i think ppl can and should project onto fictional characters. that's kind of what they're for a lot of the time. even if in the story they dont have the exact same experiences the audience can still find similarities with them and it's empowering to headcanon that, because of these similarities, the character has a similar identity to you. a lot of writers purposely give their characters experiences similar to marginalized groups to make those groups feel seen.
that being said, if you project your own experiences onto your blorbos you HAVE to be able to tell when the story is purposely making the character a metaphor for your experiences and when the story is. not doing that. just because you personally relate to a character doesn't mean the character literally is your marginalized identity. and it definitely doesn't mean that the writers hate your marginalized identity, specifically, if they don't do what you want them to do with that character.
20 notes
·
View notes
sorry to randomly bring this up but. I think the thing that makes Kenstewy stand out to me so much is how their scenes feel so earnest ? to the point that they BOTH feel like almost different characters when they interact with each other. Like the way Kendall has a hard time looking everyone, even his own FAMILY in the eyes, but with Stewy he doesn't flinch and he holds steady eye contact almost all the time (and when he doesn't, stewy searches out his gaze but let's not get into it) .. the way Stewy never shies away from telling people what's on his mind in a totally blunt way but with Kendall he still tries to be nice about whatever he says.. like okay, Argestes:
first of all, they're like actively fighting and this is how they interact, FIRST time seeing each other since the big betrayal btw
then also the fact that Kendall genuinely wants to warn Stewy about the acquistion.. like he's NOT lying, at that point they ARE about to acquire Pierce and it WOULD kill their approach and he wants to warn him, which is fair enough considering everything that happened.
but then also:
even when Stewy's telling him he doesn't trust him he's nice about it but you can STILL tell kendall is really hurt by it.... like ... and re: Kendall being visibly hurt by Stewy saying 'I don't trust you' .. this is the same guy whose been told 'everyone here fucking hates you' 'x fucking hates you' millions of times and has essentially reacted with 'yeah okay, whatever, I can handle it' each time. but THAT'S his reaction to this ?! in a show where there is SO little space for genuine affection/consideration even between characters who are related or married .. the fact that these two seem to so genuinely care abt each other is kind of shocking.....
133 notes
·
View notes
nothing hurts more than seeing ur fave character depicted in an official au story or elseworld where details ab them r different but it explores the character in a new way -- its good in a vacuum, but u know it isn't the Definitive Version of that character. Just a new exploration (cool!). but because the adaptation brought in so many new fans and/or was a huge success it ends up being treated like its the Definitive Version and all discussions of prev versions are overshadowed bc of it... even worse when studios / execs see the success and try to pivot to this New Version only and never try to explore new routes for the character ever again (can you tell this is about comics yet)
6 notes
·
View notes
The thing about the painter analog that people don't get and makes them hate it is that at heart this isn't a serious horror story. This is pure gore not only for the sake of gore but for the sake of camp. Once I was talking of to my dad laughing at the guy who had his face sanded off and he was like yeah not new they did that in Jason already 🙄 which was later reinforced by UrbanSpook admitting this is inspired by those old 80s slasher which should tell you everything.
I'm saying this bc i saw a video pairing it with Playground and the incest game and while I don't know the second I watched a video on playground once and the difference is that that book is trying to tell a story and say something on top of the gore but the later makes it hard to care. Which is kind of the issue another "gone too far" piece of media my beloved A Serbian Film runs into where you cannot take yourself too seriously if you also want to show over the top violence or you'll lose the audience.
OF COURSE there are exceptions like Hostel, Saw and 😏 the human centipede ☺️ (cocksucker for that movie and it's more serious points, though it barely counts bc the gore is very tame save for in 2) and I couldn't exactly tell you what's the difference between what makes them work and what doesn't but still.
But I'm getting off topic I'm not here to say which media is good or not I'm here to point out the painter is not a serious story that asks you to care for the characters it's a over the top schlocky gore that asks you to go GROOOOSS or laugh at the over the top brutality it presents. Which is very standard in horror.
4 notes
·
View notes
Makes me think of the hierarchy of sex discussion, because in order to uphold the hierarchy they must push the myth that letting anything over the boundary set between "normal" sex and "weird" sex would mean letting EVERYTHING over that boundary and a full societal collapse into degeneracy. That argument probably sounds pretty familiar. People who say that gay marriage will lead to sex with ducks, people who are insistent that the gays want to include pedophilia, etc.
You see an interesting turn of this too, where people are insistent that ANY censorship or limits would lead to everything that deserves to be normalized being pushed back into the realm of "weird" sex, too, which is fascinating, because I think most of us can fairly say that we can, in fact, ban things such as porn of minors (especially irl minors, looking at youuuu AO3!) without somehow going back to the days when all queer art was subjugated. A kind of knee-jerk reaction (mmm reactionary movements) to the fact that our overall society has always pushed this slippery slope myth, and thus the fact that the larger, controlling groups of society will in fact try to ban any and all queer expression as degenerate.
But here's the thing. It's a myth. We can let things over the line without descending into chaos, because the line is made the fuck up. Accepting furries does NOT mean accepting zoophilia. Accepting LGBT+ people does NOT mean accepting pedophilia. On its face that should be OBVIOUS, since these things are hardly related at all. The only thing that groups them together is that they are currently societally taboo. and the cool thing about society is that you can still keep certain taboos even as you move into a more progressive society. in fact you uh. SHOULD keep certain taboos (@ libertarians. stop being nasty.)
When people present it as some weird zero-sum game they are lyingggg to you. It is not a slippery slope, it is a clear decision we can make and a line we can set as a society that LGBT+ people are normal, that kink is normal, that something as simple as furries are NORMAL, without somehow letting the big bad boogieman of "evil" and "wrong" sex in
4 notes
·
View notes