#Critical analysis

[incorrectsmashbrosquotes]

It's actually funny, in a meta way, how people are salty about Miquella being a villain. Because, like, that's how it is in-game too.

The people of the Lands Between wanted Miquella to be the solution to their problems. To be the promised savior. The God who would get it all right and do what Marika tried to do and failed so resoundingly, bring an age of infinite prosperity.

But, no, it doesn't work like that. Gods can't solve their problems. The Gods want their own ends and then convince people that what they want is what's best for them. The fans are the same as the poor bastards in the Haligtree, waiting for their savior, only for it to turn out he's just another spoiled kid.

It's brilliant, from a writing perspective. They kept Miquella vague, letting the Soulsborne fandom do what it always does, theorize, investigate, and build up ideas. We built up an image of Miquella as a savior, a hero, one of the only truly heroic characters to understand and get it right.

But in the end, Miquella fooled us as well as he fooled his own people.

[all-american-corpse]

So if I wrote the essay about how wincest (especially in seasons 1-3) actually perfectly aligns with the true nature of gothic literature and even drew actual evidence backed parallels to other works of gothic literature would anyone care orrrrrr

[districttrifurcate]

An Analysis of Beetee, Wiress, and Ampert in SotR

There’s something I have to get off my chest, and that’s the handling of Beetee, Wiress, and Ampert on Sunrise on the Reaping. This critical analysis is rather long, and you can feel free to skip it if you don’t care for critical commentary on a book you’ve really enjoyed. If you are interested, read on.

[Critical analysis, and spoilers, of Sunrise on the Reaping under the cut.]

Wiress

To save some space in this post, I’ll start by linking an essay I posted on AO3, titled An Analysis on the Missed Opportunity of Wiress's Moral Complexity in Sunrise on the Reaping. In this essay I analyze, and lament, the flattening of moral nuance in the portrayal of Wiress and her Games in SotR.

Beetee

Beetee’s storyline felt like one of the biggest loose threads in the whole narrative of Sunrise on the Reaping. I don’t think the retcon bothers most readers, because it’s a background element and it moves the plot along. But for me, it’s one of the most glaring, and one that I wish Collins had taken better care to craft.

We understand that the narrative needed to bring the District 3 rebels and Haymitch together. Providing Beetee with a traumatic backstory that rivals Haymitch’s is a bonus. But there are so many subtler ways this could have been thoughtfully accomplished. 

The notion of a victor’s son being reaped has precedent, as Katniss mentions:

Victors’ children have been in the ring before. It always causes a lot of excitement and generates talk about how the odds are not in that family’s favor. But it happens too frequently to just be about odds.

So, it turns out Beetee is one of those unlucky victors, a fact that most certainly should have been mentioned in Catching Fire or Mockingjay and pointedly was not. Why?

Because it hadn’t been invented yet.

Getting Beetee and Haymitch together

We don’t know much about Beetee’s backstory, and from a narrative perspective it makes just as much sense to reap his son as anyone else’s, given that of all the mentors he’s the one most likely to possess knowledge of the structure of the arena and how it operates. But it also does something else: it gives him, a mentor from another district, the chance to cross paths with Haymitch and hash out the arena plan when he would have had no realistic pathway for doing so otherwise. We’ve got Wiress stationed as Haymitch’s mentor on one end for such things as knocking out the power for Rebel Talk, but there must be a reason for Beetee, one of the masters behind the plan, to gain access to a District 12 tribute, and what better way than putting him on the training room floor as punishment?

We have to accept that the demands of the narrative entail that Beetee needed a plausible avenue to speak with Haymitch, and a plausible motivation to destroy the arena, since Haymitch could not have accomplished this task on his own. What I can’t swallow is how it was rolled out to us. 

“And no doubt you’re wondering why I’m here, Haymitch.” Beetee removes his glasses and polishes them on his shirt. “It’s because I’m being punished for coming up with a plan to sabotage the Capitol’s communication system. I’m too valuable to kill, but my son is disposable.”

We remember from Mockingjay that he “redesigned the underground network that transmits all the programming” years after this takes place, making this a throwback of sorts, but it raises too many questions. After he had demonstrated the intention and capability of sabotaging such an important piece of infrastructure, why would the Capitol allow him to continue working on such projects afterwards? Why would they allow such unmitigated access to their tech, designs, and infrastructure after what he had done?

We’re supposed to understand that he’s the Only Genius in Panem (he’s not; the Capitol has loads of brilliant scientists working on tech, communications, development, etc.) and that he has megawatt plot armor (the book refers to this over and over as he’s “too valuable to kill”). Most importantly, he’s alive by Catching Fire, so we know they don’t kill him. But the fact that he continued to do his work for the Capitol and was able to successfully rebel years later suggests that he has no history of treason. The trust they have in this man is astounding, especially because, as the book beats us over the head with, we know “how Snow works.” If his redesign of the underground network was an act for the rebels that we’re learning had failed in this past attempt, it’s even more inconceivable that the Capitol would have allowed him continued access and trust given that he had already committed treason. And not once, but twice by SotR’s end.

“I’m too valuable to kill, but my son is disposable.”

This feels like a blunt instrument hammering the obvious to the reader in a not very satisfying way. Yes, your son is disposable. So why take the risk of putting him in danger? It strains plausibility that Beetee ever would have. 

In other words, it’s another example of how SotR is stitched together with the original trilogy in ways that make sense on the surface but not under the hood. Of course the brains behind the 75th arena breakout would have attempted something like this before, and had good cause to try. And I think we can accept that without much issue. What I cannot buy is how someone who knew the risks of what he was attempting, and knew the stakes in no uncertain terms, would be willing to do what he did with a son who’s just reached reaping age. How convenient. (Are we to assume his communications breach had been going on for a while and that they waited until Ampert was 12 to dole out the punishment?)

Besides giving Beetee parallel trauma to later-Haymitch and emphasizing Snow’s cruelty, which did not need further emphasis, the purpose of this was to place Beetee in Haymitch’s path. In other words, it’s contrived, and it does not respect the deep intelligence of the man that has been saddled with being the Tech Expert Archetype ™ in the story. 

"At the time, I was just thinking of the science of it all."

I know it’s not fair to hold the books to something stated in the movies, but all the same, the sentiment remains. This line now makes no sense, because the science of this particular project would have had a different gravity to it considering it earned his son a reaping. And if he’d been involved in treason that had rendered such painful consequences all this time, the archetype of the scientist getting caught up in their work before realizing what they’ve brought into being is a little less believable, because he definitely should have understood the stakes at this point.

Crouching Rebel Hidden Family

I think the whole scene in the training room would have made more sense if Beetee had been subtle about what he was getting punished for, and without telling (expositing, info-dumping-real-quick) everything we need to know about WHY he was there. Haymitch doesn’t need to know. Hell, Beetee probably doesn’t know the Capitol’s intentions, entirely. And we don’t really need a callback to his redesign of the underground network/communication system hacking. It could have been anything else, and it would have made perfect sense. The point is that Beetee was doing something he wasn’t supposed to be doing, and Ampert was a warning. Not a full takedown, just a warning.

Perhaps it could have gone something like:

“Hello, Haymitch.” 

“Hello,” I say. 

“Impressive thing you did out there.” He adjusts his glasses. “The parade. What happened in Twelve. It was very brave, what you did.”

“Thanks,” I say. How did he witness any of what happened in 12? It wasn’t aired to the rest of Panem. And for that matter, why is a victor, a mentor, here operating a training booth?

He must see this question in my eyes, because he says, “I’m here to demonstrate how to turn a potato into a battery.” He lowers his voice and glances past my shoulder. “But as for why I’m really here, I suspect it has something to do with the Capitol detecting me digging around in places I shouldn’t have been. I can’t be certain, but I can reasonably guess that’s why my [son/nephew] was reaped. As punishment. As a warning.” 

“Oh,” I say. I’m not really sure what he wants me to say.

He looks over to Ampert, and I follow his gaze. “My presence during his training is an essential component, I should think. And, if there were any doubts as to whether I’m being targeted for my breach, this is my answer.”

This establishes that Plutarch has a link to Beetee and is feeding him information behind the scenes. We don’t see it, because Plutarch and Beetee appear to work independently with Haymitch, but both are most certainly in contact with each other. That at least answers the question of why Beetee requested Haymitch’s presence at his booth, why Haymitch stood out to him as an acceptable agent for hacking the arena. And I like the idea that we don’t really know what Beetee was up to. Was he working for the rebellion? Was he just digging around because he was curious? Something else? It makes his character more nuanced if his motivations aren’t explicitly spelled out for the audience.

Having Ampert as a nephew instead of a son solves two problems: One, it retains the impact of the emotional trauma (suppose they were very close, suppose Ampert spent a lot of time growing up with his victor uncle, like a son) while removing Beetee from having made the overwhelming and nonsensical gamble of raising a family when we know Snow is vindictive as hell AND that Beetee is one of the biggest threats against the Capitol this side of the Dark Days. It was pretty much a given that this would happen to him. Snow has dispatched family for way lesser reasons. And two, it absolves Collins of the need to contrive a “reason” for him to stay alive for the wife and unborn baby that Snow will almost certainly also terminate. If it’s a nephew, the message is still clear and the emotional impact is still heavy, but Beetee is not in control of what his siblings choose to do or what becomes of their children. He is only in control of his own fate, and he knows he’s chosen the side of the rebellion, for better or worse. But will Snow stop at targeting his siblings’ children to make a point? Of course not. Emotional impact retained. 

Katniss says something early on that stuck with me:

I know I’ll never marry, never risk bringing a child into the world. Because if there’s one thing being a victor doesn’t guarantee, it’s your children’s safety. My kids’ names would go right into the reaping balls with everyone else’s. And I swear I’ll never let that happen.

You’re telling me that Beetee, a man who’s committed actual treason and is highly connected to the Capitol for his work, is not only going to risk having a family knowing what his work entails, but is also going to deliver this as an explanation for such imprudent actions on his part?

“I took a risk. I didn’t suspect that I’d been found out until the reaping. The timing was calculated. If I had known, I could have killed myself, and Ampert would be safe at home. That is how Snow works.”

You don’t say, seeing as how the whole book hammers this point home continuously. We saw Snow do this and worse in other books, too. Why use Beetee to communicate something so patently obvious? It does a disservice to him and to the audience. The fact that he then goes on to father another child with an offscreen wife when we know what becomes of the living family members of anyone Snow wants to punish, to say nothing of the victor’s purge in Mockingjay, suggests…well. That they got the Ma and Sid treatment back home. So what was the point of their inclusion in the story? Wouldn’t their deaths only fuel Beetee’s desire to off himself even more? Personally, I think Beetee’s renewed commitment to the rebellion after SotR, coupled with the need to be there for Wiress, would have been more than enough explanation for why he continues living.

Allies

Then there’s this. In Catching Fire, Katniss reports:

I shrug. “But I don’t want Brutus. I want Mags and District Three.” “Of course you do.” Haymitch sighs and orders a bottle of wine. “I’ll tell everybody you’re still making up your mind.”

Haymitch’s reaction now makes little sense here, considering how vital all three were to him in his Games, and considering how profoundly he had shaped them in turn. We’re meant to understand, given the prior scene with Peeta explaining the Nuts and Volts dynamic, that Haymitch sees these three as weak, elderly, infirm, or irrelevant. We’re certainly led to interpret them that way at first. That now seems cruel and heartless given how important the three were to Haymitch, and him to them.

If we want to be charitable, there are a couple of ways to read this that tie his reaction to SotR. Perhaps Haymitch was sighing in response to this being yet another parallel between him and Katniss. Perhaps Haymitch had intended to distance himself from the three over the years, feeling guilty for his role in their fate, and fears rekindling his connection with them again. But the oversight here still stands out. Especially considering that Haymitch should have known how vital Beetee and Wiress would have to be in the plot to break out of the 75th arena. He was already going to work with them on this and knew that Katniss would have to ally with them regardless of who else she picked. 

In other words, of all the things that hadn’t been invented until this prequel, Beetee’s backstory is one of the most glaring examples for me. If things had been presented a little more subtly, I think it could have worked. I would love to know how Collins explains to herself (and would explain to the readers) why Ampert and family never came up in Catching Fire or Mockingjay, despite how incredibly important Ampert turned out to be for the early rebellion attempts. His unifying presence was a direct contrast to the notion of district versus district and laid vital bricks in the rebellion. Which brings me to:

Ampert

We all loved Ampert. He’s like SotR’s Rue. He fulfills the same emotional niche: a precious twelve-year-old who reminds our hero of their little sibling back home and inspires a protective instinct. He’s a character we are genuinely rooting for. Which makes his treatment in SotR a bitter one for me.

District 3 characters have a habit of Serving Their Purpose To The Plot and then getting discarded. Wiress alerts the cast to the structure of the 75th arena and then gets killed off. Ampert serves Haymitch the explosive materials and then gets killed off. The District 3 kid in Katniss’s arena boobytraps and guards the supplies for the Careers and then gets killed off. We only get to keep Beetee because his skills are vital to executing the countermoves against the Capitol. I’m shocked that he was allowed to survive to the end and that he wasn’t given some “heroic” death like Finnick. In every iteration, District 3 characters are absolutely essential to the heroes, but not essential enough to survive.

So what did Ampert do for us?

One: he provided an emotional impetus for Beetee to want to take out the arena.

Two: he provided an access point for Beetee to reach Haymitch to get him on board with the plan.

Three: he had the knowledge and capability to help construct the explosive that Haymitch would utilize in said plan.

What other vital thing did Ampert do? He was the key driving force behind the creation of the Newcomers alliance. And what did the narrative do with that?

Uhh, not much. At the last minute, Haymitch decides to bail on it, and we spend most of his Games away from the alliance members we just spent the training segment bonding with. 

The alliance itself is transgressive, since a key point of the Hunger Games is to pit district against district so they will not choose to ally against the Capitol. The Capitol downplayed the Newcomers in the recap of the 50th Games, and forever after Haymitch’s story is one of him going his own way and prioritizing his own survival. So Panem has lost the message of alliance, and the proper narrative of district versus district remains intact. But what did we, the readers, get?

What we should have gotten was a real alliance. What we got instead was Haymitch lone-wolfing it, as Katniss did, albeit for slightly different reasons. When Lou Lou, Ampert, and Maysilee show up (individually), Haymitch remains with them only until they get separated and killed off, but that’s not really the Newcomers alliance, that’s just Haymitch being a decent person to his district partners and that one kid he bonded with in training. Where’s the Newcomers alliance? Off screen.

So what was Ampert’s legacy in this book, then? 

Ampert served as an emotional catalyst for Beetee to get involved and help Haymitch destroy the arena. And we’re supposed to really care about his death, but his death is so predictable I could have read the scene with my eyes closed. Haymitch emerges, Ampert is gone. What could have happened? Cutesy cartoon mutts dragging him away and finishing him off Happy Tree Friends style? You guessed it!

TL;DR

My argument is this. I understand that Beetee's whole family backstory served the needs of the plot for this specific prequel, and I understand that it had not been invented yet at the time of the original series, and that is why it did not come up. But this oversight is too glaring of a retcon for me to overlook or handwave it away. It's too significant of a thread for it to not have been present in the original series. And that, to me, is a significant shame and really detracted from my enjoyment of this book.

On a more personal note, I get it. District 3 isn’t supposed to matter. District 12 is supposed to matter. District 3 has only been present to serve the needs of the heroes, the plot, whatever. And most people wouldn’t bat an eye at that, because it does what it needs to do. We need The Tech Characters, we need The Smart Characters, we need The Ones Who Figure Things Out. But we don’t need to keep them. We just need them to do their job and go. 

But it sucks, that’s all.

[salembehindbars]

Everytime someone misinterprets Lolita, an angel dies. Don’t be responsible for the death of an angel.

[sambargestuff]

Why doesn't Cassian leave?

I don't understand why Bix leaving means Cassian has to stay.

He was ready to leave. He was tired. And, yes, he wanted to leave with Bix to build a quiet life somewhere but her leaving doesn't make him less tired. Plus, with Bix gone, he's lost his emotional support. (I'm sorry to call Bix his "emotional support" but, let's face it, that's all she's shown as.) Bix leaving doesn't seem like a reason for Cassian to suddenly rally to the Rebellion and commit whole-heartedly like R1 Cassian. I think we're to believe that the loss of Bix makes him an order follower instead of a "I'll come and go as I please or I go forever" kind of guy and that just doesn't follow.

That makes no sense. He'd leave. Hell, he'd go find her, wouldn't he? What happens? Is he distracted by K-2SO? I hope he loves Bix more than that. After all the shitty stuff the writers did to her, she deserves that from Cassian, at least.

Does he stay because he thinks he can only earn their future by fighting for the Rebellion? Because that's fucking toxic.

I don't get it.

[nelliesnook]

Tips From a Recent English Graduate (That May Apply to Other Arts Degrees)

• If you can't understand a certain book/essay, find a summary first, and *then* read what you needed to originally. It'll (hopefully) make more sense!

• If you're on a time crunch and you have a dense reading to do, read the abstract/introduction paragraph(s) + the concluding paragraphs. Authors will most likely have their key points outlined in these sections. Afterwards, you can go through the middle sections to pick out more concrete details.

• You probably won't be able to read every required text, and that's okay! I would skim a lot of my readings and make note of any sections that seemed particularly important (you learn to pick out the major details with practice). Also, if your professor seems to place more importance on a certain text than others, try to read that one more thoroughly.

• When it comes to essay writing, and you're required to choose between texts, brainstorm in bullet points key info from each text. Do this to identify the ones that a) have enough material for your argument and b) relate to your argument the most (they don't necessarily have to *back up* your argument; rather, they can serve as a counterpoint you can argue *against*). Making bullet points are a good way to ensure you're not stuck grasping for material later on in the writing process!

Hope these help! :)

[crooked-wasteland]

Detroit Become Human is my favorite piece of garbage and I think it actually is an excellent example of terrible execution with a cornucopia of good ideas.

[literaryvein-reblogs]

Active Reading

Active reading - reading with a purpose.

When it comes to critical analysis, the purpose of active reading is to familiarize yourself with your primary text and secondary sources to create a thorough and accurate analysis.

You can engage in active reading by paying attention to the type, author, audience, and purpose of a source.

Type

In writing, texts are often categorized based on the form, style, and purpose they share.

Examples: Fiction, nonfiction, horror, fantasy, and mystery.

Each type of writing typically follows a set of rules that can help us better understand the author’s purpose and the meaning of the text itself.

When reading your text, consider how the type of text shapes your understanding of it by asking the following questions:

What type of text is it (e.g., essay, play, comedy, romance, etc.)? Keep in mind that a text may have more than one type.

What stylistic or literary elements are important to that type of text (e.g., imagery, rhyme scheme, dialogue, etc.)?

How does the type of text impact the author’s message? Is that type of text appropriate for the author’s purpose?

Does the author use any stylistic or literary elements uncommon to that type of text?

How does the type of text enhance or take away from the author’s message?

Author

Authors are the people who created a text.

An author’s personal experiences often impact the type and content of his or her work.

Researching an author’s background helps us recognize and understand what influenced his or her work.

As you read through a text, ask yourself the following:

Who created the text?

When did the author create the text?

Where did the author create the text?

In what context was the primary text written (e.g., social, cultural, political, economic)?

Are there any significant events in the author’s life that may have influenced the type and content of the text?

Audience

The audience consists of anyone who reads a text.

Usually, an author considers his or her intended audience when making decisions about a source’s type, tone, and content.

When reading a source, think about how the audience shapes the author’s decisions by asking questions such as:

Who is the intended audience of the source (e.g., artists, scientists, nobles, etc.)?

How does the audience view the author (e.g., credible, biased, etc.)?

How would the audience react to the content of the source (e.g., agree, disagree, indifference, etc.)? Why would the audience react that way?

Are there any other audiences the author may not have considered?

Purpose

Purpose is an author’s reason for writing a text.

3 of the most common examples of purpose include to persuade, to inform, and to entertain.

Identifying an author’s purpose for writing is useful for determining whether an author’s text is written effectively or not.

As you read your sources, consider whether the author accomplishes his or her purpose by asking a few questions:

1. Why did the author write the text (e.g., to inform, to persuade, to entertain, to critique, etc.)? (Note: An author may have multiple purposes for writing.)

2. What is the main idea, theme, or argument of the source?

3. How does the author attempt to accomplish his or her purpose?

How does the author use ethos, logos, and/or pathos?

How does the author use literary or stylistic elements (e.g., character, symbolism, setting, etc.)?

4. Does the author effectively accomplish his or her purpose? Why or why not?

Additional Tips on Active Reading

It’s also useful to read your text from different perspectives.

The first time, read as a consumer. You are reading for enjoyment.

The second time, read as an academic. You are reading to learn and understand.

The third time, read as a critic. You are reading to question both the text’s meaning and the author’s decisions.

NOTE

It’s a good idea to take notes and record your thoughts throughout your active reading process.

Actively reading your sources helps you consider them from more than one perspective.

Active reading also fosters critical thinking.

Once you finish actively reading your sources, you can begin drafting your critical analysis.

Source ⚜ Writing Notes & References

[twisting-echo]

It's time to talk about some things that have been on my mind since the two final episodes of Monsters at Work season 2 dropped.

Despite how much I loved seeing Randall in Monsters at Work, I couldn't help but feel that Randall was out of character and super extra, to be honest. I know that I'm not the only one who thought that Randall's change in character was due to Johnny's asshole influence.

Now this may be my personal headcanon, but going off of what we were given in Monsters University, Randall, better known as Randy at the time, was a sweet, polite, and self-conscious monster who lacked confidence. Yes, he wanted to “get in” with the “cool kids,” but who hasn't given into peer pressure or wanted to hang out with people who seemed fun and popular? What kind of guy tries to make friends through sharing cupcakes? Sweethearts, that's who!

When Randall first revealed that he joined Roar Omega Roar, Johnny ordered him to “do the thing,” and Randall obeyed his command like a trained dog and turned invisible for Johnny and friends to gawk at. At the moment, I assumed that Randall was the group punching bag.

I always thought that Randall's cruel actions were based solely on Johnny's approval and the validation from his peers because that made him feel seen. Little did Randall know that Johnny was just using him for his unique abilities.

Later at the Scare Games, Randall lost control of what I considered to be his bodily functions and accidentally camouflaged his skin into a humiliating pattern of pink with red hearts, which was criticized by Johnny, Chet, and other members of his fraternity. After that, I always assumed that Johnny saw no more use in Randall because his camouflagic abilities are what got him into ROR, and it's what got him out of ROR.

You want me to really believe that Randall actually liked being in ROR and flourished?!

My point is that what I saw in Monsters at Work doesn't line up with what I saw in Monsters University. The only thing that did line up was the fact that Johnny was using Randall, just like he did back in college.

I had always thought that Randall had lost pieces of himself in an attempt to become a member of Johnny's fraternity. To be honest, I was never fully intrigued by Randall until I saw this alternate side of him in Monsters University. However, I can't really explain away his actions in Monsters Inc., but gosh, do I love thinking about the emotional journey he went through to get to that dark place.

Sshhh, Do You Hear That? belongs to @assrtdj

I Just Wanted a Friend... belongs to PumpkinSoup on DA.

Reflection belongs to Planet-Spatulon on DA.

Randall seemed perfectly happy with his friendship with Mike. He was so secretly desperate to appease his new friend that he discarded his prescription glasses just because Mike offhandedly noted that his glasses gave away his invisible camouflage. Mike didn't tell him to get rid of his glasses. Randall did that himself because he made a self-conscious decision. It's like getting a haircut that you really didn't want, but your friend offhandedly said that they thought that you would look good with short hair or dying it another color. That's how low Randall's self-esteem was!

Mike was the perfect friend for him! They spent time together; they lounged on the grass while studying their homework together; they had playful banter, and it was adorable! Mike accepted Randall for who he was, and I'll never forget that. Mike is Randall's true bestie. 🥺

I refuse to believe that Johnny and Randall are “besties” because Johnny is just using him again. Randall literally said that because Johnny saved him from the swamp people, he “owed him one.”

I refuse to believe that Chet of all people was bullied by Randall during his college days, and that's why he's no longer Johnny's number 1. I love Chet as a character, and seeing what he was reduced to in Monsters at Work broke my heart. He was a former shell of himself, and he was literally walked all over by Randall.

It's almost like they retconned, or should I say, Chet-conned his character and his friendship with Johnny by forcing Randall into his spot. I mean, Chet was a loud and obnoxious guy, but in a lovable way. He brought a lot of funny moments and had a couple of good one-liners in Monster's University. But what stood out in his character the most was his devotion to Johnny.

He literally screamed, "Johnny, you're my hero!" during the Scare Games. Johnny is Chet's boy, damn it!

Roar OhMyGosh belongs to J-Spence on DA.

Full comic by @j-spencer15 right here.

[sapphiresaphics]

So we need to have a discussion about analyzing media.

Maybe it would help to start with a few basics first:

TEXT

A text refers to any media or content that can be analyzed or studied with the goal of trying to understand how meaning is conveyed and what messages are being communicated.

So for example: a movie is a text. And everything within that movie is part OF the text. If a character says something in the movie, what they’re saying can be analyzed as one of the ways the movie is conveying its message, its text, to the audience. Background details, set decoration, editing, transitions, voice over, acting, music, sound effects… every aspect of the movie can be interpreted as the TEXT of the film.

Deleted scenes, cast interviews, director’s commentary, outside reviews or reports, storyboards, behind the scenes production, social media posts, original pitches or concepts… these are NOT texts. Or rather, they’re not texts of the movie being analyzed because they exist outside of the movie. When you’re analyzing a piece of media you need to be wary of whats part of the film and what is not.

So for example: Being angry at an actor for something snarky they said in an interview should not be considered when analyzing the text of a movie that actor is in. Because whatever they say outside the film has no bearing on what is IN the film that we are analyzing.

THEMES

A theme is the central, dominant, or unifying idea in a text. Themes are the overarching idea that connects different parts of the content, providing a sense of coherence and purpose. Themes go beyond surface-level plot or content; they explore deeper issues, human experiences, or social concerns.

So for example: Toy Story 2’s plot is that Woody gets kidnapped by a collector and the other toys need to rescue him. But the THEMES that are being explored through Woody’s story are fears about growing old, eventually losing someone you love, wrestling with the idea of the inevitability of death after a life well lived versus the possibility of stagnating unloved immortality.

A media text can have many themes throughout, but generally speaking there are usually only a small handful of core central themes being explored in a text.

LENS

A lens is a way of looking at a particular text from a different perspective.

So for example: A movie like Gone With the Wind that emphasizes American Southern values and traditions takes on a different meaning when you view it through a lens of black suffering. A movie like The Matrix takes on a different meaning when looked through a queer perspective.

LITERACY

Literacy in media analysis is the ability to decode the symbols, messages, and meaning presented in a text.

Every piece of media uses some degree of symbolism to convey its message. It could be through the use of interesting camera angles, character wardrobes, color theory, music, repeated actions, etcetera. Your job in analyzing any work of media is to see what the text presents and try to decode the meaning behind why these decisions were made.

So for example: In The Great Gatsby there is a green light glowing in the distance across the waters that Gatsby is always looking at. Physically in the space of the story the light is an actual green light that is attached to a dock on the waters. However, metaphorically the color green is traditionally associated with money. Therefore the green light could symbolizes the wealth that Gatsby believes will enable him to win his love, Daisy, back. The fact that it is always out of reach is the text telling us that this belief Gatsby has is unobtainable.

Color theory is a great example of this too. In the show Severance the mega corporation that controls everything has a color palette of blues and greens. The town that the main character Mark exists in is owned by the company, as is his home, and most of the people he interacts with are related to the company in some way so the whole show has a very oppressive blue and bleak color palette that surrounds him. However red symbolizes truth and honesty and defiance against the oppression, so you should pay attention to where, when, and how red starts getting introduced into the story.

SAMPLE MEDIA ANALYSIS

Now that we’ve got a couple terms defined, let’s do a simple test analysis of Arcane. Many people have suggested that Arcane is a form of copaganda. So let’s use our media analysis skills to see if this is true or not.

First let’s define our terms. What IS “copaganda?” Here’s a definition from google: “Copaganda refers to the strategic use of propaganda to promote a positive image of law enforcement, often minimizing or ignoring instances of police misconduct or brutality.”

Now that we have that definition, let’s start asking some questions.

Does Arcane present a positive image of law enforcement?

Does Arcane minimize or ignore instances of police misconduct or brutality?

The first question is pretty easy to answer. No. Arcane does not often present positive images of law enforcement. We are shown in the text of Arcane that Enforcers are often stupid, corrupt, power hungry, violent, and crass. A huge part of season 1 involves the sheriff of the Enforcers actively taking bribes and doing the bidding of a drug dealing mob boss. The few good Enforcers are often depicted as naive and unrealistically optimistic. Characters often mock this trait. And the brutality of the Enforcers is so bad that when Piltover begs Zaun to help them fight in a war Zaun refuses to help them and walks away.

If you’re looking to present Arcane as being pro-cop, these are not things that would normally be depicted in pro-cop propaganda text.

The second question is a little trickier. Sometimes the police brutality is minimized. Or if not minimized it isn’t explored as deeply as other things in the text. That’s not to say it doesn’t exist. Police brutality is omnipresent in Arcane. Nearly every episode has some example of police brutality on display. But the text of Arcane isn’t really interested in exploring police brutality beyond the fact that it exists in this world. We rarely see any consequences to the Enforcers for their use of police brutality.

However it should be noted that just because the Enforcers aren’t punished, that doesn’t mean that the text of Arcane is absolving them of their crimes. Quite the contrary. Arcane uses the police brutality to emphasize how much pressure everyone in Zaun is under and it very clearly frames these moments as WRONG. The way characters respond to the brutality, the way it’s framed, the way it’s not glorified… these all paint the text of Arcane as disagreeing with the brutality. The text understands that it’s wrong and it’s presenting a message to the audience.

So if the text of Arcane doesn’t agree that police brutality is good and presents its cops are bad, but the show still ends with little to no action taken against reforming this policing body… what is the message Arcane is sending about the system?

To me Arcane is saying that because this system wasn’t reformed and the police brutality was so omnipresent, that means that the police brutality isn’t going to change anytime soon. That’s not a good thing. You should be upset that happened because everything in the text has told you that this system is bad. So the message Arcane is sending isn’t that police brutality and the Enforcers are good and necessary, it’s saying that this whole story of conflict between the two cities WILL happen again if nothing is done to change things.

If we look at Arcane through a liberal lens we don’t see this as an endorsement of maintaining the status quo, but rather the condemnation of it. You should be MAD that the status quo doesn’t change because everything in the text of Arcane is telling you this system is BAD. It is not a happy ending, but it’s also not one that believes the cops deserve to be in power or that they should be oppressing Zaun.

So with all that in mind, let’s finally answer the question we started with: “is Arcane copaganda?”

The answer is “no, it is not.” It doesn’t follow the definition we laid out, and it actively criticizes and denounces the actions of the Enforcers. And even though technically speaking Piltover remains victorious in the end, the show does not present this as a good thing.

Arcane is not copaganda.

CONCLUSIONS

THIS is how you’re supposed to analyze media.

Words mean things. We have definitions for those words. You should be able to look at a text, understand what it’s saying, decode the messages and themes presented in the text, and be willing and able to look at a text through different lenses to gain a better understanding of the work itself. More importantly you should be able to grasp that not everything in a text is purely literal. The vent leading out of Al’s room in Toy Story 2 isn’t just a vent, it’s a metaphor for Woody’s feelings of uncertainty. The green light isn’t just a physical light, it’s a metaphor for greed and wealth. When an Enforcer jokes about beating up inmates and characters respond with horror, that is not the text of Arcane endorsing police brutality.

[depressed-overthinker]

correct me if I am wrong but the old anime or the anime made before 2020 glossed over the actual problems that plagued the japanese society and to some extend our societies as well.

naruto's writing reeked of sexism and other anime had their own problems. but now when i watch animes like no longer allowed in another world or apothecary diaries. they dont shy away from such topics.

apothecary diaries bluntly talked about the concept of child brides and even picked up on female solidarity in a patriarchal chokehold. a rarity when in general one would see women being pitted against each other.

no longer allowed in another world, through their character of sensei provokes new arguments when instead of getting the princess to marry and thus making her husband the king, the princess herself is crowned as a queen. once again a deviattion from the norm. it fills me so much happiness when i see this.

shonen manga or anime usually (highly generalized) have females as a supporting character or just for appearance sake. they are objectified or sexualized in a way that we may find funny but looking at the bigger picture calls out the double standards. since i mentioned only three anime i will talk about only those but feel free to correct me or add your own thoughts if you wish.

the point is, jiraiyas behaviour was seen as funny or endearing, when in fact he was harassing women while sakuras behaviour was seen as annoying and trashy. sure she might be in your opinion but keep in mind that she was teenager and i am sure each one of us had done stupid things that we still cringe at when we were teenagers.

furtthermore, i thought all 3 of them were annoying when the anime started. narutos loudness and blatant ignorance was irritating and sad to watch, sasukes blatant disregard for others and greed clouded his eyes to see the bigger picture and sakura well she needs no introduction. how kakashi put up with them i would never know. i could go on and on about various other characters but you get the point.

the double standards were especially prominent when sasuke and naruto were not called out for their behaviour but sakura was. even after anime ended her reputation remained in tatters among her audience.

it was only because naruto and sasuke were tramatized that the audience somehow excuse their behaviour and trash sakura for hers. it is unfair. both of the former ones got plot armour while sakura did not even get decent character development.

not only her but other female characters within naruto; tsunade, konan, tenten, temari all had potential which remained unexplored sometimes it seemed deliberate.

it really makes me happy to see changes happening. do not misunderstand but this is not to say anime with equal character development did not exist before 2020, they did but were uncommon now, it seems that active effort is being made.

now we have anime like wind breaker as well.

PS: this is a highly generalized opinion.

what do you guys think?

[ouroborosorder]

Guide Ahead Means Something To Me

Writing about Guide Ahead is…. extremely difficult, for a few reasons. One is that it is a very dense story, and to fully unpack it would require an essay so unfocused that it would be functionally unreadable. But the biggest one is that Guide Ahead is a story that focuses really heavily on the subjective nature of interpretation. How can I speak authoritatively on the thematic meaning of the plot when even a basic description of its events demands a deeper poetic interpretation?

The answer is “I can’t.” So, let’s piss off my English teacher, and coat an entire essay in the phrase “in my opinion.” Because I have to get personal if I’m going to tell you why Guide Ahead is my favorite video game story ever told.

I was raised Mormon. My mother was religious, but my father was absolutely not. You can understand why I related to Cecilia basically immediately.

Ultimately, the thing that draws me to Guide Ahead is the very thing that makes it hard to write about. Guide Ahead is, in my reading, a story about the subjectivity of divine meaning.

The most obvious manifestation, and the most important, is Law. But, Law’s execution, in traditional Arknights fashion, is kinda unclear, so I’ll recap for those who have hobbies outside of this, unlike me.

Law is the supercomputer buried underneath Laterano, and is the sentient religion that binds all the Sankta together into a hivemind of sorts. The Sankta are actually just Sarkaz connected to Law, given halos, wings, and empathic communication between each other. But, the main thing they gain, is a biological impulse to obey the Lateran religion’s thirteen doctrines. Anyone who breaks these doctrines are marked as Fallen, are cut off from the empathic connection, and slowly revert back to Sarkaz. Law represents religion as a concept and a community. Saints and sinners are just one and the same. But despite that, the laws of religion are created just to perpetuate the existence of a special in-group. One enforced by empathic connection they cannot share with anyone outside of them. That is Patia’s point - the Sankta have created an “us” and a “them,” and even the devout Liberi are not seen as “us.” They’re just converts, not real Sankta.

But, Falling has… weird grey areas. Like how Andoain was able to shoot Lemuen, or draw his gun on the fucking Pope, and not Fall in the process. This is because the doctrines are not actually the guidelines they’re held to. The Doctrines are subjective interpretations of the objective Law that they are all beholden to. That Law being “It must survive.” Law only is interested in the perpetuation of Itself, and, as a result, the continued existence of the Sankta as a societal structure.

This is the first and strongest example of what I mean when I say Guide Ahead is about meaning. Law says that the failure of religion is ultimately that religions supplant any subjective meanings with an “objective” meaning. But this “objective” meaning is just another person’s interpretation of the in-group’s best interest. Laws biologically programmed into the Sankta’s souls are revealed to be nothing but interpretation of Law’s interpretation of events.

People Fall not because they have broken a concrete law, but because Law… because the in-group has decided they did. Or when they broke the rules, they did something that’s good for the church. There is no objective laws within the Lateran religion, no matter what the machine is named. The system just declares sin when it deems worthy, and absolution when sin is a benefit.

It is this very hypocrisy that drives Andoain.

——————————————————————————————————

I remember being pulled aside at church one day. Everyone above 14 was given a sermon about the recent legalization of gay marriage. He said it was wrong, the church would never accept it. I asked him if it was like the time the church refused to give black people the Priesthood. He said this was different. I asked him how. He did not answer. I left and someone followed me out. He asked if I was okay. I told him whatever he was saying in there was not the teachings of any god that I know, and wasn’t the teachings of any god that loves me. I kept going to church after that, but deep down, I think I didn’t believe in it anymore. I didn’t feel like part of the community, I lost that reciprocation with my people. I just… began to think.

Andoain, as an antagonist, is defined by a search for meaning. He was the bishop of an Iberian church, and Iberia is doing pretty bad lately. His request for aid from Laterano was denied, and the message was clear to him. “You are one of us, but they are not.” But that answer just created a new question. Why? Why would those who claim faith and utopia as their ideals reject those who are suffering?

He searched for an answer in exile, and he didn’t find one. Instead, he found another story. The Sarkaz man who died in the watchtower to warn a town who hated him of an invading force. And this story made his question develop. Why would someone who is hated by everyone give their life to protect those very people? And why would those people then cry over the grave of someone they hated?

He had seen the realities of the Sarkaz and Sankta laid bare, but he couldn’t figure out the meaning behind it. He tells Cecilia these stories, knowing full well he doesn’t know what to make of them. I think he tells them to hope he finds the point partway through.

——————————————————————————————————

As much as I hate the Mormon church for dear god everything they’ve ever done holy shit look at them? My feelings are predictably complicated. Years later, my family fell upon hard times. I don’t want to say more than that for my own sake. We were struggling to even live. But… the church helped us. None of us gone to church for years, but they offered a hand. They gave us access to the Bishop’s Storehouse, gave us food and supplies for free, because we were starving. 

And yes, I know. I know they do this in an attempt at creating a false brotherhood in an effort to create a fascist sense of community. I have also read that part of Brothers Karamazov. I have also read Guide Ahead, come to think of it. But… Shit. Most of them tried to pretend we didn’t exist when we met them in the grocery store. And… they still helped us. In their eyes, I was Fallen.

But still, they saved us, and didn’t even ask for faith in return. I still can’t figure out why.

This is why I just… can’t see Andoain as a villain. I mean, yeah, he shot Lemuen, but even she doesn’t blame him for shooting his friends while holding the Stick That Makes You Shoot Your Friends. His entire goal is an attempt to sort through the cognitive dissonance between what the church tells him and what the church does. A dissonance that is, because of Law and the doctrines, innate to what the church is. An experience that should feel damn familiar to anyone who has spent time as an apostate. His plan is to simply confront the Pope about this hypocrisy, to get an answer, to find a meaning.

The answer he gets back is… It Must Survive. Law must survive. The in-group must survive. It doesn’t matter if we cry over the grave of the Sarkaz, because the Sarkaz would die for us. He searched for the answer to a question, the meaning of a statement. You are one of us. They are not. All this time, he searched for the meaning of those words, but in reality, those words were the meaning. That was all they ever had to say. He just needed to accept that.

…but if the in-group is all that mattered… why allow Mostima in Laterano? Why give her her position? She’s not needed for the survival of the in-group, the Law has deemed her an exile.

And… Why not Andoain?

Before he leaves, his gun is taken from him. A gun that, according to the church, has meaning. A meaning he takes as truth. He believes a part of him is left behind there. I don’t think he realizes it, but Mostima and Fiammetta are the question he left behind. They are Not Sankta, but yet they are accepted. And… I don’t know if there is a meaning to that. I still can’t figure out why.

——————————————————————————————————

For a long time, I missed those days spent in the community I had left. I would remember the things I left behind. The churchball basketball games we were destined to lose. The conversations held on the roof of the storage building behind the church. The scouting activities that were clearly an excuse to go bowling. The shitty halloween parties with the game where you ate donuts tied to a string hanging from a fishing pole. I missed it, for a time. I couldn’t help but look back.

Cecilia is searching for meaning to almost everything. When Andoain tells his stories to Cecilia, he tells her that he can’t find the meaning of them. That if there is meaning to be found, she’ll have to find it herself. So. She does.

Cecilia was faced with the same situation Andoain was obsessed with. But for her, it wasn’t hypothetical. She existed between Us and Them. She felt the pull between the community and the love and fun they represent, and the outsiders who were hated and rejected by the people around her. Society told her the meaning of her dual identity, the meaning behind each half, and then told her to choose. But… she’d experienced otherwise. She’d felt the kindness of the Sarkaz from the Pathfinders, and the hatred from the Church. She’d felt things that contradicted the meaning that she was told was true.

Her story isn’t just being forced to pick a side between the church or apostacy, it’s being forced to pick what meaning she ascribes to the world. Ultimately, that’s why her answer can only be her own. Your belief is… subjective.

And she answered… with a bell. A Sarkaz girl, bearing a halo, ringing a bell that has not been rung since the Sankta were still called Teekaz. A bell that once marked the beginning of the new era. A bell that carries the weight of a Sarkaz, hated by the place they called home. A bell that rings with the melody of a Sarkaz lullaby once sung by a Sankta. A bell that asserts her answer. She’s not Sarkaz, she’s not Sankta. She is Cecilia.

Everyone else finds their own subjective meaning within that action. Something as mundane as the ringing of the bell suddenly has more meaning than divine scripture.

No one else understood the nuance of what she said, but they understood parts of it. They understood what they wanted to. Those who know nothing of Lateran culture understand it as just… a beautiful welcome, celebrating the arrival of talks of peace. Most have their meaning determined by the church’s traditions. The pious see it as the beginning of a new era, whatever that signals to them. To the Church, it is that their talks will bring about a new era of peace. To the Pathfinders, it is a signal to begin their attack on Laterano to begin their new era.

There is so much meaning in that action, but in the end, it’s still just a fucking bell. There’s got to be hundreds, maybe thousands of them in Laterano. But this bell meant something more than the other bells. This bell had meaning, and that meaning made it divine.

This, to me, is what Guide Ahead has to say. That there is so much meaning to be found in something as mundane as a ringing bell. Within such a simple action, there is personal expression, liberation, the sound of change. And in all of this, there is the echoes of divinity, the echoes of faith, as if all of these things are, in themselves, divine.

——————————————————————————————————

When I left the church, I couldn’t help but look back, still tethered to a community who hated me. I think I wished I could stop looking back. I don't know if I realized I was.

In the end, everyone else looks back. They still have meaning to be found in Laterano. Andoain looks back, a part of his soul anchored there by the symbol he was told to believe in. Mostima looks back, knowing she’ll return just as she always does. Fiammetta looks back, because she refuses to let herself leave. Ezell looks back, unsure if he will be able to return home after what he has found.

But… Cecilia doesn’t. She has decided that she is not defined by the church, or the meaning they try to give her. She has decided to leave Laterano and see the world outside of it, to explore the world around her and find the meaning for herself.

And the last thing Cecilia does is... defined by ambiguous meaning. She sees Andoain walking in the sunset - and a word appears to her. The title of Martyr. A title she doesn’t understand the meaning or weight of, but that she feels is appropriate regardless. A title that, to other people, would mean something more. But to her, brings to mind the saints she heard of as a youth, a word her mother told her was important.

The story is ending, and they end it with an assertion. Cecilia is finding meaning, and others will find what they will within. Perhaps even she doesn't know all of it.

A while back, during a theater rehearsal, I suddenly remembered a conversation I had years before I left the church. I remembered speaking with my friends outside of the chapel after a sunday service. My friend said a sentence that has stuck with me ever since. “I don’t think science goes against God. I think God uses science and math. I think those things are holy, because they’re… what everything is made of.”

I remember looking around the rehearsal space and thinking that if science could be sacred, then… so is this moment, now. So is my time spent with the people I love. This is sacred. What I missed, what kept me looking back. It wasn’t the actual religion, but instead… just belonging to something. So… I stopped looking back. In that moment, however fleeting it was, I had found whatever it was I needed.

—————————————————————————————————

Look. You probably had a different interpretation of Guide Ahead. This story is just… So goddamn dense. There is so much there that I didn’t even touch on. For the love of god, I just did an analysis of Guide Ahead and didn’t even really discuss Fiammetta?? What kind of hack writer am I? (I just… couldn’t talk about her without being more personal than I am willing to be in public.)

If you have an interpretation that is different than mine, that’s great. I encourage you to hold on to it, and hold it close. That meaning is yours, and yours alone, and that’s a precious thing.

Because to me, what I found… is that very idea.

There is meaning to be found in anything - and a meaning that is yours, and yours alone. All you have to do is find meaning. and the idea that there is meaning to the world, that everything has meaning not because there is a “true” meaning to it, but because we find one there, because we put one there… that makes everything feel… divine, to me.

So… wherever you find meaning, you can find the divine.

You can find divinity in a ringing bell. In a terrible cactus tart. A carnival game you know how to beat. The promises of peace around a table. A cup of coffee. A city you hate. A community you love. A flower growing near a grave. A weapon you carry. A people you surround yourself with.

Those are all… holy to me.

And to me… that meaning is enough.

I hope yours is for you.

[jkl-fff]

GUYS, I FIGURED OUT THE BLACK TURTLES!

It's a detail of OTGW that's lowkey perplexed me since the series first aired. What's with the black turtles that appear in every episode? What role do they serve in the story, and what do they represent?

A small, seemingly inconsequential detail, but just the sort to occupy my mind every time I watch the show.

My first train of thought: Are they manifestations of The Beast's power and influence? If not, why does eating one turn Beatrice's dog into a slavering monster? But if so, why is Auntie Whispers purely benevolent despite eating one (and presumably much more)? Why aren't they themselves monstrous and malevolent? But also why aren't they, on the contrary, beautiful and benevolent? They're just ... sorta there, which suggests there's no supernatural nor moral element to them. Yet they're clearly not natural turtles, either ...

My second train of thpught: Are they representations of the Unknown's liminal nature, moving between land and water just as the Unknown is between life and death? Thus a foreshadow and a reminder of the brother's state? It would sorta make sense, given their omnipresence. Mirrored by the brother's Frog, whose amphibious nature is likewise liminal. And the weirdness of turtles specifically for this symbolic role fits the the weird aesthetic of The Unknown. Still, it didn't seem to quite fit.

BUT TONIGHT, I FIGURED OUT WHERE THEY COME FROM! THE OLD GRIST MILL!

WHERE THE WOODSMAN HAS BEEN GRINDING EDELWOOD TREES INTO A DISTINCTIVELY BLACK OIL FOR THE LANTERN!

SOME OF WHICH MUST BE WASHED OFF, LEAKING, OR EVEN SPILLED OUTRIGHT INTO THE STREAM THAT POWERS THE MILL, AND THUS CONTAMINATING THE ENVIRONMENT!

It's pollution. Industrial Revolution era pollution is the reason for the black turtles distinctive color and weird effects on some people, but not others.

[going2hell4everythingbutbeingbi]

it's like people read books and forget that characters can lie

[brownwomanisland]

ARCHIVE OF OUR OWN DISCOURSE

So they posted a TOS Spotlight on Offensive Content here:

https://archiveofourown.org/admin_posts/31807

Which has a section that says (copied word for word):

"Over 15% of all complaints that PAC receives each year are about content that users consider offensive but does not violate the AO3 Terms of Service. This includes, but is not limited to:

Fictional depictions of societally taboo topics, immoral behaviors, or crimes (such as bestiality, child sexual abuse, incest, and rape)

Fiction that contains or promotes offensive and/or oppressive viewpoints

RPF (real person fiction) that contains explicit content or portrays people in a negative light

Explicit fanworks for canons whose creators have said they dislike explicit content

Offensive fanworks are not against the AO3 Terms of Service, and PAC will not remove fanworks simply for being offensive.

AO3 is a home for all fanworks

AO3 operates under the principle of maximum inclusiveness of fanwork content. We will not make moral judgements about a work: if it's a legal fanwork that does not violate any of our policies, we will not remove it from AO3.

Don't report works for being objectionable or offensive. If you wish to avoid certain content when browsing AO3, you can use the tools discussed below."

And

"In accordance with U.S. law, AO3 prohibits sexually explicit photographs, videos, and other photorealistic images of children (also known as Child Sexual Abuse Material, or CSAM). This includes embedded images, links, and any attempts to solicit, distribute, or otherwise obtain or provide access to such material – whether in a work, comment, or anywhere else on AO3.

However, stories and non-photorealistic artwork (such as drawings or cartoons) that depict sexual activity involving characters under the age of eighteen are allowed, provided that the works are properly rated and warned. Even if the work features real people, fiction about real people is still fiction, and therefore it is allowed on AO3."

And idk gyns, that's just fucked up to me. I don't like RPF so I never read but the stuff about CSAM and bestiality is fucked up for me because the only hard line is against photorealism.

And some of the comments are so supportive and don't like don't read but uh, tell me you'd feel comfortable if you found out a friend of yours was writing CSAM as smut - I wouldn't. What goes on in their mind after repeatedly writing stuff like that?

There's this great pretend happening in the comments that all types of offensive content is equal and that's so ... ideologically consistent with liberals and how they make space for fucked up shit and try to gaslight you until it stops benefiting them where they then pretend they always knew the difference and never supported that lol.

And y'all know I love my fanfic. There's an author hating fanfic and that's fine but all offense is not equal and I hate that people pretend they're all the same.