#I even agreed with their criticisms. I just like character-driven stories...

[bumblepuppy]

Me: I'm fine Someone else on the horror book committee: I didn't like your favorite book so far Me:

[mellebabbles]

Out of the many issues DC has with its own writing, how they use dialogue and convenient narration to manipulate audience perspective is the one that makes me question why I keep reading these comics. Obviously, this isn't limited to DC, but it is one of the worst cases I've seen.

Let's take Batman and Red Hood, for example. Comics from Jason's perspective often portray the Dark Knight as being a distant, controlling, emotionally neglectful and even physically abusive as a Father/mentor-- And before any Batman stans come for me, he isn't the only one writers do this with. Bear with me and you'll see why this is a problem.

DC almost always purposely uses this as drama at the cost of inconsistent character writing. Most have agreed that the way Bruce gets written when any of his kids are in the picture is messed up. Read enough of them and you'll notice a pattern: He does something borderline abusive, the plot progresses, and you can practically feel the writers realize this might make their cash cow Bat look bad (God Forbid.) But instead of the comics calling him out or changing his behavior, they shift dialogue to try and manipulate the narrative as if Batman was correct the whole time, and anyone not doing things his way is just wrong.

This doesn't just happen to Red Hood, but staying on him as an example, there will be a turning point in the plot where every other character involved is suddenly adamant that Jason is being immature, stupid, reckless, etc, and whatever trouble he's in was his fault to begin with, even when he's been doing things Batman's way. Heroes, neutral parties, and even villains start mocking and condescending to him, sometimes for doing the exact same thing that Bruce gets praised for. However reversibly, Batman does something just as bad (or even worse) and the narrative is that it was completely justified or the outcome is retconned/changed in his favor. Yet when this hypocrisy does get called out in comic, Bruce gives his usual edgy "Exactly, I don't want you to be like me." As if the writers are trying to look directly at the audience and say "See? He's just a flawed character! He's relatable!"

This leads to people hyper-defending every action of Batman instead of criticizing the writing behind it. "Bruce respects his kids! He says so in issue #467889999--" Just because the writers put the words in Batman's mouth doesn't mean anything when his actions don't back it up.

There's a reason why Show, don't tell is such a crucial writing rule. Portraying Batman as controlling and abusive, only to twist the narrative that he was "right all along," by

- changing the rules last minute

-having everyone verbally discredit his opponent

- emphasize how "badass and right Batman was" in every goddamn exchange

is lazy and poor writing. "I respect Nightwing," means nothing when Batman undermines him, insults him, criticizes his choices or punches him for the sake of ✨️the drama.✨️

It would be like telling the story of Snow White, where everything is exactly the same except she regularly kicks small animals, and bullies the dwarves. But the magic mirror, the Hunter and the dwarves still all emphasize what "kind and gentle Princess" she is without ever addressing her actions. Inconsistent character writing means the drama loses its effect. If your character can just sidestep their convictions for the sake of the plot, especially in a character driven story, then there is no character. A game with no rules, roles or directive isn't a game. That's why DC fanon is usually more popular, because somehow an entire fandom has managed to create more consistency than a team of writers.

[blackflash9]

Ratonhnhaké:ton: Growth and Autonomy

"Connor comes across to me as an incredibly naive character." "People will just tell him someone is a bad guy and he’ll go murder the person, no questions asked. He has almost no autonomy."

While I understand why people within the fandom believe this, these interpretations only overlook critical aspects of Connor’s character. His perceived naivety is not a flaw—it’s an intentional feature of his narrative. Connor begins the story as a young man thrust into a complex, unfamiliar world filled with conflicting beliefs and customs. His arc centers on navigating this chaos and growing into someone who balances idealism with hard-earned wisdom. Far from being a passive or blindly obedient character, Connor demonstrates remarkable autonomy and moral depth throughout his story. Take, for example, his approach to William Johnson. Connor doesn’t immediately kill him when faced with Johnson’s plans to purchase native land. Instead, he undermines Johnson’s efforts through the Boston Tea Party, attempting a peaceful resolution rather than resorting to violence.

Sequence 6: Hostile Negotiations (transcript)

Kanen'tó:kon: William Johnson has returned - with all the money required to buy our land. He meets with the elders as we speak. I have begged them to resist. But I fear he shall have his way unless you intervene. Connor: How is this possible? We destroyed the tea. Achilles: The Templars are nothing if not resourceful. You should have heeded my warning.

Even when circumstances force Connor to kill Johnson, it’s a reluctant act, filled with regret and a deeper understanding of the moral weight of his decision.

Sequence 7: The Midnight Ride (transcript)

Connor: I thought it might bring clarity. Or instill a sense of accomplishment. But all I feel is regret. Achilles: Hold fast to that. Such sacrifices must never come lightly. Connor: I had to do it. Not only for my people, but for all the others Johnson would have harmed.

This is not the behavior of someone who acts without thought or autonomy. Similarly, his handling of Thomas Hickey reflects his nuanced morality; rather than simply assassinating Hickey, Connor attempts to bring him to justice by exposing his counterfeit operation and putting him in jail. This demonstrates Connor’s preference for justice over killing whenever possible—an uncommon trait among Assassins.

Connor’s journey also includes grappling with the conflict between the Assassins and Templars. He openly considers the possibility of peace and collaboration between the two factions, particularly during his time with Haytham. This introspection and willingness to challenge the status quo are unprecedented for an Assassin. No other protagonist in the series has or since entertained the idea of reconciliation with such sincerity and depth.

Sequence 10: Alternate Methods (transcript)

Connor: But now their hold is weakened, which makes me believe there's a chance for peace. Imagine what might be accomplished if we were to unite. Achilles: Why the change of heart? Where is this coming from? You've met your father, haven't you? Connor: I do not claim to trust the man—or even like him. But I would be remiss to ignore this opportunity. Achilles: Haytham may listen. But will he understand? And even if he does, will he agree? Connor: Even he must admit that we achieve more together than we do alone.

His independence is further showcased in his relationship with Achilles. Connor often defies his mentor, such as when he reveals the truth about the Assassins and Templars to George Washington, acting on his convictions rather than blindly following orders.

Even in his most emotionally charged moments, Connor’s actions are driven by a thoughtful moral framework. After discovering Washington’s role in burning his village, Connor doesn’t abandon the Patriot cause out of bitterness. Instead, he chooses to support their fight one last time—not because they are perfect, but because he believes freedom, despite its flaws, is preferable to the Templars' control.

Sequence 10: Broken Trust (transcript)

Connor: You seem to think I favor him. But my enemy is a notion, not a nation. It is wrong to compel obedience—whether to the British Crown or the Templar Cross.

Connor’s story isn’t about blind loyalty or unchecked naivety. It’s about growth, introspection, and the struggle to uphold one’s values in an imperfect world. His choices reflect a level of autonomy and moral complexity that sets him apart, making him one of the most layered characters in the Assassin’s Creed series.

[miraculouslbcnreactions]

While "the network wants an episodic kids show, the authors want an epic dark complicated narrative" would explain A LOT about ML's problems, I'd still like to note that there are kids' shows that can do both, going full range from "mostly episodic with a sprinkle of narrative" (Kim Possible, MLP), to "heavily narrative but with episodic breather/filler episodes" (Gravity Falls, WITCH, the Owl House), with many variants in-between.

Even the transition from "fully episodic" to "more narratively-connected" that ML attempted to do can be done successfully - the aforementioned Gravity Falls and WITCH were more episodic in season 1 and more narratively driven in season 2.

However, I'd say there are a few other key problems that can be inferred from what we have:

The show tries too many things at once - as you have pointed out repeatedly. Magical girl and rom-com, single-hero, duo and team stories, wacky comedy and serious trauma, even trying to give several characters a redemption and a damnation arc at the same time (and failing with either). Apparently, it's not just TF vs writers: it's writers severely disagreeing with each other (see Thomas and Vincent's opinions on Chloe), and also trying to one-up the fans. Also, simply thinking too much of the work, which leads us to...

ML's total lack of self-awareness. Another famous case of a show that was almost entirely episodic is Phineas and Ferb. They use the same formula (the brothers build, Candace busts, Doof makes an Inator and is thwarted by Perry) over and over for four seasons. And by mid-season 1, the authors have been making fun of the structure, lampshading it, spoofing and twisting it, playing with "What if" episodes and never taking itself too seriously. When ML tries to be self-aware, it becomes either insulting to the fans (Animaestro), horrifically dark (Chat Blanc) or plain cringe (Simpleman). This is exacerbated by Astruc's arrogance and inability to ignore critics.

Is it possible to make a highly complex, genre-busting, yet kid-friendly story and succeed? Yes. But it needs to be better thought-out - if not from the start, then at the moment the network allows one to deviate from the formula.

And if all else fails and the story becomes too complicated and too repetitive at the same time... Well, self-awareness and the ability to make fun of one's own work can turn a sad mess into a hilariously fun disaster.

P. S. Love your posts as always, you are the main reason I'm still in the fandom!

Thank you for the kind words! I'm so glad that you're enjoying my stuff and I agree with all the things you brought up.

A big part of the reason that Miraculous is so fascinating to me is that there ISN'T a single cause of the issues. There are so many valid ways to discuss the show's problems. It's a masterclass in bad writing and what not to do!

It's why I'm able to run this blog. If it was as simple as, "here's the single reason why it's bad and here's how you fix that" or if the show never had any potential, then there wouldn't be much to talk about. But it did have potential and there is no single reason why it's bad. The causes are multitudinous as are the potential fixes! It feels like investigating some complex wreckage or an elaborate murder mystery in order to understand what the hell happened, which is really fun if you like talking about writing.

I find it much harder to discuss writing in an informative way if you only have good examples to draw from because that path risks stifling creativity. Just because a popular story did a thing well doesn't mean that story showed us the only way to do the things or even the best way to do the thing, but that's often the lesson people seem to learn. They see a thing that they like or even just a thing that audiences liked and want to copy it without understanding the full nuance of why they liked it.

A great example of this is Zuko from Avatar the Last Airbender. He was such a well-written and popular character that all these properties started copying him even though the properties in question did NOT have a setup that worked for a Zuko. Praising Zuko won't really tell you all the ways that Zuko could have failed. Meanwhile, a case study of Chloe vs Zuko or even just a general discussion of Chloe lets you actually talk about the various styles of redemption arc and what you have to do to make them feel real. It's also far more interesting than talking how Zuko could have failed because Zuko didn't fail so why are we even talking about this? It's also far more interesting than talking about a bunch of properties that did redemption arcs well because that would require you to have seen all of those properties. But Chloe is from a single property and she did fail and people understandably have wildly different feelings about what the failure was because the writing was so bad, which means that digging into her writing is way more likely to hold your interest and teach you something.

This gif really does sum it up perfectly:

[Image description: scene from the movie Knives Out where the detective Benoit Blanc exclaims "It makes no damn sense! It compels me though" to explain his feelings on an ongoing murder mystery that he's trying to solve]

As does the old adage, "failure is the greatest teacher." Of course, no one ever said that it had to be your failure!

[tealvenetianmask]

what do you think of the complaint tilla is nothing more than a plot device for blitzø?

I agree. I mean, she's not a character, at least not at this point in the show. Her memory and tragic demise are part of Blitz's character, and that's all. We've never seen her do or say anything- just her image in photographs and in Blitz's hallucination. Whether she gets developed in the future is yet to be seen.

But I don't think it's necessarily a problem, and if it is, it's not a show ruining one . . . Stick with me.

A lot has been made of how HB doesn't pass the Bechdel test (it does, but not very often- I'll give the critics that), and how the male characters are often featured over the female characters. And well. If what you mean is that the main character and his love interest are both male, and they're the characters who get the most development, yes. One could argue that some of the female characters (especially Millie) are getting more and more focus over time, but I think that's besides the point. Yes, male characters get more focus overall in this show.

Here's the thing though. Advocating for more woman-driven stories doesn't mean that male-driven stories existing too is problematic. Representation is important, but every piece of media doesn't have to represent every demographic and every topic. It's okay to love a piece of media where the best developed characters are dudes. It doesn't make you a misogynist; it just means you like those particular characters. Same can be said for the writers.

Do I think it's a problem that we live in a culture where it can be harder to find media that passes the Bechdel test than media that doesn't? Yes. Do I think it's a problem when a majority of female characters are flat and only plot devices for male pain or male growth (which isn't true for HB overall btw, even if it is true for Tilla)? Yes. And when it comes to discussing our culture as a whole, it's a different discussion.

HB has a ton of queer representation. It takes on difficult relationship topics and class and race issues in some very rich and interesting ways for a comedy cartoon. While the writers don't diagnose their characters, I feel represented as a neurodivergent audience member. It's an independent project made by a small company of diverse young artists who are passionate about what they're making. I would call it an overall cultural good.

By the way, I think it's a little bit weird when, while analyzing a show with a lot of interesting female characters, antis go for the character who has the least development. It's silly. The existence of a character who is a device doesn't mean anything on its own- it's just a bit of expedient writing.

[thelezzer]

This is random but I was curious and wanted to compare the pacing of DD:BA against the original series!

We're on episode 4/9, which is 44% of the way through the series. Each of the original Daredevil seasons had 13 episodes. If my math is correct, going 44% into a 13-episode season would put you between episodes 5 and 6.

So what's happening around episodes 5 and 6 in the original seasons?

Season 1 Episode 5 has a mix of the legal plot, Fisk stuff, and the rising events for Episode 6, which is the collapsing building episode.

We've already had some pretty major events happen in this season: Claire was kidnapped and rescued, and Fisk had his date with Vanessa that ended with the infamous car door scene. This alone is evidence of a faster pace in DD1 vs DDBA, I think. The plot is definitely moving in DDBA, but the only major events we've really had were Foggy getting killed and Matt being attacked at the end of E2. Most of the first 4 episodes have been laying groundwork for things later.

In the legal plotline, Elena Cardenas is introduced. Her apartment building is being strategically destroyed to get the residents to vacate, which is revealed to be a plot by Fisk, Gao et al. to use the space for crime. As of 1x5, Matt doesn't have hard evidence against Fisk yet. He's still chasing leads on the Russian Mob and overhears a Russian name Fisk to the police. Lots of lead-following in 1x5, which is consistent with what's been happening in DDBA, though the methods differ greatly.

Just the action of having Matt flipping between his lawyer and vigilante lives does a lot to help it feel like more is happening, even if the outcome of the scene (getting more information) is the same. This is exemplified by 1x6, which is very action-packed but doesn't actually accomplish that much. Matt finally gets to talk to Fisk and confirm that he's behind it all thirty minutes in, and that's the critical point of the episode.

Season 2 This point of S2 is definitely connections-based, with most of the plot movement just being groundwork (much like DDBA). I must praise the writing here for how integrated these two parts of the story are. In 2x5, Elektra comes bearing Plot via the Roxxon Corporation and we get flashbacks to establish who she is. Karen pursues Frank's case, leading her to connect with Ellison who helps her uncover the story of Frank's family being killed. We also explore Matt and Karen's connection in the romantic subplot, mixed with Elektra's meddling.

I think the connections focus is pretty on-par with what we're seeing in DDBA. We're setting up connections from BB to Daniel to Fisk, Fisk to Heather to Matt, Heather to Muse, and Matt to Frank. I do think that the plotlines are much less interconnected than in DD2, which makes it feel less satisfying. I'm sure it's going somewhere, but it doesn't really feel like much is clicking into place with the forging of these connections.

In 2x6, Matt begrudgingly agrees to team up with Elektra and N, M & P take up the Castle case. Since we're measuring pacing, I'm surprised that they're just now taking the season's main legal case when the case at this point of DDBA has already wrapped up. I suppose the Ayala case is more closely comparable to Grotto's case: not a full-season focus, and The Punisher (or "The Punisher") kills the client.

Season 3 Matt has survived being driven into the harbor after the fiasco at the jail, Foggy and Karen know Matt is alive, Fisk is on house arrest and looking into Dex, who is still stalking that woman.

Much like 2x5, 3x5 has some flashbacks — this time for Dex. Through Fisk's eyes, we get a pretty speedy run through Dex's history. Matt is only in the final three minutes of this episode, which is crazy to me! Most of the episode focuses on the FBI investigation as they question Foggy and Karen about Matt and the aforementioned jail fiasco, and really introducing us to Dex through the flashbacks and his current behavior, isolated from the rest of the characters. Very groundwork-y, lead-following aplenty, pretty on-target with DDBA.

3x6 starts with Matt (now officially a wanted man) sneaking into Karen's apartment for help. He wants her to help expose Fisk with the power of journalism, but she refuses. Karen talks to Foggy, who suggests an arrangement for Matt to turn himself in; Foggy is being both pragmatic and a good friend here, and he manages to convince Karen to help Matt. She goes to the Church and speaks to Sister Maggie (who says Matt isn't there), then goes to look for Jasper on her own...surprise! Matt is there, too.

In the Fisk-Dex plotline: Dex speaks to Fisk directly, and Fisk manipulates him. Dex outwardly rejects Fisk, but the encounter sticks in his head with the added pressure of being investigated based on an "anonymous tip" about his role in the shootout during Fisk's transfer.

Something interesting is happening in this episode: we keep hearing very deep, psychological details about Matt from other people. Foggy talks about people bailing on Matt, and correctly guesses that breaking off their friendship is hurting Matt just as much as it's hurting him and Karen (hahahaha ow). Maggie tells the story of Matt's constant nightmares, and how when she didn't come to help him, he never asked for anything again. This isn't really relevant to this post, but damn, I had to mention it.

Actually, I'm gonna call it there on 3x6. 3x5 seemed on-pace with DDBA but there's a lot of movement in episode 6 that pushes it ahead of the DDBA pacing.

Conclusion I do think DDBA is roughly pacing seasons 1 and 2, and lagging just barely behind season 3 (if episode 5 is a real bombshell, it'll catch up). The action of switching between Matt Murdock and Daredevil creates the illusion of a faster pace without actually moving the plot forward that much more than a regular daytime Matt scene could. Season 3 compensates for the loss of that switch with lots of character study material, but DDBA has no such compensation. I think what we are getting is great, but there really is a void in the story of Born Again. It's probably intentional, but maybe not an ideal choice for a show with 9-episode seasons.

Speaking of the shorter season, there's more filler in Daredevil season 1 than I remembered! Plenty of characters in the Fisk plot that don't really matter all that much. They're not completely inconsequential, the writing is too good for that, but we see more of them than necessary. But even though it doesn't matter to the macro-scale plot, it does give us something entertaining to focus on; DDBA doesn't have the room to give us stuff like that with 4 fewer episodes to the season.

Born Again would really benefit from the tightness of Season 2, where we get characters from one side of the story introduced concurrently with ideas from another plotline. Everything feels like it exists in its own box right now, and I'm hoping we see the cords start to tangle in episode 5. Waiting any longer than that would be a mistake.

[meyhew]

so. what did you think about TGR? as a book and in the context of the tsc trilogy. 🎤🎤 the world wants to know

i have yet to actually articulate my thoughts so i guess this is my official Review hehe. i’ve seen a few people say that a good chunk of it drags and they would shave off a decent portion; i can only somewhat agree a teeny tiny bit with the first part. there are times when it might feel like it’s dragging because it’s so character driven. coming from aftg i can understand why some might feel that way. things are always happening to neil and to the foxes. there are so many external forces at play—riko, drake, nathan, the mf fbi. maneuvering around them for exy is the story. neil trying to survive is the story. this second trilogy isn’t about survival; jean has already survived. a story about healing is going to be slower. and honestly i don’t see how any of this could be shaved off or included in b1 or saved for b3. as much exposition as nora gives is unconventional, sure, but it’s not bad. it’s necessary.

we unlock jeremy’s backstory—or at least a fair chunk of it. he’s such an avoidant mf of course it’ll take us time to know what’s going on in his head (which. hello????? your little brother’s suicide looms over you every waking minute and your older brother wants to ruin your life further and your other brother is Also There In Some Capacity That We Still Don’t Know and the world just keeps turning??????). we’re still learning more and more about jean’s past because of course so many years of abuse will take time to unravel. but jeremy’s voice is so distinct from jean, who is so different from neil. the pacing of these books might not be for everyone and that’s completely fair but it is the best pace for these specific stories. there’s a lot of overlap in the protagonists’ trauma (jean & neil, and jean & jeremy) but the way they go about dealing with it is so different. and that is so hard to do well as a writer so props to her. i think her grasp on her characters’ voice is so impressive.

and i’ve been meaning to say something about nora’s growth as a writer but haven’t had a chance to; gone are the days of (almost) all white cast of main characters! it was a thing she was criticized for with the original trilogy and she took it with a lot of grace. seeing the trojans lineup—the diversity in race, gender, sexuality, religion—and how natural it feels is so refreshing. it doesn’t seem like she was trying to meet a quota. she got something wrong with her debut, she learned, and she made adjustments. i will pointedly not look at another author who is equally popular here and who botched her One (1) canonically black protagonist after being called out for only writing one characters. i don’t know how she’s going to fit the rest of the school year + the moriyama/nathan case into the final book but, as i always say, in nora i trust. she is just so good at knowing exactly what her characters need and not compromising the essence of what makes them so compelling (eg: andrew going to california with kevin despite so many people saying they never want to see that bc of his history with that place. newsflash: the world doesn’t cater to your history. sometimes you have to do hard things. of course it’s andrew and not neil who accompanies kevin. eg: jean saying “have a winning day” despite people wanting a red card for the trojans. and of course it’s rhemann with a steel chair instead). all that to say… 10/10. no notes. excited to see how the exy season plays out bc wdym neil and andrew are both benched for the foreseeable future and the freshmen hate neil 😭 good luck to wymack fr and i pray we get to meet joshua and find out wtf he texted jeremy i’m so sick of guessing at that man’s thoughts even when im in his head like hellooooo

[superkooku]

This might be a bad opinion but I hate people who insult people who’s first introduction to Greek mythology is something like Percy Jackson or epic the musical.

Like I’m sorry that my first introduction to Greek mythology wasn’t a movie called “Thesue’s big fat booty cheeks vs the titan of time” made in 1576 that was 5 minutes long 😭

Personally I feel like we need to stop attacking people for getting their info from those sources and just tell them the actual facts because myths are all different, there could be 5 different endings to one myth. And I hate people who think it is okay to make fun of literal children for getting their source from Percy Jackson (sadly I have seen fully grown adults make fun of 13 year olds and younger for not understanding Greek myths because they read Percy Jackson.)

It’s just so annoying to see people make fun and insult others for how they got their first impressions on Greek mythology and how people make fun of others for not knowing every detail of a god or story or their first impression is something well known.

Rant incoming :

No, no. Actually it's a very interesting take.

I'll stay on PJO as an example but it fits every adaptation.

So, first of all, I completely agree with the sentiment behind the ask. It's always important to respect people. Even if someone writes a retelling I may deem 'bad' (= it doesn't fit my taste), it's never okay to insult the author.

And especially not the fans ! Especially not children !

No, just because a kid didn't read the Bacchae from Euripides (reminder that this play gets pretty violent btw), it doesn't mean they're inferior or anything. Or that Greek mythology doesn't interest them in some way.

Secondly, I agree with the fact that beginning with Greek myth adaptations is perfectly fine ☺️. In fact, they're oftentimes more attractive because of the modern format and character-driven stories. Or just cool action stuff instead of a 400-pages epic.

Most people only have a very casual understanding of mythology. Just like my very basic understanding of philosophy or fashion. Everyone has different interests.

In fact, I'd go as far as just being a fan of Percy Jackson but not wanting to go in depth about mythology is also understandable.

I like Dragon Ball and Lego Monkie Kid but I must admit that I never read Journey to the West (that inspired both of these series) so my info might be very incomplete.

The only thing is, we all need to separate modern adaptations from ancient Greek myths.

For example, everyone can criticize Zeus being an awful father in Epic as long as we can separate that from his mythological counterpart, who's much more nuanced in my opinion.

Because those tales were made in a specific culture and context.

I'm saying this as a non-greek person, so I'm not as personally annoyed by cultural misinformation. But when it's blatant, I can still see it. Especially if there's a mish-mash of modern takes with actual mythology.

I'm also bothered by retellings that abandon the cultural implications and accepted aspects just to "fix" mythology. That try to "give x character a voice" but said voice being the author's, completely missing the point. Or demonizing a nuanced figure instead of exploring the complicated nature of deities (yes this is still about Zeus 😂).

Or when it's in the USA.

Now, inaccurate ≠ bad. Creative liberties, new storylines or additions are absolutely welcome. There are some adaptations that I really like (I'll talk about them one day).

And flaws in the representation of the myths don't translate in flaws about the independent plot or storyline.

But I personally don't like when retellings stray too far from mythology. There is a limit.

Because it's missed potential not to respect the original sources, or because it's so different that we may as well change the names and make something original.

Then there are adaptations that just change mythology's interesting takes in cliche tropes or dubious storylines. And that's when my complaints get salty.

But those are my tastes and if someone began reading mythology with Lore Olympus, likes it, but knows that it's absolutely inaccurate, then I have zero problem with that.

Have fun and enjoy 😜.

[scarlet--wiccan]

One thing I don’t think people talk about enough in regards to Disassembled/HoM is how in-universe Wanda wasn’t lucid, was barely conscious and had absolutely no agency for an extended period of time and how that must have affected her

Yeah. I feel like I bring this up almost every time I'm prompted to speak about House of M. I dug into it at length in this post. But I agree-- one of the most important things to understand about House of M is that if you approach the text with any amount of empathy or, frankly, reading comprehension, it is abundantly clear that Wanda is literally not, at all, in control of what's happening. If you take the story at face value, Wanda is experiencing a mental health crisis due to a pre-existing condition, and everyone around her is just escalating the situation through violence and, in Charles and Stephen's cases, blatant medical malpractice. Revisiting the story post-Children's Crusade, her breakdown is precipitated by a non-consensual intervention by Agatha, years of lies from her friends and family, and, again, active gaslighting from Doctor Strange and Professor X. Wanda is responsible for appealing to Doctor Doom and choosing to go through with the Life Force ritual, so it's not that she isn't culpable, but the fact is that she lost any and all agency prior to the events of Disassembled and HoM.

It's hard to say how long she was living in Transia and, later, Latveria as an amnesiac, but her entire relationship with Doctor Doom was conducted under false pretenses and should absolutely be considered a violation of consent. We don't know... how far that violation goes. I don't want to assume the worst, but it's a pretty grim situation regardless.

Based on the Young Avengers timeline,* I would say Wanda lost one to two years of her life to temporary magic insanity. Assuming she remembers all of it, that's pretty horrifying, and it would be extremely traumatic even if she didn't. Unfortunately, this is neither the first nor the last time that Wanda has been possessed, mind-controlled, or otherwise driven "~crazy~", and these experiences are not exactly uncommon in the superhero genre-- and it's not always treated with the gravity you'd expect. Since realism isn't the standard, it isn't easy to gauge how severely a character has been impacted, but in Scarlet Witch (2016), Wanda talks about going to therapy and taking medication. She even tells Pietro about her PTSD symptoms in #9, but that issue's kind of a mess on several levels.

The moral of the story is, the text HAS actually acknowledged this. If it seems like that point has been lost on the readership, it's probably because most of the people who talk about HoM and it's legacy have no interest in Wanda's humanity, and they're not engaging critically with the text's portrayal of mental illness.

The events of Disassembled take place some time in between Billy's encounter with Wanda and his first meeting with Nate, as seen in Young Avengers Special. And while it's not abundantly clear, those two events seem to be only a few days apart.

We know that Billy was already in high school when Nate recruited him, and we know that he is only sixteen years old in Children's Crusade. All told, the team most likely cant have been operating for more than two years, in-universe, which means that Wanda was probably missing for less than twenty-four months.

[zombiecowboy65]

I think a lot of people who keeps complaining about Jeremy, Jerejean and/or TSC/TGR are people who have kept reading hoping to know about the foxes and andreil instead of wanting to know about Jean, Jeremy and the Trojans. Like I get it, I like them too but their story is mostly done. Now it’s time for Jean and Jeremy’s stories, their healing and their love story. That’s why these books are much more character driven that the og trilogy and their pacing is slower (although I understand some complains about this). What they need to realize is that maybe these books aren’t for them instead of complaining, being negative about everything and not giving a single constructive criticism about them.

Yeah I agree . And I know in part this series starts where it does to explain some of the past trilogy but if I see one more post making Jean’s abuser about Neil I think I’ll die . And I get it because we all love protective ships and it was in character for Andrew to ask about Neil being safe from Grayson in the nest but S2G I see that scene more than anything else

I do understand why the foxes were here sm but honestly in my opinion I still think it was fan service 🌝.

But also I can understand the frustration coming from a plot driven trilogy to a character driven trilogy especially when we are only 4 months and over like 200k words and idk how many pages (700?) in, but also just saying Jeremy and Jean are boring is unhelpful. At least say why u think so. I saw someone say Jean is nothing but Neil & Andrew’s child in terms of trauma and I couldn’t even be mad bc u know what? Yeah kinda. Like ur allowed an opinion obviously but at least explain ur stance

But also sometimes books/series just aren’t for ppl and I don’t think these books are for some og stans 🤷‍♀️ and that’s ok too

[50books50movies]

Nosferatu (2024)

When I listen to a cover version of a song, I want to hear what the artist is bringing to the tune. (It's part of the reason Glee was so successful.) I might even hope that the cover version unlocks something that the original couldn't have accessed, an act that redefines whose song it is. (Otis Redding's 1965 version of "Respect" seems like a footnote to Aretha Franklin's version after 1967.) 

So, when Robert Eggers announced that he was adapting Murnau's "Nosferatu" and Bram Stoker's "Dracula," I was hoping for something more than Gus Van Sant's frame by frame remake of "Psycho." Eggers recenters the film on Ellen, make Thomas less passive, and expand the cast by adding more characters around Ellen and Thomas. To accommodate these additional characters and their storylines, the film grows to more than two hours. This comes with the additional cost that the film has to remind us in its lethargic second half things about Count Orlok's shadow and its connection to the plague and the conflict between scientific modernity and "the old ways." 

Eggers also tried to bring his special, research-driven touch by writing Count Orlok's dialogue partially Dacian, a predecessor to Romanian reassembled for the film by Florin Lazarescu. And he tried to raise the stakes by adding nudity and violence, which previous versions of Nosferatu could not have included.

I just wish the film, beautiful as it was, didn't leave me so bored and unsure what Eggers was attempting to say about the need for a woman to sacrifice herself for the good of the community. 

There are undeveloped strands of criticism of modernity (for all of the pride that Dr. Sievers has in his era's medical sciences, it still seems barbaric to our contemporary eyes, and technology in the form of a gun is no match for Orlok's eastern, supernatural power) and capitalism (Thomas's employer sends him to Orlok's estate in Transylvania to secure his job, and Thomas agrees to a contract he cannot understand earn a commission). There's even a small critique that remarks on how the rich react to quarantine during a pandemic: to look out for their immediate family and break quarantine with no regard for the welfare of others. However, these strands are not the film's primary concern. 

Eggers spends the film's energy on building Ellen as a character, but he isn't able to create new ways to express Ellen's agency. In Murnau and Galeen's version, Ellen makes the choice to sacrifice herself to save everyone else. That choice is built into the story, so Eggers cannot claim credit for making Ellen's sacrifice an active choice. On the other hand, Eggers places the blame for Orlok's coming on Ellen because she and Orlok acknowledge that she had summoned him. 

Eggers also adds another scene that muddies his attempt at feminist recontextualization. Thomas witnesses what he thinks is a Romani vampire hunt at the inn, where a nude virginal woman is led on a horse as bait for the local cemetery's vampire. The woman there is bait, just like how Ellen has to be bait to entice Orlok to destroy himself. The old ways, represented by the Romani peasants, and the embodiment of the modern world's attempt to understand the old ways, Professor Von Franz, both agree: the woman has to be sacrificed for the good of the community. In Ellen's case, we can add some Victorian prudishness to it, since she must be punished for her interest in sex by allowing Orlok to ravish her body. 

This cover of Nosferatu is very pretty. I just wish Eggers was clearer about what he's trying to explore in making Nosferatu now.

[backjustforberena]

I’m new to the fandom; I recently caught up on the first season and watched the second. I fell in love with Rhaenys as a character; I think she’s very strong and particularly cunning. However, one aspect I’ve noticed, which I realize isn’t a common opinion, is that her relationship with Corlys seems absolutely toxic to me but people celebrated it as a great love story.

I genuinely don’t understand why people consider this couple to be solid - and compare them to Ned and Cat, when I’ve always seen Rhaenys as very lonely, she can count only on her own strength. Corlys is portrayed as so ambitious that he doesn’t value what he has, including his wife and children, he takes them for granted and he's even ready to silence them or put them at risk solely for his own pride. It seems to me that Corlys is fine with his wife as long as she agrees with him, but as soon as Rhaenys has a different opinion, he leaves her alone. I think that Corlys was written like a husband that did love his wife in the past but now it's more like routine- she's my wife and that's all. Also, rationally, the only times he does something for her, it's always driven more by guilt or shame (left his family after Laena and Laenor died -> so he joins the war; Rhaenys told him that she's aware of his bastards -> he changes his ship) than by love, affection, or respect for her.

So, I’d like to know from you and those who support this couple, what makes you talk about "great love"? what is the thing you like so much? I'm genuinly curious and interested in reading different opinions on the topic.

I just want to have a look at the word "toxic" because, in my view, that's a rather serious accusation to link to a relationship, and one that I don't think this relationship meets. To me, and I only speak on my views and I do want to say that I have been fortunate enough to never have been in or witnessed a toxic relationship, the label of "toxic" is one of an extreme.

To me, it brings to mind abuse and the idea of being trapped and of a significant power imbalance in favour of one participant in the relationship: lack of support, jealousy, controlling behaviours, unhealthy communication and criticism, isolation, eroding of self-confidence, high stress levels, and behaviour veering into physical and mental abuse. There are no other red flags such as a large age gap, chronic infidelity, or fear of the other. Rhaenys and Corlys are not cowed or belittled by their partner. They've been allowed to thrive: they are bettered by one another.

Corlys and Rhaenys do not meet any of the behaviours that would label them as toxic. Rhaenys and Corlys are not scared of one another, they engage in meaningful discussions, and they've had (for the most part) a stable relationship and committed relationship for decades, and one built from the fact that they love each other. It wasn't a political match. It isn't a question of whether they love each other either: they do. There's no power imbalance and no controlling behaviour exhibited. No one behaves irrationally. They aren't violent with one another, they treat one another with respect and care, they don't even really raise their voice, even if they can be curt and terse with one another. They confide in one another as well. Other than the complicated issue of Alyn and Addam, they have no secrets.

I don't think they're toxic.

Are we shown moments of conflict? Yes. Of course we are. For the majority of the time, but that's because this is a show that (certainly in Season 1) jumps from conflict to conflict and, for the most part, shows the characters in extraordinary circumstances. They are under pressure.

We aren't shown, for example, the ten years between Episode 05 and 06, where, presumably, everything was hunky-dory: with Corlys and Rhaenys just chilling on Driftmark. Instead, we meet them when they are at their most vulnerable, after the loss of their daughter, when the realities of Rhaenyra and Laenor's sons are reaching boiling point. We do not see their "normal", except in short glimpses and what we can infer or when they are on the periphery of the conflict, such as. And we rarely see their informal as well, where they are allowed to show their unguarded feelings and domesticity, because so much of them is either in political situations and at court - but when they are alone, we do have that. We have handholding, proximity, acts of care and a wish for/to comfort. Kisses to hands, flirtation, affection.

We can view Rhaenys as lonely for a portion of the time because, for the last three episodes of Series 1, to a large extent, she is. She's been alone, he did "abandon" her. When he's with her and it's normal (such as the first half or so of Season 1) there's no sense that she's lonely at all, even if she does have moments alone.

But it was never about a lack of love or a lack of care for her. It was about Corlys's own grief, a war already brewing in the Stepstones and even his love for her having an impact - he thought he'd lost her. It's an immature, and (to her) hurtful thing to do but it is an extreme. It is something that happens because of copious pressure and large events that uproot that relationship. In deleted dialogue, we know, he couldn't bear to face her. And whilst we acknowledge that this happens, we also have to acknowledge that she understands and forgives him for it. She holds him accountable, and then they are a unit once again.

It's not all sunshine and roses as we continue into Season 2, because again, external pressures force them into places where they find it hard to be vulnerable with one another. It's a continuation of their individual character journeys, but it's never undermining the love they have for one another or how they wish they could be, if given the chance.

For me, I get the impression that they'd love nothing better than for no one to die, everyone to be healthy and they can stay in bed all the time, eating nice food. If that's the baseline, if that's what they want from life, then that's not toxic. That's showing love. If this war hadn't happened, they would have been absolutely fine. Things out of their control and their individual vulnerabilities and worries drive the conflict in Season 2: losing Luke, the succession, the war, Corlys healing, Rhaenys being here, there and everywhere. But that's not a failure in their marriage. Their marriage doesn't fail. It just becomes unsure ground for once.

I'm aware I'm rambling so I'll just go with bullet points for what you've said and answer with counter-points and if you've got anything else you'd like to follow up on, please do come back. I like answering stuff like this.

She can count only on her own strength -> We see multiple points at which Rhaenys and Corlys are shown as a unit and that they take comfort from each other. From Rhaenys's POV, Corlys is regularly an advocate for her, a source of company, someone who seeks to soothe her worries and makes her laugh and get out of her own head a bit. There is an upgrade in her confidence from how she is when having to deal with things alone vs how she is when she has her husband by her side. No less capable, but on a lot surer footing (particularly in S1E10. She can count on him (for the most part). And she does. And she likes to.

Corlys is portrayed as so ambitious that he doesn’t value what he has, including his wife and children, he takes them for granted and he's even ready to silence them or put them at risk solely for his own pride -> Corlys's ambition is absolutely his major flaw. He does view his ambition as very important, but it does come from a place of love. I don't see how he "takes them for granted", though I concede, certainly with his children, that he's not above using them politically. But this is, contextually, normal. All the fathers do it or concede to it. And it is done with Rhaenys's awareness and consent. What I find interesting, as well, is that Corlys's ambitions are as much fueled by his love and hopes for his family as his own self-interest. So much is about justice for Rhaenys and her claim, and restoring how things should have been for her. His surprise at her accusations in S1E07 wouldn't have worked without this conviction. But he never silences her. I am absolutely clear on this. He never silences her. If you have examples, I'd love to dissect them with you.

Corlys is fine with his wife as long as she agrees with him, but as soon as Rhaenys has a different opinion, he leaves her alone -> the only example I can think of where this happens is S1E07. And he retreats because he's hurt. Again, this is a massive extreme and I've spoken about the layers to this scene before but she's uprooted him. She's gone for where he's vulnerable at a time in which he's vulnerable in the efforts to have a conversation and so he leaves the room because he can't deal with that. That's a normal reaction. He leaves her by the fire. But that's not a red flag. That's not an overreaction on his part, it's just a reaction that hurts her. Just as she has reactions that hurt him. If there is another example which suggests a pattern of behaviour, let me know, because otherwise, I don't see it.

I think that Corlys was written like a husband that did love his wife in the past but now it's more like routine -> they are literally post-sex in S2E03.

The only times he does something for her, it's always driven more by guilt or shame (left his family after Laena and Laenor died -> so he joins the war; Rhaenys told him that she's aware of his bastards -> he changes his ship) than by love, affection, or respect for her -> I would say that's a massive oversimplification on your part and I don't agree with your logic there at all. I also think it does a disservice to Rhaenys. He joins the war not because he's rolling over to Rhaenys's whims and would have done so anyway - she has to convince him. He protests to start with. She has to lay out an argument and give him context of what's been going on. Is he more amenable because he feels like he's let Rhaenys down? Probably. But that doesn't mean he doesn't love her. It implies it, if anything. And Corlys doesn't change his ship because she's aware of his bastards. He does it because she died. Because he wants to honour her. If they'd never spoken on the subject at all, do you think he wouldn't have done what he did? I do. Not once, during his mourning, has he ever mentioned them parting on bad terms, has he ever spoken about her in relation to that subject, or implied that he is motivated by that one fact. It wasn't the last time they spoke or saw one another. There's the unsaid and the undone but that was always going to be the case because she died. He changed his ship because he wanted to honour her. Because he misses her. Because he loved her. Because he's doing this (being Hand, fighting this war) for her.

What I like about they find solace and love in each other. They can react against each other and have differing opinions from one another but that doesn't undermine the love they have for one another. They are flirty with each other, care for one another, and seek one another out. They trust one another, they seek to empower the other, they are a team and present a united front. They discuss things, they advocate for one another, they are both political powerhouses. They don't try and change the other, either, which is a big thing.

Corlys did his voyages to prove himself worthy of Rhaenys which is like the biggest romantic gesture I've ever heard of. Rhaenys adopted her marital house and fought for it like she was born to it. She ruled in Driftmark and he trusted her to do that, despite having brothers of an age to do so. The fact that rocky waters for their marriage is such a destabilisation for them shows how much they value the support they give each other. It's not perfect. It's obviously not. But it is worthy to ship them. And they do possess a "great love". Great doesn't mean perfect.

[a-rabid-snake]

I love the music from the band "Give me a tank"(дайте танк(!))

I especially like the song "parasitic words"(слова паразиты)

There are only four roles, but there is a lot of meaning in this song, which I will try to explain to you how I see it.

The Narrator's aria. The aria of the Snake. The aria of the Hare. Aria of the Moose

The Narrator's aria moves between other arias, is responsible for observing and telling what happened in the "forest" after each aria of the "beast"

Aria of the Snake, tells about a character who did all his business in silence and did everything right and without mistakes. But after eating the words, it became more difficult for the "snake" to hunt, because for them "words became worse than poison." They try to do something, but it becomes difficult for them, because lying is not for them, and they are hungry, at the end of the aria, the "snake" begs literally to "run into the fangs" so that they can eat. They don't want to kill the innocent, and they don't want to push for it either. It just makes it harder for them to hunt, because every time they get caught up in the conversation, "please have mercy, don't!"

A complex aria in understanding human life

Aria of the hare (my favorite). The narrative is driven by a herbivore who is tired of running away and hiding like everyone else. As a result, they literally offer to listen to their poems to the fox. They believe that art is necessary for everyone and that it is important, they want to be heard. They try to listen to their poems for the others, but they all just leave without paying attention to them. They get angry and make fun of other animals because they don't understand him, the "hare" comes to the conclusion that he will be appreciated only when he puts his "paws" on himself, and after that other animals will make a museum out of his hole.

A hare, a simple rodent who doesn't want to run and hide, he just wants to be noticed, understood and appreciated, and even said in the aria that they need "constructive criticism"

Aria of the moose (I love her too). This character seems indifferent. He is the only one who understands the value of words, and the fewer they are, the more expensive they are, even gold. They preferred to remain silent even when they had a voice, because they didn't know what to say, and if they did, they said it to themselves without saying it directly. As a result, they became the ones who just listened to other animals and silently agreed with them, regardless of the fact that they were wasting his time and invading his personal space. "it's enough just to nod and agree, then the interlocutor will feel like the main one." This is the message at the beginning. At the end, "moose" gets worse, from all that he has accumulated, all that he has endured, he crawls exhausted to others and asks in a low voice, "how are you? "

Surely there is a person who listens to the problems of others every now and then, without rejecting their opinions, they help, but they only make it worse for themselves.

The narrator's aria. They are neutral, but they tell us how suddenly, in a quiet forest, "parasitic words" appeared, and now the animals are not silent. With each aria they listen to, the animals only make things worse and create complete chaos, trying to prove and tell something. After all, when the three arias finish their story, the animals "scratch words on the trees like written sheets, and underneath there are skins, empty shells, they have spoken, now they are empty"

"in the beginning there will be words and in the end there will be a word, everything repeats over again, nature is harsh, the mouth is a scar from communication on the face, in the beginning there was a word and the word will be in the end"

This is the end of the song "Parasitic Words"

I just advise you to listen to it, even if you don't know the translation, the sound is very cool

All the songs are incomplete (right here), but I would like you to listen to their sound and how they embody the characters in different ways

[jungkoode]

Some books on your shelves are problematic

Hi!

I want to take a moment to address your message sincerely and respectfully, because I understand where this kind of concern comes from and I think it’s worth discussing.

Yup, I have some books on my shelf that are considered “problematic”—either because of the author’s personal views or because the content itself explores difficult, dark, or morally complicated themes. And I think it’s important to distinguish between reading problematic material and endorsing it.

As a writer and someone deeply interested in psychology, I’m drawn to characters and narratives that challenge morality, provoke discomfort, and reveal the messiness of human behavior. That doesn’t mean I support harmful ideologies—it means I’m interested in how people rationalize them, survive them, or crack under them.

That’s also why my stories come with detailed content warnings and author notes: I believe in responsible storytelling, not censorship.

It’s worth emphasizing, too, that I always write from a limited point of view. The narration in my stories is deeply tied to the characters’ internal logic, which means it’s flawed by design—skewed by their experiences, their rationalizations, their trauma.

And the truth is, 90% of the time, I don’t agree with my characters’ thoughts or behaviors. But in order to write them authentically, I have to step into their shoes and commit to their worldview, even when it’s uncomfortable. That’s how the writing resonates—because people recognize parts of themselves in the internal justifications, even if they now see those thought patterns as harmful, or even if they never saw them as flawed to begin with.

None of this is accidental. I’ve always been transparent about the fact that my work is character-driven and psychologically rooted. What’s said in the narration is not my voice—it’s theirs. And reading those voices critically, without absorbing them at face value, is essential. That’s why I’ve said repeatedly: my stories are not easy reads. They are nuanced, uncomfortable, and detailed. They require reflection. If that’s not your kind of storytelling, that’s completely valid—but then my work simply isn’t for you.

I have a full FAQ on how to read my stories, and I stand by the fact that once you’ve been provided warnings and context, how you engage with that is your responsibility, not mine. My fiction is messy—that’s the point. I explore flawed people, moral contradictions, and psychological depth because humanity is messy. These stories are not morally green. They’re not black or white. They’re not meant to make you feel good or tell you what’s right. They’re explorations, not prescriptions.

I’ve always been very clear about this in my posts and author notes. If you’re not comfortable with that, that’s okay—just don’t read. But let others explore those themes safely, and let people think deeply without shame. Let this also be a reminder to always read my author’s notes and TWs before starting any of my stories.

Especially with ASW (my upcoming Taehyung x reader story involving a stalker and a ballerina), which is likely the darkest, most twisted, most psychologically intense story I’ve written. Please thread carefully—and, as always, protect your mental health. It comes first.

Reading widely—critically and thoughtfully—is part of how I grow as both a writer and a person. Some books I keep because they remind me of how not to write something. Others I keep because they sparked a reflection, even if I disagreed with them. And some, yes, I love despite their flaws, because art is rarely perfect, and neither are people.

If we only surrounded ourselves with “safe” or “correct” media, we would lose the opportunity to build the very critical thinking skills that help us challenge those ideas in the first place. Engaging with problematic literature doesn’t make someone problematic—it makes them conscious.

That said, I absolutely respect anyone who curates their shelf differently, and I think these conversations are valuable when held with curiosity rather than accusation. I’m always open to dialogue rooted in good faith. But at the end of the day, I don’t believe in moral purity tests as a measure of thoughtfulness, and I stand by the complexity of both my bookshelf and the characters I write.

Reading is not endorsing. It’s engaging. It’s interrogating. And it’s how I create fiction that challenges, provokes, and connects. That’s always been my priority—and it still is.

[laegolas]

right now one of my beloved fandoms has devolved into infighting and drama that we've seen time and time again over some truly meaningless shit. And I'm not blaming any one individual or ship - we collectively do not do enough to educate people about online boundaries.

so here is some unsolicited advice from a Fandom Elder in hopes of eventually jumping off this hamster wheel:

if you see something you do not like or agree with, simply do not engage. ignore it. block the poster if you have to. snide comments are not necessary. the more you engage with something on an algorithmically driven feed, the more it will be put in front of you. the findability heuristic does not care whether attention is positive or negative, it only knows that you clicked. I promise you will see less of the stuff you dislike when you stop saying you dislike it.

for the love of god please drop this idea of 'policing' fandom. this implies a social hierarchy within the community. fandom is not a singular entity, it is a collective. you can only ever control your own experience.

just because you personally dislike a character/ship/interpretation, doesn't mean its morally bad. you do not have to find a reason to dislike something. just accept it doesn't tick the boxes for you and move on.

do not assume in bad faith. more often than not, people misstep due to ignorance, not malice. the internet is full of people from different countries/ages/backgrounds/experiences/identities. you can provide a polite alternative perspective, but whether that is taken onboard is 100% to do with the poster's intentions/perspective, and not anything you can say. you will never change a stranger's mind about deeply held beliefs.

stop feeding the trolls. if you get messages/anons you do not agree with or are attacking you/your fandom/ship/etc you do not have to publish it. if you do, you're giving them precisely what they want: attention. also, these trolls are never the representation of the majority.

play in your own sandbox. do not make moral treatises on why your sandbox is better than someone else's sandbox. if you spend all your time worrying about what someone else is doing, you have no time left for your own sandcastles.

Get comfortable with death of the author. we have unprecedented access to the writers/directors/crew/actors of our favourite media, and they have that same kind of access to us. but what you're engaging in is fiction and storytelling, not a director's positivist, socially-devoid, historically-accurate thesis on an event. the director's interpretation of a story is exactly that: an interpretation. Hell, even if it's a single writer who also edited who also published an extremely indie book, you can still take something different away than what the author originally intended.

canon is NOT the One Truth. some people ship/headcanon/meta irrespective of canon - some people ship/headcanon/meta in spite of it. sure, it'd be nice to see some of your fantasies play out on the screen/page, but that's not the point of fandom.

if you absolutely have to say a negative word about a character/ship (which you really, really do not), do not tag that character/ship. you are inviting the voice and criticism of people who have the opposite opinion of you.

Remember that engaging with hate or drama is always going to leave you feeling worse, no matter your intentions. at the end of the day, these are stories. none of it is real. there are no stakes. no one is committing any crimes.

Remember why you got into that story, that show, that movie, or that book - remember what you loved and what you wanted to share in. choose that instead.

[dukeofdelirium]

I'm not surprised that a lot of the young heterosexual guys in the ST fandom also suffer from the male loneliness epidemic. While Gen Y guys certainly weren't the smartest people to ever walk the earth, they at least had critical thinking skills and the ability to communicate and have discussions with people.

I see so many of these young men in this fandom wear stupidity like it's a badge of honor. They want everyone to know that they don't like using their brains and that they fully expect tv shows to be dumbed down to meet their lack of intelligence.

They also need constant validation and can't handle anyone challenging their viewpoints. They have no emotional control and sound like toddlers.

It's no wonder no one wants to date or even befriend them. It's exhausting being around people who enjoy being unintelligent, uninteresting, and have zero social skills or emotional intelligence.

Agreed lol. I especially don’t want to be around it. I already work full time and deal with morons daily, so engaging w any fandom for me is like filtering all the bullshit out as much as possible 😂

The fact they proudly state that ST is nothing but a “monster show” shows how dumb they are bc wtf leads you to even believe that conclusion in the first place? There’s obviously much more going on here than the sci-fi and horror elements, or the 80’s nostalgia and whatnot. Sure, that’s an aspect of it, but this is clearly a character and relationship driven show…

Whatever tho, they just wanna make fun of us and call us stupid for analyzing the show. It’s specifically because we believe in the gay romance and that we believe the story is representing homophobia through the horror and monsters that they call us names and act like we’re crazy. If it weren’t gay, they wouldn’t think or say those things.

And that’s exactly why they’ll hate s5. I hope it makes them scream and cry about it lol.