con artists.

5. They're master manipulators.

They don't experience genuine emotions toward others. But they can mimic other people's emotions, and often they come across as very genuine. As a result, their loved ones often have no idea they're incapable of truly caring for other people.

Psychopaths are really good at manipulating other people's emotions. They flatter others in a subtle yet effective manner, and before long they persuade others to do things they wouldn't normally do. They also use guilt trips or gain sympathy to meet their needs.

Now, do you get really what's wrong with Azula and why she's a psychopath and she can't understand her mother did love her but it's impossible for to accept that given she fits a T the definition of a psychopath? 

LOrdalie Featured By Owner Jun 23, 2018  Hobbyist Traditional Artist
Whooo !

Very interesting answer !...

Thank you so much ! 

I should make more intention of my love interest !

But she is maybe a psychopath but the greater general of fire nation army and her skill in guiding army is why i love her..
And in all Avatar Series, with Zaheer she is the character who was near to butt avatar ass definitively ! She deserve respect and admiration from that, Avatar is comparable to a Superhero of the last airbender fantasy world ! I respect people who beat Superman too !

In popular culture, there is not a lot of vilain who can kick hero's ass or was near to destroy the hero definitelevely..
It's why we love, Joker, Lex Luthor, Cheetah, Deathstroke, Magneto , Kaiba, Cell...

Sociopath or not, she is the better super vilain i see in a show !  
Kelseyalicia Featured By Owner Jun 23, 2018
I pity the fact she has no soul and no humanity. She's a demon and didn't have to be. I rather have a soul and heart and not be inhumane and a beast. I rather have the ability to love and have the only real power that is love like the rest of the gang has. then be inhumane and be a beast. The weak are cruel the strong have no need to be. Humans can choose to kill or not an animal kills to eat a human can choose. 

She would end up in hell. She would not ascend to be heaven. Her blue fire proves how inhuman she is for its the color of savagery as it burns for insatiable lust for power which is an illusion and not truly there. She is alone and always gonna be alone because she cannot love. What worst fate then that? That she's like the female Voldemort? And that the same fate that awaited his fragmented soul is what awaits Azula's when she dies and she cannot ascend to a better place? 

You really wish to be with someone like that? A senseless killer who has heart cannot love and mutilated their soul? That's what you want? To be like that? Somone willing to kill a child without a second thought?

Do you realize what's going on in the real world? The evils of the real world and you support supervillains when true evil walks this world and you want someone like Azula to be free and it already exists in this world?" and you find that cool? Really?

People are murdered in cold blood every day! Women are beaten and raped! Children are being ripped from their parents' arms and now thrown in jail as Trump idea to solve his 'problem' with people trying to come into the USA! There are true monsters who will do what Ozai did to Zuko and again people will stand by and do nothing while children are abused! And you support a girl who was smiling enjoying the fact her brother was burned?! 

What is wrong with you? When that actually happens in the real world?! Do you support evil people instead of those who fight for the weak and those who can't fight and defend themselves? You find those who KILL and get away it cool? 

What makes a murderer cool? What makes you idolize people who inflict the most unimaginable pain and suffering to people hearts and souls and they have to live with what was done to them and their loved ones and many times never get justice? 

What is wrong with you?
LOrdalie Featured By Owner Jun 23, 2018  Hobbyist Traditional Artist

Catharsis is a term in dramatic art that describes the effect of tragedy (or comedy and quite possibly other artistic forms)[6] principally on the audience (although some have speculated on characters in the drama as well). Nowhere does Aristotle explain the meaning of "catharsis" as he is using that term in the definition of tragedy in the Poetics (1449b21-28). G. F. Else argues that traditional, widely held interpretations of catharsis as "purification" or "purgation" have no basis in the text of the Poetics, but are derived from the use of catharsis in other Aristotelian and non-Aristotelian contexts.[7] For this reason, a number of diverse interpretations of the meaning of this term have arisen. The term is often discussed along with Aristotle's concept of anagnorisis.

D. W. Lucas, in an authoritative edition of the Poetics, comprehensively covers the various nuances inherent in the meaning of the term in an Appendix devoted to "Pity, Fear, and Katharsis".[8] Lucas recognizes the possibility of catharsis bearing some aspect of the meaning of "purification, purgation, and 'intellectual clarification'" although his discussion of these terms is not always, or perhaps often, in the precise form with which other influential scholars have treated them. Lucas himself does not accept any one of these interpretations as his own but adopts a rather different one based on "the Greek doctrine of Humours" which has not received wide subsequent acceptance. Purgation and purification, used in previous centuries, as the common interpretations of catharsis are still in wide use today.[9] More recently, in the twentieth century, the interpretation of catharsis as "intellectual clarification" has arisen as a rival to the older views in describing the effect of catharsis on members of the audience.

Purgation and purification[edit]

In his works prior to the Poetics, Aristotle had used the term catharsis purely in its medical sense (usually referring to the evacuation of the katamenia—the menstrual fluid or other reproductive material).[10] Here, however, he employs it as a medical metaphorF. L. Lucas maintains, therefore, that purification and cleansing are not proper translations for catharsis; that it should rather be rendered as purgation. "It is the human soul that is purged of its excessive passions."[11] Gerald F. Else made the following argument against the "purgation" theory: "It presupposes that we come to the tragic drama (unconsciously, if you will) as patients to be cured, relieved, restored to psychic health. But there is not a word to support this in the "Poetics", not a hint that the end of drama is to cure or alleviate pathological states. On the contrary it is evident in every line of the work that Aristotle is presupposing 'normal' auditors, normal states of mind and feeling, normal emotional and aesthetic experience."[12]

Lessing sidesteps the medical attribution. He translates catharsis as a purification, an experience that brings pity and fear into their proper balance: "In real life", he explained, "men are sometimes too much addicted to pity or fear, sometimes too little; tragedy brings them back to a virtuous and happy mean."[13]Tragedy is then a corrective; through watching tragedy, the audience learns how to feel these emotions at proper levels.

Intellectual clarification[edit]

In the twentieth century a paradigm shift took place in the interpretation of catharsis with a number of scholars contributing to the argument in support of the intellectual clarification concept.[14] The clarification theory of catharsis would be fully consistent, as other interpretations are not, with Aristotle's argument in chapter 4 of the Poetics (1448b4-17) that the essential pleasure of mimesis is the intellectual pleasure of "learning and inference".

It is generally understood that Aristotle's theory of mimesis and catharsis are responses to Plato's negative view of artistic mimesis on an audience. Plato argued that the most common forms of artistic mimesis were designed to evoke from an audience powerful emotions such as pity, fear, and ridicule which override the rational control that defines the highest level of our humanity and lead us to wallow unacceptably in the overindulgence of emotion and passion. Aristotle's concept of catharsis, in all of the major senses attributed to it, contradicts Plato's view by providing a mechanism that generates the rational control of irrational emotions. All of the commonly held interpretations of catharsis, purgation, purification, and clarification are considered by most scholars to represent a homeopathic process in which pity and fear accomplish the catharsis of emotions like themselves. For an alternate view of catharsis as an allopathic process in which pity and fear produce a catharsis of emotions unlike pity and fear, see E. Belfiore, Tragic Pleasures: Aristotle on Plot and Emotion. Princeton, 1992, 260 ff.

Literary analysis of catharsis[edit]

The following analysis by E. R. Dodds, directed at the character of Oedipus in the paradigmatic Aristotelian tragedy, Oedipus Rex, incorporates all three of the aforementioned interpretations of catharsis: purgation, purification, intellectual clarification:

...what fascinates us is the spectacle of a man freely choosing, from the highest motives a series of actions which lead to his own ruin. Oedipus might have left the plague to take its course; but pity for the sufferings of his people compelled him to consult Delphi. When Apollo's word came back, he might still have left the murder of Laius uninvestigated; but piety and justice required him to act. He need not have forced the truth from the reluctant Theban herdsman; but because he cannot rest content with a lie, he must tear away the last veil from the illusion in which he has lived so long. Teiresias, Jocasta, the herdsman, each in turn tries to stop him, but in vain; he must read the last riddle, the riddle of his own life. The immediate cause of Oedipus' ruin is not "fate or "the gods"—no oracle said that he must discover the truth—and still less does it lie in his own weakness; what causes his ruin is his own strength and courage, his loyalty to Thebes, and his loyalty to the truth.[15]

Attempts to subvert catharsis[edit]

There have been, for political or aesthetic reasons, deliberate attempts made to subvert the effect of catharsis in theatre. For example, Bertolt Brecht viewed catharsis as a pap (pabulum) for the bourgeois theatre audience, and designed dramas which left significant emotions unresolved, intending to force social action upon the audience. Brecht then identified the concept of catharsis with the notion of identification of the spectator, meaning a complete adhesion of the viewer to the dramatic actions and characters. Brecht reasoned that the absence of a cathartic resolution would require the audience to take political action in the real world, in order to fill the emotional gap they had experienced vicariously. This technique can be seen as early as his agit-prop play The Measures Taken, and is mostly the source of his invention of an epic theatre, based on a distancing effect (Verfremdungseffekt) between the viewer and the representation or portrayal of characters.[16][citation needed]

"Catharsis" before tragedy[edit]

Catharsis before the sixth-century rise of tragedy is, for the Western World, essentially a historical footnote to the Aristotelian conception. The practice of purification had not yet appeared in Homer, as later Greek commentators noted:[17] the Aithiopis, an epic set in the Trojan War cycle, narrates the purification of Achilles after his murder of Thersites. Catharsis describes the result of measures taken to cleanse away blood-guilt—"blood is purified through blood",[18] a process in the development of Hellenistic culture in which the oracle of Delphi took a prominent role. The classic example—Orestes—belongs to tragedy, but the procedure given by Aeschylus is ancient: the blood of a sacrificed piglet is allowed to wash over the blood-polluted man, and running water washes away the blood.[19] The identical ritual is represented, Burkert informs us, on a krater found at Canicattini, wherein it is shown being employed to cure the daughters of Proetus from their madness, caused by some ritual transgression.[20] To the question of whether the ritual obtains atonement for the subject, or just healing, Burkert answers: "To raise the question is to see the irrelevance of this distinction".[20]

Therapeutic uses[edit]

In psychology, the term was first employed by Sigmund Freud's colleague Josef Breuer (1842–1925), who developed a cathartic method of treatment using hypnosis for persons suffering from intensive hysteria. While under hypnosis, Breuer's patients were able to recall traumatic experiences, and through the process of expressing the original emotions that had been repressed and forgotten, they were relieved of their hysteric symptoms. Catharsis was also central to Freud's concept of psychoanalysis, but he replaced hypnosis with free association.[21]

The term catharsis has also been adopted by modern psychotherapy, particularly Freudian psychoanalysis, to describe the act of expressing, or more accurately, experiencing the deep emotions often associated with events in the individual's past which had originally been repressed or ignored, and had never been adequately addressed or experienced.

There has been much debate about the use of catharsis in the reduction of anger. Some scholars believe that "blowing off steam" may reduce physiological stress in the short term, but this reduction may act as a reward mechanism, reinforcing the behavior and promoting future outbursts.[22][23][24][25] However, other studies have suggested that using violent media may decrease hostility under periods of stress.[26] Legal scholars have linked "catharsis" to "closure"[27] (an individual's desire for a firm answer to a question and an aversion toward ambiguity) and "satisfaction" which can be applied to affective strategies as diverse as retribution, on one hand, and forgiveness on the other.[28] Interestingly, there's no "one size fits all" definition of "catharsis", therefore this does not allow a clear definition of its use in therapeutic terms.[29]

Social catharsis[edit]

Emotional situations can elicit physiological, behavioral, cognitive, expressive, and subjective changes in individuals. Affected individuals often use social sharing as a cathartic release of emotions. Bernard Rimé studies the patterns of social sharing after emotional experiences. His works suggests that individuals seek social outlets in an attempt to modify the situation and restore personal homeostatic balance.

Rimé found that 80–95% of emotional episodes are shared. The affected individuals talk about the emotional experience recurrently to people around them throughout the following hours, days, or weeks. These results indicate that this response is irrespective of emotional valence, gender, education, and culture. His studies also found that social sharing of emotion increases as the intensity of the emotion increases.[30]


Émile Durkheimproposed emotional stages of social sharing:

  1. Directly after emotional effects, the emotions are shared. Through sharing, there is a reciprocal stimulation of emotions and emotional communion.
  2. This leads to social effects like social integration and strengthening of beliefs.
  3. Finally, individuals experience a renewed trust in life, strength, and self-confidence.

Affect scientists have found differences in motives for social sharing of positive and negative emotions.

(1) Positive emotion

A study by Langston[32] found that individuals share positive events to capitalize on the positive emotions they elicit. Reminiscing the positive experience augments positive affects like temporary mood and longer-term well-being. A study by Gable et al.[33] confirmed Langston's "capitalization" theory by demonstrating that relationship quality is enhanced when partners are responsive to positive recollections. The responsiveness increased levels of intimacy and satisfaction within the relationship. In general, the motives behind social sharing of positive events are to recall the positive emotions, inform others, and gain attention from others. All three motives are representatives of capitalization.

 Negative emotion

Rimé studies suggest that the motives behind social sharing of negative emotions are to vent, understand, bond, and gain social support. Negatively affected individuals often seek life meaning and emotional support to combat feelings of loneliness after a tragic event.[30]

The grapevine effect

If emotions are shared socially and elicits emotion in the listener then the listener will likely share what they heard with other people. Rimé calls this process "secondary social sharing". If this repeats, it is then called "tertiary social sharing".[30]

Collective catharsis

Collective emotional events share similar responses. When communities are affected by an emotional event, members repetitively share emotional experiences. After the 2001 New York and the 2004 Madrid terrorist attacks, more than 80% of respondents shared their emotional experience with others.[34] According to Rimé, every sharing round elicits emotional reactivation in the sender and the receiver. This then reactivates the need to share in both. Social sharing throughout the community leads to high amounts of emotional recollection and "emotional overheating".

Pennebaker and Harber defined three stages of collective responses to emotional events.

In the first stage, a state of "emergency" takes place in the first month after the emotional event. In this stage, there is an abundance of thoughts, talks, media coverage, and social integration based on the event.

In the second stage, the "plateau" occurs in the second month. Abundant thoughts remain, but the amount of talks, media coverage, and social integration decreases.

In the third stage, the "extinction" occurs after the second month. There is a return to normalcy.

Effect on emotional recovery

This cathartic release of emotions is often believed to be therapeutic for affected individuals. Many therapeutic mechanisms have been seen to aid in emotional recovery. One example is "interpersonal emotion regulation", in which listeners help to modify the affected individual's affective state by using certain strategies.[36] Expressive writing is another common mechanism for catharsis. Joanne Frattaroli published a meta-analysis suggesting that written disclosure of information, thoughts, and feelings enhances mental health.

However, other studies question the benefits of social catharsis. Finkenauer and colleagues found that non-shared memories were no more emotionally triggering than shared ones. Other studies have also failed to prove that social catharsis leads to any degree of emotional recovery. Zech and Rimé asked participants to recall and share a negative experience with an experimenter. When compared with the control group that only discussed unemotional topics, there was no correlation between emotional sharing and emotional recovery.

Some studies even found adverse effects of social catharsis. Contrary to the Frattaroli study, Sbarra and colleagues[40] found expressive writing to greatly impede emotional recovery following a marital separation. Similar findings have been published regarding trauma recovery. A group intervention technique is often used on disaster victims to prevent trauma-related disorders. However, meta-analysis showed negative effects of this cathartic "therapy"

Basis Phylosophy from wikipedia...
Interest yourself on the work of Aristot !

(1 Reply)
Add a Comment:


Submitted on
November 30, 2017
Image Size
13.7 MB


6 (who?)