hamliet

[hamliet]

How would you do The Dragon Prince to make it “good”?

Hi!

I mean, I have no pretense to know how to make a series "good" and I also think it depends on what different people want from the story, what they disliked, what they would keep in it, etc. In general, there is no right way to "fix" a story, which is why I strongly dislike the whole "fixing" series trend. Like, dude, you are not fixing it... you are writing fanfiction of it, stop trying to sound self important :''')

So, what I will do is to share some thoughts I had while watching the series, some ideas I would have wanted explored more and some things I would have handled differently. As I made clear in the past, my thoughts on the show are rather critical, so I am putting this under a tag. In this way, people who are not interested won't have to interact with it. In short, I am not sure if I will be answering you properly anon. I will mostly just share how I feel and do some brainstorming.

ACT 1

I actually like act 1 overall and it made me fall in love with the characters :''') So, I think it works. That said, here are my two main critics/things I would change/consider changing.

Less ATLA and more GOT

I think Act 1 is interesting because it mixes two different storytelling techniques.

On the one hand there is Viren's storyline, which is an overarching story and has high stakes.

On the other hand there is Callum, Rayla, Ez's storyline which is a travelling adventure with lower stakes and episodic subplots.

Basically they mixed the ATLA format (episodic subplots to learn abt your characters) with a more overarching plot-line (Viren's one). This creates an interesting dynamic where Viren ends up being the most developed character. Like, from a structural point of view Viren is a villain protagonist. He is the character who drives the conflict and has the most complete arc. That's usually the hero's role. Now, I don't think this is something to fix. It is actually interesting and exciting and an original structure. That said, I think it could have been capitalized on more.

First of all, it is a "risky" story structure in the sense that if you use it, you should know it has consequences. The main one is that people would automatically be drawn to the Viren's storyline more since it is the one with the highest stakes. So, you basically take the risk people might be more involved/like your villain more than your designated heroes. I think this is why it is a story-structure rarely used. For comparison, stories like ATLA and RWBY spend their first seasons slowly introducing you to the characters and only expand the conflict when the characters are ready to face it. What The Dragon Prince does is the equivalent of starting RWBY with Qrow's storyline of going after Cinder/Salem and meanwhile showing you RWBY's adventures at Beacon. The Qrow/Cinder/Salem's storyline automatically becomes the A plot, whereas RWBY's one becomes the B plot. Except that having your protagonists stuck in the B plot is a problem.

That said, it can be a genuinely innovative and original structure if used well. I think The Dragon Prince does a good job in how it manages to tell an unseen story. Still, I would have liked the Raylla, Ezran and Callum's part to be less episodic and more sophisticated in writing. Basically, I would have liked for them to leave the ATLA format behind and to fully embrace their GOT's inspiration. They go: this happens and then this happens and then this happens, which can work in a more episodic setting (example: Callum wants the cube, so they go find it, then they have a boat accident, then they meet Ava and Ellis, then they meet the blind pirate, etc). Still, I think here they could have come up with subplots more cohesive and driven by this happens and therefore this happens (es. the cube has a more impactful role and so it has Corvus following them, etc). This would have made the subplots automatically more interesting and more high stakes. The characters' development would have also been deeper and the first act would have been the perfect set up for Callum, Ezran and Rayla to grow up as characters to then drive the rest of the story in act 2 and 3. To be clear, I don't think you need to change much and the episodic subplots are still varied and entertaining. I would have liked for it to come together in a more cohesive writing, if it makes sense? Sorry, if it is confusing LOL.

Callum is not an effective protagonist

This is my real HUGE critic to The Dragon Prince's act 1. Callum is not a good protagonist and not because of his characterization or anything, but simply because he fails to be a protagonist. His impact on the story is too little, especially in season 3, which is the climax.

The protagonist doesn't have to be the most interesting, best characterized character ever. They don't even have to get the best or most trasformative arc (often they do have the richest arc though). Still, they are the most important character in a story and they have to be decisive for the conflict. Callum isn't. In season 3 especially he lacks a cohesive arc and takes on the role of Raylla's helper. There is nothing wrong for a character being key in another character's development. Still, one thing is to write parallel arcs where two equally important characters have an impact on each other (RWBY's bumbleby), while another is to have a character written only for the sake of a more important character's development (Zoey and Mira for Rumi in kpop demon hunters). Both writing choices can be good, but you must know which one you are using. Callum and Raylla are supposed to be equally important, but in season 3 Callum is written as a supporting character to Raylla. What makes it even worse is that it is the final season of the act, where everyone's arc is meant to reach the climax.

Two thoughts on this topic.

First thought- You can see how the writers tried to give Callum more importance by literally setting up a last minute arc for him aka the Magical Wings. Except it is very bad. First of all, it comes too late in the story (it is set up at the beginning of the last episode and solved by the end of it). Secondly, it is not explained nor shown why Callum can't perform that specific magic. He has mastered all the others pretty quickly. Why is that one giving him trouble? It should be linked to an internal flaw and explored, but it isn't. It is just very shallow. If they wanted that magic to be the crux of Callum's arc in season 3 they should have set it up far earlier and should have linked it to Callum's flaw, so that him getting it right means something.

Wanna an example of a story which pulled off the same trope better?

Weiss summoning her Knight's arm in RWBY's volume 3 is a perfect example of how empowering the power-up trope can be! Notice that in her case:

The Schnees' ability to summon avatars is set up at the very beginning of the season during Weiss and Winter's dialogue.

The power is discussed and explained. In particular, the Schnees all share the same semblance, but each one can summon different avatars according to their different experiences. So, this power becomes linked to their individuality.

The ability to summon is tied to Weiss's sense of self, which is the crux of her arc. All her life she struggles to be her own person outside of her family name. Initially, she is unable to summon because she has yet to define who she herself is. So, this power is symbolic of Weiss's overall arc.

Weiss using this power to save Velvet is the culmination of Weiss's arc in the first act of the story. She starts the series being selfish and racist towards Faunus and ends this section of the narrative risking her life to save a Rabbit Faunus. Moreover, she unlocks her power by giving in to her emotions, something Winter advised her against. This is subtle, but sets up the future foiling between the sisters.

Even if Weiss succeeds at summoning the Knight's arm, she is still far away from a complete summon. So, even if this ability is set-up at the beginning of the season and gets pay off by the end, she still has room of improvement and more development. In fact, her summoning powers comment the entirety of her arc (she is such a Queen, I love her).

So, in Weiss's story the moment where she unlocks the power is carefully prepared, while in Callum's it isn't.

Second thought - Consider the final fight and think what would have changed if Callum were not there. The answer is: Raylla would have died. That's all. And you are gonna say "This is actually important!". It is, but considering the overall stakes and the focus Callum has had throughout the three volumes, it is too little.

For comparison, in ATLA season 1 if Aang were not there, it is not just that Katara or Sokka would have died, but that the Water Tribe would have lost the War. In short, Aang as the protagonist has an impact on the main conflict, which is the war against the Fire Nation. Moreover, Katara and Sokka's arcs too tie into the main conflict and have an impact on it in a way that makes sense for their overall role in the narrative:

Katara's main plotline is to protect Aang. If she fails, she doesn't just lose a friend, but the world loses the Avatar and the war is lost. So, her story too ties into the main stakes of the series.

Sokka's main choice in season 1 is to let Yue go and save the Moon Spirit. This might seem not a big choice, but it fits Sokka's character. He is overall less important than Aang, Katara and Zuko (he usually gets the C plot in the climax). Moreover, he goes against the patriarchal laws and traditions of his tribe (he was tasked with the honor to protect Yue) in order to respect the will and strength of the woman he loves. Sokka would have never accepted Yue's sacrifice at the beginning of the season. He does in the end and his choice too ties into the main conflict, as Yue saves the Moon Spirit and so the ability to waterbend.

So, all three ATLA's main characters have a climax that fits their story and impacts the main conflict. Callum doesn't as his climax happens after the fight has already ended. I also think it is a little weird, because they really have to change very very little to give Callum a good climax and impact on the story. They could have just had him join Rayla in fighting Viren. It would have been interesting to see him meeting Viren at the end of his journey considering their confrontation at the beginning of the series. It would have also been the perfect chance to show Callum's growth as a wizard, his inexperience compared to Viren, but also his willingness to try new things and think outside the box (which is the main theme of act 1 btw). He and Rayla could defeat Viren together and yes... Callum could still use the magical wings to save Rayla.

They made a strange choice instead. They gave Callum what is basically the C plot. As a matter of fact during the final fight there are three plotlines going on:

The A plot > Viren vs Raylla to get Zym

The B plot > The main fight where Ezran brings the dragons, Claudia and Soren face each other etc

The C plot > The rest of the fight where everyone punches each other and the supporting characters are given little moments to shine according to their importance and arcs

Callum is basically integrated in the C plot given his role to fight the soldiers who climb up the mountain (btw his plan is horrible :P I am sorry, but Mulan did it first and she did it better). It is like... not a pivotal conflict. Moreover, he even fails and the conflict is solved by the supporting characters arriving, which is fitting because it is a C plot and it makes sense to have it solved by the supporting characters. Still, why wasn't Callum given a bigger role, which tied better with his supposed importance and justified the time invested in his character throughout the three seasons?

Just to be clear, I think the solution they found still works thematically. The first act's theme is that you do not have to be tied down from the past. So, Callum learning magic and ending the act by flying high, while Viren can never escape the cycle of hate and the past, so dies falling down fits. Still, Callum's arc mostly works as a bunch of ideas and imo lacks a little bit of substance. I think it could have been handled better overall. I will add that giving Callum magic in the second season kind of killed his arc because he was given what he wanted with very little effort. After that moment he is barely challenged anymore in act 1.

Anyway, I actually love analyzing how climaxes handle the different character arcs and I could speak more about this by comparing tdp's climax with others I like (RWBY's volume 3 or hazbin's season 1, for example). Still, I think I conveyed my point :P

ACT 2

For me it is difficult to speak of act 2 because I genuinely think it is very very bad :''') I am sorry if you enjoyed it and I think it is great you did! You also do not have to agree with my thoughts, of course. Still, for me it is probably irredeemable even if they write a masterpiece in act 3. All of this to say, imo act 2 needs to be restructured completely to work. As for how to do it, it really depends on the kind of story that they wanna tell.

If act 2 story needs to end with the arch-dragons sacrificing themselves and saving the protagonists, then it needs to be built better. For example, we need to care more about the arch-dragons, which means they should have arcs (especially Zubeia) or be characterized better. I also think in regards of the finale, the framing needs to be better. Like, is the ending of act 2 a true victory or an empty victory? It is not clear because on the one hand it is framed as a victory. Still, the main characters do basically nothing to gain this victory and many of them fail their characters' arcs or have development framed negatively (Ezran), so it should feel more like an empty victory. And even if you want to frame it as a victory somehow... the sense of loss should be emphasized more. Like, Zym lost his mom, but this is given zero pathos.

Even not considering the finale, though, I think the main problem is what @hamliet highlights here:

I think "The Dragon Prince" is almost the exact embodiment of the problem South Park's creators warned against:

We can take these beats, which are basically the beats of your outline, and if the words "and then" belong between those beats, you're fucked, basically. You've got something pretty boring. What should happen between every beat that you've written down is either the word "therefore" or "but."

Almost everything that happened in TDP was an "and then." And then Rayla broke up with Callum off screen. And then Claudia got a boyfriend. And then they travel to a library and find a random poem. And then there are shadow zombies. It's an utterly boring story wherein the only stakes are the ones projected onto the empty husks that are the main characters.

The story as a whole is very disconnected and needs to be made more cohesive. You get a glimpse of this just from the first couple of episodes of season 4.

-Claudia decides to resurrect Viren and to go get the staff after his resurrection; why couldn't she go before resurrecting him? It would have saved her time. Also she is lucky enough that Zubeia and Zym leave the mountain EXACTLY when she decides to infiltrate it. Couldn't they have written it so that Claudia had discovered Zubeia were gonna leave that day and she decided to go for it specifically because there would not be a huge archdragon guarding the mountain?

-Raylla comes back COINCIDENTALLY when Zubeia comes to Xadia and Claudia resurrects Viren. Just in time to join in the adventure! Also the reason why she decided to come back right at that moment? Never elaborated on!

-Everyone decides to go save the world... just because we say so plus power of friendship. Now, this is not bad per se, but it is better to give each character a personal stake in the adventure. Once again, think about RWBY. They all want to become Huntresses to help people, but they do so for different reasons. Weiss wants to save her family, Blake wants to help the Faunus, Yang wants the thrill of the adventure and Ruby wants to be a hero like Summer. The Dragon Prince characters in act 2 are instead just doing things because the plot demands so. I think it can work on some level, but if you add this to the other coincidences that ALL happen in the first 2 or 3 episodes of season 4, then it is too much. It is not a story, but events happening chronologically.

In general, to me act 2 feels more like a DND campaign mastered and played by beginners. No doubt it is fun to play it, but it is not a great story.

Anyway, I will try to focus my thoughts on 1 main element that imo needed to be handled better.

RAYLLUM BREAK-UP

Basically everyone has said it already, but it needed to be handled better. Listen, I don't particularly like Rayllum as a ship. When I watched the series the first time, I did not mind it, but then I re-watched it with @hamliet and she pointed out how forced and rooted in fanservice it was. She also suspected it was not the original plan... and she was right. It was confirmed (can't find the video, sorry) that it was a ship written into the story as a reaction to everyone shipping Raylla and Callum. Now, this is not a problem. Some of the best ships come to be precisely because of fans' reaction and usually if people ship two characters that much it is because their dynamic has potential. So, I did not really mind them being together. It had potential and they could have done a ton of interesting things with it. However, the second act proves how little effort was put into the whole thing because an off-screen breakup is a trick to force an artificial conflict in three seasons out of four.

Breakups are important when you write a relationship, especially an endgame relationship, which happens to be the central one of your story. That is because they are not the end of the relationship, but they transform the characters' dynamic. Basically a break-up is something that should happen because the characters have no other real way to change. In particular, they can't change together, but need to go their separate ways to develop. Or alternatively, they need to feel the fear that if they do not change, they can't stay together. In short, a break-up is a big deal and should be treated as such.

The Dragon Prince instead chooses to have its big break-up off screen (yeah, it is in a comic, but they should have shown/explored its reasons in the series) and then have Rayla come back, have a monologue about how she was "too obsessed with revenge"... and that was it. I especially dislike her monologue (the one she has while Callum is sleeping) because:

1-It is telling us what happened instead of showing it, either through a flashback or in a more complex dialogue between her and Callum

2-It is basically telling us Rayla has already overcome at least part of her flaw off-screen. She left because she was obsessed with revenge, she realized she made a mistake and she came back. Basically she had character development off-screen.

They tell us there was a conflict off-screen, but also that Raylla has already learnt better. Why can't they show us this process?

Again two thoughts.

First thought - I think time-skips are different to handle especially if you decide to have important shit go on during the skip. That said, you need to show us what went down and for a thing like a Rayllum's break-up we needed a flashback, possibly connected to a conflict where they are showing us the same flaws that led to the break-up. I remember watching Elementary and there was a moment where at the end of a season Sherlock left Watson. Then, there was a time-skip and Sherlock came back with a new assistant called Kitty. Well, they get a flashback episode where Kitty and Sherlock's first meeting is shown. It is not something skipped over. They should have done something similar in the dragon prince if they wanted to give any emotional weight to their separation imo.

Second thought -I know the flaw they choose to explorewith Rayla is her not trusting others enough, but the focus she is given to deal with it is not enough for me to justify something as big as a beak-up. It is a flaw already explored in act 1 and there is no escalation of it. If anything, it feels de-powered. It could have worked nicely as the focus of one episode, but not as the crux of a break-up-worth conflict. It is similar to how Weiss, Blake and Yang all regress a little bit in RWBY volume 9. It is a temporary regression that has consequences and is dealt with, but it's not given the same focus of Ruby and Jaune's arcs, which are more complex in volume 9. It feels to me as if they treated a regression like WBY's as if it was something with the complexity of Ruby's crisis. The weight was not there.

I will add it is usually my preference that a break-up involves both characters, unless one is far more important than the other (see Braum in The Greatest Showman is the protagonist, while Charity is his love interest, so it makes sense her leaving him is mostly a consequence for his screw up). However, the break-up in tdp happens mostly because of Rayla. It is her flaw that causes it and she is the one who needs to learn from it. Sure, Callum is hurt from it, like everyone would be, but he doesn't really need to change to get back together with Rayla. His major challenge in volume 4 is that he needs to forgive Rayla and to welcome her back. Still, how is this challenge connected to his arc? Was Callum framed as an unforgiving person? I don't really think so. What did he need to learn?

In comparison, you can see that other break-ups like Stolitz in helluva or Bumbleby in RWBY (yeah they were not together romantically, but it still counts like a separation) or ElliotxJD in Scrubs all happens specifically because of who the characters are. These separations happen and hurt because of the characters' flaws. For example, Bumbleby's separation at the end of volume 3 highlights their respective problems. Yang is controlled by her strong emotions, so rushes in recklessly and is unable to understand why Blake left. Blake is too scared to stay and runs away in a misguided attempt to protect her loved ones. If they were not Yang and Blake things would have worked out differently because they would not have had these reactions.

If Yang's ex lover had hurt Blake, Yang would have never left. Her coping mechanism would have been to become overprotective of Blake (like she is with Ruby initially), which would have caused a different series of problems.

If Weiss were the one hurt and left behind, she would not have reacted as angrily as Yang. She would have understood Blake better because she can relate to the feeling of dealing with an abuser.

I don't get the same feeling from Rayla and Callum. Sure, Rayla leaves because it is her flaw, but how does it affect Callum specifically because he is Callum?

In short, I think the break-up is not explored enough, it does not particularly tie with who the characters are and the developmen that is brought to Raylla could have honestly happened even without the break-up. I mean, what would be the difference if they had never broken up? Raylla would have been given the coins by Claudia, would have kept silent about them only to then open up to Callum. The same dynamic and character development still works even without the break up imo. And this shows how unnecessary it was (just my opinion of course).

WHAT TO CHANGE?

Again, it depends on the kind of story you want. For you maybe the dragon prince is perfect and has managed to give you a lot, which is great :)

Considering all my criticism, I can try to suggest a different beginning of volume 4 structurally? Maybe this I can do (see you hating it and preferring the original story structure, which is fair :P).

So, let's see...

I think I would have started with Zubeia and Zym leaving for Katolis. Claudia knows about their journey there (it is a public meeting between Kingdoms, I don't see why it should be a secret), so she seizes this opportunity to go and steal the staff. However, there is an unforseen complication, that is Rayla. She has managed to track Claudia down, so they fight. In the chaos of the battle Ibis gets killed and Raylla is temporally incapacitated, so Claudia leaves with the staff. As a minor detail, I would like if Stella were introduced as a magical creature Claudia wanted to use for Dark Magic, but Rayla saves her. I think it would be better to show Rayla and Stella's first meeting, rather than to have Stella be just kinda there.

Anyway, Ibis makes a magic that lets Rayla send a message to Zubeia. Meanwhile blah blah blah things happening in Katolis, blah dragons and human conflict blah Callum is sad Rayla left. Rayla's message reaches the other characters. Having Rayla deliver the message solves the problem of personal stakes. Of course Callum would want to go there once he knows Rayla is there. Of course Soren would want to know once he knows Claudia was there.

Cut to the final scene of the episode where Claudia brings Viren back. And yeah, we already know Viren was coming back, but they completely changed the context for the scene to begin with. The finale scene of volume 3 strongly implies Claudia resurrected Viren immediately after the battle by using the same spell she had used to heal Soren. It is just she sacrificed a human life this time instead (and it would have been a better choice imo because it immediately shows us Claudia's spiral instead of having her be "I had to do so many bad things I am not telling you, so I can stay sympathetic!"... like no, let our girl kill a man to bring back Viren; it totally fits her and is far better writing). In volume 4 they instead change it to make it so years have passed and Claudia had to go an overly complicated ritual. Since they already changed it this much, I think it is not big deal to show it at the end of the first episode.

Anyway, this is faaaaaaaaaar from being perfect, it is also not a story lol. Just a bunch of thoughts put together. Still, my point is that these changes at least let the story show more than it tells. We immediately know why Callum, Soren and Ezran would feel compelled to go. The set up would also let Raylla and Callum work out their conflict on-screen better because Raylla has not chosen to go back. She would be forced to face Callum again and would be confronted more directly with her flaw. Claudia and Raylla's initial fight could also set-up their final confrontation at the end of the volume, if you wanna keep it. And actually you can work an interaction where... I don't know Raylla discovers about the coins and Claudia discovers those are Raylla's parents... so that by the end of the season the exchange does not come out of nowhere (did I miss something about the coins btw? I always felt confused at Claudia knowing those were Raylla's parents... maybe she only knew about Runaan).

Anyway, sorry if this is confused or boring or annoying. These are just my thoughts. Have a nice day!

[hamliet]

hi kate i hope your summer is going well! i recently came to the conclusion that i don't know myself that well (thanks trauma). i really struggle to express myself especially through words

i wanna write and analyze...i really really do! but i'm struggling so bad. i look up to you and @aspoonofsugar a lot for your analyses, explorations and ability to write/analyze with clarity, emotion and depth.

if this isn't too intensive, would you be able offer any advice/resources?

thank u for taking the time to read this

Sending you hugs, Anon. I'm sorry you've been through that.

It's hard to know oneself and it's a lifelong journey. We're always becoming. Don't beat yourself up--you won't realize how much progress you're making until you look back years later.

Analysis is fun and it's okay to make mistakes. My number one recommendation is that you read analysis, and you're already doing that! I wrote more in-depth advice here and I think what I say there I stand by.

Here's a doggo and a kitter for you.

[hamliet]

Oh if you're a CaPri fan have you read Dark Rise and Dark Heir? They're so good!!!?

Not yet but I might start them soon!!

[hamliet]

4. the concept of “mischaracterizing a character” overall is, in my personal opinion, not valid. because movies, books, tv shows, etc. are mainly about the interpretation of each viewer. you can interpret this character this way. other people can also interpret the same character differently. and there’s no “right or wrong” way to interpret a character when they’re all fiction and fantasies.

how do you deal with mischaracterization? i've seen some discourse how it's not valid but it just feels like ppl trying to state that headcanons/fanon is superior to canon when technically canon is the source material. this isn't to say you can't experiment and play around..but i feel like there's a fine line between different interpretations and deadass wrong characterization

It depends on context, but overall, I disagree with the idea that mischaracterization isn't valid.

First of all, literature has been interpreted in a variety of different ways. There are actual schools of thought that argue that the author's intent does matter. And there are schools of thought that argue "death of the author," only the text matters. There are schools of thought that bring up the structure of the story as the main way we understand it, the historical context in which it was written, the context in which we read it, and more.

I personally think that mischaracterization is arguing something about a character that the text does not support. However, sometimes you have to get into historical context and the like to see what the text was intended to mean, and then ask whether or not the context shifting changes what it actually means.

If you can make an argument for it textually, then sure, it's interpretation. If you can't, then I think you've got misreading.

[hamliet]

re prev ask what do you mean by framing?

It tells us what to think of an event in the story! Here's an answer.

[hamliet]

i saw one of your asks where you mentioned that romantic and platonic relationships aren't interchangeable. i would love to hear more of your thoughts as someone who has a lot of queerplatonic relationships, i feel like romance can still be present in platonic relationships

if my memory is right i think this was in the context of apothecary diaries

In fiction or in real life?

I guess I don't know that I agree, or that I don't think that my understanding is as such. I don't think that either is inherently more powerful than the other--traditionally romance has been valued over platonic bonds, but now some of the backlash goes too far and dismisses romance for platonic friendships. But I do think they are different, though it's difficult to explain why.

Edit: To be clear, I am addressing my own experiences and understandings and why I wouldn't call them as such. However, language is, itself, just a tool we use to convey what we experience, feel, and think. It is not perfect, and language is not without its own impreciseness. Don't let anyone, not even me, tell you that your experiences and assessements of them are not valid.

Some of the most loving things people have done for me have been in platonic friendships. But I don't want to have sex with them, I don't want to kiss them, and I don't want to spend my life living with them as a life partner--day in, day out, sharing a bed and a life. I don't want to raise children with them.

Now, I do have friends I want to be friends with for life. If I have kids in the next couple years, I would want them to be a part of the kids' lives, to the degree they want to (as some of my closest friends are, you know, child free). There is a lifelong commitment there. I would die for them and I will love them forever.

We support each other's goals, yes. But we're not in the business of combining our finances and if one of us needs to move, we won't necessarily move with just because. In a romantic context, that is kind of more expected. My friends give me advice, but with a romantic partner, we are actually making the decision together.

However, I can't tell anyone their experiences are not their experiences. If that's your experience, then I believe you on that. How we are defining "romantic" may differ, but that's semantics. What matters is what it is for you. <3

That said, in fiction, yeah, the types of relationships portrayed represent different things in different stories. They aren't "just because," or they shouldn't be. They should be tying into the story's themes and character arcs. In the context of TAD, a story that heavily addresses sexuality, romance, and the nature of love, as these often decide character's entire lives (it takes place in a harem), alongside platonic friendships and the like, I do think that a romantic and sexual connection is thematically important for Jinshi and Maomao's arcs.

I also think that it depends on the particular context and text of the actual story. For example, in BSD, I think the main focus is Akugatawa and Atsushi's relationship. I don't think it matters if it's platonic or romantic. But because of the particular context of TAD and the sexual components already introduced to their relationship, I do think it matters for J/M that the relationship be confirmed romantic. The author set up that expectation, so needs to do something with it.

[hamliet]

hi kate i was wondering how you would address morality and puritanism in online spaces concerning fiction especially if we're dealing with topics like incest, pedophilia, age gaps etc

Uhhhh I'm anti-censorship. It's a slippery slope.

I'm also pro being responsible and being aware of the world we live in and what's in it. Nothing occurs in a vacuum.

Writing is a balance between these things and I encourage writers to approach things with nuance and empathy and knowing you won't always get it right, but are trying. Critical thinking is important for writers... but also for readers.

A few things:

Depicting something is not endorsement. Framing matters.

Authors are human. Humans aren't always clear in communication. You see, sometimes authors intend to frame something some way and kind of fail at it. That still doesn't mean they're intending to endorse the thing they framed weirdly and the way fandom goes to "burn the witch" right away instead of critique is disturbing.

The reasons people write about certain topics might have to do with overcoming things in their own lives or general questions they have about the universe and morality. Most writers don't write horrific things out of a "hehe, I get pleasure from hurting people" posture.

We're not entitled to know about an author's backstory and traumas. Why not assume the best and keep critiques to the work and not the person?

Theory isn't practice. Just because someone theoretically explores possibilities in a story does not mean it's a step-by-step how-to guide they want everyone in the world to follow if the subject portrayed remotely connects to someone's real-life struggles.

Just because an incident in a story reminds a reader of their trauma does not mean the author is specifically addressing them. That's a trigger, which is fair. But step back and realize it isn't about you.

People have competing needs, including writers and readers. Some stories are not for you. That's okay. The more stories the better because then everyone can have one for them.

Fiction allows a safe place for writers and readers to explore what-ifs. Not every story has the same purpose, too. A silly side smut fanfic is not aiming to change the world.

Fanfiction allows people to explore what-ifs that are not married to canon. For example, aging up characters.

Fandom discourse dilutes a lot of "problematic" topics by trivializing it and making so many false equivalents it's almost funny. I'm sorry but two neighbors growing up together is not incest. Nor is a vampire romance an age-gap.

I think the Honest Trailers of Kpop Demon Hunters sums up fandom witch hunts well:

After one look at Rumi, he's ready to risk it all in a smoldering no-mance with absolutely zero kissing... Because Gen-Z thinks consenting adults have cooties. And the age-gap discourse would have burned down the internet... Still, I saw them 'floating over Seoul,' if you catch my drift ;)

(Yes, 'Free' was a metaphorical consummation of their feelings.)

(They better bring Jinu back and make Rujinu endgame in the sequel!)

Anyways are there things I've seen that I personally find repulsive and won't touch with a ten-foot pole? 100%. Are there classical books I can't read for the subject matter? Yeah. Lolita is one. Do I think it should be banned? No, but I do think readers should be encouraged to think critically about the framing of the novel, which may not be perfect but from my understanding really isn't an endorsement yet creeps and others don't get that because critical thinking is dead apparently.

[hamliet]

Is it just me or fandom nowadays are more homophobic and hypocrate?

As, Capri fan, I know it's not a perfect series and have some flaws but overall, it's a good story and I love Laurent and Damen's relationship.

Do you know that I just received comment from someone that said, "How can you love that series? The covers alone told me all I need to know about that. And the bad reviews about them. You should read more wholesome queer books!"

Then I asked, that in her profile she said that she love a (het) romance mafia series. And it's kinda dark romance so not wholesome at all! You know what ahe said, "It's normal m/f romance. That's difference. But when it's gay or saphhic they should be wholesome and best when they're non-explicit ones."

Sorry for my rant. I don't have any problem with het romance, I enjoy them, too. But they way people treat queer romance just made me sad.

Also I'm confused with so many Capri hate! "Damen is the cause of Laurent's trauma. If only he did not kill his brother, Laaurent will have happy life". Hello! The Regent is still there! One way or another, Regent will still kill Auguste, right?

So, Hamliet, I found your meta about Capri side stories, Pet and I love them!

Can I ask what do you love about Captive Prince? And what do you think about Damen and Laurent's relationship? Are both of them in your top 5 fav Capri characters?

Oh, you don't think Laurent is ooc in Summer Palace, right? See, I read someone said, " I love Capri only until first half of third book. Because in the last half of the third book and especially in Summer Palace, Laurent is so ooc!" & "Damen is just too good and only have handsome face but stupid" Like are we reading the same thing?

Sorry again because most of this ask are rants, Hamliet. Will love reading your thoughts on Capri!

I do like Captive Prince. Yes, it has things I would critique about it (Laurent's responsibility for Ancel's assault on Damen not really being dealt with, chiefly).

That said, I think it's well written as a story, and Laurent is, in particular, a fantastically written character. One of the most complex and well-developed I've ever read, actually. (In Summer Palace, I don't think Laurent is OOC. I think he's healing.)

My favorite characters are:

Aimeric

Laurent

Ancel

Damen

Nicaise

I have often considered "Aimeric lives" AUs and would absolutely want to read them if anyone has recs. No, I am not over his death. Yes, it's well done. Yes, I still wanted him to live, dammit.

I am going to recommend you this meta by @aspoonofsugar, whom I begged to read it and then wrote this fantastic meta (as I knew Sugar-chan would!). They have a great take on Laurent as a whole, as well as his and Damen's relationship (and his foils with other characters).

As for that person...

The idea that queer stories have to be wholesome is gross and queerphobic. Human beings are often not wholesome. Queer stories should be wholesome, sure. They should also be messy. They should be dark. They should be tragic, and they should be happily ever after. They should have all sorts of stories and all sorts of representation.

Now, you can have preferences for what kind of stories you prefer, but the idea that it's morally wrong to like a story that isn't your preference is so immature I don't even have time to engage with that level of egocentrism.

And I do understand why Captive Prince isn't for everyone. It does contain triggering content, and while it mostly frames it well, I do think it stumbles a bit with the Damen-Laurent-Ancel thing. However, that doesn't erase its strengths for me. If someone doesn't like it, that's fine though.

[hamliet]

Do you think Andrew and Neil's romance is out of the blue? So, just read someone's review, "I love AFTG but does it really have to romance so out of the blue. We can have sports - found family story but suddenly Andrew became gay just because he was an SA victim? It's clear the author want Andrew and Renee at the beginning then suddenly gay?"

When you read AFTG, can you see the subtext that Andrew and Renee are only platonic? For me, Neil and Andrew's developing relationship are beautiful. I love them so much!

And somehow, Andrew kinda remind me of Laurent (Captive Prince). Do you agree? Oh what if (crossover) Damen and Laurent met the foxes, do you think they can get along?

Sorry if you're not Capri fan, please just ignore the last part of my ask.

No lol. I actually thought the romance was very slow-burn and well built. Again, the first Fox Neil actually encounters in the story is Andrew who hits him with a phallic object.

Like. It's not all that subtle. If they missed that idk what to tell them.

I do think you can be confused about the misdirection and wondering if it is actually Kevin/Neil for most of the first book and into the second, but when you reread it looks more like artful misdirection (and some leftover throuple drafting). Andrew/Neil is definitely set up.

Andrew became gay just because he was an SA victim? It's clear the author want Andrew and Renee at the beginning then suddenly gay?

Okay I think this person is just a homophobe because 1) that is a very classic homophobic argument and it is clearly not the case in the story, and 2) it is very clear that if anything the author wanted Jean and Renee together, not Andrew lol. He was always gay in the story, I believe.

I do like Capri, but I don't do crossover stuff very much!

[hamliet]

How are you?

I want to say, thanks to you I got into danmei!

I knew about MXTX works all thanks to you. Now, after almost 5 years into danmei fandom, I can say that your danmei metas (especially for MDZS & TGCF) are still one of the best that I've read until now.

Now, I don't found many people wrote about Ballad of Sword and Wine, so when I realized you wrote them, too. I'm so excited when reading them. And I love them so much....

QJJ is in my top 5 all time favorite danmei (until now).

Now, after I've finished my 100th danmei series, I want to send my special thanks to you, Hamliet. 🥰🥰💐🌻

I know that you're not into danmei anymore, but maybe you'll love Silent Reading (Mo Du), Global Examination (QQGK), and Legend of Exorcism (TBFYL).

Take care 🤗

Thank you so much! Ha, I'm always into great stories, so I will look into those!

[hamliet]

Hi! I saw that you answered a question mentioning The Apothecary Diaries. Have you watched both seasons? Do you like it? What do you think about the characters?

Yes, I have! I really have enjoyed it.

Jinshi and Maomao are great characters, and I've written briefly about why I think their romance is necessary for their characters and the plot/themes.

It does a really wonderful job of exploring its characters and making them complex--particularly the female characters, which is notable because it would be easy to portray the harem as caricatures. Yet it takes great care not to do that, and also portrays a rather sex-positive message that still doesn't break the immersion of a patriarchal world and bad system. The characters are usually trying to do their best within the system they are stuck in, and I appreciate that.

But I think the most well-executed and complex plot so far is Shisui. I highly, highly recommend @aspoonofsugar's meta on her and her foiling with Maomao and Jinshi. here. It says everything I would say but better. :P

[hamliet]

Is the use of Pixis and the admission of his basis on an Imperial general is the absolute closest thing we are ever going to get for certain about Isayama’s political views?

No lol. If you want to consider what an artist thinks, it's a poor technique to look at an individual character unless they're framed as the author's mouthpiece (always right, always preaching), and Pixis isn't.

Instead, look at the themes. Characters are vehicles to that, placed in the plot, give us a full(er) picture. Not perfect, but you can see what themes they were considering, what solutions they came up with.

AoT is chiefly about individual freedom and where freedom itself becomes a chain, and about the cruelties of war. It's about human nature, and specifically in terms of that about the limits of humanity in terms of beauty and cruelty.

To quote Dostoyevsky (and yes, Isayama directly references numerous times):

“The awful thing is that beauty is mysterious as well as terrible. God and the devil are fighting there and the battlefield is the heart of man.”

Humans are capable of immense cruelty and immense beauty. To use Christian terms (though I don't think Isayama has ever conveyed religious themes, unlike say Ishida; the reason I mention this is that these ideas are common across the world and across religions, but I'm using terms from my background and understanding), human beings have the image of God in them, and also the original sin of wanting to be like God in them.

All I feel comfortable saying about Isayama's politics is that he is very, very clearly anti-fascist, but in a way that a lot of online people tragically and ironically don't seem capable of understanding--a way that approaches it from the wise and true perspective that fascists are human beings, and therefore the best inoculation against fascism is not to say "I could never be like that," but instead to understand its appeal, and thus realize how anyone can become a monster.

But even then, AoT's goal is not to tell you who is a political hero or to give you instructions for society in our world. It doesn't focus on the systems so much as it focuses on human nature. It's more about the individual (though it does engage with how the individual comprises and thus affects society), and it asks whether being a monster negates humanity. And it doesn't offer easy answers, because there are none.

The ultimate thematic conclusion is that even the people who have done the worst things are still people who can be loved. Even if there is no option besides ending their lives. Why? Just because they exist. To quote Carla Jaeger, "Because he was born into this world.”

How to translate that theory into practice as an individual is hard enough. How to translate that into political movements is even harder, and the fact that the manga ends before this can be covered is fair. It was never the point of the story.

[hamliet]

hi! can I ask you a dostoevsky question that feels rly simple but I just can never get my head around??

What is your take on Ivan and Pavel's relationship?? it feels so central to everything in the novel but I have hardly cracked the surface of it

Hi! I answered this exact question a few years ago here.

[hamliet]

Always a delight to read your meta about fandom and classical literatures. Yes! Yes! So agree with what you said about queerbait, censorship, and bury your gays/tragic queer love stories...

And now I know a lot about the Victorian authors. I never knew that about Stoker or Melville. That queer people have always been there all throughout history, is one of the best thing that I realized. Thanks for your post, Hamliet. Even Andersen, too (the one who wrote my all time favorite fairy tales).

Oh yeah, because of you I know of Maurice, thanks a lot. I grew up with classical books but never knew E.M. Forster was gay (sorry I'm so late). And thanks a lot for that link to the article of homoeroticsm subtext in Bram's Dracula. Really love reading it....

As someone who live in VERY ANTI LGBTQ country with homophobic country, subtexts are everything for us (queer people) here.

I only knew Oscar Wilde was queer. Even then, my mother said, "See he became homosexual and will enter hell. Feel sorry for him because before that he was normal, married man and have children."

I love my mother but I'm afraid to tell her that I enjoy queer romance stories way more than the "normal" het romance. Can you imagine her reaction if I tell her that maybe I'm aroace (not interested at all in romantic relationship) and enjoy m/m & f/f media?

Anyway, about subtext. I read somewhere that Virgina Woolf story have some subtext for lesbians. Is it true?

And that Sherlock Holmes from the novels are actually queer if you really read them. As Holmes fan, I never see the subtext. What do you think?

Sorry if I'm wrong about the above, Hamliet.

Speaking about queerbaiting, yes! Naruto is that. And I know Naruto and Sasuke are not really meant to be seen as gay (you've written about them and I agree). But, narusasu is the reason I know about m/m stories (because I ship them and search for their fanfics) and now I found myself enjoy BL & GL media.

So, yeah, the mangaka unintentionally got many benefits too from m/m shippers, too 😆😆

Do you mind if I give you some LGBTQ manga recs that are NOT BL nor GL (so not romance focused) ?

I think you'll enjoy "Shimanami Tasogare", "I want to be A Wall", "Is Love the Answer?", and "To Strip the Flesh".

If you have the time, please read them! All are complete and all of the above are less than 10 volume manga!

Hi! I'm always happy to receive recs, so thank you! And I'm glad you liked the Dracula article; I enjoyed it as well!

I hope that one day LGBTQ+ people will be able to live in every country and love without fear. I believe that's what God wants for us. But until then, even the most stringent of countries can't keep subtext from speaking. There has been so, so much progress in the past 50 years that it gives me hope--even with the current setbacks in the United States, where I currently live--that there will be widespread acceptance eventually. Let's pray for that day and work for it in the meantime.

I'm sorry your mom feels that way. I know many who do as well, and I think it's sad that fear so drives their view of God and thus of people. As for why you are drawn to queer stories, that's fine! I grew up in a cult-like church that denigrated all sexuality while also being obsessed with it at the same time. It taught me to feel guilt about sexual feelings and romantic ones, and I do think that's partly why I enjoy queer love stories as well as straight ones: I relate to that struggle, when everyone around you is condemning of something you find beautiful.

Yes, Virginia Woolf's works frequently contain sapphic subtext. In fact, Orlando was written for her (female) lover, a lady named Vita Sackville-West. Yes, Woolf was queer (I believe probably attracted to both men and women?), and yes, this was sexual as well as romantic. Also? Orlando's main character is difficult to classify genderwise. It's one of the earliest modern stories about someone who doesn't fit into either of western society's prescribed genders.

For Sherlock Holmes, it depends on your interpretation. I think you can read his relationship with Watson as having subtext; however, unlike with the other stories I recently discussed, I'm not actually sure that Doyle intentionally wrote it that way, as you can also make a solid case that Holmes was not into anyone at all. That doesn't matter though; people are free to interpret it how they like, and neither is more valid than the other.

However again, Doyle did actually write some very clearly queer stories like "John Barrington Cowles"--which is a werewolf story--and yes, he too ran in circles with Oscar Wilde. In fact they actually got a meal together with a publisher who commissioned stories from them on the same day... those stories went on to be The Sign of Four and The Picture of Dorian Gray.

[hamliet]

Hamliet, have you known this joke :

"Dracula : written in the hopes that Stoker's gay crush Henry Irving would notice him

Moby Dick : written in the hopes that Melville's gay crush Nathaniel Hawthorne would notice him

Frankenstein : written in a desperate attempt to not hang out with Lord Byron"

As someone who know classical books, can I ask, is it true that the writers above are closeted queer? Or the above really is just a joke?

Victorian author that I know was gay only Oscar Wilde (sorry for my lack of knowledge). Can you see the queer subtext in Dracula or Moby Dick?

I didn't know this joke! But, okay. Let's start.

I think we can't say that such stories are written for such purposes. But the joke does convey actual facts.

Melville

Yes, Moby Dick--and all of Melville's work, actually--contains queer subtext. Yes, the title is a deliberate pun (yeah. yeah.) This is an excellent write up of the question of Melville's sexuality that is both respectful and honest about the reality of it being difficult to assign labels to people from past eras where those labels didn't exist, as well as the reality that we can never assume that such themes being present in works definitely means that those are autobiographical. I think the final paragraph of this article expresses an "answer" well.

Was Melville in love with Hawthorne? It seems distinctly possible. He certainly wrote him very, um, suggestive letters. Such as this one (quoted in the above article as well) regarding Hawthorne praising Moby Dick:

Whence come you, Hawthorne? By what right do you drink from my flagon of life? And when I put it to my lips — lo, they are yours and not mine. I feel that the Godhead is broken up like the bread at the Supper, and that we are the pieces. Hence this infinite fraternity of feeling. Now, sympathizing with the paper, my angel turns over another page. You did not care a penny for the book. But, now and then as you read, you understood the pervading thought that impelled the book — and that you praised. Was it not so? You were archangel enough to despise the imperfect body, and embrace the soul. Once you hugged the ugly Socrates because you saw the flame in the mouth, and heard the rushing of the demon, — the familiar, — and recognized the sound; for you have heard it in your own solitudes.

Did Hawthorne reciprocate? There is no evidence that he did beyond friendship.

Stoker

Stoker was Irving's assistant and best friend. He named his son after Irving. He definitely had strong feelings for him that may or may not have been romantic in nature... but to quote the above linked article on Melville, that's not direct evidence, but it is evidence nonetheless.

Also, Stoker was married... to Florence Balcombe, who was previously pursued by Oscar Wilde. Yes, he and Wilde ran in the same circles. Yes, Dracula deals heavily with themes of repressed sexuality, and though it's straight in the novel, you can definitely see how the general idea of repressed sexuality, unapproved by society, would speak to queer readers and interest analysts. If you're interested in such analyses of Dracula, Talia Schaffer's "A Wilde Desire Took Me" is amazing.

Mary Shelley and Lord Byron

Mary Shelley eloped with Byron's friend Percy Shelley (also a poet) and Byron then ran off with her stepsister Clare Clairmont. The four of them ended up in Switzerland for a summer, but the weather was horrible (interestingly, because of the eruption of Mount Tambora in Southeast Asia) and they were stuck inside. With three talented writers, they proposed a challenge to write the best ghost story. Hence, Frankenstein.

Lord Byron was kind of quintessentially the "mad, bad, and dangerous to know" character whose now become the face of an entire archetype, even though it existed before him. Lord Byron (a poet) was bisexual, unambiguously. He definitely had sex with men and women, and that's widely accepted as factual. Fun fact: Lord Byron's daughter, Ada Lovelace, was the first computer programmer in the world.

Other Queer Victorian-Era writers (non-exhaustive)

Hans Christian Anderson (of The Little Mermaid fame) was also unambiguously queer. He may have never done anything sexual though, because his journals are kinda contradictory on this. He told one friend "my sentiments for you are those of a woman." The friend rejected him.

Then Anderson pursued a duke:

The Hereditary Grand Duke walked arm in arm with me across the courtyard of the castle to my room, kissed me lovingly, asked me always to love him though he was just an ordinary person, asked me to stay with him this winter ... Fell asleep with the melancholy, happy feeling that I was the guest of this strange prince at his castle and loved by him ... It is like a fairy tale.

Yeah. Yeah.

Also, while I don't think there is evidence to suggest the author himself was queer, Dostoyevsky actually did write a novel with a sapphic main character called Netochka Nezvanova. It was unfinished because he got arrested and sent to Siberia during the time of writing, but it is a very good read even unfinished.

So, yeah. The moral of the story is that queer people have always existed and, despite censorship, art testifies to this.

[hamliet]

Hamliet, can I ask your opinion on something? What do you think the meaning of "queerbait", "censorship", "bury your gays", and "tragic queer love story" in media? Like, what are the differences for each category? (Honestly, I'm kinda confused between queerbait, censorship and bury your gays)

So, I just saw someone talked about this and gave example for each category :

- Queerbait : Rin/Haru (Free) & Ash/Eiji (Banana Fish)

- Censorship : Victor/Yuuri (Yuri on Ice) & Mikaela/Yuuichiro (Seraph of the End)

- Bury your Gays : Ymir/Historia (Attack on Titan) & Lu Guang/Cheng Xiaoshi (Link Click)

- Tragic Queer Love Story : Ivan/Till (Alien Stage) & Nezumi/Shion (No.6)

For me, some of the examples above are not quite fitting, but what do you think? Do you have examples for each category from any media that you've finished?

Sorry for this random ask, it's just, I always enjoy your analysis, Hamliet. So, I can't wait to know your take on this topic!

I mean... I think all of these things are complicated. I definitely don't agree with some of the above--like Asheiji being queerbait. I think that's clearly censorship. Banana Fish was the 1980s-90s, people. My God.

Queerbaiting

Queerbaiting is strictly a fictional phenomenon. I can't stand it when people try to apply it to real life people. It's using queer-coding and teasing potentially queer storylines deliberately to bait queer audiences into tuning in because hey, there might be representation! Only to then be like nahhhh actually we're gonna pair these people with straight people. There's no intention of delivering what they advertised.

A queer story that ends badly (Asheiji) is still a queer story. It's not baiting.

Example? Honestly, to a degree, Sasuke and Naruto from Naruto. The author definitely wove in some tropes like kissing to bait yaoi fans. While I'd argue the connection was never intended to be romantic, I do think the author used tropes to bait fans.

Censorship

I think this depends on timing as well, which is something the Youths (kidding but not really) have forgotten. Gay marriage has been legal in the USA for TEN years. It is still not legal many places around the world.

Growing up in the early 2000s was extremely different for queer people, and queer stories were often told via subtext because they couldn't be text. That's not bait, because the authors were doing the best they could and telling a queer story even if they had to keep it "under the surface" or so.

See, Ash and Eiji, who by the way are in a story that came out during PEAK homophobia outrage and fearmongering because of AIDS, and to a degree Yuri!!! On Ice, but I'd argue YOI is explicitly gay and hard to ignore. They just can't directly show a kiss. But they did the best they could.

Bury Your Gays/Tragic Queer Love Story

I do think these tropes can be combined to a degree. The only thing is that Bury Your Gays doesn't have to involve a love story.

While these tropes are troubled, I think people miss that this trope started because writers tried to do what they could with what they were given.

This is, again, the type of story that exists because of censorship. It was largely impossible to show queer people in happy relationships, explicitly romantic, for CENTURIES of mainstream storytelling. Only recently have people been able to do this.

No happy ending with kids for them, so if someone has to die, they're the sacrifice. Also, the best way to crystallize a gay character as an impactful and heroic character? Have them die sacrificially or something, so that they can't live and tempt the hero they love, but hey, they can at the very least matter, and their love can accomplish something good. Intentions great, problems and pain everywhere.

I do think Yumihisu apply here, but Historia's arc in general was a nightmare that Yams dropped and knew it. You could argue Asheiji too. I also think that another example is Tara in Buffy the Vampire Slayer. I'm actually not against Tara dying in general, but I do think it could have been handled much better (like it had less to do with her character and more with Willow's) especially since, again, there's no story that exists in a vacuum. I suspect history may look back on Tara's death in BTVS as a decent writing choice.

See, the problem is that when this is the ONLY narrative available for queer people, when that's the only example queer audiences can see of themselves on the screen, well. That's a pretty disturbing and depressing message, isn't it? You're better off dead.

I think stories like Tara's could work in an ideal world where there's a ton of gay storylines and all different colors of those storylines--tragic, happy, etc. But because we don't live in that world, it's kind of classic "bury your gays."

Yumihisu is, again, badly written because Historia's arc was botched after Ymir's death. It's disappointing.

But you know what subverts this? EM Forster's novel Maurice. This was published posthumously as Forster, who was himself gay, couldn't get it published in his lifetime. This is an author who wrote Passage to India, which discussed racism and colonialism, and Howard's End, which covers sexism. Maurice tackles homophobia.

You know what's interesting? Almost all critics, after it was released, panned the novel. Why? Because they thought it needed to end tragically, and that it was poor writing to give it a happy ending.

But having read the novel myself, I don't agree. Not only that, but modern critics are revisiting the novel and reassessing. There's nothing that indicates the story should be tragic. The characters still receive consequences. In fact, the happiness is rather fitting. So, decades before TV Tropes was a thing, EM Forster subverted "bury your gays" to the ire of critics... only for time to justify his art.

[hamliet]

My best guess is that Nora’s going to limit Thea’s presence in Kevin’s books too—but still make her his endgame—while framing it as a reaction to the fandom’s dislike of her (which is understandable but as an author is regrettable) Otherwise, I really don’t get why she would cut Thea’s scenes from Jean’s trilogy, only to follow up with a Kevin duology where Thea’s his love interest, despite the fact that fandom opinion on her is overwhelmingly negative.

That's what seems most likely to me, too, but like you, I'm not sure it's the best writing choice.

See, the problem is that would fundamentally change the genre of the books. Romance has always played a significant role, even thought it's slow-burn romance. And it's okay, to a degree, to change that, especially since it's not a trilogy and the first book is going to be a prequel (hence it would cover KevThea). But... honestly, that would be a shame since Nora writes great romance.

I honestly think the best thing to do for the story as things stand now might be to give Kevin a new love interest endgame. (If 2/3 of the Jean story hadn't come out I'd say it would be to develop Thea in that if she's endgame, but, they have come out, and they've done worse by her than the original trilogy.) Then there could be both a previous outline of extra content with KevThea for those who like it, and another version for those who don't. We know she changes her mind on a lot of things, including Kevin's sexuality and endgame love interest, so it wouldn't surprise me if this did happen either.

However, nothing occurs in a vacuum and sidelining a canonically Black/South Asian female love interest due to fandom throwing hissy fits looks... bad. And would be hurtful. And while again, I think Thea is a very poorly written character as of now, that also makes me uncomfortable because 1) BL fandoms are often particularly hostile to women, and 2) fandoms in every medium are often extremely harsh on women of color. Caving to fans throwing hissy fits just empowers entitlement.

And honestly while I think replacing Thea with another love interest works for the quality of the story as it exists in a vacuum, the reality is that it's not occurring in a vacuum and there's no way this would even please everyone. People who would be hurt would have legitimate reasons to feel hurt. And fandom would not be mature about it because they already aren't very mature about Thea. It'd involve screaming at each other over what's "real canon" because "let people have their own headcanons and choose their version" won't suffice.

In short I feel sad because I don't know how you can write the best story without alienating a group of fans at this point. I want the Kevin duology, but I also think it's gonna be a fandom meltdown.

So again, the most likely option is to have Thea recontextualized and have a smaller role. But again, if she was going to do this, she should still be laying the groundwork for Thea as a likable character now instead of writing her out so that it at least feels satisfying when Kevin and Thea get together rather than as "lol pls don't be mad at me." Stand by your work if you believe in it.