#Not saying any of this is inherent horror btw it's just bad TO ME and also I feel like we shouldn't deny the horror of-

[hajihiko]

Your tag saying Mikan is gonna have it rough has me worried. She’s already been through enough! I mean they all have but especially her! I don’t even want to imagine what her haunting is like!

there's no metric for suffering so it's not like she literally has more bad than the boys. I just mean that, to me, things pertaining to childbirth and the menstrual cycle is horror in itself so it hits harder

[lakesbian]

and now for our Checking In With The Dallon Sisters poasting

Panacea shook her head, “Tattletale found a way around my sister’s invincibility. Glory Girl was bitten pretty badly, which is why I didn’t come sooner. I think it hits you harder, psychologically, when you’re pretty much invincible but you get hurt anyways. But we’re okay now. She’s healed but sulking. I- I’m alright. Bump on my head, but I’m okay.”

victoria is demonstrably having a bad time with the previously noted psychological pain of being forcibly reminded that, no matter how hard she tries, she will never be the spotless, invincible, perfect hero she wants to be. the bug bites suck obviously but the "sulking" After being healed is an indicator of where it really hurt--not just physically.

(amy's power reminds me of. do you guys know that one tumblr post about the concept of exploring the horror potential inherent to D&D-esque fantasy healers? like, the horror inherent to being perfectly, magically healed from horrifying injury a hundred times over, and being expected to just get up and keep fighting afterwards, without any regards to how your mental health is doing. that's exactly how amy's power functions: you're made physically better than ever, and expected to get back up and keep being a hero, but you still have the memory of the pain and the lingering psychological aftereffects. but, like, you're fine now, so you just need to get over it and go back to throwing yourself in the line of fire, okay?)

amy is also right off the bat clearly not doing so hot--she's acting very shy and withdrawn and unsure compared to both of her prior appearances. obviously that is due to the horror of some random villain going "btw, remember that you're ontologically an invader into the family you are trying to belong in!" but i think it's probably compounded by the fact that amy is so used to being treated either 1. like she's intrinsically awful/unwanted or 2. like she's only valuable/desirable as a resource by Everyone But Victoria that walking into a room of heroes w/o victoria by her side is always liable to make her insecure and withdrawn.

oh, and the burnout. obviously the severe fucking burnout.

“No, I hated that he would have a normal life, because I’d given up mine.  I was scared that I might intentionally make a mistake.  That I might let myself fuck up the procedure with this kid.  I could have killed him or ruined his life, but it would have eased the pressure.  Lowered expectations, you know?  Maybe it would have even lowered my own expectations for myself.  I… I was just so tired.  So exhausted.  I actually considered, for the briefest moment, abandoning a child to suffer or die.” “That sounds like more than just exhaustion,” Gallant replied, quietly. “Is this how it starts?  Is this the point I start becoming like my father, whoever he was?”

the "every second i rest, someone dies" conundrum would be nightmarish for her even if she had the healthiest social support net on the planet, but her circumstances make it infinitely worse. she's treated by everyone in her "family" but victoria like an invader, and even victoria has unintentionally stressed the importance of using her healing power in the way that the family wants (i.e. to cover up victoria's police brutality) in order to Be A Good Family Member. amy has internalized that being a good dallon is the same as being a good hero, and failing at being a dallon is the same as being overcome by her ontologically criminal roots. so she works herself to the bone, and when she inevitably starts to falter, she views it as an indicator of something intrinsically wrong with her rather than as a sign that her family + society's expectations for her are harmful and unfair.

and dean's advice for her only reinforces this further:

Gallant let out a slow breath, “I could say no, that you’re never going to be like your father. But I’d be lying. Any of us, all of us, we run the risk of finding our own way down that path. I can see the strain you’re experiencing, the stress. I’ve seen people snap because of less. So yeah. It’s possible.”

he suggests that she try to take a break, but only in the service of "so you can heal more people in the long run." he validates the idea that she could go "down that path," as if becoming a villain--becoming A Bad Person--is a risk all heroes have to fight against on an individual level, as opposed to criminality being a result of circumstance and not even inherently immoral. and of course dean thinks that way--he's a millionaire child soldier, his entire life is predicated on individualist thought with ignorance to the ways in which systematic factors impact people. acknowledging that amy is being horrifically mistreated would mean not only acknowledging the flaws in the PRT system, but acknowledging what might lead people to stray from it, and he simply can't do that. it goes counter to every idea that his life is built on.

he never even tells anyone that amy thought about letting a child die, or if he did, it didn't go anywhere. she was desperate for help all along, increasingly ready to explode, and everyone just ignored it. because as she says:

"My sister’s all I’ve got. The only person with no expectations, who knows me as a person. Carol never really wanted me.  Mark is clinically depressed, so as nice as he is, he’s too focused on himself to really be a dad. My aunt and uncle are sweet, but they’ve got their own problems. So it’s just me and Victoria. Has been almost from the beginning."

this is also where we see another more blatant sign of her crush on victoria--it's very ambiguous as to whether dean is interpreting amy's feelings towards him as meaning "wants to date me" or "jealous of me for dating victoria" but i think it's probably the former because there's no way he would keep his mouth shut if it was the latter, lmao. really what this scene is doing is introducing all of the stressors amy is experiencing that, because they're going unaddressed, because everyone else is refusing to address them and she has internalized that's how it should be, are going to boil over horrifically later on. that burnout and fear of accidentally-on-purpose making a mistake will lead to truly being unable to heal victoria later on. that sense of obligation, that if she can't keep healing she's turning into her father, will contribute to her being unable to just walk away from victoria instead of trying to heal her. her crush on victoria--the ultimate example of how her should-be family has ostracized her--will boil over in the impulsive brain alteration & the sexual nature of the wretch's design.

and all of this would've been avoidable if not for, as mentioned in the prior post abt this interlude, the dallons' and the PRT's enforcement of wallpapering over the kid heroes' pain to Keep Up The Show.

[mahkari]

been meaning to ask for awhile now and now I feel brave enough to, can I hear about the fanverse incident

claps my hands together . so this might get long you’re just going to have to bear with me . some details may be foggy in my head because it’s been probably a year since ive cared or really paid much more attention than what my friends told me to it but this is , essentially , what i remember the most and what makes the fanverse a fucking disaster

so the fanverse predates the Republican donation stuff by about a year . when it was announced i think the games that stood out the most to people were the joy of creation , popgoes , candy’s , flumpty’s , and the fnaf 1 remaster ( that i’ll spend so much time on . there’s so much stuff on phisnom alone ) . TJOC and candy’s don’t really have a lot to say on them , because the creators are normal people ( ? ) who just wanted to make fnaf fan projects , and if they could make some money via assistance from Scott by means such as selling on steam and possible merchandise , of course they were gonna take it

i don’t wanna say that the cracks started to show when the creator of flumpty was outed as a pedophile and openly admitted to it and banned himself from any online space to go better himself or whatever , but i will say that you could probably guess things were only going to go downhill from there when Scott made no public statement . i guess if you’re a dick rider you can argue that fnaf has an audience of children who don’t really need to be hearing a lengthy statement from the series creator about how pedophilia is a bad thing because Obviously , but he Has made statements about that before . he cut ties with pinkypills ( supposedly ) because of her comics that portrayed william as a pedophile . this isn’t meant to come off as a defense of pinkypills because she’s a genuinely terrible person , but one would think that a real life human person grooming a minor and admitting to it would be worse than possibly having someone read a comic that would have others perceive your fictional character as a pedophile . moving on

popgoes is being developed by kane carter who’s his own brand of something . he has such a bad tendency of saying stupid shit on his Twitter and then when someone goes ‘hey man this sounds a little stupid’ he will bug out and post some heated rant before going nuclear and locking his account , rinse and repeat for however many years it’s been . <- that’s why i joke that i have beef with him . because he did that to me circa 2020 when i made a joke about his old sister location theory about it being an underground sex dungeon or something He just had to make sure i knew at 14 years old that he wasn’t serious ! and it was a product of lack of knowledge of the time or whatever . i don’t hold that against him btw i just think it’s objectively a little funny . i think in terms of fanverse reception popgoes is still held in a really high regard because it seems to be one of the only projects that’s still actually being fucking worked on . if kane carter wasn’t such a fucking bizarre guy on his Twitter im sure that he’d still have a crumb of good faith left to anyone other than the people who have been following him since he made popgoes as a one off thing and probably feel some sort of obligation to keep going

Stares At You . and phisnom . phisnom is a special guy . he was the one who was assigned to remake fnaf 1 but make it Scarier or something . i feel it’s important to say that phisnom has gone on record saying that redesigns ( such as the ones in analog horror ) that just take the base design but make it grimy and ‘scarier’ are lazy and don’t actually add anything to their base design . i don’t inherently disagree with his take but seriously look at this

yeah man you’re really dodging the ‘making it scarier just because’ allegations with this one . i honestly think that aside from the joy of creation which is just like a really impressive fan game this was probably the second most hyped up one because it was being sold as a remake to the first and it was being funded by Scott’s money . objectively for the time it felt a little bit cool and i drew fan art for it ( which i still think is cute . i wish that phisnom didn’t suck so much fucking cock and balls so that i didn’t feel bad about looking at it but it’s whatever )

where the problems with phisnom reach a head is that he’s a cunt . like really just a cunt i don’t know how else to put it . there’s nothing wrong with someone wanting to have an audience of adults or whatever especially if the thought of having an audience of children makes you uncomfortable there is Nothing wrong with that , but when you sign on to make a remake of FIVE NIGHTS AT FREDDYS you need to know what kind of fan base you’re signing up for .

phisnom’s twitter is 18+ , but he would get interactions from minors all the time . whether or not you blame the minors is up to you i guess but Again , when you’re posting about your five nights at Freddy’s project unless its just straight up porn it’s kind of absurd to think that everyone here is going to be a strong hearty adult . like let’s be so for real we all know the adults in the room aren’t funding your fan game .

what you probably heard is that after he played the ruin dlc he didn’t like it . since the dlc had just come out it had its recency bias and a kid replied to his tweet about it and then phisnom quote retweeted them and inadvertently sent his audience who aren’t stalking him for fnaf over to this child and send him gore and porn . obviously a person can’t control what their fan base does but when people were like ‘hey dude your community is sending a child gore and porn’ instead of making a tweet like ‘i don’t want you guys to do that’ he posted an ‘apology’ that just led back to a rick roll . obviously at this point he kind of just looks like an edgy child and people go to their lord and savior Scott Cawthon to get something done

by the way , i didn’t mention this yet , but this phisnom stuff happened in like July-august of last year , so it’s not like this was that long ago . that being said you also have to wonder Hey . where’s fnaf+ by now . because that was also the question that a lot of people ran back to . so you’re getting funded by both Scott cawthon and an audience of fans who are expecting a project that the creator himself managed to shit out in about a month , while you’ve been given three years to recreate some source material and you’re not done yet ? what’s taking so long ?

all of this combined into one melting pot led fnaf+ to getting canceled . go figure . scott never released his own statement on it because he’s off doing god knows but phisnom did , which basically said he’s done with fnaf and don’t ask about it or fnaf+ as a project anymore because he’s not completing it and he would like to do other project .

im sure there’s stuff i missed because of the aforementioned brain fog all the way at the start but yes . the fanverse is a fucking disaster . the joy of creation and candy’s are pretty good though

[indigosfindings]

can you elaborate more on the joyful/optimistic art vs cynical/sad art thing?

(re: this post)

sure, sorry in advance if this is messy.

the gist is that there's a slew of micro-discourses whose common thread is the inherent or automatic superiority of art and stories that are optimistic and centre 'joy', 'love', and other positive emotions over those that don't.

it manifests a million different ways: "x series is bad because it's pessimistic/cynical/dark", "x story is bad because it depicts SA/incest/abuse*", "horror is really about love/family", "love is a unilaterally healing and moral force", "dark/negative art is universally less authentic/earnest", "sad/disturbing art is easy to make while positive art is difficult," etc. (also seems to correlate w the internet's general attitude toward criticism--that even mild negative feedback toward any art is in essence insulting its author & audience)

one of the factors imo is that a lot of people are unwilling to interrogate their reactions to something. like the process is "i see disturbing art -> i feel disturbed -> 'disturbed' is a negative emotion -> this art has done something negative to me -> this art is bad" and then never question it further

as for why i feel frustrated: hmm where to start. it's an extremely flat heuristic that diminishes alll art with any aims other than to please or to be Fun. it denies that "to disturb", "to frighten", "to disquiet", "to sadden", "to critique", etc are worthwhile endeavours in art. it also just betrays a narrow view of what has the capacity to be Fun for someone! i'm especially frustrated because horror always gets the brunt of it. there's a sort of longstanding anxiety about the "value" of horror, about horror needing to "prove its worth", and i think a lot of people's answer to that is to say "it's not actually about Scary, it's about Happy :)"

one of the really popular takes that i still see today is "if you're writing a fantasy story where anything can happen, why incorporate homophobia, misogyny, etc?" and, i mean, it's a pretty straightforward answer--because those things exist in real life, and by incorporating them into a story you can reflect, comment on, and explore real issues that are pertinent to the audience! likewise re "love is virtuous and healing," it's just a simple fact that love is morally neutral. people do HORRIBLE things for love all the time. i used to be more idealistic about this, but now i honestly cant stand the idea that a saccharine, childlike stance on love is by default a better one

(there's a huge comparison to be made here with the reactionary pushback against modern art btw)

it also ties into a broader schema--"toxic positivity" is a popular line, but we can aim higher: there's a sort of cultural mandate toward positivity, where saying "x is bad" is worse than x being bad. think right and send thoughts and prayers. capitalism loves the idea of each person fending for themselves--you have the whole concept of "wellness" and "mindfulness", ie Positive Thinking as a vector for mental health (the corollary being that a person who is unwell is a person who is Not Trying Hard Enough To Be Positive), whereby to read a situation cynically (or pragmatically!) is the worst thing you can do. and well, by the same token, when we have a whole cavalcade of employers who LOVE seminars and videos about How To Manage Your Stress (and zero interest in inspecting what it is that makes employees excessively stressed to begin with!), im sure you can imagine why someone could get exhausted of positivity.

as i said in the previous post, the most insane part is the particular framing of this atittude as somehow counterculture, controversial, or against the grain. y'know, when we're discussing chipper upbeat art about how everything is good vs art that's grim, violent, negative, pessimistic--which of these is most likely, historically and today, to be censored, to be banned, or to arouse controversy?

*(obviously there are depictions of SA and other sensitive subjects that are callous, sexist, etc! but there are also plenty that are trenchant, edifying, powerful, evocative, etc!)

[kagiura-akira]

I just finished reading "I'll love you if you let me" and I'm currently making my way through writing a comprehensible appreciation comment. (Since ao3 was down I have lots of things to say because downloading the fic meant I could annotate a ton on little details)

Having said that and being a film student I'm kinda obssessed with the movies you choose to reference and the way you did it. (The whole talk about Jennifer's body had laughter so much that I couldn't concentrate on them having a moment lol.)

The scene of howl's moving castle is so cute too because the way Kagi guesses that Hirano will mention it before he does showcases how much they know each other. However, if he could guess that it means Hirano must either: mention the movie frequently or show that he really really likes it.

What is it? Why does he likes it so much? Do you have any headcanon about it? (Sorry if I'm sounding overbearing I just really liked the fic and wanted to hear your thoughts on the relation between Hirano and Howl's moving castle)

nonono it's not overbearing I just finished reading your comment too I think. :)

I had it in my head that they'd probably watched it at some point. idk "that's my girl" is something I personally immediately associate with it even though I'm a way bigger fan of the book than the movie (HUGE fan of the book series btw), so more than Hirano not knowing anything other than HMC that has that kind of line, it was mostly me not knowing another movie that says that. 😂 LOL I hope that's not disappointing cause I didn't have any real intention behind it when I first wrote it, but I have some ideas on Hirano's movie preferences, at least. I'm gonna put a cut cause my answer is getting long sjcjsjf

Given they watch movies together somewhat frequently, I think it's only natural at some point one of them is a Miyazaki movie, and for him to mention it by name is most likely because they'd watched it recently in my mind. I'm of the mindset that Hirano likes a good psychological thriller to keep his mind busy, but sometimes when he's too tired to think, he'll like a nice feel good movie he can enjoy as-is. ☺️ Not that there aren't things to analyze or appreciate in the fluffier movies, but a movie that doesn't mindfuck you is just inherently easier to digest. LOL

I mentioned in my other reply too but Jennifer's Body being used as a bad horror movie for them to watch took some deep diving into the movie again. There's a part in the story that one of them mentions I think the slippery squirrel thing? And they say that it's probably a dig at the region the characters live in. Of course there's no way for either of them to know that, but I had to make mention of it somewhere because the regional humor in the movie is much more appreciable now that I like live in that area of the midwest 😂 I have for several years now but I didn't when the movie came out bc I was still in college then, so watching it now makes it funnier.

"That is the most 'Wisconsin' thing I've ever heard you say" is a favorite phrase in our house lmaooo

I don't have too many preconceptions on Kagi's movie interests but I firmly believe he loves a good drama, especially a romance. Kagi a k drama enthusiast by accident??? Quite possibly. He's definitely a crier, but I don't think he would seek sad movies or scenes out on his own. I can see him accidentally getting hooked on a drama and being a blubbering mess, so Hirano asks why he's still watching it, but he insists he's too invested now and he has to keep suffering through it just to see the happy ending or else it'll haunt him for life. LOL He's probably prone to liking comedies and sports movies as well, but I can't see him having too many strong negative opinions or genres he hates. I can see Hirano being pickier (not by genre but by synopsis - the man's got high standards for the movie blurb 😂) but he's likely to not say anything if it's something Kagi really wants to watch. He'd probably just focus on watching Kagi's reactions instead of the movie itself.

As for howls moving castle, I think it's possible that the movie resonates with Hirano a little bit. Sophie in particular I feel like he could sympathize with. Not because she feels old/dull and has this complex about being a failure (and is keeping herself locked under the spell herself but that's a book revelation and not the movie), but I am assuming you've seen it so like. You know the kind of special hell the inside of the castle was like before she came along. Lol her distaste for the chaos and disarray probably resonates with Hirano feeling like that with Kagi sometimes. Kagi is inherently flirtatious with him, too, so howl being a big flirt is another parallel to Kagi. But again Howl and his vanity and basically womanizing personality is more apparent in the book so I don't remember how much of it is apparent in the movie.

I can see Hirano resonating highly with Sophie, even if Kagi's similarities Howl aren't super strong or apparent. If they were to watch it more than once I'm sure he would be a little more analytical in his second watching experience and think about some deeper character analysis. That would be about when he starts drawing parallels

[cerayanay]

The reveal of the televangelist being Maxine’s father in X (2022) was 2 seconds that added a whole fucking layer to the movie. The entire time the tv preachings seem to be a contrast to the actual story, but then you find the connection! In one small moment that doesn’t even involve any interaction with our cast, the movie strips away the notion that religion and purity mattered at all.

MAXiNE AND HER FATHER ARE THE SAME EXACT PERSON! They are both people that crave attention, fame, and adoration! They both completely block out everything but that! They both use sin to achieve what they want! While I (and the movie it seems) don’t see anything evil or inherently wrong with sex work, they do discuss the reason they’re movie is going to do so well is bc people find they’re sin taboo and wrong! And the father obviously is using sin as well, but in the opposite way by scaring everyone. Literally never has their been a stadium filling televangelist that actually cared about god and actually being a good moral person, the movie doesn’t waste time on that because the audience KNOWS that going in. Why waste time with “oh btw here’s Maxine talking about her dad and here’s us developing why she’s like this and he’s actually also bad”? With ONE reveal that weaves with some beautifully stylistic moments (ie when the preaching parrallels the action) we get Maxine’s entire back story, complete with why she’s there and why she is the way she it. Both father and daughter have the message of “I can help you navigate the world of sin and achieve happiness.” And fuck man it works!

Maxine is truly her father’s daughter. Like in the movie his preachings haunt the house and her. Just that one reveal at the end of the movie turns the role of the preachings from “this is a representation of god and morality explaining why they are being punished” or just cool “oooh they do sin and this guys talks about sin being bad woooah” into something completely removed from morality and religion. That one scene honestly erases any religious or moral messages. Even pearl and Howard’s fake ass screamings of decency and purity are obviously just weak attempts to insult the protagonists that no one takes seriously, and Maxine doesn’t even acknowledges them. She’s only effected by the comments of “you’ll end up like me/never be famous.” Then she doesn’t HESITATE to result to murder. Yeah it’s warranted bc Pearl fucking killed her friends, but GOD was it so refreshing to see a protaganist not struggle with her morality!

UGH this movie teases us with a message of morality and religion just to say “sike bitch! It’s about self obbsession and fame!” Pearl, the preacher and Maxine are the same fucking character! And the movie goes even FURTHER to make you feel completely different about each one! Maxine is likable, kind to others, and fun. The audience likes Maxine, espcially the audience that is drawn to see a horror slasher porno. Pearl is disturbing but pitiful. And the preacher is just a fucking dickhead. Three characters with the same motivation and internal being with three completely different outward beings.

Just. Amazing.

[thechangeling]

I was reading your co-signing the narrative post- great post btw- and your thoughts on Kit Lightwood helped me figure out exactly what bothers me about the way other characters talk about and treat him.

So, there’s this kind of this running “joke” in TLH that Christopher’s interests are boring, that everyone else puts up with it him as though it’s this big nuisance, that everyone zones out hearing him talk… and on and on and on.*** And then there’s this scene where Grace is genuinely interested or at least not bringing him down about his self-expression and the things that bring him joy, and that’s romanticized as special when it’s really kind of the bare fuckin minimum. Like, I’m not saying James/Matthew/Thomas had to immerse themselves completely in every sciency detail but the constant “jokes” implying that Christopher’s work is boring or incomprehensible or not worth their time is just so tiring. There’s always an undercurrent of “Christopher’s just playing around uselessly” (which is not true and even when he’s having fun with his work then it’s still automatically WORTHY and VALUABLE because it makes him happy!) Not to mention this recurring problem directly contradicts the value that Christopher’s work has (beyond its inherent value) when he sends it into the world to literally save lives: the poison antidote, the fire messages that will probably come about in CoT.

And the thing is, the merry thieves’ disinterest is directly meant to foil grace’s interest in order to lend the Grace/Kit relationship a certain significance, as CC assigns to it. I’m not saying shared excitement over an interest/hobby/career/field/etc isn’t sweet platonically or romantically. I just really dislike how the idea CC is using is “no one else can bear to tolerate Kit’s ‘quirks’ but Grace, and that is Endearing, and so they are Soulmates (TM)” rather than the much healthier and positive idea that “Kit does cool sciencey stuff which his family and friends generally don’t share as strong a passion for but still don’t huff about it like it’s somehow a chore or a burden on them, and then Grace comes along and she does happen to share a similar passion and that’s the beginning of their ties to one another.” That second reasoning is what could make their friendship really refreshing; we don’t need ableism poorly twined into romance to enjoy that relationship.

I haven’t read TDA in a while but I’m thinking we could also find touches of this with Ty partly because so much of when we see him is from Kit’s POV? Not that Kit means harm or thinks himself heroic but CC on the other hand is a repeat offender in “abled/white/straight/cis character is ultimately and completely responsible for the salvation of disabled/POC/queer character in this aspect.” And I’m kind of half dreading the wicked powers for that reason among others …

I apologize if all this seems obvious or rambly. I do sometimes have trouble articulating things exactly but when I read your post i had a lightbulb moment and I wanted to note it down.

Have a great day!

***Side Note: this is why I really enjoy fan-created content that explores Christopher’s relationships with people (even people he didn’t interact with on-page in the canon) without that annoying and problematic aspect built into the framework of the relationship.

^^^^^^^^^THIS ALL OF THIS!!!!!!

Full disclosure this is gonna be kind of long sorry. But you have stumbled across my favourite topic to rant about. Allistic saviorism. Basically the name is pretty self explanatory. It's when an allistic person fictional or otherwise has the desire to or actively attempts to essentially "save" the autistic person from the horrors of the world or their life, or even themselves because they think that the autistic person isn't strong or capable enough to fix/handle it on their own. All of this is usually done for very self serving reasons. Part of this is also allistic people being praised as heroes for being nice to autistic people or asking them out, or loving them.

I don't neccesarily think that kitty is an allistic savior ship on it's own. I think that there are definitely peices of those beliefs scattered throughout the books and it might get worse in TWP. That's honestly something that I'm worried about too tbh. But honestly I think that the fandom made it a billion times worse.

This mainly allistic fandom wanted to romanticize the idea of Kit taking care of Ty and shouldering the burden of his "unpredictability." Kit is the only one who can get through to Ty. The only one who understands the mystery that is Ty 🙄. Some of this is canon too. For example, Ty can look Kit in the eye, he lets him touch him. He doesn't wear the headphones when Kit's around right? And Kit was able to calm him down during his meltdown.

And while some of this is really cute from a romantic perspective, it's also kinda problematic because it reeks of allistic saviorism. It promotes the idea that Kit is like Ty's "cure." And that's just impossible.

And honestly I know I've contributed to this in some ways. Because if I'm being perfectly honest with you, there's a part of me that enjoys that. The romantization of autism.

The idea of being taken care of.

The idea that someone could love an autistic person and see them as "beautiful" and "extraordinary" and all the things Kit calls Ty, was incredibly moving and appealing to me as a kid. It still is. Because I grew up on stories of charity cases and allistic saviorism making headlines with prom dates. I was super secretive about it, but I was always a romantic growing up. But I thought that it was impossible for me to have a real love story because people like me don't get that. (Not to get all sob story on you sorry. I overshare. It's an autistic thing.)

And there are some really compelling things about kitty that really do work. And I'm not trying to suggest that Kit learning to help Ty with the ...shall we say more colourful traits of his disability is a bad thing always. It's not. But I think the issue is with Ty's lack of pov and Ty's lack of a narrative in the books. It makes him seem like less of a completely developed character and more like, "Kit's" you know?

And because we don't have Ty's pov we don't really get what makes Kit have this sort of calming effect on him or why it's different. And more importantly we don't get why Ty's letting him in, we only get Kit pushing past his boundries. The entire thing becomes about Kit essentially and that's at the root of all allistic saviorism.

Also like you mentioned before, Kit is seen as special to a certain extent because he can handle Ty. That's not neccesarily something the character believes obviously, but again with CC co-signing the damn narrative with the way she makes the impact Kit has on Ty such a big deal in everyone's eyes and in QOAAD she really emphasizes the drain Ty's necromancy plan is taking on Kit, suddenly Ty's grief becomes all about Kit and with no pov from Ty, it's more allistic savior bs.

Honestly most of this isnt actually THAT bad it's just when you throw it all together and look at the ugly history and let's be honest present, of autistic people being silenced and spoken over by our caregivers and loved ones and we are treated like burdens on them, and how those people are praised for loving us, it kinda looks bad. But the fandom definitely made it worse.

I always get criticized for criticizing kitty by allistic people with, " well if you think they're so toxic then why do you even ship them?" Which is a piss poor take lacking in any nuance. An autistic person has the right to critique a dynamic involving an autistic character. More to the point, you can love something and be critical of it. I swear when this fandom finally figures that one out... we could accomplish so much.

I'm really hoping this is making sense it's like 2 in the morning. As for Grace and Christopher's dynamic I agree with you. I basically have nothing to add. Bare minimum. Should not be idolized. The way the others treat him should not just be brushed off as no big deal. It's ableism.

Basically it's just a bunch of classic mistakes that come from a neurotypical abled writer writing nd characters. Some mistakes are more damning then others. But it does make me scared for TWP.

I can only hope.

[bigskydreaming]

Can we just talk about all the age reversal aus where Robin is still a thing before Dick comes around??? It makes no sense!!!! Ik you’ve done a post on the importance of Robin before and it just really ticks me off!!! Like, if Damian is the oldest, why would he go by a bird name when he works with Batman? It would make more sense to be like ‘Shadow’ or ‘Shriken’ or just plain ‘Batkid’ but all these authors use the name Robin and then show Jason being resentful when Dick takes it over. Just wtf?

Tbh, I don’t have a ton to say on that particular subject other than I agree with you on it not making a lot of sense, because I just don’t really tend to read age reversal AUs anymore. They’re just not a premise that draws me in, y’know? I have issues with the way Dick’s status as the oldest brother tends to lead to him and his own problems being taken for granted at times, but the solution to that which I’m looking for is to have that addressed, not to have Dick just not be the oldest sibling anymore. I like Dick the way he is….I’m as fond of AUs as the next person, but ones that kinda alter the core of him just aren’t for me.

Like….how to put this…..from my perspective, I’ve noticed that outside of fics by authors who consider themselves Dick stans first and foremost out of all the characters, there’s three distinct tropes in the vast majority of fics where Dick plays a major role, and is regarded sympathetically rather than being in the way:

1) Fics about Tarantula, 2) Fics where Dick is a Talon and 3) Age Reversal AUs.

And the one common element in these tropes is they’re most commonly utilized while depicting Dick as particularly vulnerable, to the extent that he’s like….dependent on the other characters.

In the vast majority of Tarantula fics - majority, not all, there are exceptions of course - but the common thread is Dick tends to have very little agency in even the aftermath of what happened with Tarantula. He’s usually not granted the right of disclosure….people find out despite his wants there, and often despite his attempts to keep it from them (huge pet peeve just btw…..people, disclosure is a HUGELY big deal to survivors, because its one of THE single most powerful ways in which survivors take back control over their lives….they might not have control over what happened, but they can control who they tell about it and when. The tendency to write fics about survivors but displaying no real thought towards the fact that many survivors NEED agency over who they disclose to and when, is part of why I tend to rant about people kinda….commercializing this particular trauma even while saying they do so in the name of spreading awareness or healing or stuff like that….because they’re not actually like….thinking about things from the viewpoint of the survivor. In many instances, stealing a survivor’s right to disclose at the time and place of their choosing can be massively retraumatizing in its own way. And again, please don’t talk to me about how I’m generalizing or insisting there’s only one right way to write survivors…I know I’m generalizing, I’m talking about TRENDS, not specific fics, and I’m not saying its NEVER okay to write things this way, I’m simply commenting on how often things ONLY seem to be written this way).

But anyway, point is, a common theme throughout these fics is that despite Dick being central to them, its a story ABOUT him and what happened to him, rather than actually being HIS story. He himself has very little role in many of these stories, they’re more about what the others do to avenge him, or to take care of him, etc…..which is great in principle….I just can’t help but note the emphasis on him being dependent on others throughout it.

Which brings us to number two, fics where Dick is a Talon…..I’ve talked before how I just kinda can’t, and back out of fics where Dick remains a Talon or altered by the Talon process, because I think most people do that as kind of a metaphor for a disability and finding ways to live with a disability, but to me it will always read as body horror, because this isn’t so much Dick being disabled as it is him being altered head to toe in very deliberate ways by his abusers with the intention of making him something other than he is, and something he never ever chooses or wants to be. And the fact that there’s no need to write stories with disability metaphors, you can just write a character having a disability, so it always kinda feels unnecessary to me, personally, and an inherent tragedy because this was DONE to Dick, and thus is a permanent reminder of his abuse at the hands of his abusers….which is not inherently the same thing as adjusting to life with a disability, though there can be overlap, obviously.

But the other tendency of the Talon Dick trope is how often this results in him being mentally altered. And not just in a brainwashed kind of way, as many of these fics have him raised as a Talon since his parents died and then rescued by the Batfam….but his entire mentality, personality and way of processing things and even speaking is altered….and the thing that bugs me about this is…..why? Why is this choice so prevalent in these fics, when there’s literally nothing innate about the Talons in canon that says the Talon process mentally changes their minds and personalities in this kind of way? Most of the Talons we see don’t speak….because they’re intended to be seen as mindless minions, a force of nature rather than people….its meant to add to their mystique, their threat, their legend….largely on orders of the Court, who thrives on those kind of things. But who is the Talon we see the most of in canon, the Talon that we’re specifically told time and time again the Court means Dick to replace, be the heir of? William Cobb. 

And William is nothing like the way Dick is depicted in most Talon fics. He’s the same as he was before he was changed, just with the changes to his biology now. Mentally and personality-wise, he’s still the same as he was before it. And even in the recent Nightwing comic where Ric was finally brainwashed into being the Talon the Court has been manipulating him towards becoming throughout this storyline…..obviously, the Talon process hadn’t occurred yet, but even with the brainwashing, Ric mentally was still himself in the sense that he could process things, make decisions, speak all just the same as he did before he put on the brainwashing goggles….he didn’t speak most of the time because again, Talons are meant by the Court to be mostly silent enigmas….but when pressed, he was absolutely still capable of it, the same as before.

So again, the question is….why this particular choice, with this trope? To have Dick so radically altered not just in body, and with the emphasis rarely even placed on his bodily changes, as usually they come up with some tech disguise for him or use makeup to make him appear the same as he usually does, at which point his changes aren’t mentioned all that much other than to display his healing factor. No, the emphasis by and large is to how different he is mentally….even though there’s literally nothing about the Talon the Court wants him to be in canon, which dictates that he has to be in any way mentally altered by the process of becoming one. It isn’t his mental faculties the Court has a problem with, its his morals. No other brainwashing or mental conditioning method in comics or fics places such a strong emphasis on limiting the person’s mental capabilities rather than just altering their morality and way of thinking…so why is it different here, with Dick’s stories? And the only common result I can ever find is that it diminishes Dick’s autonomy and makes him vulnerable in a specific way where he’s dependent on the others to a huge degree, due to being less socially capable or even just mentally capable on his own.

And then finally we have the reverse ages AUs, in which Dick is still himself as he was as a young Robin in canon…..just the baby of the family, doted on and protected by his family, who are all fiercely defensive of him and in many of these stories, drop everything to rush to his aid when he’s in danger and rescue him. Which again, is perfectly fine in theory, but the thing this raises for me is…..how distinct this is from Dick’s actual time as Robin, where the actual emphasis was on how capable he was despite his young age, how autonomous and independent and competent even when face to face with villains twice his size and three times his age. 

Situations like with Two-Face were the exception in his stories, not the norm…..much like the later Robins, like Jason before his death, Tim for over a decade in comics, Damian to this day….all roughly the same age Dick is in these reverse Robin AUs…..but when has Damian ever been depicted as that vulnerable and in need of his siblings’ protection, in canon? When was Tim? And in Dick’s own time as Robin when he was actually that age in canon…..how would he have ever lasted as Robin without all these older siblings in canon, let alone managed to become the inspiration for entire generations of other child heroes….if he weren’t as capable of protecting himself as he was…in actual canon?

Again, the focus of the premise, like with the other two tropes, often seems geared towards emphasizing a vulnerability that is kinda just…chosen for Dick, rather than being an inevitability of that trope, and results in him being particularly dependent on the rest of his family.

Understand, I’m not saying this to say oh these fics are all bad and shouldn’t exist, lol, I’m just expressing the common element through all of them that’s why they don’t appeal to me in particular - because as I’ve always emphasized in pretty much all my posts, one of the greatest appeals to me about Dick Grayson, and one of the things I love about him most, is his fierce independence, his commitment to being his own person and standing on his own two feet. And its why I have an issue with the common thread of infantilization that runs through a lot of the fanon tropes that treat him as though he’s incapable of feeding himself, clothing himself, or even cleaning up after himself or conducting himself in public without the help of others.

Because my issue isn’t that these things exist, its that I’m always going to want to know WHY.

Why, when Dick’s core characterization has always revolved around his insistence on his own personal agency and autonomy…..do so many stories revolve around…..denying him this, or stripping it away?

Why is it that he’s most appealing to many people when he’s not just dependent on his family, but forced to be dependent by the very premise of a story, with no choice or alternative in the matter?

What makes that such a common trend, and with his character in specific, as opposed to Jason, Tim, Damian, etc….none of whom display similar trends in their stories or most prevalent tropes?

[synodicatalyst]

epilogue thoughts part 3

a big part i didn’t like and about which i’ve seen similar complaints is the aspect of taking the “absurd gritty edgy realist” fanfic trope WAY FAR and the more i think about it, the more i agree

because the fact of the matter is that i DIDN’T enjoy reading the epilogue. there were lots of parts i liked and found funny, but it was arduous and horrible in the way that you don’t feel hope, at any time, for any chance of happiness. you feel like youre reading through 180k words of genuine depression, even including the softer moments, the happier ones, the ones that offer development

i say this as someone who has read my fair share of gritty what-if bad-end longfic. an example i’ve been thinking about is the FFXV fic tu fui, ego eris. while it doesn’t share the same meta elements as homestuck’s epilogue, it strikes me as broadly similar, for a few reasons: one, it’s like, MEGA long. and two, we get to see a beloved character (my favourite character, ignis) spiral on his journey to becoming a villain.

here’s the thing about tu fui: i enjoyed every step of the way.

and that’s the thing, really - you CAN write horrible, tragic stories where the gay dude becomes a villain not out of inherent evil but because of Necessity. both tu fui and homestuck did it. but the difference is that i fucking loved tu fui, ego eris because not only was it written spectacularly, but there was an underlying sense of hope.

Throughout the fic, the author states many times that there’s “no going back”, that if you’re expecting a Good End then you’re in the wrong place. (I read it in its entirety, in one sitting, before she started writing a Good End by popular demand.) And i persisted -i still held out hope - not only because i had already read like 100k of it, nor just because i’m stupid and believed in the good of ignis scientia, but because it was ENJOYABLE. i loved being witness to the descent of ignis scientia. i was deeply invested in the outcome of this horrible, hopeless universe - will ignis find a way to accomplish his original goal? will he succumb to the scourge? will noctis still die, despite the horrible sacrifices made? i knew ignis would die. i knew it would be ugly, that he’d have to be stopped. but i didn’t care. even though this was a character i poured my soul into, i needed to see this til its end, villainy or no.

I got to see hardened, sharper versions of characters i loved (much like the epilogue) and even though the end was tragic and made me actually cry, and the whole thing was SUPER LONG with a lot of Plot Bullshit that probably went over my head, i didn’t regret it, i enjoyed every step of the way.

so i’ve been wondering where homestuck left me. and why homestuck left me here. and why i was slogging through thousands of words of jane suddenly being outright xenophobic and dirk Doing Some Bullshit. and why i didn’t fully enjoy reading it even though i am just as invested in these characters as like, ignis from ffxv (btw i know i have bad taste and ffxv is a shame fandom full of pretty videogame boys but that’s not the point DONT @ ME OK)

and i think it mostly boils down to the fact that 1, it felt hopeless the whole way through? like that was the POINT but it was hammered in again and again. tu fui did similarly - there was no Happy Reprieve, no funny jokes except for ardyn being a fucking weirdo - but it did it less absurdly. which i think leads to number 2, that homestuck just...started off 7 years after the end of the game. we didn’t get to witness the characters change into what we saw. we were plunged straight into “jane is spouting actual fascist ideologies now i guess” and “dirk is really purposefully manipulative to the extreme and kidnaps rose and fucks with people’s heads a lot”. we didn’t get to witness the spiral, the descent into feral horror. we just witnessed the outcome

this doesn’t mean it’s BAD to do so, but it is jarring, and i don’t think it was a good choice, character-wise. like this is the precise reason many people said the epilogue reads as OOC - yeah, cuz no-one is the same at 23 as they were at 16 - but like can you BLAME people for thinking as such when going from 16 year old “i want to be the best version of me because i know i can fuck up or slip up really easily” dirk to 23 year old dirk requires a WHOLE LOT OF INTERPOLATION

anyways what i’m saying is it is indeed possible to write dark nihilistic Everything Sucks fic and still have it be enjoyable and i’m sort of at a loss because while i liked a good chunk of the epilogue, i cannot in good conscience say that i Enjoyed it, and i think that’s a shame

[userseokkie]

Steve Rogers is a walking contradiction: the anti military soldier

After reading this meta on a gifset about Steve and Tony i got carried away and wrote essentially an essay about the analysis that had been made. and while i agree with the general sentiment of the post, some things didn’t sit right with me. btw i decided to make this my own separate post because this isn’t intended to start an argument or derail the original post, i know it can be annoying for gif makers to have dozens of comments added onto their posts.

(the meta in question)

ok so full disclaimer I’m not American and I’m not white. i just felt like this analysis was really interesting and when I read it I couldn’t stop all these thoughts that formed in my head, next thing I know I had written all of this in like 30 minutes. I’m not trying to argue or start shit, this is my own personal analysis of Steve’s character and why I don’t agree with some things said above.

First of all, let’s get this out of the way: Steve does not trust the US government. at least not blindly. the fact that he’s still the little shit that had a real problem w authority figures is something they touch upon on catfa a lot. he changed on the outside but on the inside he’s still that idiot punk kid and like, I get what the tags above me are saying but also Steve’s arc is more than that? and let’s not forget this stupid movie was written and directed by thanos Joss “I’m the true feminist ally” whedon so I would take this exchange with a grain of salt. I mean this is the movie that gave us “gOllY tHeRe’S OnLy oNe gOd m'Am” and “sOn oF a GuN” Stephen Rogers which is the most ooc thing I’ve seen since endgame’s Steve. Steve is a fucking potty mouth ffs he’s Irish and a soldier, so that doesn’t even make sense. but anyway, my point is something else, nvm this movie’s portrayal of Steve in general.

I guess we could probably argue all day long abt which Steve portrayal is the most accurate one since his character in the MCU is the one that’s suffered the most at the hands of inconsistent characterization, but I prefer thinking he already WAS someone that was well aware of the horrors of war and how unfair it was to recruit people w lies and the promises of education opportunities and loans for the poor to join the army, because he LIVED that he grew up dirt poor and had to see his mom take on three different jobs to support herself and him, so he’d consider this attempt to bring civilians into the military life by preying on their needs disgusting, he’d be fucking seething with anger. and if he had lived through the 60s (which I think it’s better for everyone involved that he didn’t, can u imagine poor guy would’ve died from the disappointment in what his country had become) I highly doubt he would’ve been the bitter WWII vet that defended Vietnam and shit on the protestors……. Steve would support the citizens’ rights to ask for accountability and demand justice!! even the hippie movement I think he would’ve been ok with when he saw that they were advocating FOR PEACE. that’s why he enlisted on the war after all, to bring the fight to an end and to have Bucky come HOME. I think Steve rogers would be all for peace. I mean, civil disobedience and telling the government to shove it? that’s Steve Rogers’ goddamn ethos. he would be all over that shit.

I agree w op’s tags where they say Steve doesn’t represent America, he represents what America wishes it had been. and I think Steve himself would be well aware he’s the anomaly here, the one that should have been America’s highest ideal. and I think that makes Steve very wary of his own image, anything he endorses becomes what America endorses. Steve rogers isn’t important, Captain America is. but I think Steve’s response here has more to do with his coping mechanisms to deal with loss, rather than coming from a place of “oh we’re soldiers, it’s what we do, we die for our country.” while Tony’s response comes from a place of anger (we are NOT soldiers!!! fuck u old man, i never asked for this!!! coulson didn’t ask for this!!!!!) Steve’s reaction comes from the intrinsic nihilism and dadaism product of his own time. it’s not that he’s minimizing Coulson’s death, it’s more that he’s so used to losing people, the thousands he met that died in European soil, the sick and ill from his ma’s work that died everyday, his own father whom he never even met, that his mechanism is to just. shut down. shrug it off a bit, even. people die. every day. “for believing” means for standing for something, because Steve is WELL aware that people that stand for nothing will fall for anything, and standing for something gives counterbalance to the official agenda. in his eyes, Coulson died not because he’s a soldier and winning the war means being prepared to make a few sacrifices. Coulson died because he chose to believe in something that the majority didn’t care about or even actively sought to destroy (the wsc over fury’s shoulder) and he died because he would not back down from the fight. I can do this all day is something Steve feeds off of because he knows that when you stop getting up from the ground, anyone and anything can strike you down.

but on another note, I get that Avengers happens literally 6 fucking days after he woke up from the ice, he probably had no time to catch up on all the atrocities the US had done on his behalf, or rather on what they said he represented, on the ideal he died defending and the US took and twisted and tore apart until it was no longer recognizable. Steve being a week out of the ice is super sad and to me, the biggest crime this movie did was literally brushing off Steve’s trauma, being riddled with PTSD and shocked from waking up seventy years in the future was not even addressed. at all. this could’ve been easily avoided by setting the movie at least a couple of months AFTER he wakes up. but whatever. After learning of all the shit the US has done, I think Steve rogers would be the first to walk out of there and be like “fuck it, I died for this country and you took it and fucked it up and now young people and people who’ve been killed for protesting your shitty ass decisions genuinely believe I would side with the government. they think I’M the stubborn baby boomer who kisses government boots and would approve of the Gulf War or the Vietnam War or the Central American coups or the war on terror or any of the stupid shit you’ve pulled in the 70 years I was gone!!! YOU MADE ME A SYMBOL FOR YOUR BIGOTRY WHAT THE FUCK”. so he obviously needs time to catch up on all of that before realizing how bad they fucked up his memory and how corrupt the system has become. but Steve’s depiction as a boy scout who believes the US can do nothing bad is inherently wrong and something only this one movie tries to do. no other movie featuring Cap tries to drive the point home that Cap is a goodie two shoes who still believes in american exceptionalism.

CATWS was the gold standard because it truly touched upon the cognitive dissonance Steve experiences coming out of a 70 year nap. the loss he experiences not only for being “the man out of time”, but the true man behind the symbol. heavy are the shoulders that carry the world indeed. and he’s been carrying the entire world on his since he decided to become Captain America. I truly believe the tragedy of Steve Rogers comes from the lack of agency he has over the Captain image, one that has been used to prop up political agendas over and over again. of course, he’s the one that decides to be Captain America as much as he is Steve rogers, blurring the lines between the two men. he could’ve retired, he could’ve adopted a new mantle or even go the old reliable route and try to keep a civilian life away from the superhero gig. but he didn’t. even in the comics whenever he tried to do that it didn’t stick for more than a few issues. so, you know in CATWS he truly experiments what it’s like to pull back the curtain and see the wizard behind it, he faces this disenchantment with the institutions that created him, both SHIELD and the US government. this helps pinpoint the moment he grows super distrustful of politics and agendas, because up until this point he’d only been in the battlefield, and he realizes governments cannot be trusted to make the right decision or even act in benefit of their people.

this way, Civil War does make sense when you see how Steve has grown so disappointed with modern politics that he sees the Sokovia accords as one big red flag, and the first step in a direction that only points toward authoritarianism and civil control. this movie deals with many things poorly of course, but one thing that doesn’t feel ooc is Steve telling the UN to fuck off. He wasn’t around to see the formation of the united nations remember? he literally has no background on what collective security and globalized autonomy are. there’s many things that could’ve been different in CW, but Steve was on the “right” side of the conflict for his character. (i’m NOT saying there’s a wrong and a right side on the Civil war dilemma. that whole thing was badly written so let’s just say it made sense in a hypothetical way). supporting the government in any capacity isn’t a part of Steve’s “thing”, but even when/if he sided with the US govt, he’d never endorse a political agenda that he perceives as “wrong”, knowing it’s hypocritical to do so. 

he doesn’t think the end justify the means, which is highly different from Tony’s pragmatism. if Steve and Tony represented opposing philosophical movements, Tony would be utilitarianism and Steve would be deontology. this brings the analysis full circle by pointing out that yes, Tony and Steve operate differently in theory, but in practice they both work for the same objective. Tony is the cynic product of his own doing, he understands how war can destroy and he knows the US has a bad track record of owning up to its own shit. and because of that, he believes that the most good he can do is in his own hands (and because of his extremist way of thinking, he also equates that with being the only one who can do it and therefore, he must, no matter the personal cost). On the other hand, Steve is the idealist product of other’s people efforts, he understands how sometimes war can be the only way to save what is worth saving, but also how it can corrupt even the noblest of men. and because of that, he believes that the most good he can do must be done because other people believe in him, and because by setting the example, others can follow and make the world a better place. (and because of his very stubborn nature, he also equates that with being the ‘tree that must plant itself in the ground and say no, you move’.)

so what I guess I’m trying to say, is that to me at least, saying that Steve Rogers would be in favor of US militarism or that he equates the word “soldier” with hero is a huge disservice to his character. the fact that he’s a fictional character that was first conceived as WWII propaganda is not relevant, because I choose to believe the idea that says fiction stops being the creator’s own the moment it’s out in the world. And Steve Rogers NOW is a different character and serves a different purpose than what he was originally intended to. His entire origin is based on being a soldier, yes, but what makes his character so compelling is the juxtaposition between being a soldier and being essentially opposed to what the US military complex entails. he embodies a lot of american values ofc, like freedom and right of free speech and so, but my take is that he defends this values in a way that is distinctly non American. setting aside discussions of propaganda and the integrity of an art form, i think he’s been written in a way that evokes patriotism without being exclusively american. i mean heck, Steve rogers makes me proud to be from my own country, and inspires me to be better while never reminding me of the fact that he’s from an imperialist super power. Star spangled suit aside, he’s probably a fair enough representation of what one's love for their own country can bring to the surface, no matter which country specifically. i could delve more into that, but this is already getting too long and, since i already mentioned, I’m not from the US and my cultural upbringing is far different from the US. so i’m not sure i could make such a poignant analysis about the military culture and the way it impacts characters such as Steve. 

[adultprivilege]

Hi, I was wondering why you said that the institution of parenting is structurally abusive? (I think I have a vague notion of why you might have said that, but I'd like to get it cleared up)

so we got two asks with this question, I’ll leave the other one to the other mod because maybe they have a different perspective. This is Mod Isaiah speaking right now, btw.

In my opinion parenthood is structurally abusive because any system of power, without any easy source of retribution for the powerful, is inherently abusive. Even if your parent is actually perfect, but they just don’t give you the freedom to know that you are safe in this society, is abusive. There is still a very real threat that they could abuse you and get away with it, because CPS isn’t gonna do anything, and foster care is terrifying to so many people, and no one in the rest of the world will ever believe the child.

So, a comparison. Relationships have to be consensual in every way. A person should be able to not participate in different actions (if I specify sexual it ruins the metaphor), they should be allowed alone time, they should be trusted by their partner, they definitely shouldn’t be hit, physically harmed in any way, screamed at, or anything else drastically aggressive by their partner, they should be able to maintain contact with everyone else in their life, they should be allowed to leave the relationship entirely, and to encompass all of this they should just have the freedom of choice so long as that choice doesn’t infringe on someone else’s freedom of safety.

In the early Americas, and in a whole lot of countries that I’m too lazy to google, women were considered to be owned by the husband in the same way that children are owned by their parents. That’s why the “ownership” of women was always transferred from their fathers. They weren’t allowed to control their own finances, they didn’t need to consent to sex for it to happen, they would be forced to spend time with their husband, they could be yelled at and screamed at and hit and have no way to escape, they would never be trusted to be capable of handling themselves, I mean a real consequence of sexism is female genital mutilation being used to promote chastity till marriage which still happens in places like Liberia (I’m not sure if it’s legal there but a huge part of the secret society “Sande” is female genital mutilation to promote chastity and refusal to masturbate) they could straight up be refused to see their family ever again, they would have to go through an incredibly difficult court process and prove that their partner was abusive to pre-1950s standards (I don’t actually know the exact year but it was past 1950, Adam Ruins Everything has the whole story) , and we all know they were never given freedom of choice. Of course, their husbands could’ve been generous, radical feminists, suffragists, they could’ve given their wives whatever they wanted. But if you were put back in the 1900s as a female, you would never trust a man enough to marry him, and many cis women decided to dress up as men just to escape the oppression.

Let’s think about another comparison. Slavery. I know any comparison to things like slavery or the holocaust are always really touchy and dangerous to do unoffensively, but I pick this one specifically because it is so drastic. I’m not gonna compare the two in terms of awfulness, because I think it’s impossible to properly measure either in terms of awfulness when our society is still justifying both and influencing us to do the same. And I don’t prefer the idea that someone will guess which I think is worse. It’s awful, and yet at the time that personal slaves were legal in the USA, many people would justify it with “I treat my slaves properly, why should I get rid of my slaves just because someone else is bad to them?” And “now we know” (quotes because this is bullshit and if Donald Trump was given 4 more years I think he could have enough influence to make slavery legal again and liberals would just say he’ll get his karma when he’s out of office, or that this is why we have to vote for Warren, or some bullshit, we don’t actually know that slavery is bad, we just want some moral highground to pretend we’re not racist anymore) that slavery is awful no matter what, because it is literally ownership of a human being. I’ve always wanted to go to the places where slavery was still legal, buy a bunch of slaves (hear me out and don’t misquote me) and then free them. But a huge part of that has to be letting them know that I’ll free them immediately and they don’t have to do anything for me, giving them power over me to make the power balanced, going into some legal process to free them in their home country, and paying for their plane tickets if they wanna come to the US to escape their former owners. And I mean, this has been a huge thing on my “when I’m rich” to do list ever since I found out slavery is still a very real problem in a lot of places. But the fact that Thomas Jefferson thought it’d just be fine to buy slaves and own them in a moral way has been interpreted as extremely offensive at this point.

But children, if you literally have the rights to own them, is totally cool you guys. Totally. I mean it should just be generally understood by now that owning another human is wrong, even if it isn’t for profit. And parenthood, for the most part, is ownership of a child. And it’s straight up the same thing as 1850s marriages. I’ve seen a lot of people say they don’t know anyone who wasn’t spanked or beaten as a child, and frankly I only know a couple people who weren’t abused, and even they seem to have taken some issue with the fact that their parents had a right to them as people. It’s cruel because you are blatantly saying “I have more power legally, politically, socially, and economically than you, I control all of your finances, I have been assigned with the duty to care for you and make sure you own up to your responsibilities, I pretty much own you in terms of legality and society, you have no means of leaving this house unless I force you out, and also I’m not only allowed to but ENCOURAGED to punish you in whatever means possible. Pretty much the only thing I’m not allowed to do without social judgement is sexually abuse you, and even then people either won’t believe you or they’ll think we’re from Alabama and we’re just like that. And if you want to leave, you’ll have to call this organization that is just famous for putting you in an even worse household, and they’ll probably just call me to tell me what you said behind my back and then ditch.” That entire situation sounds like a horror novel to an adult, and we are rooting for the adult to escape. But for a child it’s perfectly fine to us.

So is there a method of changing this? In my opinion yes, but it is much more radical than anyone would like. I think children should be able to leave their parents and find other parents or enter contracts with older children to live with them temporarily or permanently. I think all children should be given financial independence and a salary for going to school, one that mostly is earned through attendance and participation, but could be raised slightly with the right grades. I think at teenage years, maybe 14, people should be given the right to vote, because if the government is so much more active in childrens lives than adult lives, through schooling, parenthood, and mental hospitals, then why do children not get a say in that? The founding fathers believed that people without property shouldn’t vote because they might be biased and vote for whomever will provide them property, and their vote might come out of greed. Adults use the same logic to prevent children from voting, saying they’ll vote for someone who will limit school work, but honestly that’s a very necessary action. We need to cut down on school hours, because 40 hours a week has been proven to be stressful to adults and much more stressful to children, and we need to add those hours to summer, creating 2 week breaks 4 times a year rather than having 3 months that make summer famous for unlearning your entire last school year. We need to have teachers check in with parents regularly to make sure that the children are safe and well cared for, and check in with students to make sure they feel comfortable. We need to fund CPS and create radical reforms to it, I mean don’t get me started with that because I’ve already written an essay for this ask alone. We need to make sure that educating children on abuse and sex is required all across the country, and that we start at younger levels like second grade with some not very emotionally taxing or explicit knowledge of sex or abuse, and then we do another more involved abuse education in maybe seventh grade, and tenth grade. We need rehabilitation for abusers, and therapy for victims if they want it. I’m big on prison abolitionism in favor of restorative/transformative justice combined with rehabilitation, because the current system sends parents into a justice system that ultimately traumatizes people who were already likely abused as a child considering the cycle of abuse, and then sends them back into the world. I don’t think anyone has to take pity for them, abusers are not good people, but prison does not work.

And a big part of this involves abolishing capitalism. personally don’t believe in capitalism, socialism, communism, or anarchism at the moment. I’m still sort of deciding, but I’ve been mostly interested in crafting my own version of all four. I think different sections of the government should incorporate each one, but the system will only fail if you have just one system and no others. In my opinion, whatever system there is, wealth should exist, but there should be a limit to the wealth you can have. You should not be able to own more than five houses, I hope this isn’t too radical for the multibillionaires. There should be a limit to your wealth, but there should also never be such thing as a “living wage.” People should not have to pay to exist, that is cruel and inhumane. College, healthcare, housing, healthy food, basic internet (only because it’s basically a necessity at this point, most people are starting to look for jobs online so how is a person going to survive without this, I mean it’s basically god at this point), and accomodations for disabilities should all be provided for free. Money should only be used for things like pools and going on a hiking trip with a professional Grand Canyon guide. Idk I can’t think of anything right now but stuff that isn’t required just to get someplace in this society. The reason for all this being that the biggest link to abuse is struggling with money. I have seen people, like with my own eyes, being verbally belittled by a parent for not being able to renovate an apartment well enough to rent it out up to the parent’s standards, because they were constantly struggling with money. That family would constantly have fights because the parent would take out financial shit at their children, or have an awful day at their job that was an hour away and come home screaming about meaningless shit. And my own experiences of abuse almost entirely disappeared relatively when my family was able to afford mortgage and we no longer had to save up for my college tuition. Poverty and former trauma are the biggest causes of abuse and we need to address that through the destruction of capitalism.

But yeah I’m gonna let the other mod know to answer the other ask on this because my opinion might not represent them and I take some really radical stances on child rights activism. Thanks for the ask and I’m sorry for the essay!

[nyxabird]

The problem with Zeroken’s design

I feel like rambling today, so. Let’s talk about Disgaea 5. Or more importantly, let’s talk about one of Disgaea 5′s characters, Zeroken. Now, I love Zeroken. Anyone who’s seen me stream know I love Zeroken. I go to massive efforts to make him a strong little boy and despite his flaws, I think he tends to be an adorable and charming character. But there is one major, meta flaw in Zeroken and that’s in his design.

Now, I want to say, I like Zeroken’s design. I think he’s cute! And I think his appearance fits well with his personality. The problem is that his design is flawed; it commits a sin of media called “informed attribute”.

For those who don’t know, an informed attribute is something about a character that is told to us through outside sources and that isn’t actually in the actual series the character is in. For instance, a lot of anime will say that a female character is a tough fighter, but every time you see her, she doesn’t actually have any strength and she’s constantly in trouble. It, essentially, is just saying “oh yeah this character is actually this” even though there’s no evidence of it. A lot of the time, informed attributes feel like they’re tacked on for the developers to get brownie points, but that’s not related to this subject, so I won’t discuss it.

So let’s get back to Zeroken. What’s his informed attribute, you may ask? It’s his race. So first, here is a picture of the kid.

I want you to look at that and think about it. What race do you think he is? For me, I always thought he was just a humanoid demon like about 50% of the classes in Disgaea 5. Like the Warrior or Gunner or Sage or Lady Samurai or any of those. And that seems right, right?

Nope.

He’s a werewolf.

Did any of you who heard of him actually guess that? Did you have any idea he was a werewolf, or intended to be one? I bet most of you didn’t, because of the people I knew (one who’s played D5 since it came out) had no idea either. So how do we know he’s a werewolf?

Because his intro trailer said so. Something I’d never even heard of, and neither had they, until they went browsing in the wiki one day.

The only “hints” to this in-game are his Overload (Superluminal Wolf) and the fact that some of his moves (in Japanese, at least) have voice clips of him howling. And that’s not even remotely an actual hint, because that could just as easily be his theme. Non-werewolf/-wolf characters have used wolf references or howling, so it’s not even remotely a hint to the fact he’s meant to be a werewolf.

Even his design doesn’t hint towards it at all. There is nothing distinct about his design that hints he’s anything but a humanoid demon. There is nothing in the game that is actual proof/a hint that he’s like that, except some throw-away lines (such as Seraphina calling him a dog) that aren’t evidence on their own, because it’s just as often used against non-wolf-related people too.

I really think this was just a huge error in his design that NISA did, a mistake that was made that no one actually bothered to think about being a mistake when they really know how to do better.

Why do I know they know how to do better? Because they’ve done it before.

This is Fenrich, from Disgaea 4, who is in fact a werewolf. Could you tell? I bet so, because the tail gives it away really fast. Even if you wouldn’t immediately label it as a “wolf”, you still can see, at a glance, that he’s not Yet Another Humanoid Demon. More than that, some of his skills make it even clearer that he’s a werewolf; he has skills that have him running on all fours, for instance. Even if the game didn’t tell you what Fenrich is, you could guess from the evidence in the game.

And Zeroken doesn’t have that. And why? There’s no reason for that. There is no reason that Zeroken doesn’t have anything that really hints towards his nature. It was as simple as giving him a tail, really, because the game had already established that race as looking like that. And you can argue game canons/timelines/AUs as much as you want, but races/classes in general stay the same/use the same depiction; some do change, such as the Armor Knight changing genders, but overall it’s fairly consistent.

I have no idea why they failed on the most basic part of Zeroken’s design. There’s some theories that his hair is meant to resemble a tail, but I honestly think that design in general is a bad design and just a way people get themselves out of having to depict stuff with tails. It’s a cowardly design decision to me, especially because it’ll never be able to tell you what they are at a glance, failing that aspect of their design. (I also think it looks incredibly crappy and stupid, but that’s a personal feeling of mine)

In general, whenever I or my friends write or do anything with Zeroken, we’ll add in his tail, and just hand-wave it as having been cut off during the Lost invasion and regrown somehow after the war. Because quite frankly, NISA (or whoever designed him) failed. They just failed, flat out, on making his design clear that he isn’t just yet another human-looking demon and is actually one of the beast folk. The rest of the design is good, as I’ve said before, and I really like it... but no matter how much I like it, it is a failure in informing us what he is.

Magnus and Usalia are easy to tell what they are from the start. Seraphina is a bit harder, but you could reasonably figure out what she is from the evidence. Christo’s whole arc is about trying to hide what he actually is. Killia’s design is also problematic in this way, but he actually has hints to him being a beast folk (the claw-hands that are clearly not gloves, the scales on his chest), so even if we don’t know what he is, we know he’s something different, not just a humanoid demon, though there’s no hints as to what he is in-game. (Dragonewt, by the way. Killia’s a dragonewt) Killia is more complicated, though, so I won’t get into that unless someone actually wants me to discuss my feelings on that one.

Zeroken has nothing. Every “hint” could just be as easily as applied to a normal humanoid with a wolf theme. And it’s incredibly disappointing

I guess my point is “NISA, you were fucking cowards by not giving him some aspect that made it clear what he was.” And it doesn’t even have to be a tail. When I (and I’m sure other people) talk about this, we’re not just inherently wanting what people usually call the “clean and cute” sort of things (though why they call it that/what’s wrong with ears/tail as a distinction, I don’t know). We just want something to be clear. Ears, tails, claws, even fur in distinct places. Something, anything, that shows you that there’s something else here besides another “human”.

You can’t just say “oh btw this person is this” when it comes to major aspects like their race. You have to show us. You have to give us evidence. “Informed attribute” is okay when it isn’t a part of the series they’re in (such as telling us a horror protagonist is gay) or wouldn’t have come up canonly, but things like their goddamn race? Or like trying to talk about sexualities in a romance game? Just... no.

If you’re going to design something, put effort into the design and actually show us. “Show, don’t tell” is the rule of visual media, and unfortunately for poor Zeroken, NISA failed him hard on that front. I have really strong feelings about this sort of thing, this thing of making beast characters have no actual traits whatsoever so they look totally human, and it really needs to stop.