#all because of a tv show and a fictional character??

[nostalgicmiscellaneous]

Lol as someone who actually works in the industry: you guys are very, very naive if you believe a tumblr blog would tell you secrets about the behind the scenes of Bridgerton for a bubble of specific fans, and even less that someone who actually have access to executives would be around telling so many incorrect stuff that can be proven wrong with some clicks. And would tell you about the actors that way, while working for Netflix. It's hilarious because production is segmented, there are different crews as well, and it simply wouldn't have production/executive inside information if it worked close enough to the actors day by day to know them, and they wouldn't work with all of them to know them personally, repeatedly in the way it says, as the teams are the same for a long time and they all have made their opinions on actors very clear. It's so stupid that it made the mistake of telling you all it doesn't work with crew. They really don't know how a production of a show works and it's funny to see anyone believing it. Then again, only Kanthony and Benophy fans do.

Not only that, contradicting not simply Netflix's news of profitability and success of Season 3, but in fact, actual market news and data releases, Investments prospects, and investors reports, plus licensing, that anyone with any inside information would know it's done publicly and show the actual success and profit delivered by Season 3. To even try to say it lost money, Lol. The data is there, if you worked in a exec. position, even management position, you wouldn't say something so ignorant.

Critically, official certified critics, and audience numbers averaged above Season 2 and on par with Season 1, and you can also check the aggregate of that on RT, IMDB, sites that reunited and average the score. Audience is measured not only by Netflix, but Luminate and Nielsen. Data that is ALSO PUBLIC. And that showed the successful amount of views, specially recovering audience that Season 2 had lost. It was also superior to QC. Netflix also ranks #6 ( above Season 2, again) as their most viewed seasons. Another public information.

It becomes evident you're dealing with a fan of Anthony and Kate and Sophie and Benedict when it spills target hate for particular actors, with nonsense that is so painfully clear from a fandom member, a mere angry fan trying with a insane agenda.

That's the problem when someone has an agenda against some actors and some fictional characters, a TV show, specifically a season. They throw away logic and believe anyone.

There is no insider, you have actual market information and investors/ experts that are not even Netflix connected telling you the success of season 3. Anyone who works for the industry would know that. Lol

There is no inside information of actors from that person. All cast and crew, and connected workers, and adjacents from media, PR and more, have their words and testaments to the cast and crew openly at their socials, dismantling their obsessive nonsense, contradicting them. I contradict them, lol, as i've actually met some of them and know their work ethics and behavior.

And most importantly, the so-called ''insider'' is not even from or in the UK…yes, i know exactly what i am talking about. But for now, i wont publish. For now.

Just be aware of bullshit and propaganda with fanwar nonsense. You're dealing with someone who is simply a discontent Kanthony & Benophy fan, and a Simone fan and hater of other actors in the show ( VERY OBVIOUS THE TARGETED HATE), connected ( lol very much connected) to a blog who has adopted the name of "Anti" since the start, who hates Polin. Some people just want to create a narrative, and while they say that Benedict is the most popular and wanted character for the GA, try to justify an eventual less number say it would be S3 fault, when S3 actually revamped the numbers from S2 and had incredible profitability ( again, public data).

But be aware that we know with 100% certainty, people like that do not work for Netflix. They don't even have a clue what a netflix contract is and how it works.

Also, a warning: People should have their faces and real names on when they say things, responsibility is a must, don't you all agree? Sometimes people think they are protected under the anonymity of a tumblr url to lie their hearts out and become desperate later when they have to own personally, with their actual faces and real names, and social reputation, the stupidity of their words.

And in a more fundamental sense, grow up. Tomorrow, someone else can simply create a blog telling the opposite about your favorites, their work, their seasons, it's a game nobody wins when fans act that desperate and stupid, lying and manipulating.

Or worse: perhaps someone with actual information can start posting, and you wouldn't like what they have to say…reflect on that.

[ninyard]

Hii, I guess this is a question not only for you but also your followers. Why wouldn't it be ok to like aftg? Like I've seen people say is problematic? But the only thing I've seen criticized is how unrealistic it is and like is a book so... idk maybe I lack critical thinking on some topics so if anyone could point me where to look I'd love to keep liking these books while being aware of it's failings :3

this is an interesting question! i guess the biggest part of whether it wouldn't be "okay" for someone to read aftg would be somewhat down to personal tastes.

re: the unrealistic part, i think if you go into a lot of books expecting them to be "realistic" you'll probably find there's a lot out there that just... isn't. i myself think that 90% of the biggest arguments i've seen about it's realism are from people who 1) refuse to suspend disbelief for the sake of enjoyment or 2) go into it with a certain expectation as to how realistic it's going to be before reading.

you can pick apart a million different books and movies and tv shows out there and find "unrealistic" parts in them all. and what do people say is even unrealistic about it? the different languages that are spoken in it? the trauma all the characters have? i understand it, to some degree, but i think people who think that fiction that is unrealistic = fiction that is bad, are probably just reading the wrong things. and that's fine. it's personal taste. but not everything has to be realistic for someone to enjoy it. that's just me.

as for the problematic aspects of it, i guess my gut instinct is to say that's once again down to personal perspective and opinion. i personally don't like or agree with some things in it, but i don't know if i can definitively say, oh it's problematic for this reason or that reason. are there triggering topics in aftg? are there uncomfortable scenes and problematic things that the characters do and say? are there bad people who do bad things? yes. that's just the truth. does that make the books themselves inherently problematic? i don't think so. but maybe i'm wrong with that. i don't know.

if you try to justify and explain and dissect everything that happens or is said in a book like aftg, i think you can probably find yourself in a real rabbit hole of is this appropriate? is this okay? is this problematic? i just feel that, it's a book, that has shitty things said and done in it, and it's up to you yourself whether you think those shitty things cross the line of being problematic or not. there's limits to everything, and while i dont think aftg crosses those limits, it doesn't mean i think it's perfect or an exception to criticism.

i guess what i mean is that if you try to find things wrong with aftg, you'll probably find something. it's not perfect. you could pick it apart if you really wanted to. but i suppose i'm just happy enough to enjoy it without doing that because it is what it is. it's a book about people who have had shitty things happen in their lives, about people who say and do shitty things, but i don't think it glamorises or makes those shitty things okay. me liking the series also doesn't mean i'm 100% a-okay super cool with everything that happens in it either. i am not the media i consume or enjoy.

but it's also really important to listen to people who talk about things that do personally hurt them or make them feel like they're not seen for who they are or what they've been through. i can say that i personally am not offended or hurt by 99% of what happens, but that doesn't invalidate someone who was. that doesn't invalidate other people who aren't me who say "it's problematic for x reason". i'm happy to share any insights into this if anyone wants to send them my way!

maybe this isn't a good answer to your question and i'm still not sure if i've gotten my point across properly. there's a million things problematic about aftg, i guess, but it's just about where you draw the line between the problematic content inside the series, and it maybe being a problematic series from the outside. i don't know exactly where to point you towards to have a balanced understanding of why it might be okay vs not okay. i'd just say to keep an open mind and listen to what people say when they raise their concerns about it.

[ardentpoop]

one of the most unserious yet still somehow maddening things that many DC shippers do is the whole “omg dean becomes unable 2 function when cas dead but when sam dead he is fine”

firstly bc it is so emblematic of the problems with “one true pairing” culture (boring, nuance-averse, character-illiterate, ignorant to the complexities of human relationships irl, unaccepting of any fan interpretation that doesn’t uphold traditional idealized monogamy as the end-all be-all) and secondly because it is not even a little bit true abt this particular story and in fact the complete opposite is consistently demonstrated throughout the show. samndean are in their own special tier of relationship; everything else you want to play with has to fit around that if you care at all about respecting/reflecting canon characterization.

sorry that you don’t find fictional relationships interesting if you can’t picture the characters sucking and fucking but you’re depriving yourself of genuinely one of the most interesting sibling relationships in the history of american TV. and well. there are options available to you. if you Require the latter element to care about it.

[ruvviks]

All That's Left follows two journalists and their friends in post-apocalyptic United States as they travel from the fallen east coast megalopolis Opportunity back to Los Angeles, crossing through a harsh wasteland overrun with zombies— only to find out that there is a lot more life left than what the protected cities want them to believe. On their journey they meet dozens of people living their lives as peaceful as possible away from military forces, corporations, and corrupt governments; and they learn that the same mutated ghouls that took down Opportunity are spreading rapidly through the country, destroying everything in their path. Will this finally be the end of the world as we know it?

taglist (opt in/out)

@shellibisshe, @florbelles, @ncytiri, @hibernationsuit, @stars-of-the-heart;

@vvanessaives, @katsigian, @radioactiveshitstorm, @estevnys, @adelaidedrubman;

@celticwoman, @rindemption, @carlosoliveiraa, @noirapocalypto, @dickytwister;

@killerspinal, @euryalex, @ri-a-rose, @velocitic, @thedeadthree

[themidnightcircusshow]

@heartofstanding tagged me in this meme months ago and unfortunately it took me this long to get to it because I had a mild crisis over how long it's been since I've read a novel, let alone one that I loved 😅 so this is nine of my favourite novels (not books, because if I included manga/short stories/comics/etc this would be giant)

0The Picture of Dorian Gray -- Oscar Wilde// Pyrrhus-- Mark Merlis//The Scarecrow--Ronald Hugh Morrieson//Unnatural History--Kate Osman//Tunnels of Blood--Darren Shan//The Coffin Dancer--Jeffery Deaver//Hero--Perry Moore//Frankenstein--Mary Shelley//One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest-- Ken Kasey

[broke-on-books]

☕

The live action Scooby-Doo movies?

I did not see this ask until RIGHT now (first time on desktop since crab day, second time since Nov 5 2020 [which was DOUBLY experience since I got my phone taken the same day]) so I'm going to assume this ask got eaten on mobile because tumblr, HOWEVER you poked a bear with this ask anon (as I'm sure you knew when asking) SO without further ado: my Scooby Doo live action opinions

So when you say 'live action Scooby-Doo movies' I'm assuming you're talking about the James Gunn films, starting with Scooby-Doo (2002) followed by Scooby-Doo 2: Monsters Unleashed, just due to like, generally popularity and also the fact that I have actually seen those films. However shoot another ask if you wanted me to include Curse of the Lake Monster in this (because I will if anyone cares and turn this into a live-action scooby dissertation, i'd just need to like. watch the movie first) But anyways where I'm going with this is that this post is about the Gunn movies aka the ones with SMG, Freddie Prinze Jr., Linda Cardellini, and ofc our #1 man, Matthew Lilliard.

Okay so my take on these movies is... complicated. I wouldn't say it's as complicated as my feelings towards SDMI, because I watched the live actions way less as a kid and generally care less about them, but still no matter how much shit I throw at these two movies there are parts that I generally like (even love) that stops me from totally condemning them wholesale. Like the fact that these movies are FUNNY! There's so many moments from this duology that are just beyond iconic "like, that's one of my favorite names!" the whole thing with Scooby in the dress at the airport, ET. CETERA (like I can go on!)

The Gunn movies are genuinely SO fun and I can 100% see and understand how they've stood so well in the public view as a representation of Scooby. HOWEVER, this is where you start to see my problems with them. For the general American, (because that is the audience I'm familiar with) ESPECIALLY millennials and younger, who happen to make up the majority of both people on this site AND people I talk about Scooby with in real life, these movies, and the elements they introduced as "quintessential scooby tropes" are the base of their understanding of the Scooby franchise, along with likely some miscellaneous WAY episodes and maybe SDMI.

Which is where I get pissed off. In the pushing of the narrative of "breaking away" from the Scooby norm, Gunn basically invents (aka totally makes up) an idea of what classic era Scooby was like, cementing an idea of classic Scooby into the public mind that is totally disingenuous and just straight up false. For example, in attempting to portray Daphne as having taken strides to be seen more seriously in solving mysteries and defending herself, it pushes the narrative that in the classic era she WASN'T taken seriously, and only existed as a damsel-in-distress prop of a character, which is just not true??? Like yes, Daphne is clumsy, that's a part of her character, and her friends (because, fun fact, the gang ARE friends) joke about it sometimes because that's what friends DO. Framing that in some kind of sexist "that's all she does" lens is just total bull, especially as gang members fall into secret passageways/get lost etc. in WAY ALL THE DAMN TIME because that's how the plot functions! Like are we calling Velma ditzy for losing her glasses every other episode? Of course not, and Fred falls into passageways all the time, not to MENTION Shaggy and Scooby and all they get up to. Also one last thing on the topic of Daphne, like this idea of her mystery solving skills not being respected by the gang is just so supremely bullshit it amazes me sometimes, especially when she was the LEADER (or leader adjacent) through pretty much all of her appearances in the 1980s [Not that James Gunn could look at '80s era Scooby without spitting on it, but I digress]

AND THIS IS JUST DAPHNE! Like the perceptions pushed towards Fred (and Velma, but mostly Fred) through these movies are just as bad! Like okay, with Fred---In these movies Fred is just an asshole. I hate Gunn Movies!Fred. I mean yeah he can be funny but it's almost always so mean! Almost nothing makes me madder than a mean Fred by the way. If he's putting other gang members down (even halfway, like with his whole "dorky chicks like you turn me on too" line, which... ew) then to me something has gone very, very, VERY, wrong in your basic understanding of Frederick Herman Jones as a character. Like he's the cheerleader! He puts himself in between his friends and danger! He loves nets, and traps, and Elvis impressions, and wrestling, and the trapeze, and cars, and most of all he LOVES sharing the things he loves with his friends! (Sometimes to a bit of an extreme. No one wants to hear about your net facts, Fred) And the live action movies just don't understand that at all. And I know there's maybe something to say I suppose in that some of those aspects of his characterization hadn't been "established yet" by the time "Scooby-Doo" came out in 2002. But it's there if you look. For Fred Jones, being the leader means being the caretaker, (he's the Mom friend what can I say) and any version where he's cruel and arrogant and just DOESN'T CARE about his friends in the way he's shown to in the Gunn movies is just so far from Fred to me it's not even funny. And what makes it even worse for me is that this (or at least something similar) is the idea of Fred that has really spread to the popular culture. Just the "leader", the jock that makes the rules, the one that [insert X adaptation here] finally gave a personality and made interesting (something that has been said more times than I can count for pretty much every gang member, save Shaggy and Scooby).

And I haven't even touched on Velma, and how they gave her a bit of a early 2000s smart superiority girl complex against Daphne, plus the whole makeover thing and etc. etc. The Gunn Movies are pretty much what would happen if you took someone who hadn't seen Scooby since they were 7 years old (and honestly had a pretty negative outlook against it then) and tried to "fix" it, only his memory was so bad he just made up problems (and threw in a good helping of early 2000s style sexism with it) convincing pretty much the entirety of the popular culture that said problems exist and that Gunn was absolutely brilliant for fixing them (and then bringing up said "problems" whenever anyone wants to talk about Scooby) and this entire rant has been without even fucking MENTIONING what is probably the reason you, anonymous tumblr user sent this ask in the first place, to I, Swishy "Scrappy Doo Redemption Arc" Broke-on-books (dot tumblr dot com), which is his HIGHLY SUCESSFUL and utterly sadistic character assassination of my number one man, Scrappy Doo.

And I am going to try my damnedest here not to get totally into my highly passionate opinions over what James Gunn did to Scrappy in the first of his Scooby movies and how thoroughly it has pissed me the fuck off because I have been writing this post for over an hour now and if we start to really get into my feelings on this topic it will certainly be a couple of hours more but like. That Fucking Bitch. I give James Gunn personally a solid eighty-five percent of the blame for making my life as a Scrappy Doo fan UTTERLY unbearable with this stupid fucking movie alone, and just his Scrappy crimes would honestly be enough for me to say that I hate this movie, not even considering the numerous Scooby crimes I've been talking about here for the past million paragraphs, but the part about this movie that makes me the MOST mad the most pissed off is that it's actually a good fucking movie. James Gunn wrote two hilarious and entertaining movies that have become beloved in the popular culture for their successes in that arena, while at the same time pissing all over the core themes and messages of the franchise of which it was based, that of friendship.

TLDR; The Live Action Scooby Doo movies (written by James Gunn) are highly entertaining and fun pieces of media to watch, and are widely loved by the general public and looked at with fondness and nostalgia because of that. However, as a hardcore Scooby Doo fan (writing that phrase sounds so ridiculous but oh well) the existence of these movies and their impact on the popular culture can be extremely frustrating (despite any personal nostalgia said fan may have) due to their spreading of a misinformed picture of what "typical Scooby Doo" looks like. This picture is especially frustrating due to the fabrication or exaggeration of problems present in classic Scooby (such as sexism in regards to the girls), as well as giving more ammunition to other problems in Scooby fandom (such as oversexualization, and sexualization in general, which no one wants to see in regards to their children's cartoons, like HONESTLY.) Discussions of sexism and sexualization in Scooby (both of which ARE present and are issues, although not at their worst in WAY) can often lead to an overlooking of the issues that are very present and clear in WAY and have continued since then with far too little resistance (I'm 100% talking about the racism here) HOWEVER that topic deserves at least a dozen posts of its own that I am no way informed or qualified enough to even begin to think about writing. The Gunn Movies are frustrating to many longtime Scooby fans because of these reasons, but for me, and fellow Scrappy Doo fans there is also the added aspect of the demonization of Scrappy Doo in the live action movies and the affects that has had on the popular culture as well, making it uniquely inhospitable to like or enjoy the character of Scrappy. End post.

[dykeomania]

i’m also really sorry but continuing to actively promote a brand or a franchise that is notably guilty and complicit and even exploitative of what’s happening in palestine not even just financially but promotionally (continuing to write for said franchise, continuing to repost things relating to said franchise, at all) is morally counterproductive and contradictory and i just have to say that because i feel like no one else is going to

[lovelyamneris]

something about “coming back different” but instead it’s “finding them again but they’re someone else” and specifically with my ocs lol!! you died an actor and now all of a sudden your character is standing in front of me but he’s the villain and you were the kindest person I ever knew. and he’ll never be you but he has your face and he was such a huge part of you and I miss you so badly. and maybe it’s close enough.

[devotedlystrangewizard]

black sails is still so insane like yeah! here you go! fun pirate show! heres the utter torment that is being queer in this time period. heres several episodes setting up an m - f - m love triangle before they reveal it was far FAR more complicated than that. here are lesbians. everyone fucking sucks. have fun

[timeisacephalopod]

I've kinda seen some pushback to the idea of representation in media and I don't necessarily think it's bad to point out actual rights are more important than Disney's thousandth first gay character that's fine, but I've had a LOT of people comment on my works about asexual characters and tell me what I wrote changed their life-and it's always that phrase- because they now have the language to describe what they feel. I've had people who ARENT ace or aro comment that what I wrote finally made a concept they didn't understand make sense, or that the way I explained things was interesting and enlightening and I'm kind of a mediocre writer who hasn't written anything in ages.

Like idk, if reading something from a writer who is fucking around and only somewhat talented can genuinely impact someone because they've not seen anything like them reflected back at them in life or media I don't think pushing for representation in media is as "needless" as some people seem to think and caring about that doesn't mean you don't care about more "important" (although if you think seeing people like you in media ISNT important it's because you already have that representation or are privileged enough to not care if you do, in which case maybe pipe down) stuff. Hell, I even got a Facebook message ages ago from someone who found a comment I left in an ace group about QPR's and what they meant to me and how I perceived them and the person no joke said what I wrote two years before they even found it changed their life forever because they finally knew what kind of relationship they actually wanted.

So like sure, of course there's always bigger fish to fry them diversity in media (you know, like diversity in real life lol) but I don't think it's as frivolous as some people are beginning to act like it is. At least not if you're an aspec person it's not, I STILL don't see ace characters almost ever and I'll bet my whole everything if I asked a writer of a show why they'd tell me that EVERYONE has to be in a sexual relationship and characters that aren't won't sell and are boring- I say this because in film school I had a teacher TELL ME every character needed to basically be sex obsessed and when I pointed out a GREAT MANY CHARACTERS are not revolved around sex (Supernatural stars two brothers, I pointed out) and when she asked if I had love interests I was like ??? That doesn't matter- using my aforementioned supernatural example almost all their love interests die or get mind wiped because at the end of the day that's not what the story was about. So actually I think writers who act like that teacher need like 50 reality checks, and representation in stories isn't unimportant and also support indie writers you'll probably find more funky shit there then Disney anyway lmao.

And also even the asexual characters I DO see in media don't remind me at all of myself even if I appreciate the effort, but they never feel real or genuine and their sexuality doesn't get a lot of exploration so 🤷🏻‍♀️ I actually could use more media focused on characters that I can genuinely see my sexuality reflected in in a meaningful and narratively impactful way because I've got nothing.

[variousqueerthings]

who's the black dwncompanion???? i'm genuinely curious bc i've only seen pics/news about that blonde girl that looks vaguely like rose

i didn't seeya there. yeah, I got corrected, yasmin finney is playing rose tyler (in some way, we shall seeee), so not the new companion. new companion is... yeah... looks vaguely like rose. lol

[metalcorebarbie]

i do find it so baffling and weird when people start defending fictional characters like they are real people, like, i genuinely do not get the point?

[weedle-testaburger]

You know, since it's Pride Month (and also I miss them), I feel like reminding everyone how fucking important Ruby and Sapphire were.

The way they were both unambiguously conceived as queer characters and let the writers make an established character queer retroactively. The fact that as soon as they share the screen, they immediately show how in love they are, without any ambiguity to please the censors, and they do that almost every episode they're in.

How their relationship isn't always 100% perfect, and they do conflict and fall out, but make up in the end because they genuinely love each other. How they were allowed to be iconic parts of the show, not just through being the focus of two of its most famous songs (Stronger Than You and Here Comes A Thought) but also through the book version of The Answer.

The fact they got the first gay kiss...

...and the first gay wedding in the history of kid's TV.

The way their reception showed networks that yes, people do enjoy media with queer characters, and so they contributed to many other series with prominent LGBTQ characters getting greenlit.

I honestly don't think it's exaggerating to say they're among the most important queer characters in the history of fiction for all that. And people need to say it more, and demand stuff like them more.

[tearlessrain]

please help me- i used to be pretty smart but i’m having so much trouble grasping the concept of diegetic vs non-diegetic bdsm!

gfkjldghfd okay first of all I'm sorry for the confusion, if you're not finding anything on the phrase it's because I made it up and absolutely nobody but me ever uses it, but I haven't found a better way to express what I'm trying to say so I keep using it. but now you've given me an excuse to ramble on about some shit that is only relevant to me and my deeply inefficient way of talking and by god I'm going to take it.

SO. the way diegetic and non-diegetic are normally used is to talk about music and sound design in movies/tv shows. in case you aren't familiar with that concept, here's a rundown:

diegetic sound is sound that happens within the world of the movie/show and can be acknowledged by the characters, like a song playing on the stereo during a driving scene, or sung on stage in Phantom of the Opera. it's also most other sounds that happen in a movie, like the sounds of traffic in a city scene, or a thunderclap, or a marching band passing by. or one of the three stock horse sounds they use in every movie with a horse in it even though horses don't really vocalize much in real life, but that's beside the point, the horse is supposed to be actually making that noise within the movie's world and the characters can hear it whinnying.

non-diegetic sound is any sound that doesn't exist in the world of the movie/show and can't be perceived by the characters. this includes things like laugh tracks and most soundtrack music. when Duel of Fates plays in Star Wars during the lightsaber fight for dramatic effect, that's non-diegetic. it exists to the audience, but the characters don't know their fight is being backed by sick ass music and, sadly, can't hear it.

the lines can get blurry between the two, you've probably seen the film trope where the clearly non-diegetic music in the title sequence fades out to the same music, now diegetic and playing from the character's car stereo. and then there are things like Phantom of the Opera as mentioned above, where the soundtrack is also part of the plot, but Phantom of the Opera does also have segments of non-diegetic music: the Phantom probably does not have an entire orchestra and some guy with an electric guitar hiding down in his sewer just waiting for someone to break into song, but both of those show up in the songs they sing down there.

now, on to how I apply this to bdsm in fiction.

if I'm referring to diegetic bdsm what I mean is that the bdsm is acknowledged for what it is in-world. the characters themselves are roleplaying whatever scenarios their scenes involve and are operating with knowledge of real life rules/safety practices. if there's cnc depicted, it will be apparent at some point, usually right away, that both characters actually are fully consenting and it's all just a planned scene, and you'll often see on-screen negotiation and aftercare, and elements of the story may involve the kink community wherever the characters are. Love and Leashes is a great example of this, 50 Shades and Bonding are terrible examples of this, but they all feature characters that know they're doing bdsm and are intentional about it.

if I'm talking about non-diegetic bdsm, I'm referring to a story that portrays certain kinks without the direct acknowledgement that the characters are doing bdsm. this would be something like Captive Prince, or Phantom of the Opera again, or the vast majority of bodice ripper type stories where an innocent woman is kidnapped by a pirate king or something and totally doesn't want to be ravished but then it turns out he's so cool and sexy and good at ravishing that she decides she's into it and becomes his pirate consort or whatever it is that happens at the end of those books. the characters don't know they're playing out a cnc or D/s fantasy, and in-universe it's often straight up noncon or dubcon rather than cnc at all. the thing about entirely non-diegetic bdsm is that it's almost always Problematic™ in some way if you're not willing to meet the story where it's at, but as long as you're not judging it by the standards of diegetic bdsm, it's just providing the reader the same thing that a partner in a scene would: the illusion of whatever risk or taboo floats your boat, sometimes to extremes that can't be replicated in real life due to safety, practicality, physics, the law, vampires not being real, etc. it's consensual by default because it's already pretend; the characters are vehicles for the story and not actually people who can be hurt, and the reader chose to pick up the book and is aware that nothing in it is real, so it's all good.

this difference is where people tend to get hung up in the discourse, from what I've observed. which is why I started using this phrasing, because I think it's very crucial to be able to differentiate which one you're talking about if you try to have a conversation with someone about the portrayal of bdsm in media. it would also, frankly, be useful for tagging, because sometimes when you're in the mood for non-diegetic bodice ripper shit you'd call the police over in real life, it can get really annoying to read paragraphs of negotiation and check-ins that break the illusion of the scene and so on, and the opposite can be jarring too.

it's very possible to blur these together the same way Phantom of the Opera blurs its diegetic and non-diegetic music as well. this leaves you even more open to being misunderstood by people reading in bad faith, but it can also be really fun to play with. @not-poignant writes fantastic fanfic, novels, and original serials on ao3 that pull this off really well, if you're okay with some dark shit in your fiction I would highly recommend their work. some of it does get really fucking dark in places though, just like. be advised. read the tags and all that.

but yeah, spontaneous writer plug aside, that's what I mean.

[nekhcore]

HEY YOU!

Yeah, you! Are you trans? Do you like reading books? Or watching movies?

Do you like media about trans men/transmasculine characters but don't know where to find it?

That's sooo crazy because I have this little spreadsheet I'm working on where I'm trying to document all media with protagonists/major characters who are FTM or transmasculine.

The spreadsheet currently has 300+ entries spread across the following categories:

Books

Manga

Memoirs and non-fiction

Movies

TV Shows

Graphic novels / Comics

Webcomics

Audio dramas

Books and movies are also sorted by:

Which character is trans (MC, love interest, antagonist, etc)

If the trans character is POC

The trans character's sexuality (Because I saw lots of transhet guys sad about only being able to find gay romances)

If the author/actor is also trans (if we know for sure)

It's free to use, and free to add to as well! Editing permissions are on, and I check on the spreadsheet every now and then to make sure everything is in order and to clean up.

If you know something that isn't on the list, please add it! You don't have to fill in every single column, but fill it to the best of your abilities.

If you don't want to use the big ass long link below, you can also use: bit.ly/FTM-protags

I made this because I want it to be a community resource. So even if you're not a trans guy or transmasculine person, please reblog!

[desertskiespodcast]

I tried to write a novel. Not once. Not twice. But about 12 times. Here's how that would play out: 1. I sit down and knock out 10 pages 2. I share it with someone 3. They say "It's goooood" like it's not good 4. I ask for critical feedback 5. They say, "Well....the plot just moves so quickly. So much happens in the first few pages it doesn't feel natural." So I'd write more drafts. I'd try to stretch out the story. I would add dialogue that I tried to make interesting but thought was boring. I would try including environment and character descriptions that felt unnecessary, (why not just let people imagine what they want?) Anyways, I gave up trying to write because in my mind, I wasn't a fiction writer. Maybe I could write a phonebook or something. But then I made a fiction podcast, and I waited for the same feedback about the fast moving plot, but guess what??? Podcasts aren't novels. The thing that made my novels suck became one of the things that made Desert Skies work. I've received some criticism since the show started, but one thing I don't receive regular complaints about is being overly-descriptive or longwinded. In fact, the opposite. It moves fast enough that it keeps peoples attention. I always felt I had a knack for telling stories but spent years beating myself up because I couldn't put those stories into novel form. The problem wasn't me. The problem was the tool I was trying to use. All that to say: If, in your innermost parts you may know that you're a storyteller but you just can't write a book, don't give up right away. You can always do things to get better and there's a lot of good resources. But if you do that for a while and novel writing just isn't your thing, try making a podcast, or creating a comic, or a poem, or a play, or a tv script. You might know you're an artist but suck at painting. Try making a glass mosaic, or miniatures, or try charcoal portraits, or embroider or collage. You might know you're a singer, but opera just isn't working out. Why not yodel? I could keep listing out examples, but the point is this. Trust your intuitions when it comes to your creative abilities, but don't inhibit yourself by becoming dogmatic about which medium you can use to express that creativity. Don't be afraid to try something new. Don't be afraid to make something new. You might just find the art form that fits the gift you knew you always had, and what it is might surprise you