#(I mean. the answer is misogyny. but I want people to be. aware of that. and evaluate accordingly)

[musical-chick-13]

"This show is SO good, you should watch it!!"

I gotta be honest. If I look at a character list on Wikipedia and get five characters down without seeing a single woman, it's probably not for me.

[graffitibible]

genuinely confused wdym by gerard way white saviorism

you asked me this about 3 weeks ago, and i'm sorry it took me so long to get to it. i had to think very hard about how i was going to answer this one, because i want to be transparent in just how frustrating i find this issue without drawing a lot of fire from really pissed off my chem fans who hate the idea of my daring to speak up against their perfect white fav (which has happened often, and continues to happen often. fortunately i'm pretty immune to this by now but i do find it very annoying)

i want to be very transparent in that i think that pretty much everyone can benefit from the idea that their favs are flawed. i'm very aware of the flaws and missteps that people i admire, both personally and professionally, have committed in their lives, and it is down to my own sense of morality over whether that's a dealbreaker for me. i don't like the idea of calling out bad behavior for the sake of clout or whatever. but i do care about not people being spoken over when they point out a legitimate criticism, and that is the bottom line here.

below the cut, i'm going to be discussing some very heavy topics: racism of all flavors is the most prevalent one, but i'm also going to touch (briefly) on topics such as antisemitism, incest, and abuse.

and i am also, in general, going to be saying a lot of very unkind things.

when it comes to criticisms of the scene, of narrative writing, of mistakes that people make...my chemical romance, and gerard way in particular, are consistently rendered immune. when we discuss misogyny in the scene in the early and mid aughts, my chem's name never comes up (despite the fact that bullets, their first album, most certainly has lyrics that certainly evoke the same violent misogyny present in a lot of works from that era). when we discuss racism within the scene, my chem is never really discussed at length except perhaps to point out that ray toro is a latino man who is either ignored or sexualized (or both) by a deeply racist fanbase. there is a tendency, within these spaces, to give my chem the benefit of the doubt where the same grace is not extended to others.

this is what i mean by "white saviorism." because gerard way's whiteness in particular protects them from a lot of this. and i say this because of all the things that has made it deeply uncomfortable to interact with broad swathes of my chem's fanbase, the racism has unquestionably been the number one deterrent. there is a very unique brand of racism present within my chem spaces - and i know i am not the only person of color who feels this way, because i've spoken to many who can say the same - that is particularly violent, particularly virulent, and particularly ingrained. experiences with this, along with my own growing distaste for gerard way as a writer, has soured my experience with the music so tremendously that i can no longer really interact with it at length.

i am not, however, above citing my sources. so. let’s talk about racism in gerard way’s writing, shall we?

i have always been up front about the fact that i do not find gerard way to be a particularly inspired, interesting, or good writer. i find most of their work to be aggressively mediocre and highly derivative. but my own personal opinion of their work has very little bearing on the extremely racist rhetoric that upholds a distressing amount of it. here is where i'm going to link a pretty informative twitter thread that outlines a lot of these instances in detail, but it is by no means exhaustive.

it's in the umbrella academy comics, wherein the main characters are all white despite being children taken from "all over the world." it's in the orientalist racist caricatures of the vampire viet cong group that the heroes square up against. it's in the casual instances of slurs that have cropped up several times in their works without any understanding of the impact those words have (an anti-indigenous slur in the umbrella academy comics, an anti-romani slur in the killjoys national anthem comics - which, i should state, came out in 2020). it's in the appalling writing decision to, in national anthem, make the sole black character the character with "animal powers" who rips out adversary's throats on all fours. it's in the frequent and persistent sexualization of women of color, particularly asian women. it's in the colorism involved in the interplay between mike milligram (a white man), code blue (a latina woman), and jaime ramirez (their mixed child), wherein jaime's skin tone shifts at the drop of a hat depending on which of his parental figures is in the frame (code blue is dead by the time the story picks up properly, but her sister, code red, effectively raises him...and he ends up staying with his father).

and it is unquestionably, overwhelmingly present in danger days. this is a danger days blog so this is the area in which i have the most research, so i want to be very clear when i say this:

racism is an insidious, incontrovertible, and inextricable foundation of the very conceptual underpinnings behind danger days and all its associated works.

the orientalism is baked into the very aesthetic of the album. better living industries is a japanese mega-company that takes everything over, the big bad of the franchise. the asian "aesthetic" is all over the canon in the music videos and comics: non-asian characters are seen wearing it, it's in all the marketing and even present on the album itself, wherein a woman is clearly heard speaking japanese on the "party poison" track. there was also the baffling inclusion of the "clown monk" character that was cut from the music videos back in 2010, wherein a white man is wandering around wearing buddhist robes (they inexplicably liked this concept so much that they brought it back for the national anthem comics which, again, i will reiterate: came out in 2020).

this is not surprising. danger days is deeply derivative in concept (up to and including the name itself), and because most of its influences come from cyberpunk dystopia fiction from the 80s, most obviously the 1980s film blade runner. works of fiction in that vein frequently draw from the idea of "yellow peril," and are rooted in the extremely racist and xenophobic rhetoric that western civilization will be invaded and dismantled by the evil, scary asians. the end result is a concept of a "dystopia" that is mired in the very stereotypical fears of the time: fears of an east asian surveillance state invading the west, fears of the all-powerful homogenized "other," and so on.

this did not stop gerard way from exotifying and fetishizing the fUCK out of all their asian characters though!!! the director of better living industries gets to be the primary major asian character in the killjoys california comics, and she spends a good chunk of it in dominatrix gear, with a whip to boot - both villain and sex object. the comic’s sex workers, referred to as “pornodroids,” are all asian-coded and, although we get one of the comic’s two same-sex pairings (3/4 of the characters involved in said pairings are dead by the comics’ end), the characters of red and blue spend the entirety of their screen time in the highly sexualized apparel of their occupations. there’s also the character of korse’s boyfriend, who does not get a name and spends all of his screen time lounging around shirtless in korse’s apartment. nice of gway to reduce the only  asian dude to eye candy fridged for korse’s manpain. i guess.

also, i should not fail to mention - the killjoys california and danger days sections of canon are INCREDIBLY white for pieces of fiction that take place in california, which is one of the most racially diverse areas in the states. in terms of latino characters, we get jet star (by virtue of being played by ray toro in the music video, though i should point out that there is no guarantee that this is actually reflective of jet star’s true appearance, since none of the killjoy appearances are necessarily 1:1 with those of the band in the comics), and we get...POSSIBLY vaya and vamos, who are ambiguously brown and have names in spanish which implies they might be latine (but given that this is california and most of the population speaks spanish, is not necessarily a given). we also get volume, the sole black character, who gets a handful of lines before being unceremoniously killed off within moments of meeting him. the girl’s mother is definitely drawn as a woman of color, but she gets one line, no name, and the girl herself is drawn as very straightforwardly white and considered to have a “fair complexion” in the comics.

this trend unfortunately continues into national anthem, wherein there’s certainly a more diverse cast, but unfortunately, very little of that cast actually gets concrete development. mike milligram is our central protagonist, our sole white character (gerard way basically only ever commits to writing white protagonists)...and he’s also the only one of them who gets an arc of any kind. code blue (a latina woman, and his girlfriend) is fridged for his manpain. code red, blue’s sister, does not get nearly as much focus on her grief despite losing someone she knew for much longer than mike ever did. jaime, mike and blue’s child, resents red for raising him and chooses to stay with his birth father once the events of the comics are over. i’ve touched on how animax, our sole black character, is given “animal powers” and is pictured several times brutally ripping apart his enemies, but i should also point out that his big character motivation is - no joke - rosa parks. as in, rosa parks being erased from history, and he wants to stop it (these comics were weird, and also incredibly bad). everyone else has a deeply personal motivation save for animax, whose motivation is basically that he wants people to not forget that the civil rights movement like, happened.

there’s also the instance of kara jeong, or kara 100%. this is the one that really makes me grind my teeth, because she’s frequently praised as a cornerstone for trans representation. and i agree that having more trans women of color in comics is great! but this does not erase the fact that, like literally every other asian character gerard way has ever written, she is very much sexualized. her job as a model means that “it was essential that she was good looking” and it is not as egregious an example as, say, the director in the california comics...but it’s an unsettling addition to a constant pattern. there are a lot of shots of kara’s bare neck and shoulders and long legs, and all that on top of the fact that, like anyone who isn’t mike milligram, she gets very little characterization at all...well, it’s not a great look.

these are the issues in gerard’s writing that are the most frequently dismissed and ignored. this post is horribly long to begin with, so i don’t want to carry on (ha...ha....), but i want it on record that i very much could. this does not even begin to touch upon the bizarre inclusion of a constant incest undertone in almost everything gerard way writes (the umbrella academy is the most obvious here, but even in the killjoys canons...red and blue are lesbian lovers in california while being sisters in national anthem, and that’s kind of a little uncomfortable, all things considered), nor does it address gerard’s insistence on including very homogenous abusive backstories for no reason besides, i guess, character angst (and these abusive backstories all involve a physically abusive male figure, because i guess this is the only kind of abusive relationship gerard way can visualize).

[EDIT: just remembered, because i forgot to mention it (knew i was forgetting something) - there's also quite a bit of antisemitism present in the umbrella academy comics that is further exacerbated in the show. i'm not the best equipped person to talk about that (i've only watched the show up to s2, at which point i kinda got sick of that garbage enough to just tap out of it), and i also have only looked over the tua comics a few times as opposed to the show, which is not run or primarily written by gerard way. that being said, he's definitely a creative consultant on it, so...i think maybe they should've reconsidered making reginald hargreeves a baby-stealing lizard man and having the bad guys all speak to each other in yiddish, possibly.]

let me be the first to say...none of this surprises me. these are all pitfalls i’ve seen white writers (and writers of color with internalized issues) commit as well. and i also, as well, want to make it clear that i imagine very little of these appalling writing decisions were committed with active malice. i sincerely doubt that anyone involved in these writing processes steepled their fingers and cackled wickedly over what crimes they would commit to their many brown fans.

i want to be very, very clear here. i lay all of this out not to “shame” gerard way or write a “callout post” or anything to that effect. i want to be utterly transparent in that i think gerard way’s racism is as mediocre and unremarkable as their writing is: derivative, lazy, shallow, and incredibly commonplace.

and that is where the idea of “gerard way white saviorism” comes from. because these are all, individually, acts of horribly insensitive, damaging, and deeply racist rhetoric that would unquestionably be addressed if it were anyone else doing them. but because it’s gerard way, and the internet loves gerard way, and everyone has decided that gerard way is their white liberal fav who can do no wrong...like the case with everything else surrounding my chemical romance, they get a pass. they are exempt.

this is far from everything. it’s just what i can remember at the moment. i am not the first person of color to point this shit out. i imagine i will be ignored, much like every other fan of color who has made these points in the past. people don’t like to imagine that gerard way can be capable of these sorts of oversights. they don’t like to think about it. they want to persist in painting their very ordinary, centrist, white liberal fav as someone whose every word is deeply progressive and insightful and flawless. because, consistently, they get the benefit of the doubt where others, especially folks of color, do not.

so no one talks about it. no one talks about how gerard way’s writing is consistently racist in a very clear and distinct way that no one wants to address, making it more insidious. no one wants to talk about the mind-bogglingly racist conceptual underpinnings holding up the entire danger days album. no one wants to talk about how gerard, and all of my chemical romance accepted, or at the very least tolerated, bob bryer’s overt antiblack racism for years, for nearly a decade, and never said a word.

no one wants to talk about it. because that would mean they’d have to come to terms with their white savior not being so perfect.

so they don’t.

and shit like this is why i find the overwhelming majority of my chemical romance fan spaces to be deeply unwelcoming to someone like myself: a brown person who tries to call out racism when i see it. and i know i’m not the only one.

[seriousbrat]

This is so insidious. "Be aware of your language because you might unknowingly be spreading Evil ideology!!" basically just means "don't talk about this at all because it bothers me". It's so so transparent. If I'm constantly having to be careful about what I say about female characters (regardless of my actual intended meaning) because this Supreme Arbiter of Truth might randomly decide it's Terf Rhetoric Actually how can I ever have any sort of meaningful discussion at all? Notice how it's framed as "unknowingly"– if I have no possible way of knowing HOW I'm using Evil Language, how can I possibly avoid it? By shutting up is the answer.

It's based on NOTHING. It's a strawman. There is not a single Lily fan that thinks that Lily is just a mother and nothing else. Seeing Lily as more than a mother and recognising motherhood is important to her story are not mutually exclusive. Furthermore, in what world is pointing out that women are sidelined in fandom terf rhetoric? This person is just deliberately conflating discussions about misogyny in fandom with hate groups because they know that's an easy way to get people riled. They're pretending the main argument against Lily's exclusion in fandom is about motherhood (it's not) and then doing a further mental backflip to stir up moral outrage about people defending female characters.

Be absolutely clear about this- this person KNOWS, deep down, that there is a reason why they only engage with male characters, and this bothers them. Instead of being honest with themselves about it they are inventing a bullshit faux progressive reason to silence any and all criticism and convince their own conscience that they're in the right.

There are no laws, obviously, saying you can't change lily's story or make her a side character if you want. I myself once made her a side character in a prongsfoot fic. The problem is when this is an overwhelming tendency in fandom, which IS significant and IS, in my opinion at least, worth pointing out. When arguably the most important character in the Marauders Era is routinely sidelined in favour of male characters who are literally irrelevant, that does actually say something about what sorts of characters fandom likes to engage with and why. When she's routinely bashed and hated for not really doing anything wrong while male characters who range from bullies to murderers are excused and idealised, that does say something.

It's never pleasant to have to critically examine your own interactions with fiction and accept that your preferences might be rooted in deeper-held beliefs about the world. But it is important, and one way to do this is to facilitate open conversations between different points of view. One way to NOT do this is claiming that everyone else but you is "accidentally" "unknowingly" using evil language so they might as well shut up about their opinions and about women in general.

[utilitycaster]

Hi I’m a new critter and I love your account and both your meta and your takes on “drama” I genuinely want to know (if you don’t mind saying of course) what you consider to be the most egregious, bad faith cr take that you’ve ever seen. I just like reading your criticism because it’s both incredibly articulate and smart but also very satisfying

Hi anon,

Thank you! I do have to say this is a difficult question with a boring answer but I'll give you a tangential one as well to make up for it.

Obviously, the misogyny and death threats in C1 are the worst! Anything that rises to the combination of structural oppression and literal death threats is going to be the worst, even before you factor in how utterly tiny the stakes were here (and, frankly, you shouldn't factor that in; doesn't matter what the cause is, big or small! Do not send death threats!)

The reason I tend not to talk about that is because there's very little to say. It's misogynistic death threats. That's awful, inexcusable, and dangerous in any context. But if someone doesn't understand how terrible this is, I don't think I can say anything to add to that.

Anyway because that was true, but obvious and not terribly revealing, I have been thinking a lot about mean-spiritedness in the fandom and I'll talk about that here. It's something I try to be cognizant of, because here's the thing: I talk a lot of shit. I'm aware I talk a lot of shit. There's many reasons why I talk a lot of shit. But I do try very hard not to be mean-spirited. I think there is a very clear distinction between criticism, even harsh criticism, of things you don't like, whether it's in execution, concept, or they just aren't to your taste; and mean-spiritedness, which is much more based in a desire to do harm to others.

I think again the example I've mentioned recently of people harassing Liam until he took a song off a Caleb character playlist is the pinnacle. This doesn't have any real goal re: criticism - it doesn't address an issue with the character nor the narrative and the only personal preference it reveals is "I, a random fan, don't like that this song was used in this context" which is not really relevant and you can skip it. Harassment is never justified, and even behavior that skirted harassment really served only to be a dick to Liam. It didn't have a single result other than "Liam takes the song off and feels kind of bad for a while," which I suspect was in fact the goal for most people, and that's pretty abhorrent.

Harsh criticism is not necessarily constructive, but it is with the intent to reveal - either a personal preference, or what you believe to be a flaw (structural, thematic, etc) within the story. It might not have a goal - personal preference really is just "I don't like this guy" and that's fine. Mean-spiritedness, however, exists just to spew bile and do harm.

So the following (most of which are paraphrased, but all are things I've personally seen on Tumblr alone, and nearly all are from the last year or so) aren't per se the most egregious or bad-faith takes, but they are absolutely mean-spirited. They have all destroyed my estimation of the people saying them for the most part beyond repair, and in many cases, if they have not hurt my estimation of the ship or character they were intending to support, they have certainly increased my estimation of the things they were intending to oppose. (And it goes without saying: any harassment - any - is automatically mean-spirited).

"I hope Fjord and Jester have divorced [author's note: they were not married] and I hope it hurt."

"I hope Caleb and that floaty fuck have broken up by the solstice."

"I hate Ashton, and Campaign 3 wouldn't be any different if they weren't there."

"My wishlist for this episode is that Chetney hits on Fearne and Ashton cockblocks him"

"I hope Fearne makes that robot eat his stupid coin"

"I'm not surprised that Yasha missed, because Yasha is bad at everything."

"Funny how Vex goes against her husband but does everything that Keyleth says" [Author's note: later proved to be hilariously untrue]

"No one cares about Travis's characters."

"Oh, Liam meant that Essek's own guilt would still exist by 'It won't help the inside?' I thought he was just being a fucking twat."

I think some people go into fandom not because they want to talk about characters, but because they see it as an opportunity to hit someone. I think some people believe they are entitled to a "win" (not normal to want nor possible to achieve and often less about the story and more about the fandom agreeing with them) and will engage in any tactic no matter how underhanded if they don't think they're getting it. That's what mean-spiritedness is in the end. It's not a single opinion, and often it goes under the radar compared to more stupid but less clearly unpleasant takes - a lot of the above didn't result in a ton of discourse because most people see these and rightfully go "oh that person is a tar pit" and block them - but it's certainly, outside of bigotry (which is also frequently also mean-spirited) - the most bad-faith approach to fandom on the whole.

[duncebento]

and i mean that like a “i hate men so much ewww i wish i weren’t attracted to them”-ass bitch is often times in desperate need of learning the beauty of men via a queer perspective but they don’t surround themselves with queer men, transmascs, etc. nooooo they surround themselves w like terfs and shit. im sorry but even as a bi woman who is very aware of patriarchy and how it informs my interactions, as a woman who is forced to be harassed and misconstrued because of it, i could never disavow my attraction to men, to queer men specifically, to queer men of color specifically. there is just too much that’s beautiful for it to be denied. when i ask myself if i still want to love and be loved in a world where misogyny is the way the answer is yes. and for some it may be no, which i understand, but i should hope that those people are able to conceive of good men in the next generation even as they found none in theirs

[maryonaccross]

Just wanted to post this to answer @ivarusfalls who chose to post my comment on her anti green post : https://www.tumblr.com/ivarusfalls/715220391811006465/people-say-that-being-team-green-stans-doesnt

On her tumblr.

I figured the best way to respond would be to go through the arguments that were made in the post that I was commenting on and discredit them one by one.

So here we go:

“People say that being team green stans doesn't mean that they're supporting misogyny or anything else that their team stands for. But I just can't understand this take. How can you choose to support a team who's main character (Alicent) laughed when she heard about children and women getting raped?”

The same way I can’t understand how you can support team pedophile ( but we’ll get to that later). I have no idea where you got the information that Alicent laughed at women getting raped ( like in what context? Please state your source when you say things like that). But even if we assume that that was the case supporting her is still 1000 times better than supporting people who( like Deamon and Rhaenyra ) judge and belittle her for being a child bride. And that is a problem that I have with team back Stans in general; How mentally deranged to you have to be to call a child- bride and victim of marital rape “ Alicunt “??? Also team black proudly stands with Viserys who raped his first child bride until he eventually cut her open because her body couldn’t handle seventh pregnancy he forced on her and then proceeded to do the same with Alicent. Deeds speak louder than words. Whatever Alicent said or didn’t say, she never raped or groomed anyone which is more than can be said about many on team black.

“How can you support this team who's main purpose was to tear down the heir to the iron throne only because she was a woman?”

Again, that isn’t true. It the show Alicent supports Aegon because she is thinks that that’s what Viserys wanted her to do. Those were his last words. And in the books she is usurped because her children are bastards. Otto was literally the one who suggested she be named heir instead of Deamon in the first episode. This isn’t about her sex. Her heir is a bastard. Therefore Aegon’s claim is stronger.

“How can you support team green when even when killing Rhaenyra, they cut her breast (something that was unnecessary) only to highlight the fact that they were against her for being a woman?”

As far as I am aware of they feed her to Sunfrye. But all right, whatever you say; unnecessary cruelty towards a hostage. Does that remind you of anything? Oh, maybe the gruesome murder of six year old prince Jeaherys and how team black send assassins who also threatened to rape Aegons six year old daughter. ( And saying that Rhaenyra is innocent in that matter because Deamon gave the order just serves as proof of her failures as a leader. He was part of her fraction, and under her command therefore she is responsible for his actions. Just as Aegon is for Aemond killing Luke)

“How can you support a team whose main character (Alicent) was a rape apologist? Who, when she say her son raping women, bought the silence of the victim but didn't reprimand her son for doing this heinous crime?”

Alicent is a victim of marital rape. Did you even watch the show? Did you not see how she slaps Aegon and denounced him as her son for what he did??? Team black supports Viserys who let Deamon organize a police brutality event without consequences. The guy literally ran amok around the city maiming and killing people left and right. Of course Alicent is concerned how Aegons actions will reflect upon his wife who is her daughter. Alicent does everything in her power to stop Aegon from going down that road.

Rhaenyra lets Luke get away for literally maiming another child without consequences and doesn’t think that he should even apologize. But she is the mother of the year. Make it make sense

“How can you support this team when they knowingly protested against Rhaenyra, the first female heir to the iron throne which would do wonders for women in their society and improve their status, so that they could put their rapist son on the throne?”

This one is really funny, because Rhaenyra ( both in the show and the book) has proven that she doesn’t give a shit about women. All she cares about is herself. She sees herself as the exception, not the rule. In the books, she still proclaims that younger brothers should inherit instead of their sisters. She tells Rheanys that Jace and Beala’s SON will be the king if she married him, which means that she isn’t planning on changing anything for women. If anything her reign made it even more difficult women to come into positions of power because she is remembered as one of the top five Targaryen villains of all time. She chose to judge Alicent for being forced into a life she doesn’t want instead of blaming her father, who forced her into it.

“How can you support this team when Alicent abused Rhaenyra so much to the point Rhaenyra was forced to leave her home and her father because of it?”

What are you talking about??? Rhaenyra basically fleas Kings Landing because everyone was aware that her children are bastards. Even Deamon knew all the way from Pentos. The reason she had to leave was because of her own stupid decisions, and what exactly did Alicent do to bully her??? She doesn’t even actively spread rumors about her children’s parentage, she doesn’t need to, everyone already knows, people aren’t blind. The only time she mentions it is in the privacy of her and Viserys’ Chambers and to Aegon ( again, in private ). And I saw in another one of your posts that we are now villainizing Alicent for her asking to see Joffrey after his birth, because apparently she wanted to “ expose him to germs” I mean come on 🤣🤣🤣 this is a time period where people didn’t even know what that was ( I mean Visserys gives two year old Aegon WINE in the carriage scene ) children spend all of their time with maids and servants. The king and queen asking to see their grandchild isn’t outrageous. i’m sorry, I’m trying to take this seriously but this one cracks me up every time this is so hilarious. She probably wanted to infect him with COVID-19 as well.

And also, the king was right there. What do you think she would’ve done to the baby ? thrown it out the window?

And honestly, if all it takes is a little passive aggressiveness to bully the future leader of Westeros and make her flee to a rock I really don’t think there’s anything left to say about her skills as a ruler. That would mean she has absolutely zero resilience and cannot deal with the consequences of her actions. It’s not Alicent’s fault that people aren’t blind.

“How can you support this team when Alicent made Rhaenyra come to her as soon as she gave birth even when knowing just how painful and traumatic giving birth is?”

She doesn’t. She asked the see the baby. Not Rhaenyra. She looks visibly shocked when she sees Rhaenyra herself.

“Besides this, I've seen team green stans make fun of Rhaenyra being over weight, making fun of her trauma and abuse, saying she was a bad politician even though everything in the show indicates that she wasn't, etc etc.”

I.) the stuff that Team Black fans say about Helena, her weight, but also her being a neurodivergent coded character is so much worse. To the point of some of them arguing that she deserved to die because her life is not worth living

II.) Rhaenyra is a horrible political. She constantly makes stupid decisions ( like taking a lover who doesn’t resemble her husband whatsoever, letting people believe she killed Leanor, marrying the man everyone wanted to keep as far away from the throne as possible, leaving for dragon stone and letting the greens rule for years while her father was sick ect) and the worst thing is she always relies on other characters ( mainly her father and uncle husband ) to save her. Is Viserys hadn’t miraculously resin out of bed when Rhaenyra came begging him she would’ve been done for. She had absolutely no plan.

“I will never like team green stans or even team neutral ones because team green is beyond disgusting and I have no idea how anyone can not hate them.”

Honestly, I have no idea how to talk to hard core team Black fans without wanting to throw up. They are so much more problematic than team green fans and make it really difficult to enjoy this fandom.

And to answer your previous question Deamon is a groomer and a pedophile. In the show Rhaenyra’s actress says that her character is 14 years old in the first couple of episodes including the one where she goes to a brothel with Deamon. Deamon also marries Leana who couldn’t have been older than 15 at the time and grooms Nettles when she is a teenager.

And even if we focus on the book, he has known Rhaenyra since the moment she was born, and spent a lot of time with her during her childhood. Do you honestly think that it’s a coincidence that he keeps “ falling in love “ with underage women?

It’s profoundly disgusting and seeing people portray him ( a wife killer ) as a feminist man makes me sick.

[stormblessed95]

So you don’t have to publish this if you don’t feel comfortable, but I kinda wanted your opinion on this.

It may sound dramatic, but I haven’t been able to call myself an army since the news of the World Cup came out. I am so incredibly disappointed in bts and bighit.

When I got into bts they brought me so much comfort and helped me through some tough times. I enjoyed their music and was always very proud of the message they tried to share with the world. Yes, some of their older content is uncomfortable to watch for the casual misogyny and homophobia, but as a queer woman I perfectly understand internalized homophobia and misogyny and I wouldn’t want to be judged for what I said or did in 2014. They had shown they had grown and learned. They always spoke up against people in power abusing it and about social justice.

So what happened? Did they became worldwide stars and decided “who cares about our message anymore! Let’s support a tournament that is basically a celebrations of the violation of human rights?”

Supporting the World Cup is basically saying they don’t care that over 6000 people died building the stadiums. They don’t care that lgbtq people die in that country. They don’t care about women and women’s rights.

This is not the bts I thought I knew, and I’m talking about all of them because if the other six were strongly opposed to this, I honestly doubt jungkook would be flying over there right now. But here we are.

I mean I could even understand that it’s a huge honor for a South Korean to sing for the first time at a World Cup opening ceremony, but let’s not forget that SK with Japan hosted the 2002 World Cup (and that was a mess as well, just google about the referee Moreno and bribes about that World Cup).

Idk I think they really fucked up this time. And if they have no qualms to stand up for human rights violations, than I don’t think I can call myself their fan. I’m also disappointed in armies (on twitter mostly) that have been insulting anyone who pointed out how this is a very poor decision that does not reflect well on bts’s character and morals. You may disagree, but you can’t deny the facts.

I read dualipa’s reaction (who I don’t follow and don’t know anything about) about being rumored to sing and the World Cup, and I can’t help but wish that had been bts answer as well.

Hi. So I'm not going to tell you how to feel. Your feelings and concerns are valid and they are your own. What you choose to do based on how you feel is also totally and completely up to you. Your choice/feelings aren't wrong either way you feel about. Nor do i want to dismiss all the issues and valid crisitisms surrounding the world cup and Qatar. So please know that its okay to be upset about it. And I don't want to bring up past controversies either but idk if you were around in 2019 or if you feel like this is any different than the issues surrounding their choice to perform in Saudi Arabia?

For background if you werent aware of the issues they faced for the decison to hold that concert, ill give an overview:

Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman took the throne in 2015, and he has since been making efforts to make the country more moderate and less conservative with several reforms. According to Wikipedia, some of those reforms would be: "regulations restricting the powers of the religious police, the removal of the ban on female drivers in June 2018, and weakening the male-guardianship system in August 2019. Other cultural developments under his reign include the first Saudi public concerts by a female singer, the first Saudi sports stadium to admit women, and an increased presence of women in the workforce." Regardless Saudi Arabia is still quite a bit most other countries in terms of human rights. Its bombings and attacks in Yemen have led to mass famines and deaths, and the Saudi government has been criticized for detaining and torturing human rights activists and LGBTQ people. Women also still don’t have most of the rights they should, and still require a male family member’s permission before doing things like traveling or getting a passport among other things. The Prince and the Gov there have also been heavily critized for their actions being more performantive and less about actually pushing forward more human rights. I don't know much more, so I don't want to speak to heavily on either country (SA or Qatar).

In an effort to be more modern and open, they invited many artists to perform. Among those artists were BTS and they accepted. You mentioned Dua Lipa refusing Qatar performance, so I'll also mention Nikki Minaj refused to perform in Saudi Arabia for similar reasons, citing women's treatment in the country as her reason. Regardless of her close friendships with pedophiles and rapists, she was lauded for the decision as a morally righteous one by many people. Dua Lipa's stance on Qatar is just as morally questionable as being performative based on where else she choices to perform. But that's stuff (for both Nikki and Dua Lipa) that you can look up for yourselves if you want.

BTS were questioned about this decision too actually and in an interview stated: “I wouldn’t say the decision it was easy,” Namjoon said. Jimin added: “But we were officially invited. It’s been a while since we’ve performed in the Middle East – I guess the last time was 2015 in Dubai. To put it simply, if there’s a place where people want to see us, we’ll go there. That’s how we feel.”

Many fans stuck up for BTS during this and said that this performance was for their fans, not for the Saudi government. Which is what their reasoning was. They weren't promoting the governments actions or laws or decisions. They weren't supporting it. They were going to see their fans and share love and music with the world. Both BTS and their staff was also praised for being very considerate of Saudi Arabia's cultural customs and giving space to them and following them when they could (such as not wearing gold jewelry, not showing skin during performances they otherwise do, like Serendipity, pausing rehearsals for muslism prayer times, etc)

Similarly again, just more recently in 2022, BTS were invited by the President of the United States to speak at the White House. And they accepted and went, with little criticism in that aspect. Regardless of the fact that the US is steadily stripping human rights away from people more and more, with endless human rights violations and imperialism over the past few years. With children being taken from parents at the border and put in cages, with POC being murdered by the policing force constantly, with LGBTQ people in fear of their basic human rights being taken away, with women's rights to their own bodily autonomy being argued over daily and taken away in many places in the country. They came to speak specifically about one issue, one problem, that they and many of their fans relate to and face. Anti Asian hate crimes. So they accepted. That's not them promoting and accepting and being okay with everything else.

And yes, BTS are known for talking about controversial topics about their own country in their lyrics. Standing up for people and being willing to criticize their Gov and laws at times, this does not make them politicians or responsible for making a statement over everything. That hasn't changed. Their stance on things or how they feel about it. At least, not that I can tell. I don't know Jungkook's or BTS' motivations behind accepting to do a performance at the World Cup or to do a song for them (because they did release a new verison of Yet To Come specifically for Qatar World Cup promotions). Maybe they will make a statement at some point. Maybe they won't unless asked about it. Maybe they just wanted to do something extra for their fans and found this to be a big opportunity to do so. Maybe they are bigger fans of Soccer/Football then we thought and so they were excited about that portion of this as well. We know they like Messi they've said so. They've had multiple good interactions with Son Heungmin, who is a soccer player for South Korea. We also know Korea will be playing in the World Cup to, so maybe they were asked to represent their country more at the World Cup. And they accepted. Similarly to how they accepted to support Busan's bid to host the World Expo with their free Yet To Come concert held in Busan. Despite the issues with that and with South Koreas own issues with government and laws that are heavily conservative against LGBTQ people and woman as well.

So I guess, my point is, we don't know why they accepted. Even if it's as simple as it's a huge opportunity and they just wanted to... I don't think it changes how they've made it clear that they stand in support of queer people, of women, of love. How they really value their fans and people and want the world to be a better place. They just spoke about all these values at the UN recently as well. So no, I don't think world wide fame changed that for them.

BTS are human. They are not perfect. They will make mistakes and will and can grow from the choices they make. You also, as a fan, do not have to like or agree with everything they do. You aren't even necessarily SUPPOSED to. They aren't God's. They shouldn't be placed on a pedestal of beings who can do no wrong. You will then be disappointed. You are allowed to not like this choice or to think it's a bad one. But I don't think this choice means they are supporting the fucked up violations of human rights that are present there nor do i think this choice is indicative of them not being or no longer being good people. And I think saying that this is them supporting those policies is not fact, as anon stated, but opinion. And you are entitled to your opinion and to your feelings over the matter as well. But these are mine and if you are upset solely about one thing with one place they've traveled to, but not the others, that's something that might be cause for some inner reflection as well.

[fuckmeyer]

Ok so I follow you because of your amazing analyzing and theories of twilight, but it's gotten to a point I have to consider reading your stories, and besides a Paul lahote story here or there over the years, I haven't really read twilight stories, especially ones that aren't about the Wolfpack.

I'm scared. So I wanted to ask about yours, what is it like?

Is it crazy like full of plot twists and insanity and madness covered into brilliance (the good kind) or crazy in a way that I start liking bella and edward (the terrifying part)?

(If you answer this, please consider the fact it might actually make me reread twilight (the original) and start ranting worse. For both our sanities, is it smart?)

Is it crazy like full of plot twists and insanity and madness covered into brilliance (the good kind) or crazy in a way that I start liking bella and edward (the terrifying part)?

both! liking Bella & Edward is THE biggest plot twist of this saga LOL. i'm not really one to hype my work so bear with me. here's the difference between Twilight & In The Afterlight:

the familiar:

setting. rainy rural PNW vibes

rough plot. girl meets vampire. vampire wants to kill her. love ensues. it starts you off in familiar territory, then slowly peels away as the story progresses. you'll find enough of the "iconic" scenes to keep you oriented in nostalgia, but not so much that you feel chained to the original book.

characters. no OCs. Bella & Edward are somewhat OOC, but their core traits are still intact.

the unfamiliar(ish):

Bella's personality. i think it was @blurry-walker who made this excellent point: we're supposed to like Bella because of how she's described, not by how she acts. Bella is not really selfless, mature, observant, compassionate, intellectual, or self-aware. which would be fine... if that were the author's intention. i've tried making Bella a mix between how she's described & how she acts: selfless, contemplative, & stubborn, with a sense of humor. & i threw in a backstory & hobbies - i.e, drawing, music, reading - so she has a life besides Edward. (she can still act like she's 18 tho. as a treat.)

Edward's personality. no stalking, no anger issues or mood swings, no misogyny, no invalidation of Bella's choices, no militant chastity. just a vampire who's lost his way & startled to discover he is every bit a part of this world as Bella. more humorous, more overwrought/ romantic, more contemplative.

the result is a relationship that's rooted in mutual respect, common interests & values, & genuine companionship. they talk about philosophy, they exchange mixtapes, they tease each other, & have slightly less self-control when it comes to sexual intimacy

James/Victoria plotline

twilight is less fairytale, more gothic horror

deeper thematic discussions (bc i think they're neat! :D). what does it mean to be you? how do you find yourself again when you're lost? what's the secret to keeping your humanity in death?

vampire/Cullen lore. what's the difference between a golden-eyed vampire and a red-eyed one? what are "la tua cantantes" and "mates"? why are the Cullens going to high school? what's the Cullen-Volturi relationship like? who are the Cullens, really? i'm trying to paint them as grayer characters & have their personalities/backstories make sense for who they are.

werewolf lore. i *hate* canon imprinting - how an imprinter loses him/herself to the imprint, how the imprintee can't say no, the fact that they imprint on CHILDREN when the theory behind imprinting is to "find the strongest genes"... NO. i hate it all. i hate that smeyer appropriates the legends of the Quileute tribe & how stereotypes/ tropes of Native people are perpetuated in this series. i especially hate the double-standards Bella puts on the pack vs the coven. justice for the wolfpack or bust

since you mentioned liking the wolfpack (same), the sequel, Come Nightfall (aka New Moon), has way more wolfpack content than the original, & we see a lot more interactions between Jake & Bella. (and Bella & Sam!)

i don't feel it's my place to tell you whether you should read this or even whether it's good. if it helps, this is what other people say:

"This… Was incredible. It was the kind of fanfiction that should be praised along the classics of the fandom, the kind you would want to print and put in the shelf in between Twilight and Life And Death."

"This is, to me, the epitome of great fanfiction--you took the story idea and characters and tweaked them to how you imagine it would be better as well as adding in your own flare, AND you have the story telling ability to back it up."

"You've managed to write something that not only surpasses the source material, but flies so far beyond it in nuance, craftsmanship, raw emotion and SMUT that it travelled through space and time continuum and shows no signs of stopping. Every time I think it can't get better, it does."

"I read both of your books in like 2 days; I couldn’t put them down. This is some of the best writing I’ve ever read on here."

"What a gem of a story. I read it in one sitting, the best canon rewrite I've ever read. Very very clever writing, engaging plot, and the most real Bella and Edward relationship I've ever seen. Everything about it, Bella and Jacob, Sam, Alice and Bella's dynamic, Billy and Bella, everything added so much colour to this story. I can't believe this came from Meyer's twilight and New Moon. Absolutely genius."

[molsno]

Hi, I’ve read your recent answer to the ask and the within linked post about transphobia and misogyny and I absolutely agree with the points made.

I moreso have a question about further nuances in that conversation since for me personally , perhaps by misunderstanding it very often feels like the trans mascs imagined in those statements are of one specific type: masc and passing.

Please excuse me if that’s a genuine misread, while I have been reading up on it all I’ve only been doing it for a month or so. Basically I wonder about the position of extremely feminine trans men and bigender/genderqueer/genderfluid in this. I myself am a very feminine looking trans masc and also bigenderqueer. And while it pains me so much that people without me constantly having to explain myself will never see me as a man and treat me as masc when I am I don’t want to change how I look because I love myself this way.

Not that long hair, boobs and dresses are inherently female but I do possess them and to the average cis hetero person that just immediately reads like woman. Because I don’t want to change this aspect of myself I also always sadly aware that even In my masc moments I will never be free of misogyny, and especially not when I feel like a woman. Not to even the mention of trouble this brings with most parts of the lgbtq community and their judgement. This still doesn’t mean that like I experience the interception of both but it just feels a lot closer to me. Especially in the regard that I don’t really know what spaces I should belong in. Trans mascs going into woman spaces (because they barely have their own and don’t feel safe with cis men [and even among cis women ngl]) and them not being accessible to trans woman is definitely an issue and we have to advocate for you all definitely. But I know male spaces won’t take me or be safe for me and I feel wrong and intrusive even in my female moments in woman spaces. I know that I still hold tme and kinda cis woman privilege (although my question there would be: if trans women never had male privilege how come trans masc ever have cis woman privilege). But I just feel like most conversations shutting off these nuances in fear of rightfully hated transandrophobia truthers just does no one and good.

TLDR: how should non passing feminine, closeted even, trans men address the misogyny and the nuance of „being percieved like a woman“ and the dangers that come with it without being seen as trans masc special oppression truthers (Because obviously misogyny comes from being seen as a woman or treated as such it’s not like because I’m masc but please do tell if you want to if something like this is also happening to trans fems)

on the contrary a lot of transandrophobia truthers have this mindset of "I'll never pass, so I don't experience male privilege" which demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of what oppression is. it isn't just something that comes from strangers (nor is it strictly interpersonal but I won't get into that rn). even people who know beyond a shadow of a doubt what your gender is can be some of the most viciously transphobic people in your life, and I think you're aware of that, so I'll spare you the details.

that being said, I get where you're coming from. I'm pretty well off as a trans woman considering I pass well enough to not really get clocked when I'm out in public, but I totally understand feeling like you don't really belong anywhere. I felt that a lot in the past, and I still do in a lot of circumstances. no matter who you are, it's hard being trans! the world really was not built for us, and that needs to change.

I will say that in the same way that I don't believe trans women held male privilege before coming out, I don't believe for a second that trans men held "cis woman privilege" before coming out, especially because that's not a thing that even exists. cis privilege is undeniably real, but trans people don't possess it. when we talk about the phenomenon of transmascs playing up their victim status on the basis of having been afab, I believe what is actually happening is that they're weaponizing white privilege - because let's be honest, transmascs of color are not seen as helpless victims the way that white transmascs are.

as for your main question, I believe that trans men SHOULD be discussing misogyny and how to combat it. it's imperative for them, even - ending misogyny would make it far easier for them to transition, for example, just by virtue of the fact that bodily autonomy would be guaranteed to everyone regardless of gender if misogyny didn't exist. the problem comes when they act like they're experts who understand misogyny better than women, especially trans women. I do think that a lot of trans men have a better, more nuanced understanding of misogyny than cis men do, and that can serve as a helpful foundation for discussing it, but talking over (trans) women to shut down our own discussions of misogyny is textbook mansplaining. and worse, trans men weaponizing their understanding of misogyny against trans women really plays into the "female socialization" terf rhetoric, which I've already critiqued at length here.

[aibidil]

Second obviously to the real harm done to trans people, what pisses me off so much about jkr's trans hatred is that she functionally put the brakes on nuanced discussions of gender in public spaces. Instead of talking about how gender is a long con and trying to conceptualize how we'd think differently about gender if we lived in a different kind of society (absent misogyny and other oppressions, where socialization happened differently, or in a world where gender isn't the primary organizing principle, or in a world where butler's heterosexual matrix didn't apply), we HAVE to instead talk about nothing but the very important fact that trans people have a right to exist. We have to do that because nothing could be more important than that. But the way this has hijacked our ability to have discussions and share insights is wild. My friends who teach Gender Studies in colleges report that they can't engage the material as deeply because everyone in the room is either spouting or refuting terf bs. We know that terfs and fascists are watching and ready to pounce with jkr talking points, and any nuanced discussion will be immediately derailed and useless.

And this is a strategy of the right. One they plan for and one they take advantage of opportunistically. They know that the free flow of information and knowledge favors leftist, anti-oppressive aims. They know they're better off arguing about drug crimes than anti-blackness, abortion rights than the poor treatment/pay/health of mothers, gay marriage than true acceptance of a range of divergent sexualities, causes of autism than the mistreatment of ND people in school and the workplace, welfare queens than intractable poverty, the legality of all-ages drag shows than how certain visible genders are rendered as criminal, whether trans people should exist than the deep social/cultural roots of transphobia.

And to some extent, we have to answer these deflections—because they're important. But it pisses me off. Maybe we can try to remember that yes, they can deflect and regress the discourse, but we can see that rhetorical move and resist it in the spaces where it's possible to.

What that requires us to do on the left, if we want to do that effectively, is to be really clear about what we're not arguing about ("The starting point of what I'm saying is that trans people exist and are oppressed and we're all against that oppression; that's not part of my argument at all because I know we agree on that...") The difficult thing about this is that it's so much easier to do this in person rather than online. Social media favors quick posts and replies and favors gotchas. And for so many queer communities, our connection comes not from local spaces but from online ones. I'm not sure what I think all of this means, other than that we need to be aware of the dynamics and do what we can to guard against them.

[moonbreezes]

wait George Villiers was a shitty person? what did he do?

Hi! I’d like to preface my answer to this question by saying that I’m not a historian (I have a degree in linguistics and literary studies), and all of my information comes from doing a lot of research regarding George on my own, therefore there might be a lot more info on what exactly he did or did not. So if there is someone more knowledgeable about this, please correct me.

What George Villiers did, and, quite frankly, how his career had gone could be described by a line reportedly spoken by Queen Anna of Denmark to Abbot, the archbishop of Canterbury (and Pembroke), two people who worked together to install George in James’s bedchamber as a favourite “You and the rest of your friends know not what you do. I know your master better than you all, for is this young man be once brought in first person he will plague must be you that labour for him.”

As opposed to the previous favourite Somerset (Robert Carr), Gorge was deeply ambitious as he not only wished to enrich himself while in favour, but he also wanted to become an important player in the political sphere. (If I dare say so myself, I believe, that his time as a politician, would not be half as bad if he had received a proper training. Tho he was undoubtedly a shitty, to put it mildly, person) He knew that key to his success was the affection and love of the king as he could literally take everything that was given to him and make him once again the poor George that he once was. (I really do not want to talk about their relationship as it would take more than a sentence to summarise it). Thans to how rapidly he climbed the social ladder and received more titles and positions at the court which in turn allowed him to have actual sway in the country’s internal and external politics. Geore was also keenly aware that apart from the royal favour he needed connection to face his opposition (the ancient families of England). So patronage, it was something common (even now). He installed his immediate family at the court and secured them positions, (mmm nepotism), the marriage market was also fair play as George slowly but surely arranged marriages for people in his family, win-win situation.

Addressing his now growing family, his wife – Kate Manners, became one as he possibly kidnapped and raped her. (There are some rumours that he “what-a-surprise got locked” with her in one building so after that they just had to get married.) It was a marriage for the money she could bring, and the connections did not hurt either, a nice bonus, one might even say. He also made a deal with Edward Coke to marry off his daughter (her mother protected her fiercely) to his brother. It is said that she cried during the ceremony.

In lieu of the theme of nepotism, as he slowly transformed the royal bedchamber into a place of the de facto lawmaking. He packed every place possible (to an extent) with people what would back him up. For that he was notoriously selling patronages, titles, and land, especially in Ireland where law did not hold him so much. Literally whenever the parliament tried to remove him from power because of how badly (Imo he would have done much better if he had training and not just gone with the general fuck around and find out rule.) he did his job, and people were fed up with him. He started a whole 20D chess match with Richelieu which was pointless, started a few campaigns that ended with him often not paying the soldiers (I mean no one would stab him to death over such thing… right), the last one being a pointless siege that only made England loose troops and money. (He could have one that one, he was so close to it, but he had to celebrate the possibility of victory rather than making people sing papers). He enraged the protestant England by helping to offer help France with fight off Protestants. What else… oh yes, he almost sa’d Anne of Austria which just… mmm the flavour of historical silencing of women, misogyny and men who just have dick measuring contests because.

Tho what I do not believe, and what many line up with, is that he did not poison James (or at least wasn’t aware of doing so??) because I think that he would gain more from helping the king survive than just killing him.

Sources

Bellany, Alastair, and Thomas Cogswell. 2015. The Murder of King James I. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Cogswell, Thomas. 2017. James I (Penguin Monarchs). Penguin UK.

Lockyer, Roger. 2014. Buckingham. Routledge.

Stewart, Alan. 2014. The Cradle King. St. Martin’s Press.

Veerapen, Steven. 2023. The Wisest Fool. Birlinn Ltd.

[terramythos]

TAYLOR READS 2023: GUARDS! GUARDS! BY TERRY PRATCHETT

Title: Guards! Guards! (1989)

Author: Terry Pratchett

Genre/Tags: Fantasy, Comedy, Mystery, Third-Person

Rating: 9/10

Date Began: 07/02/2023

Date Finished: 07/23/2023

Corruption is nothing new to the ancient city of Ankh-Morpork. But when a secret society desperate to seize power summons a dragon to terrorize the city, even its resident thieves, murderers, and hustlers seem at a loss to stop it.

The City Watch has long been a running joke with no real power to enforce the law. Nevertheless, Captain Vimes finds himself caught up in the mystery behind the dragon— but must overcome his own shortcomings to help save his city.

Ankh-Morpork! Brawling city of a hundred thousand souls! And, as the Patrician privately observed, ten times that number of actual people. The fresh rain glistened on the panorama of towers and rooftops, all unaware of the teeming, rancorous world it was dropping into. Luckier rain fell on upland sheep, or whispered gently over forests, or patterned somewhat incestuously into the sea. Rain that fell on Ankh-Morpork, though, was rain that was in trouble.

For live reading notes, check the reblogs (contains unmarked spoilers).

Content warnings and review (spoiler-free and spoiler versions) under the cut.

Content Warnings: Mentioned -- Fantasy!racism, homophobia, sexual harassment, genocide, torture, animal death, incest Depicted -- Death, alcoholism, sexual humor/innuendo (like, a lot), addiction, misogyny, drug use

**SPOILER-FREE REVIEW**

This is my first Discworld book. I read Good Omens many years ago, which was co-authored by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman. But while I enjoyed that novel, I always wanted to read Pratchett’s solo works. I’ve heard universally positive things about Pratchett as a writer and Discworld in particular, so it’s been on my reading list for years. I finally decided to go for it, picked a random book based on fan recommendations, and dove into Guards! Guards!

… And I enjoyed it even more than I thought I would. I knew going in that Discworld is a comedic fantasy series, so I fully expected jokes and clever quips. One challenge with comedy is telling a funny joke without punching down or being overly mean-spirited, but Pratchett totally nails it. Guards! Guards! is hysterically funny. It’s impossible to list the best gags because there are so many good ones. However one of my favorite bits is toward the beginning, when a mysterious figure is trying to meet his secret society in the pouring rain, finds a shady looking door, answers the doorkeeper’s over-the-top esoteric passphrases, only to discover he’s at the WRONG secret society. The two have an ordinary exchange of pleasantries while the doorkeeper directs him to the right place. It’s great stuff. In general, I like that Guards! Guards! is a self-aware deconstruction of high fantasy, but it’s never over the top in its commentary.

But what pleasantly surprised me about the book was its ability to be genuinely funny yet treat serious topics with the gravity they deserve. Guards! Guards! has many philosophical observations about loneliness, poverty, human nature, and more. Pratchett has a knack for knowing when to be funny and when to step back and discuss things in a mature, honest way. I think the comedy makes the serious subject matter all the more poignant.

Captain Vimes is the protagonist, but there are many perspective characters, and they all feel distinct and interesting. I especially like Lady Ramkin, The Librarian (who’s a sapient orangutan— hell yeah), and what little we see of the Patrician. Death’s handful of appearances are all memorable and fantastic. Guards! Guards! starts as a small scale mystery that gradually expands to a city-wide conflict. Pratchett nails the pacing; the rising stakes are totally believable, and I never felt like the plot was boring or treading water. It is a satisfying and entertaining story from start to finish.

I loved the book and highly recommend it, but I do have some caveats and criticisms to keep in mind.

Guards! Guards! centers around Ankh-Morpork’s City Watch, who are essentially the police. However, I do not consider this work to be copaganda. The City Watch are comically underpowered and ineffectual; their low status is a major plot point and recurring joke throughout the novel. They have no means to do great harm or great good, nor do they have the funding or social status that modern police do. The four City Watch characters are also not portrayed in a universally heroic light. They’re petty, often selfish people who occasionally do the right thing (though Carrot might be an exception). I found myself rooting for protagonist Captain Vimes, but purely because of his personal struggles, not his job. In general the Discworld is so far removed from the socio-political structure and history of our world that the analogue between the Watch and modern police is surface level at best. That being said, I understand others may not be comfortable with this premise.

My primary criticism is, as with many fantasy novels, a lack of female characters. Lady Sybil Ramkin is an INCREDIBLE character; she’s funny, bald, physically imposing. unapologetically fat, and remarkably intelligent. She was a joy to read and definitely one of my favorite characters. I have little patience for obligatory love interest characters, but Ramkin stands on her own and is integral to the plot— Vimes just also has a crush on her, and the sexual tension between them is VERY funny. That being said, she is also the only notable female character in a large, male-dominated cast. One could argue there’s a second one, but that's very subjective and a spoiler (more on it in that section). I don’t think any book is beholden to an arbitrary checklist of representation, but is is a shame to see such an unbalanced cast.

**SPOILER REVIEW**

Guards! Guards! did have some genuinely surprising twists and turns. It took me a long time to figure out Lupine Wonse was the self-titled Supreme Grand Master. I knew it had to be someone we met in the story, but to me Wonse came across as nothing more than a competent yet underappreciated secretary. In retrospect it makes a lot of sense; the desire for power one might feel in that role, his extra characterization/connection to Vimes, his name being a play on “a wolf in sheep’s clothing”, and so on. But he had me fooled until the first “light reveal” before the story directly confirms he’s the culprit.

The dragon being female is a funny twist. It explains Errol the swamp dragon’s odd behavior. The story frames him as a hopeless underdog instinctively wanting to challenge a more powerful dragon for territory, so the reveal he’s really just looking to court her is hysterical. That being the resolution to the dragon problem is thematically sound. After all, Ankh-Morpork is not a city of heroes, so why would there be some heroic dragon slayer as alluded to throughout the story? The dragon is the second “major female character” I mentioned earlier. And she IS a character, especially when she and Wonse discuss the concept of human sacrifice late into the novel. But since we don’t even know her sex until the end of the story, I don’t think she really counts. As a side note, I do wonder if the dragon in Shrek took inspiration from this book…

One spoiler scene I REALLY enjoyed is Death infiltrating the secret society right before they get annihilated by the dragon. After all, Death wears a shadowy cowl, much like the Brethren, so no one suspects him. It’s delicious dramatic irony, because the reader can identify Death right away from his unique dialogue. But of course, none of the Brethren know this… until it’s too late.

Among the serious subjects discussed in the novel, the Patrician’s monologue at the end about human nature and evil hit me hard. He argues that the view of humans as good or evil is inherently flawed. Instead he calls all humans inherently evil in consistent, small ways: "Down there… are people who will follow any dragon, worship any god, ignore any iniquity. All out of a kind of humdrum, everyday badness… They accept evil not because they say yes but because they don’t say no.” Guards! Guards! was published in 1989, but this is a very specific thing I’ve thought about for years, especially applied to modern US politics. I think about registered Republicans who happily vote for fascist monsters because they only care about gun rights, because the genocide of minority groups isn’t a dealbreaker to them. Whether it’s propaganda, apathy, ignorance, or some combination of the three that drives this decision, the result is the same. If one chooses to do nothing to prevent evil, are they themselves evil? I am inclined to say yes.

Vimes ultimately disagrees with him, instead arguing that people are just people with no specific morality inherent to them. This is supported by Vimes as a character; he’s not a shining paragon of humanity, but he ultimately chooses to do the right thing even in the face of certain death. I can understand this view as well. I agree that doing good things is an active choice one must make. My current perspective is a balance between both arguments. Inaction in the face of evil makes one evil by association. But the decision to do good, especially in difficult circumstances, can also make one good. I don’t think Guards! Guards! is going to resolve my own dilemma on the matter; it’s something I will continue to think about for a long time. But it’s not a subject I expected to find or seriously contemplate when I picked up this book.

Wow, that got a little heavy. Anyway, I really enjoyed Guards! Guards! and already have some other Discworld books lined up to read. Looking forward to more!

[queer-geordie-nerd]

People who have followed me for a long time are very aware of the incredibly complex relationship I have with my father, the fact that I almost lost him a year and a half ago, and the absolute funk my mental health has been in until very recently, reckoning with what I thought was my father's impending death and what that meant, with my feelings about him as a person, and childhood crap that I'm still processing.

This story is something I have never talked about until now, but I feel I need to now, to get it off my chest if nothing else.

Around 25 years ago, when I was a very young teenager, a woman in the town where my dad has lived all of his life made an accusation of rape against him. She eventually retracted it, for reasons I'm not aware of. Throughout the whole thing, he remained a respected member of his community, his friends and neighbours rallied and supported him, saying that *of course* it wasn't true.

The poor woman, however, was pretty much shunned, called some of the worst insults on earth, and eventually left town. I've recently become aware that she returned a couple of years ago, and I honestly have no idea what her life is like now, but I do know my older sister, who lives in that same town now, as does my dad still, blanks and ignores her if she sees her.

The thing is, I *do* believe her. Not only because I know for a fact that false accusations are actually incredibly rare, but because I know my dad. I'm going to hasten to add here, that I have an extremely complicated relationship with him but there has NEVER been any whisper of sexual impropriety so that is absolutely not what I mean. Emotional and psychological abuse, yes, but NEVER anything else.

What I do mean is that he is a man for whom other people's feelings and wants don't really factor into the equation for him - as long as he's happy with a situation, that's all he cares about. There have been several times in my life where has tried to wheedle me into going somewhere that I didn't want to, to take a mild, inconsequential example. No is not a word he really understands. Couple that with his general misogyny and disregard for women, do I believe he is capable of not taking a woman's no for an answer in a sexual situation? Yes, I do.

It is a terrible thing to believe about one's dad - I love my father and I am still in regular contact with him - as I said, it's complicated - but I know what kind of man he is. Reckoning with this dichotomy has been a painful experience and this is the first time I've ever actually outright said that I unequivocally believe this woman.

Whatever she's doing in life, I hope she's happy and has some peace.

This may go some way to explaining why I always and absolutely believe women's experiences and perhaps why I feel such anger at men who do such things and get away with them leaving the woman behind to deal with the aftermath. Because my dad suffered absolutely zero consequences and is still a respected member of his community, and her life got turned upside down.

Now that I’m really thinking about it, this probably also explains my extreme emotional reaction to reading Mira’s revelation in her book that she was raped and never got justice - a woman I deeply respect and admire, yes, but my reaction was totally out of kilter for the experience of a woman I didn’t know personally and never met. Psychologically, my feelings about my dad, the woman in his town, and a celebrity that I happen to admire and whose work I enjoy (and also was a light in the dark for me when I felt at my worst) all got mixed up in my mentally tired and unwell brain. Not consciously, of course, but it did all the same.

[absynthe--minded]

Hi! Sorry to bother, but do you know where I can read more about Tolkien's opinion on queer relationships and queerness in general? I haven't read all of the letters, but in one of them he says some icky and misogynistic stuff about (het) relationships and I was kind of disappointed. (I don't mean this in a 'gotcha' kind of way, I'm just a queer person who's genuinely bothered by some of his views and wants to learn more)

I don’t think it’s any sort of a gotcha!

The short answer (there is more I have to say, but I’ll give you the important bit first) is that Tolkien never made any explicit and confirmed statements one way or the other about queerness. I’ve seen some people allude to things but I’ve never found anything concrete, and this fandom and this scholarly field are both homophobic enough that if there were anything he said against queer relationships we’d have all heard it by now. also, seriously, good job digging deeper into his views and interrogating them - he was far from perfect and honest, forthright engagement with his flaws is basically the only way we’ll move forward and tackle them.

the longer answer is that while he was both openly sexist (ranging from pretty bad misogyny to “uh, have you ever met a woman in your life?”) and openly racist (usually taking the form of “repeating any ethnic stereotypes he came across without any thought of their relationship to reality, and having no idea of what was or wasn’t offensive”) his feelings on queerness are harder to find. this isn’t that unusual - even people we’ve been able to confirm as queer or probably queer are in many cases silent about their relationship with their sexuality, and Tolkien was in a position where even if he himself was queer (which, by the way, is my opinion) he’d probably have no incentive to say so directly.

because this fandom and this scholarly discipline are so overwhelmingly cishet, queer scholarship of Tolkien is in its infancy, even to a point that means most people who are open to queer readings and queer interpretations will balk at trying to argue for the canonicity of queer relationships and queer subtext, there’s also not a lot of writing on this subject by biographers or other academics. however, there’s a fair bit of evidence that at least argues both that Tolkien was okay with IRL queer people and he was consciously engaging with queer themes in his works.

what we know is this:

he was friendly with W.H. Auden (gay), and a deep admirer of the works of Mary Renault (lesbian who wrote historical M/M fic focusing on the classics, sort of a midcentury Madeline Miller but more focused on historical accuracy). in fact he’s on the record as saying he loved Renault’s books (specifically The King Must Die and The Bull from the Sea, though possibly also The Charioteer and The Last of the Wine, both of which are explicitly gay fiction) and the fan letter she sent him was among his most prized correspondences

he was Catholic, but he purposefully wrote stories or developed narrative ideas that weren’t directly in compliance with Catholicism, and he did acknowledge that in one case (specifically the Gift of Men and the concept of euthanasia as a blessing) he was interested in exploring concepts as good stories rather than moral messages - this shows that his faith wouldn’t have necessarily bound him to only depict homosexuality badly

he wouldn’t have suffered socially for speaking out against queerness (other authors of his circle like C.S. Lewis were more vocal) but he didn’t, which indicates a choice not to

he was aware of and directly inspired by Homeric epics alongside Northern European sources, and this does include the Iliad

Quenya doesn’t have gendered pronouns, and we know that in at least one draft he changed gendered words like “husband” and “wife” to “spouse”. he also depicts elves and dwarves as having a high degree of androgyny, and elvish marriages are not explicitly required to be between a male elf and a female elf

his inclusion of vital and important relationships like Túrin and Beleg, Frodo and Sam, and Fingon and Maedhros alongside equally important het relationships indicates that he was interested in giving space to M/M that blurs or steps over the line between platonic het-approved friendship and queerness

there’s something to be said for how British midcentury queer literature depicts queer men as sad outcasts at war with their true nature who can’t ever be happy, and how Tolkien writes a lot of men in relationships with other men who are in that position except they’re miserable because of outside forces (the Ring, the Oath, Morgoth’s curse, their failings as people apart from relationships) and their deep connections with other men are the happiest and best part of who they are

this is, as you can see, both an area that really needs further study and an area that has just enough to suggest that he wasn’t a garden variety homophobe.

I hope that helps?

[specialmouse]

If being transgender is inherently reinforcing gender roles, then isn't transitioning as a transgender woman also inherently sexist? I ask this in good faith as a closeted transgender woman who doesn't want to transition in order to avoid reinforcing misogynistic values.

I think first and foremost it's important to understand that misogyny is baked into almost every facet of (at least my and many others') society. Cis women are not somehow magically not sexist for being "female" just as "males" aren't biologically predetermined to be sexist. It's just what happens when we live in a patriarchy. We all suffer for it because of how it's structured. Please don't take what I said as reasons not to transition. Anything you do within a gendered society is going to be reinforcing gender roles/expectations to a certain extent. I view gender as a construct that doesn't NEED to be around, yet still is incredibly pervasive and will continue to be for tens of thousands of years, if not the rest of human existence. There's nothing you or I can do to change that, on a fundamental level. When I, as a closeted transgender man, wear makeup and low-cut tops and lower my voice around men, etc., I am also enforcing gender roles. I'm doing what I feel like I need to in order to be treated better by those around me. It doesn't make it more righteous or fair because I'm a "female" and less so for you because you're "male". What you would be doing as a transgender woman by transitioning is no different, and in some ways it is even more important for you to adhere to those roles for your own safety, as deviation from the "norm" stands out to people, makes you more visible.

Forgive me if this is undue projection, but I understand the feeling of... almost interloping into a community that may or may not view you as an oppressor. As a closeted transgender gay man who 100% presents as a cishet woman in day to day life, it worries me that I'm somehow fetishizing gay men and their (our?) struggles and joys because I haven't experienced what most of them have. That's not my fault, I didn't choose to be like this. It's important to realize that there are facets of this community you don't understand that are important to a lot of people, and you should learn them. Here's the thing, though: transgender people have been around for tens of thousands of years, in different forms under different names. Contemporarily, I believe we are in a time where we are under more scrutiny than ever before, and we turn that inwards on ourselves as well. So, as someone who is female, or whatever, you are not being sexist by transitioning. You have one life, and that life should be spent doing what makes you feel best, not adhering to some people's moral codes. It's good that you're aware of the fact that you could harbor some sexist ideas, especially growing up "male" in a patriarchal society you are told certain things that could engrain themselves in you later on, but then again so does literally everyone else. Some of the most sexist people I've ever met have been cisgender women. And once you do transition, you lose that "male privilege" almost immediately. It's entirely conditional.

The only people that truly think the act of transitioning is sexist are TERFs, who have a very black-and-white view of the world on "biological" lines. Does biological, sex-based oppression exist? Yes, in varying intensities around the world. Does that mean that you being more feminine, going on estrogen, getting SRS, etc., is part of that? Of course not, it never has been. I want to make that very clear.

I hope this answer makes sense, I'm really tired but I wanted to answer this in good faith for you. I struggle a lot with the "morality" of my transition and have recently come to the conclusion that it doesn't fucking matter. We are going to die, perhaps sooner than we thought. Grow your hair out, make your voice higher, put some lipstick on whether in your bathroom or out in public, if that feels good to you. Go by another name, kiss someone who likes girls. You are not a bad or sexist person for doing that, not even close.