#and it's to your point (people with real-life experience extrapolating)

[jlf23tumble]

about the broke up/never broke up theme; I don’t think it’s reaching to say that they broke up looking at their lyrics and signs. I, personally, don’t think they’ve broken up. not fully. but I definitely don’t think they’ve had a perfect ao3 relationship. I think they’ve had some rocky patches, more than once. I think they’ve fought a lot. I think they’ve had small “breaks” where they are don’t talk to me leave me alone. I definitely don’t think they’ve had a fairytale relationship where everything is always good between them, but I don’t think they broke up. I think that all of these fights and leave me alone’s where intensive, and I think they sucked at communication. especially when the band broke up and they were no longer required to spend every hour with each other due to band stuff. and all of this, together with them both being dramatic people, can create songs that sound like break up songs imo.

I guess I wanted to show that not all ppl in the never broke up camp believes they’ve had a fairytale story. but there are some that believe that they might not have been far from a break up, but just didn’t take that final step, if that makes sense. you don’t have to publish this if you don’t want to, and if this was a really unwanted message, then I apologize!! have a good day/night

I got three in a row in this vein, and I'm not one to just say the same thing and give a wall of anon answers, so to the other two, see the tags! For this particular anon, I get what you're saying--I do!--but I also want this camp to lean into why it's such a goddamned problem to say the words "break up." Especially if you can easily say yeah, they had all these fights and arguments and I'm not talking to you periods, it's not a fairytale, they could have "had a break" for a week (a month, a year) and then gotten back together (because you CAN say that, I totally see that, too), so why can't the words "break up" be part of that narrative?? And I ask because I can think of at least two hardcore break-up points in time off the top of my head, zero research, and I'm sure more out there beyond lyrics. It's not an illogical thing to say, and yet for some reason it is? Like it's this forbidden concept, and much like people saying it's some kind of travesty for Louis to be perceived as a father, I do not get the issue here, why is this a problem??? AGAIN, I'm not saying I know for a fact they broke up, I can point to all kinds of "back together moments," too, but it grinds my gears that so many people can jump out there and say they know for a FACT that they never ever broke up, they've only fucked one person--each other--it's a concept that blows my mind, given so many things pointing to the contrary! (anon, I love you, please never apologize, I always want your messages, you can even DM me if it's easier, hope you're having a good day/night, too!)

[bloggingboutburgers]

I was reading through some of the recent asks on this blog, and I was reminded of this time a couple months back when I was explaining to my brother (who knows jack shit about ace stuff) how I feel like I’ve learned how to put myself in an allo perspective out of necessity, and how it stings when he acts like sex appeal is the singular reason someone might enjoy something.

He seemed a bit offended. He told me that he believes that, as an allosexual, he could never understand an ace perspective, just as he could never understand a female or transgender perspective, and thus he felt it would be disrespectful to assume otherwise.

And like… sure. You don’t know what it’s like being aroace in a world that constantly conflates and centers romantic and sexual relationships, but is it really that hard to imagine how an ace person might feel about something? Maybe I’m just biased, but extrapolating the way you feel about people you don’t find sexually attractive to everyone doesn’t seem like a very complicated thought exercise.

I love my brother, but he can be real insensitive, especially when it comes to my asexuality. I don’t think I’d personally call him an aphobe, but he definitely has internalized aphobia that he’s doing nothing to fix.

To be honest, I think the main issue here is accepting you'll never truly understand vs assuming everyone thinks like you by default... It's not the same thing. Sure, it's fair to consider that it would be disrespectful to assume you'll ever understand such a unique life experience that you don't share... But that has nothing to do with acting like your own experience is the only one that'll ever be relevant, and that everyone shares it. So... I'm not sure I see his point.

Yeah, it's very possible, even just basic reality, that you'll never understand a life experience you don't share yourself. But that doesn't mean you can't hear out a person who tells you they live through that experience, and you can't consider said experience and be respectful of it (...tbh that's kinda what we have to do with straight people and allosexual people all the time ourselves, isn't it). If it meant that, we'd still be very much behind as a society. I'm really sorry you're going through that... Always reminds me how blessed I am that my own bros are as supportive as they are. I'll never take that for granted.

[creator-chaos]

Iruma & Kirio as foils, or: Why does Iruma still want Kirio?

TLDR: they want to own each other, mind your business

This won the poll of which meta to write up first, so let’s get into it. I’ve seen plenty of fan complaints about Iruma being “too forgiving” towards Kirio or blinded by love, and I think that misses the actual point of Iruma’s experience here, which is grounded in the way he and Kirio are not only foils, but fundamentally opposing forces. 

(Disclaimer that I’m not saying “Kirio did nothing wrong” “uwu poor little meow meow” etc. I’m fundamentally not interested in whether a character “deserves” redemption, I don’t believe in punitive justice, justice is not even a major theme in Mairuma, and I think if any sort of justice is being brought into the interpretation, Kirio is most compelling when considered through a lens of transformative justice and societal-level questions.) 

General Parallels & Kirio’s Side

We see them start from similar places: most highlighted is the way they are both basically disabled in terms of their magical ability, and rely on assistive devices provided by a “guardian figure” (loosely interpreted for Baal). What is highlighted less, but I think can be inferred from narrative framing, is the ways in which their ambitions are mirrored, based on their trauma/fears. We see in the Harvest Festival that Iruma’s trauma centers on his loneliness–that people will leave him, particularly if he can’t live up to the role he’s been given (more on that when I write up how psychological dehumanization plays into the story, but the narrative is quite explicit on Iruma’s trauma & abuse/neglect). 

Extrapolating, we can see how loneliness is also at the root of Kirio’s choices. He’s been shunned by everyone, especially his own family, for his weakness. His mental break comes when the one person who would “smile at him” looks at him in despair. He explicitly approaches Baal “to look for those who are the same as me”--interesting that he seems to be reinterpreting his isolation as due to his “twisted nature” rather than his weakness now.   

So, both Iruma and Kirio are given a place to belong from a “guardian figure”. During this time, Iruma begins to unlearn some of the unhealthy ways he coped with loneliness (doing anything for anyone for any ounce of positive attention), while Kirio is encouraged to deepen his (seeking others’ despair, pulling them down to his level; more on this and Baal’s manipulation in another essay). 

Moving on, we can see how Iruma is antithetical to Kirio’s ambitions. Iruma is evidence that people can resist despair. He needs to make Iruma despair–it's not just "I want to see people despair and he won't give it to me"--for Kirio, despair is the organization of his life, explicitly stated as his “reason for living”. Kirio approaches Baal for community, says "I am broken," and Baal tells him that he is not a mistake, he is not alone, that the way he is is natural. Iruma calls all that into question. If despair is a choice people can avoid, then his identity collapses. It's not everyone's true nature--it's just him, he is alone, and he is a mistake. He could have chosen to resist despair, but he was either too weak or too twisted (either way, too broken) to manage it. The fandom gets distracted by the eroticism of cannibalism, but it is Iruma’s despair that is Kirio’s real goal. Whether Kirio realizes it or not, he needs Iruma to despair to justify his very existence.

Iruma’s Side and Existential Conflict

It may seem like Iruma cares so much about Kirio because of his issues prioritizing others over himself, but I believe his desire for Kirio is when he is at his most self-assured, and most selfish. After all, Iruma's ambitions are also impossible without Kirio returning to his side. 

Iruma wants to belong in the netherworld, wants to remain by his friends’ sides, and ultimately wants to create a kind netherworld where people are encouraged to grow–basically, to protect and spread the love and opportunity that he was given. Meeting Kirio is his first real glimpse at these ambitions (@naoke666 has a great tongue-in-cheek analysis of this), and also the first time he must confront the true opposition to this ambition. 

Here, I believe Kirio comes to represent the ultimate reality of demons for Iruma. He was warned about demons eating him from the beginning, but Kirio is his first actual exposure to the potential evils of the world that would make it uninhabitable for him. 

Kirio wants a cruel world. Sure, he's not the only one, but the others are adults who have chosen this path again and again. It's not just what Kirio does or wants, but the idea that he represents demon nature. So it’s not that Iruma wants Kirio back because he doesn’t see how fucked up Kirio is–Iruma needs Kirio back specifically because of that. If Kirio really is what he says he is–fundamentally and naturally sadistic–if demons really will always naturally be like him, then Iruma existing in the demon world he wants is impossible. Sure, he could become strong enough to fight them off, but that wouldn't be a kind world. Iruma could kill Kirio, but that would only prove that Iruma must kill to survive. If Kirio is right, then even if Iruma defeats him in terms of power, Iruma still won't have the world he wants. If Iruma gives up on Kirio, he will admit that there are times he will have to give up, and he declared in their first conflict that he wouldn’t give anything up.

For both of them, it's not enough to defeat each other--each one needs to prove the other wrong to survive on the path they've chosen. They are locked in a tug-of-war, trying to pull each other to their side because that is the only way their "side" can continue to coherently exist. If they don't pull the other to their side, then the new world they want to create can't come to be. While Kirio needs to pull Iruma down to him, to feel the same despair he does, Iruma needs to pull Kirio up with him to be able to create the kind netherworld he wants. 

I think it’s very narratively interesting to acknowledge that they are both epistemic/existential threats to each other. Obviously, Iruma’s is the happy outcome, but their desires for each other are still paralleled. In Kirio’s mind, Iruma “winning” would destroy him just as much as he plans to destroy Iruma–after all, Kirio believes that he can’t be anything other than what he is now, and if that were true, there would be no place for him in Iruma’s world.

Ultimately, though, I don't think this is a story that believes a child can just be fundamentally evil, and despite what we’re told about demon nature, what we’re consistently shown is that demons and humans aren’t very different–we all want to be loved, want to be acknowledged, want to strive. And even if you don’t buy any of this, Mairuma is a story about Iruma getting what he wants, and he wants Kirio. After all, Iruma declares that he loves demons, loves the demon world–Kirio, as the first person he truly recognizes as a demon, has to be there as well. (@mx-88 just posted a good Kirio redemption analysis you should check out as well.)

Anyway, that’s one Mairu-meta essay down. Hope to hear your thoughts/additions/polite contradictions!

[bikenesmith]

Despite [Xavier's] previous insistence that he is only whole when able-bodied, he comes to terms very quickly with his return to disability: “My back is shattered, a parting gift from the Shadow King… It appears… if I am ever to achieve my dream… I will need all of you… to walk me there” (Nicieza 23). In the span of a single panel, Xavier acknowledges that he is once again disabled, accepts it, and asks his teammates for help. Due to his previous elation at becoming able-bodied, one would think he would require more time to adjust, to shift his identity once more from “able-bodied” to “differently-abled.” The ease in which Professor X resumes his disabled identity lends itself to the notion that being able-bodied, not disabled, is a plot device. He takes more time to adjust to using his legs than he does to losing them, a pattern generally reversed when other characters become disabled. This smooth transition back to disability implies that his truest identity is as a disabled man.

(emphasis mine) was reading crippled crusaders: disability representation in the superhero genre by cassandra m. nicol a few days ago and was struck by this bit....the idea that charles' "true" self is a disabled self is really interesting. (edited) crosspost from twitter:

the dominant, most objective read is that charles becomes abled, is disabled, + becomes abled again ad nauseam. yet those narrative tendencies have inadvertently created a reading where charles' disability is, functionally, a chronic illness that flares due to outward stimuli.

whether charles' paraplegia is due to physical injury or a brain/psychosomatic/astral issue isn't clear, having been complicated over the years by all the different ways the text has chosen to able + re-disable him.

what makes the most sense to me is leaning into that ambiguity. its both — either mental or physical injury/ailment can cause him disablement. and the back + forth of charles' paraplegia signifies he's uniquely in danger of that specific disablement — paraplegia/spine issues. and those issues happen ALL the time in real-life non-psychic people who experience (non-psychic….i presume) brain damage. the brain + the spine, the central nervous system, they're basically extensions of each other, and are some of the most important parts of your body.

so you can extrapolate that charles has a particularly "weak" spine, and it's likely to give out if he experiences intense physical or psionic injury. and as an x-man, he risks that often.

i also think the "ease" with which he moves from ability one state to another that nicol mentions is important to this. to be clear: we have seen charles agonize over his disability, and especially losing his ability. it's undeniable that it impacts him emotionally. but charles doesn't go through the intense "grieving" process a lot of newly disabled ppl do — the kind he went through himself when he was recovering from his first spinal injury. as nicol points out:

In Xavier’s next appearance two issues later, he is seated in a golden wheelchair and seems insistent that his disability not hinder his participation in X-Men adventures. Instead he emphasizes his usefulness with his telepathic powers, declaring, “I too shall be coming. Though I am crippled once again, my particular talents may be needed there” (Portacio and Byrne 6). His disabled status is stressed through a visual weight of the word “crippled,” both bolded and italicized in the comic panel, similar to how “whole” was stressed when he became able-bodied in 1983. But here, “crippled” is not laden with judgment. It is merely an acknowledgement of Xavier’s condition. This smooth transition back to disability in some ways rectifies his description of “able-bodied” as “whole,” as Charles insists that even paraplegic once more, he is still more than capable of being an X-Man, and he is still the most powerful mutant in the world. Regardless of the state of his physical body, Charles knows that his disability need not impose limitations on his actions; he harnesses his role as leader of the X-Men and his disability is, effectively, relegated to background information.

of course this is in part bc he'd already been paraplegic for years, but you can also see it as him just being ready for it. seeing it as an eventuality, a familiar state that he will return to throughout his life. a chronic disability that exists whether or not he can walk.

There is one more major instance in which Professor X becomes able-bodied. In 2002, a mutant named Xorn restores Xavier’s ability to walk (Morrison, “All Hell” 32). This is the most short-lived instance of Xavier being able-bodied. Only a year later, Xorn is revealed to be Magneto in disguise, one of Professor X’s oldest enemies; Xorn removes the nano-sentinels that had been holding Xavier’s spine together, crippling him again (Morrison, “Planet X” 19). Later, once freed from captivity, Xavier reappears in a chair with alien-like legs, giving him autonomous movement (Morrison, “Phoenix Invictus” 27). This time, he makes no mention of his return to paraplegia. He is in full command of the X-Men, and has again made a smooth identity transition from “able-bodied” to “differently-abled.” The fact that this occurs once more stresses that to be disabled is part of Charles Xavier’s truest identity, and that being able-bodied is a temporary plot point rather than a character trait.

and that raises the question…what does this mean in the krakoa age? does a newly grown body come without that disability? or is it a "symptom" of his mutation? is it imprinted in his mind-soul-whatever you want to call what part of a person cerebro catalogues?

throughout all of krakoa era, there's never been any mention of what charles feels about making his bodies ambulatory. the closest thing we have is the knowledge that he brought his own wheelchairs with him to krakoa which is a solid point in that theory's direction at least.

(interjection from a subsequent thread:

keep thinking abt the fact that charles brought his chairs with him to krakoa…in this place allegedly free of death or sickness he still prepares for his needs to change, as if its an immutable part of him that can resist miracle drugs + literal resurrection.

its so quintessentially x-men that we only get that interesting insight in the backdrop of an ableist story beat where a character is punished and humiliated by…. being dis-abled.

i'm still floored by how incompetent and tactless that whole thing was but that was the same book that gave us hits like kitty's "viking funeral", emma flashing men to distract them instead of using her, you know, telepathy, emma worrying about eating carbs, + other such bullshit. but i'm still surprised it went so under-discussed in x-comics fandom)

via xuân's resurrection, we know that its possible to request your physical disability be preserved when you're resurrected. so this must have been an active choice of his.

i don't think it's odd at all that charles would choose to walk considering his past feelings about it i just wish the text contended with that like at all 😭 but getting into charles' feelings abt his disability is a long ass post for another day.

(i accessed this paper on proquest here via my alma mater. if you would like to read it yourself but are not connected to an institution or library that has access, dm me and i'll send you the pdf!)

addendum: examples of charles’ disability as neurological illness and/or chronic illness

[bakuhatsufallinlove]

Time for a lighthearted review!

By now a number of people have heard of ボクの神隠し(boku no kamikakushi), aka “My Spiriting Away” or “My Mysterious Disappearance,” aka the BL manga that Okamoto Nobuhito, voice actor of Bakugou Katsuki, was involved in. It is available to read for free in Japanese here with a total of three chapters. This post contains spoilers for the ending.

Here’s a Q&A peppered with my thoughts on it.

The Premise

Crybaby Uzuki idolizes his childhood friend Haruto who always protected him, but since they started high school, their relationship has soured, leaving Uzuki utterly alone. One day, the pair are kidnapped by a strange man and forced to participate in a mysterious game of life-or-death.

How is Okamoto involved?

Okamoto is credited for the 原案 (gen’an). A corollary industry term in English would be “original idea” or possibly “scenario.” In my experience with comics, this suggests he created the characters and premise, then wrote the concept out and submitted it to a second party to be fleshed out for full production.

The script is credited to Production Beijyu (プロダクションベイジュ), a company who offers a variety of production and promotion services with a focus on editing and proofreading books, magazines, manga, and anime.

The manga—so the artwork and all of its production—is credited to 戸真伊まい, a name I can only guess is read as Tomai Mai, which sure sounds like a pen name and doesn’t appear to be linked to any other published work. This could be for a lot of reasons; the artist might be totally new or they might have worked in other genres and chose a unique pen-name for BL, but the only thing I found attached to this name online was their Twitter account.

How’d it get made, anyway?

As far as I can tell, Okamoto must have personally reached out to Beijyu and applied for their services to help make his idea a real thing. Beijyu gear themselves towards small, independent artists and authors, especially those who haven’t debuted with a magazine or printed publication yet.

For those unaware, manga is a massive industry in Japan, and it can be extremely difficult to get your foot in the door. Many creators talk about having their concepts rejected repeatedly by magazine after magazine, or getting a single one-shot published and then struggling to keep the momentum. There’s a reason all of the huge Shounen Jump creators talk about the intense pressure to keep their work popular and to avoid getting dropped from publication by any means necessary.

Boku no Kamikakushi is available for free and I haven’t heard of any plans for a physical release. To be honest, this suggests to me that Okamoto genuinely wanted to get his story made regardless of profitability—he isn’t just a celebrity attaching his name to a series for attention. There wasn’t some industry demand or opportunity that he took advantage of for professional gain, he must have been the one to initiate this endeavor, and honestly, good for him.

Is it really bkdk?

Nah. I will grant you that the tropes at play certainly reveal Okamoto’s tastes, and we sure could extrapolate about his feelings on bkdk from those tastes. But beyond the similarities in backstory, base themes, and design aesthetic that people have pointed out, the couple have very little in common with bkdk, and in fact, the way they diverge is kind of hilariously shocking??

Okay, fine. What’s their deal, then?

Uzuki is a yandere rich boy who likes to get choked. Haruto is honestly a hapless, horny victim in all this.

What!?

Yeah. The “mastermind” behind the kidnapping is Uzuki himself, who staged the whole thing with his butler. Basically, their high school classmates tease Haruto for being associated with Uzuki, the son of the richest noble in town; Haruto resents it so he distances himself from Uzuki and rejects him. Uzuki ends up lonely with no friends and missing Haruto, so he stages his own kidnapping and puts them both in the “death game” as a way to force Haruto to remember his childhood promise to protect Uzuki as his hero.

That’s insane???

YES. IT IS ABSOLUTELY INSANE.

It’s especially funny because the parameters of the death game don’t technically require them to have sex or get intimate, Uzuki is just a fucking freak and Haruto is confused by his own horniness and goes along with it. The first trial involves a selection of drinks, one of which contains poison, and they have to keep choosing one to drink from until someone dies. Haruto ends up poisoned, and Uzuki uses his prize (“one wish”) as the winner to get the antidote and save him, of course passing it to Haruto via full-on mouth kiss.

Haruto has a gay crisis about it.

The second game: whoever raises the other person’s heart rate to 130 beats per minute first wins, and the person with the elevated heart rate dies. Haruto’s heart rate spikes from aftereffects of the poison, and Uzuki’s solution is… for Haruto to choke him… on the bed they woke up on… so his heart rate increases as well. And then he asks Haruto to kiss him, too, and they just start making out until Uzuki’s heart rate hits 130. Haruto gets upset because he lost his head and ended up dooming Uzuki, but then somehow they arrange for this death to also be nullified, and they end up continuing to play the game for three days.

Three whole days!?!

THREE DAYS! This kid traps Haruto in a dungeon so he can make him participate in weird, sadistic, horny shenanigans for three days!

And then when they finally escape and everything is revealed, Haruto is just blankly confused and has this absent look on his face, repeating that he’ll protect Uzuki. The butler says that Uzuki performed excellent mind control, but then Uzuki imprisons the butler so it can be “just the two of them.”

What the fuck, Okamoto???

Right? And you know what, it isn’t my jam at all, but can we just take a moment to recognize that a professional voice actor who is popular and prominent in the public eye wanted his weird horny BL idea to come to fruition, so he went forth into the world and made it so? And he didn’t even hide behind a pen name or anything, he wants people to associate him with it, he’s promoting it! He loves the hell out of it!

Like, I’m pretty astounded by that, and honestly I respect it. More people should just make things that cater to their own tastes without any self-consciousness about it. Wave your freak flag high, Okamoto.

[lemotmo]

No worries if this is too close to BT stuff to answer, but I was curious about your take...why are so many anti-Buddies obsessed with claiming we're all children? The issue worsened with the rise of BT, but I saw it happening even before that, and I've never understood where the sentiment came from.

It feels like they take a couple IG comments, see that the nastier ones are from younger users, extrapolate that the nastiness is all Buddie stans, and extrapolate that all Buddie stans are also young people (under the age of 24-ish), and therefore immature.

But why use that argument? The alleged "children" shipping Buddie have evidently kept going for six years now, so the maturity that supposedly will cause us to grow out of Buddie surely would have taken hold on a wider scale?

Is it literally down to wanting to believe they're older and wiser than us? I straight up don't understand the psychological benefit they get from thinking that way...

Nah Nonny, I think I can answer this just fine, because this is something that predates the BT fandom and it isn't anything specific to them. It happened when the guys were in other relationships as well. I've seen a lot of those comments over all the years in the Buddie fandom.

Hell, I've even seen this happen in other fandoms.

It always comes down to the "You are too young. You can't possibly understand how a relationship between two adults works. You have to have some life experience for that."

I think it might have to do with the fact that children and young people are easier to dismiss. (I'm not saying you should make a habit of dismissing kids and young people by the way. Let it be known that this is a very bad habit we should all get rid off as a society.)

When you like a canon ship and one of the people in that ship is also heavily shipped with another character, AND that ship is by far the more popular one, it can get frustrating to be confronted by that fact over and over again. Especially when you are convinced that the canon ship is superior.

It also doesn't help when the actors of the fanon ship are happily playing along with it while completely ignoring the canon ship that should -in theory- be more important.

I think that claiming that all the Buddie fans are children makes it easier to dismiss us as a bunch of young people who haven't a clue what they're talking about. They can pat themselves on the back and convince themselves that they are right and the Buddie fans are wrong. In a way it's a form of self-delusion.

Thing is... the Buddie fandom is made up of people of many different ages. I am well into my forties. I have mutuals who are in their fifties. Some are in their thirties and yes... I have mutuals that are in their twenties.

And guess what? The posts I read that are written by a twenty year old are just as valid as the posts I read that are written by a fifty year old.

Yes, they have different life experiences, come from different places and have different POVs but that is exactly what makes this fandom so great. We have so much input from people of all ages.

Besides... what is life experience anyway? In real life I know a twenty-five year old that has been in three relationships while I also know a fifty-year old that has never had a relationship. Both of them will have valid and interesting insights into having healthy relationships, but only one of them will be able to talk about it from experience.

See what I mean?

Anyway, I hope this made sense Nonny. It did in my head, but I am prone to babble sometimes and I'm not always sure my point comes across when I do that. :D

If someone has additional insight into this phenomenon, feel free to share it with us in the comments. But please don't make this all about the BT fandom. This is fandom behaviour that is far bigger and more widespread than that one single fandom.

Have a great day!

[breadvidence]

Today, on things I'm thinking about:

The medicalized model of the mind is more or less inescapable in the mainstream American consciousness (can't speak to the international scene, though I assume chapter five of the ICD has a similar hold as the DSM does in the States), to the point that I had a hell of a time choosing a phrase that wasn't speaking from that model. Whether the layperson's understanding and the clinician's understanding are the same is irrelevant to how it impacts media analysis, which is where I'm going with this, this is about Les Misérables, character analysis, and writing fanfic, what blog do you think you're on. I can't get out from under neurodivergence and mental disorder when looking at characters written by an author whose life predates those concepts, and there are two problems here for me, personally:

Victor Hugo's acuity in the description of the human experience (and his comedic faults in not depicting what I would call "neurotypical" people for shit) does not alter the inherent fact of fiction that you write from your understanding rather than reality—we're all in the cave—and his intent behind the characters' maladaptive, adaptive, and divergent behavior/personalities can't be meaningfully interpreted from the medicalized model—the author is dead, but he also dead-ass wasn't thinking about the diagnostic features of autism, either, or of autism as a neuropsychiatric way of being shared between humans across time and place. The fact that autism is a way of being that's existed across time and place (per my understanding!) is irrelevant. I'm putting aside, for the moment, the way Romantic tropes and symbolical choices impact verisimilitude as a journalistic depiction of daily life versus verisimilitude as the reality principle underneath... Y'know, no, I'm breaking off, what I'm saying is we're analyzing characters, their thoughts and actions, as if they have real people psyches and as such we're gonna leave aside the fun wacky way you can read, say, Éponine's ascent/descent from humanity to monstrosity, which prob cannot effectively be pointed to as a reflection of Hugo's understanding of how people work in the daily any more than it can be commented on as "hey, I knew somebody who did that, the doc said she had an adjustment disorder and that's why she became a ghoul with incredible powers over the plot". Anyway. When Victor Hugo writes of Valjean's eyes in 4.3.8 "they were those deep and glassy objects which replace the glance in the case of certain wretched men", I can pretty confidently say he's not thinking you know, a dissociative reaction, and that's a meaningful difference from an interpretive point than my looking at it and saying oh yeah, a dissociative reaction. To really feel how an author's understanding impacts their depiction of the human psyche, read literally anything written by someone who was a real close adherent to Freud. If you're just bip-bopping along looking for personal significance and meaningful patterns in the book this—don't really matter much, actually, we're not digging up the truth (there's no truth in literary analysis!) of the relationship between Hugo's framework for How Humans Work, In Their Minds and the book he made, we're just doing something fulfilling and fun. Still. It bugs me.

As you may know, I write little fanfics, which means (you also know, but to say it in a way that's fun for me to type out) parsing down the original text into a groundwork to then extrapolate from it in a way that is recognizable to readers familiar with it (sometimes very fucking familiar) (or sometimes readers familiar with other extrapolations from the text [I'm looking at you, Amis fandom], which I find mildly mind-blowing as a phenomenon tbh, just really neat—anyway). To some degree, point (1) kinda doesn't matter on whether or not I'm going to produce fic that makes readers happy, because fandom is about alteration of its beloveds (sometimes deliberate writing against its texts) as much as it's about mimicry, besides which y'all are also mostly living in the same cultural context as I am, reading Combeferre and Jean Valjean and Marius and whoever through the autism glasses right along with me. And yet still: it bugs me.

This matters less for Dammit, where the characters are living under the medicalized model¹, but it's disruptive to me when I'm working with the longer canon era pieces like Loup-Garou, where I'm aiming for a Hugo pastiche and the medical framework feels disruptive. Presumably the thing to do, here, would be to engage with some of the writing from canon era about why people experience outsized bad feelings and fuck themselves over—the root of psychiatry, right there—or to simply go "the fic does not actually suffer from this disruption, you have severe untreated anxiety and maladaptive perfectionism, you dipshit".

Which is a secondary roadblock to the present bigger problem with Loup-Garou, which is that I forgot to write down a note to myself about what the plot is and have forgotten it, because forgetting things is 90% of what my brain does. Oops!

Anyway, out of a resentful acknowledgment of my inability to escape thinking about social-mental ouchies and whoopses without medicalizing them, I will say that Loup-Garou Javert is deliberately not functioning with the same neuropsychiatric patterns as Dammit Javert—the latter has, at root, a history of severe crippling childhood anxiety that he has, as you do if you manage to survive to be an old functional lunatic, developed behavioral management for without medical intervention. He's functional. It's like a broken bone that heals without a cast, you know? And that characterization is based off of the line "When I have subdued malefactors, when I have proceeded with vigor against rascals, I have often said to myself, ‘If you flinch, if I ever catch you in fault, you may rest at your ease!’" (1.6.2—and in general Dammit Javert is more strongly aligned with the things that Javert says about himself in that scene than he is with what Hugo says about him in 1.5.5). Loup-Garou Javert has zero anxiety, he is Big Head Empty It's A Limpid Pool. In 5.1.1 we have "Thought on any subject whatever, outside of the restricted circle of his functions, would have been for him in any case useless and a fatigue", which fandom generally takes to mean he has not had thoughts: for Dammit Javert, he's had many useless and fatiguing moments in his life, he has thought things over, and his conclusions were either counterproductive/maladaptive/illogical or he bailed out before he reached them. Loup-Garou Javert aligns closer with the standard fandom interpretation of those lines. This is 100% because I wanted to play with an alternate take on the character. But that means I gotta somehow explain his perfectionism and rigidity and all without anxiety as a substrate, and I don't—actually 100% know where I'm going with that. Possibly puppy autism. Sometimes you don't know 'til you write it.

No real conclusion, here, just thinkin'.

(1) Lore! In one of those threads that inform the story but aren't visible, this impact Javert in particular—his medical record has OCPD as a diagnosis, F60.5 submitted on the insurance paperwork, and that means his psychiatrist [1] does not have a robust research literature to draw on when making medication decisions and [2] is working under the bigotry against personality disorders that doctors fuck over their patients with. If you ask me, the author, whether OCPD is a correct diagnosis, I would say [1] why do you want word of god, live your best Dammit interpretive life, if it's not on the page run free in the fields [2] I am highly cautious of the entire diagnostic framework of personality disorders as meaningful categories for human experience/psyches [3] without a sense of discontent over his career leveling out early, no close friends or family to push for change in damaging interpersonal patterns, and self-developed management of disruptive behaviors like angry outbursts, if I wanna armchair psych for a fictional character, there's not really something to treat as a medical problem, unless you wanna say that God this man is unpleasant in a way that fits a pattern of social maladjustment experienced by many people warrants medication the patient doesn't want, & so you might as well address his health problem under the label of an adjustment disorder and call it a day [4] all that being said, it's a better diagnostic framework than OCD, if you want a diagnostic framework, given all that maladaptive is consistent with his sense of self and he's not engaging in ritualistic behavior. Dammit Jean Valjean absolutely has gold standard PTSD and MDD tho, someone should diagnose that man and load him down with drugs.

[flame-shadow]

What's your thoughts on: what's the point of the fantasy genre? Why do we tell stories about things that can't exist rather than those based in reality? What is the difference between fantasy and horror?(this is an ask sent to several people to collect opinions, feel free to disregard if you wish not to participate)

ooo interesting

Broadly speaking, I think people are creative and imaginative and want to share their thoughts and experiences. And as wild as real life can be sometimes, it's nice to extrapolate and explore things which don't have to be real and might never be real. Fantasy is an outlet for that.

For some, it's expression, enhancing life; for others, it's escapism, not wanting to be fully present in life; for still others, it could be coping, trying to abstract an experience from life. And I'm sure there are other reasons too, with as diverse as humans are.

Also? Sometimes real life is just boring. Sometimes life isn't inspiring. Sometimes it doesn't engage the imagination. Sometimes in order to emphasize a danger or explain something not understood, one feels it necessary to lean into the fantastical for emphasis. Plenty of folk tales boil down to scaring kids from doing dangerous things like exploring the woods alone at night and stuff, right? Or some stories/religions might be trying to conceptualize the ""motivation"" of some natural force or an unknown source of danger like a toxic gas or radiation. No, the gods aren't punishing you with a tornado, but if it makes you feel better to make up a story, then that's probably fine.

Though I suppose in the case of the natural causes for unknown things, those aren't intentionally fantasy, since to the ignorant, those stories would be based in reality. That's still more like speculative fiction than real, though, so eh.

Fantasy and horror definitely have a lot of overlap, both within genres (telling stories with exaggerated elements) and for their inspirations (reality sparks many ideas). But horror can sometimes be true, while fantasy can't be. Plenty of horrific, disturbing, alarming, etc things happen in real life, and it's more than a little disconcerting how easy it can be to find or tell a truthful horror story (or maybe I'm just more sensitive to that sort of thing). Though, of course, there are bountiful fictional horror stories, both based off real life and incorporating fantastical elements.

So, like, they're not mutually exclusive concepts, but if the fantasy story doesn't have a strong theme of horror, then it probably wouldn't count as a horror story.

Uhhhh, yeah. I am tired so hopefully that's coherent enough?

In summary: the point of fantasy is to tell stories that have engaging elements. we as a species are creative and can think beyond reality, so why not make stories about it? and horror generally elicits negative emotions, which can color fantasy or can be used separately.

(btw, thank you for stating up-front your intentions and that it's a mass ask. much appreciated)

[topazadine]

Why Small Talk Is Important (and How to Get Better at It): A Non-Comprehensive Guide

As usual, disclaimer that this is my personal opinion based on my personal experience and is not perfect, you may disagree, I may have missed something, I'm not the universal arbiter of anything.

"Oooh I hate small talk, I want to get to the big deep conversations right away!!"

Stop.

You're trying to speedrun a friendship, and, more than likely, immediately turning people off. You are actually limiting your options and creating a self-perpetuating cycle of loneliness.

I think a lot of people who hate small talk just haven't practiced it and think that it's always "how do you like the weather." They don't actually understand what small talk is or that there are many, many different routes it can take.

So what is small talk, actually?

Small talk is low-stakes interaction that allows for social testing of a person's values, interests, and backstory, without intruding on controversial territory.

It does not just mean you're talking about the weather or Local Sports Team. Small talk can be just about anything as long as it follows some (or all) of these conventions.

The information disclosed is not of extreme relevance to everyday life.

There are few consequences for failing.

The conversation does not broach extremely personal subjects; for example, you're not asking about someone's traumas, their religious views, their medical issues, political views, etc.

It is easy to leave the discussion when it has run its course with no hard feelings.

It is easy to switch topics and "pull back" if the conversation has gotten too intense.

I've noticed that a lot of people who don't like small talk dislike it for one of a few reasons, some of which are fixable by simple learning and others that need an attitude change.

"I don't know what to talk about." -> Easy. Just develop some questions and apply them.

"I don't care about these dumb pointless answers." -> You won't get deeper answers if you don't take it slow.

"I don't really want to listen to other people yammer about boring things." -> Same as above. Learning a person takes just as much patience and practice as learning anything else.

"I want to know everything about this person as fast as possible." -> Creepy. Slow down.

"I don't see the point in talking to someone if I'm not going to see them again." -> There's no such thing as a wasted positive interaction. It makes you feel good.

"I don't want to ask the other person questions, I want to talk." -> You want a captive audience, not a conversation. Get a therapist.

"I'm too shy to talk to people about anything/I lack confidence." -> That's okay. It always feels a bit awkward at first because you're learning. Just tell the other person you're a little shy and awkward; I say this to people all the time and they are always understanding. Many times, they tell me I am way less awkward than I think I am, which is nice.

Okay, so why is small talk important? Let's look at some reasons.

A lot of people are very private and only share their big, important feelings with those that they trust. This could be due to trauma or their upbringing, or they may just be naturally shy. They will be DEEPLY uncomfortable with someone who pushes them to disclose too much right away, and you've lost all opportunity to connect with them because they're creeped out. Small talk allows you to test the waters with someone so you can get a sense of their values. If you're a good listener, you can extrapolate a lot of information about someone from small talk and assess whether they are worth talking to again. Building rapport with people is not immediate. On average, it takes about 50 hours of interaction to turn someone from an acquaintance to a real friend, though mileage will vary; some very closed-off people will take even longer than this. Again, you can't speedrun friendships. Starting small and building up is how to create friendships, not barging in. Keeping things small at first lets the other person sniff you out, so to speak, and assess whether they feel safe around you. Again, "big" conversations often involve more controversial opinions, more vulnerable admissions, and more emtionally-charged interactions. You need to create a sense of safety before you do this. You have no idea who this person is. If you jump into deeper conversations right away, they may use any information against you if you have mutual acquaintances, or straight up mock you to your face.

Alright, so now we know what it is (not just weather talk, though that is common), and now we need some starter prompts. Consider any or all of these as relevant. Small talk is often very situation-dependent so not all of these will apply to every circumstance; you need to go through the options and figure out which one will work best with who you are speaking with, where you both are, etc.

Start with a compliment: "I like your [hair, shoes, bag, tattoo, coat, dress, nails]." If they are receptive, ask them a bit about it. Many people will share unprompted. "Have you been coming to [x place] long?" "What do you do for work?" followed by "What do you like about it?" "I've been looking for [x thing: service, merchandise, whatever]. Do you have any recommendations?" "It's been so [cold, hot, rainy, dry, etc]. Do you like this kind of weather?" "Do you have any fun plans this weekend?" (Note: it's important to make it clear you're not hitting on them, unless you are I suppose. Adding the "fun plans" implies you're assuming they do have plans that don't involve you, whereas just saying "do you have plans" might suggest that you're trying to make plans with them.) "Oh, you just got back from [x place]? What was it like? Do you have recommendations?" "What do you like to do in your free time?" (If you're at some sort of event or tour or whatever etc): "Do you do this kind of thing often? What's your favorite [place, version, type, etc]?" and if they haven't done it: "Oh, what made you decide to give it a whirl?" "Did you grow up around here?" (Note: it is important not to just ask "oh where are you from" especially if someone is BIPOC. Asking it that way may feel like you are stereotyping them or assuming they are a foreigner, which can be insulting. Asking if they grew up around there implies familiarity and belonging. You should consider asking it this way even if they have a noticeable accent. Don't assume you know where they are from.) If they say they did not, you can ask them what brought them to X Place, whether they like it more or less than where they grew up, etc.

The funny thing is that the people who are best at small talk are actually not doing a lot of the talking. I've been told that I am great at small talk, but it's not because I'm actually saying much myself: I just ask a lot of questions and respond accordingly, then ask more that are within a given threshold of comfort and safety based on the other person's vibes.

It's not about putting the other person on the spot but about easing into questions that are very easy to answer ("what did you do for work, what did you study, what do you think about this weather, etc") so that they develop their confidence in talking to you and are primed to share more.

Most people love to feel listened to, even if it's just about something silly about the weather or their favorite sports team. People will really love talking to you if you seem genuinely interested in what they say and ask good follow-up questions that show you're listening. You can often get away with saying absolutely NOTHING about yourself and people will still come away from that conversation feeling good.

Like all things, small talk takes practice. Just give it a shot. You might find it feels great.

[landofwindandskyscrapers]

30/52 Bobs Guide to Operational Learning - A Review

If I had to summarize this book in a nutshell, it'd be: “Treat the people closest to the work with respect, and they will teach you how to improve your processes” Shocking, I know. Bob’s Guide to Operational Learning is a very informal introduction to a framework for how to reduce industrial accidents and improve the safety of production work. Something like 60% of the book is filled with anecdotes, which as we all know are not data…but hey, if it’s good enough for “How to Make Friends and Influence People” they can be good enough for this book. A smart and useful lesson is such regardless of whether it’s supported by data or not - the difference is in how much one can trust it before applying it. Although the lessons in this book seem fairly self-evident. Namely, they are the fact that workers who are afraid of punishments won’t tell you of any near-misses or risks on the factory floor, that starting an accident investigation with the hidden goal of assigning blame is a pants-on-head stupid way of doing things, and so on and so forth. This book is actually quite good for its aim, which is finding ways to make your manufacturing company safer which actually work. And like I wrote, a lot of the lessons are very valuable - it’s better to start an investigation accident not on how the accident happened, but on how a routine workday goes on. Investigating what happens on the days when there aren’t any accidents. What leaves a bitter aftertaste in my mouth are personal considerations. I’m sure the author didn’t intend to showcase what I’m going to point out, but it’s clear as day by extrapolating from the negative space of the stories in the book. The reader has to be reminded multiple times that honest feedback is impossible when your workers are afraid of you. The reader has to be reminded multiple times that blame is a curiosity stopper - that stalking the factory floor in a huff, eyes searching for the idiot who wasted your money so you can fire him- doesn’t help you realize why and how the money was wasted. The above is from personal experience; I saw these types of behavior in real life several times. The reader has to have it pointed out that the information gap between the decision makers and the peons executing orders is an immense chasm. That a lot of companies would be a lot better if the C-suite had to stand in for third shift a couple of weeks every year. But that’s the rub isn’t it. These are all things that distinguish good companies to work for from bad companies to work for. In a company with a relaxed and trusting corporate culture, workers are happy to suggest ways to improve their own work. After all, no one comes to work to do a bad job. In companies which treat workers as an enemy to be exploited, this will never happen. The problem is that companies are incentivized to be the latter by market forces, and are the former only when forced to do so by unions, laws or regulations (in my opinion). See Amazon, who is now in legal trouble in Italy for having tried to insulate itself from legal risks by claiming its workers were in fact under a third-party company (Italian authorities disagree). And so each time there’s an industrial accident and some poor schmuck gets their arm torn off, this is treated as an unforeseeable surprise - because you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink. I recommend this book - but true safety comes from the top. Subscribe now via https://ift.tt/qxJ5v8G

[literal-ghost]

I watched Belle the other night and I have such weird feelings about it.

There's a lot of interesting ideas to explore in the film, like creative expression and how you are perceived when you put it out there. What power dynamics do in online spaces (I thought the concept of the corrupt moderator lead was neat, but of course there needed to be a 'Gaston' character, and that was a clever way of putting one in the story), and how perceived power just through attention and popularity can affect a person, whether it's positive OR negative attention. And of course, the internet as escapism, of creating a persona to express what you cannot in your regular life, and how real and affecting your friendships with others can be, and how special those connections are.

I am all about those points, and I'm sure that tons of people can find something to relate to from their own lives and experiences online.

But

The way characters moved through the narrative to navigate to those points felt awkwardly alien and clunky. The execution of the plot was so fucking weird. I get what the film was trying to do and it could have pulled it off better. The first kinda hour and 15 minutes into the film, I had said put loud, "this isn't bad, per say, but it feels like the movie equivalent of eating plain, untoasted white bread right out of the bag." The plots between Suzu's real life and what was going on in U felt so disconnected from one another, and maybe that was intentional? But even when those plot points converge and things come to a head at the film's climax, I found myself so frustrated at the characters (why in a room full of her friends and FIVE GROWN ADULTS would they encourage Suzu to go ALONE??? What does Suzu showing up actually accomplish to help the situation? I get the whole thing of her overcoming her grief by coming to understand her mother and her choice to act, and the tension of that scene was very well done, but what are we expected to believe comes AFTER???)

And like. I'm not a dummy about picking up on the grief that Suzu and the Beast share with each other. It's very obvious with the broken portrait, the spilled roses, and the glimpse into Beast's real life. But I wish they would have spent more time explicitly extrapolating on that point and having them bond in some way more than "this person continued to try to reach out to me even when I pushed them away". I wish they had room for some realer feeling semblance of friendship to bloom between them that wasn't just the Ballroom scene being shoved in there just to go "hey look it's Beauty and the Beast!!!". I know allegorically that the dance was them opening up to one another, but it still felt like these characters had almost no real basis for a friendship that strong. Suzu is obsessed from the start with asking the Beast "who are you" instead of "why do you fight like that", and I think that's the more important question to know the answer to. And also the one more approachable!!! Like fuck. Imagine meeting a stranger online and you need to find out who they really are behind the screen before you know literally anything else about them. And she kinds flops between having a desire to find out and wanting to protect his privacy, and I guess this is a way of her wanting to connect to this person, but also empathizing and knowing how important HER privacy is to her. But it's just ??????

Anyway, uh.

It was a pretty film. Very cool to look at, with interesting ideas, but presented with a clunky way of trying to explore them. Overall execution left me feeling like I didn't need to watch this film a second time. But in U, Moderators will doxx you in open forum if you fuck up enough, and that's a hilarious concept to me.

[dragongutsixofficial]

I noticed that some of the people that are Edelgard critical are also the types that usually stan evil pretty boys.

Hey anon ! Thanks for your insight ! ^^

 I think I should begin by telling you what happened just after I read your ask. I was wondering how I could make an articulate answer (because I’m a mess), and so I decided to seek the perspective of my dearest mutual @ninadove, who I knew would have something interesting to say on the matter. You see, apart from being a massive Edelgard fan, she also has a 10+ year brainrot on a evil pretty guy from the Professor Layton saga: Clive Dove.

(Don't worry, I know the legend is pretty confusing.)

What are this bad but sad boy's crimes, might you ask ? Here's a list :

identity theft

heavy manipulation

Building an entire replica of London ten years in the future right under the city without a permit

Kidnapping people to populate his fake town as well as scientists

Using said scientists to build a death machine to eventually destroy the entirety of London

Pretty heavy stuff, right ? So, I screenshot your ask and sent it to her because I knew she in particular would have interesting stuff to say on the matter. And she did !

But the thing is, she read it sideways at first and misunderstood. She thought that your observation was that a lot of people who liked Edelgard also enjoyed evil pretty boys. And she told me, “it makes total sense”, and started explaining why. I’m summing up the gist of her reasoning here. Don't worry, this is relevant to answering your ask:

There is a phenomenon of constant demonization of antagonists, especially pretty male antagonists -evil pretty guys if you will. This is interesting when you realize that that kind of character is often tailored to speak to a younger audience, and especially to appeal to young girls. Those fangirls are, in turn, often shamed for taking an interest in characters which are deemed unredeemable. However, liking said characters isn’t bad in itself.

Indeed, the real problem arises if said fans of a character are willing to excuse their objectively bad actions because the evil pretty boy is, well, pretty. But that isn’t the case in the vast majority of cases. Most of them actually appreciate the complexity of the character they root for. Would @ninadove condone someone trying to commit a mass murder irl? No. Does she understand that Clive had damn good reasons for turning evil in the first place (his parents and most people in his apartment building were killed in an immoral scientific experiment which only took place due to a considerable amount of corruption, so he feels the need to “purge” the city of it), and that the situation is not black and white? Yeah, absolutely ! Clive isn’t the Devil Incarnate; but just as with Edelgard’s, some aspects of an evil pretty boy’s narrative might talk to people more, depending on where they’re at in life.

According to her, the fact that so many people who were already attracted to evil pretty boys were also attracted to Edelgard's character is a testament to the fact that it isn't just because they're hot guys that they're so popular, but because of the themes in their story, the moral dilemmas their actions lead the audience to, and the potential said audience sees in them. The very fact that she misunderstood your ask in the first place is proof of that- it's just the logic continuation of liking a given type of character.

Now, this isn't to say that some people don't act towards Edelgard the way they did towards Daenerys- but that as a general rule, one can't extrapolate what a person's values are irl  based on their personal fictional likes. A ton of people who stan a pretty evil boy will stan a pretty evil girl for the exact same reasons.

In the same way, the bullet points just above list a few of the criticisms fans of evil pretty boys are subjected to:

 that rooting for a fictional antagonist means that the fans would be willing to justify the same kind of crimes if they took place in the real world.

that the only reason they like the character is because they're only attracted to their physical appearance

that there is only one way to read and enjoy a fictional work and going against it is wrong, thus you should feel ashamed/are a bad person if you see it any different. If your blorbo is an antagonist then you should only view them as a villain.

Do you recognize any of these lines ? Yup. They're usually the ones hardcore Edelgard criticals use when talking about her fans.

So, what can we conclude from this ?

In truth, the problem isn’t with liking or disliking a character in itself. People will always enjoy different things -and that’s what’s so fun about fandom culture! In the same way, people are allowed to criticize any given character and call them out on their actions. I’ve seen some very eye-opening posts from some Edelcrits who helped me understand why so many people feel uneasy about Edelgard, and actually made me think even more about what her motivations are and who she is at her core, making her all the more interesting to me. I might disagree with some takes, yes, but I don’t have anything against them as long as they are said respectfully.

To me, at the very least, the real issue is when people cross the line to reality, and start making assumptions about other fans based on fiction. Most of the time, one’s blorbos aren’t a viable way of determining what kind of person they are. For instance: I have seen a lot of people criticize Edelgard’s imperialism and explain that it makes their skin crawls. I love Edelgard and I admire her character arc in CF, as well as her iron resolve to do whatever it takes to achieve her goals. Does that mean I condone imperialism in the real world, especially the modern forms of imperialism? Heck no. No way in hell would I ever support that kind of thing.

You never have a right to bully other people into thinking like you, however misguided you think they are, be you an Edelgard or a Dimitri stan. I once made a post about this exact issue, calling out people who claimed liking Rhea (who I personally kinda dislike) made you an abuse apologist.

Reciprocally, that means no one should have to feel bad about liking a fictional character if that brings them joy. I know liking Edelgard made me a better, more accepting person, and she keeps inspiring me to speak up for myself and others. We should fight against that trend that consists in shaming fans of certain characters. They really do make you better, as @ninadove pointed out herself just how much liking Clive Dove did for her.

All in all, what I mean is that we should all just try to be respectful and mindful of other fans. There is rarely such a thing as manicheism when it comes to antagonists like Edelgard and Clive, and we must always be careful about who we apply that kind of black-and-white logic to.

So, yeah ! I hope that clears up my perspective of things at least.^^ Thanks for sharing!!!

Edit: fixed Clive's picture cause it was incredibly blurry and honestly sad

Second edit: fixed some typos and also added Catra because damn girl

[soundsfaebutokay]

So I've recc'd this video before, but it deserves its own post because it's one of my favorite things on youtube. It's a Tedx Talk by comics writer, editor, and journalist Jay Edidin, and I really think that it will connect with a lot of people here.

If you live and breathe stories of all kinds, you might like this.

If you care about media representation, you might like this.

If you're neurodivergent, you might like this.

If you're interested in a gender transition story that veers from the norm, you might like this.

If you love the original Leverage and especially Parker, and understand how important it is that a character like her exists, you will definitely like this.

Transcript below the cut:

You Are Here: The Cartography of Stories

by Jay Edidin

I am autistic. And what this means in practice is that there are some things that are easier for me than they are for most people, and a great many things that are somewhat harder, and these affect my life in more or less overt ways. As it goes, I'm pretty lucky. I've been able to build a career around special interests and granular obsession. My main gig at the moment is explaining superhero comics continuity and publishing history for which work I am somehow paid in actual legal currency—which is both a triumph of the frivolous in an era of the frantically pragmatic, and a job that's really singularly suited to my strengths and also to my idiosyncrasies.

I like comics. I like stories in general, because they make sense to me in ways that the rest of the world and my own mind often don't. Self-knowledge is not an intuitive thing for me. What sense of self I have, I've built gradually and laboriously and mostly through long-term pattern recognition. For decades, I didn't even really have a self-image. If you'd asked me to draw myself, I would eventually have given you a pair of glasses and maybe a very messy scribble of hair, and that would've been about it. But what I do know—backwards, forwards, and in pretty much every way that matters—are stories. I know how they work. I understand their language, their complex inner clockwork, and I can use those things to extrapolate a sort of external compass that picks up where my internal one falls short. Stories—their forms, their structure, the sense of order inherent to them—give me the means to navigate what otherwise, at least for me, would be an impassable storm of unparsable data. Or stories are a periscope, angled to access the parts of myself I can't intuitively see. Or stories are a series of mirrors by which I can assemble a composite sketch of an identity I rarely recognize whole...which is how I worked out that I was transgender, in my early thirties, by way of a television show.

This is my story. And it's about narrative cartography, and representation, and why those things matter. It's about autism and it's about gender and it's about how they intersect. And it's about the kinds of people we know how to see, and the kinds of people we don't. It's not the kind of story that gets told a lot, you might hear a lot, because the narrative around gender transition and dysphoria in our culture is really, really prescriptive. It's basically the story of the kid who has known for their whole life that they're this and not that, and that story demands the kind of intuitive self-knowledge that I can't really do, and a kind of relationship to gender that I don't really have—which is part of why it took me so long to figure my own stuff out.

So, to what extent this story, my story has a beginning, it begins early in 2014 when I published an essay titled, "I See Your Value Now: Asperger's and the Art of Allegory." And it explored, among other things, the ways that I use narrative and narrative structures to navigate real life. And it got picked up in a number of fairly prominent places that got linked, and I casually followed the ensuing discussion. And I was surprised to discover that readers were fairly consistently assuming I was a man. Now, that in itself wasn't a new experience for me, even though at the time I was writing under a very unambiguously female byline. It had happened in the letter columns of comics I'd edited. It had happened when a parody Twitter account I'd created went viral. When I was on staff at Wired, I budgeted for fancy scotch by putting a dollar in a box every time a reader responded in a way that made it clear they were assuming I was a man in response to an article where my name was clearly visible, and then I had to stop doing that because it happened so often I couldn't afford to keep it up. But in all of those cases, the context, you know, the reasons were pretty obvious. The fields I'd worked in, the beats I covered, they were places where women had had to fight disproportionally hard for visibility and recognition. We live in a culture that assumes a male default, so given a neutral voice and a character limit, most readers will assume a male author.

But this was different, because this wasn't just a book I'd edited, it wasn't a story I'd reported—it was me, it was my story. And it made me uncomfortable, got under my skin in ways that the other stuff really hadn't. And so I did what I do when that happens, and I tried to sort of reverse-engineer it to look at the conclusions and peel them back to see the narratives behind them and the stories that made them tick. And I started this, I started this by going back to the text of the essay, and you know, examining it every way I could think of: looking at craft, looking at content. And in doing so, I was surprised to realize that while I had written about a number of characters with whom I identified closely, that every single one of those characters I'd written about was male. And that surprised me even more than the responses to the essay had, because I've spent my career writing and talking and thinking about gender and representation in popular media. In 2014, I'd been the feminist gadfly of an editorial department and multiple mastheads. I'd been a founding board member of an organization that existed to advocate for more and better representation of women and girls in comics characters and creators. And most of my favorite characters, the ones I'd actively seek out and follow, were women. Just not, apparently, the characters I saw myself in.

Now I still didn't realize it was me at this point. Remember: self-knowledge, not very intuitive for me. And while I had spent a lot of time thinking about gender, I'd never really bothered to think much about my own. I knew academically that the way other people read and interpreted my gender affected and had influenced a lifetime of social and professional interactions, and that those in turn had informed the person I'd grown up into during that time. But I really believed, like I just sort of had in the back of my head, that if you peeled away all of that social conditioning, you'd basically end up with what I got when I tried to draw a self-portrait. So: a pair of glasses, messy scribble of hair, and in this case, maybe also some very strong opinions about the X-Men. I mean, I knew something was off. I'd always known something was off, that my relationship to gender was messy and uncomfortable, but gender itself struck me as messy and uncomfortable, and it had never been a large enough part of how I defined myself to really feel like something that merited further study, and I had deadlines, and...so it was always on the back burner. So, I looked, I looked at what I had, at this improbable group of exclusively male characters. And I looked and I figured that if this wasn't me, then it had to be a result of the stories I had access to, to choose from, and the entertainment landscape I was looking at. And the funny thing is, I wasn't wrong, exactly. I just wasn't right either.

See, the characters I'd written about had one other significant trait in common aside from their gender, which is that they were all more or less explicitly, more or less heavily coded as autistic. And I thought, "Ah, yes. This explains it. This is under representation in fiction echoing under representation in life and vice versa." Because the characteristics that I'd honed in on, that I particularly identified with in these guys, were things like emotional unavailability and social awkwardness and granular obsession, and all of those are characteristics that are seen as unsympathetic and therefore unmarketable in female characters. Which is also why readers were assuming that I was a man.

Because, you see, here's the thing. I'm not the only one who uses stories to navigate the world. I'm just a little more deliberate about it. For humans, stories formed the bridge between data and understanding. They're where we look when we need to contextualize something new, or to recognize something we're pretty sure we've seen before. They're how we identify ourselves; they're how we locate ourselves and each other in the larger world. There were no fictional women like me; there weren't representations of women like me in media, and so readers were primed not to recognize women like me in real life either.

Now by this point, I had started writing a follow-up essay, and this one was also about autism and narratives, but specifically focused on how they intersected with gender and representation in media. And in context of this essay, I went about looking to see if I could find even one female character who had that cluster of traits I'd been looking for, and I was asking around in autistic communities. And I got a few more or less useful one-off suggestions, and some really, really splendid arguments about semantics and standards, and um...then I got one answer over and over and over in community after community after community. "Leverage," people told me. "You have to watch Leverage."

So I watched Leverage. Leverage is five seasons of ensemble heist drama. It's about a team of very skilled con artists who take down corrupt and powerful plutocrats and the like, and it's a lot of fun, and it's very clever, and it's clever enough that it doesn't really matter that it's pretty formulaic, and I enjoyed it a lot. But what's most important, what Leverage has is Parker.

Parker is a master thief, and she is the best of the best of the best in ways that all of Leverage's characters are the best of the best. And superficially, she looks like the kind of woman you see on TV. So she's young, and she's slender, and she's blonde, and she's attractive but in a sort of approachable way. And all of that familiarity is brilliant misdirection, because the thing is, there are no other women like Parker on TV. Because Parker—even if it's never explicitly stated in the show—Parker is coded incredibly clearly as autistic. Parker is socially awkward. Her speech tends to have limited inflection; what inflection it does have is repetitive and sounds rehearsed a lot of the time. She's not emotionally literate; she struggles with it, and the social skills she develops over the series, she learns by rote, like they're just another grift. When she's not scaling skyscrapers or cartwheeling through laser grids, she wears her body like an ill-fitting suit. Parker moves like me. And Parker, Parker was a revelation—she was a revolution unto herself. In a media landscape where unempathetic women usually exist to either be punished or "loved whole," Parker got to play the crabby savant. And she wasn't emotionally intuitive but it was never ever played as the product of abuse or trauma even though she had survived both of those—it was just part of her, as much as were her hands or her eyes. And she had a genuine character arc. My god, she had a genuine romantic arc, even. And none of that required her to turn into anything other than what she was. And in Parker I recognized a thousand tics and details of my life and my personality...but. I didn't recognize myself.

Why? What difference was there in Parker, you know, between Parker and the other characters I'd written about? Those characters, they'd spanned ethnicities and backgrounds and different media and appearances and the only other characteristic they all had in common was their gender. So that was where I started to look next, and I thought, "Well, okay, maybe, maybe it's masculinity. Maybe if Parker were less feminine, she'd click with me the way those other characters had." So then I tried to imagine a Parker with short hair, who's explicitly butch, and...nothing. So okay, I extended it in what seems like the only logical direction to extend it. I said, "Well, if it's not masculinity, what if it's actual maleness? What if Parker were a man?" Ah. Yeah.

In the end, everything changed, and nothing changed, which is often the way that it goes for me. Add a landmark, no matter how slight, and the map is irrevocably altered. Add a landmark, and paths that were invisible before open wide. Add a landmark, and you may not have moved, but suddenly you know where you are and where you can go.

I wasn't going to tell this story when I started planning this talk. I was gonna tell a similar story, it was about stories, like this is, about narratives and the ways that they influence our culture and vice versa. And it centered around a group of women at NASA who had basically rewritten the narrative around space exploration, and it was a lot more fun, and I still think it was more interesting. But it's also a story you can probably work out for yourselves. In fact it's a story some of you probably have, if you follow that kind of thing, which you probably do given that you're here. And this is a story, my story is not a story that I like to tell. It's not a fun story to talk about because it's very personal and I am a very private person. And it's not universal. And it's not always relatable, and it's definitely not aspirational. And it's not the kind of story that you tend to encounter unless you're already part of it...which is why I'm telling it now. Because the thing is, I'm not the only person who uses stories to parse the world and navigate it. I'm just a little more deliberate. Because I'm tired of having to rely on composite sketches.

Open your maps. Add a landmark. Reroute accordingly.

[trekkie-in-space]

Straight Fact about Marsella/Marseille from La Casa de Papel and some following Headcanon/Theories ✨✨

- Fact -

- Very discreet, he observes a lot and talk a little, called at a least at two reprises a mute (by Bogotà and Denver)

- Close to animals, especially dogs, love them, respect them, trust them more than human. He is against animal suffering.

- Ex-Soldier, has been called an assassin (by Bogotà) and Hitman (by Denver), killed human, killing a human is not a problem (straight up threatened Denver to cut him in half)

- Lost all his friends during war

- Had a dog during war, the dog was very loyal to him, stayed when human left (That dog was probably not Pamuk)

- Had a dog, Pamuk, very loyal/close to him too, got killed by children playing war

- Know many languages : Spanish, French, Italian, German, English, Croatian, Serbian

- React very quickly to Denver grabbing his arm/to physical provocation was trained to react that way + probably has a sharp instinct, not shy to threaten physically and orally someone

- Answer quickly to the professor order, see him as the chief/boss and obey him. One word from him is enough, do not discuss order.

- Extremely lucky - dude crash a car and get out pretty much without a scratch - I BEG YOUR PARDON ? - the car rolled and all, what if it had deformed to the point he couldn't get out ? What if he had broken a bone in the shock and couldn't dash out ? Because you can protect yourself all you want, getting in a crash, even one you plan, is very dangerous. Dude was like 'I have things to do and nothing will prevent me from doing them' and just walked out like nothing happened. Wtf man ?

- Has a lot of respect for the professor and to his plan. Will defend the plan when the professor wants to take risk but still follow change in plans if the risk is less than the gain (When they fight after Lisbon 'death' and then go into the crowd disguised.).

- Try to provide emotional support to the professor, he is clumsy about it but do his best and tries a lot of things

- Caring toward the professor, with (and I'm sorry but I don't know how to say it differently, but..) A certain tenderness. Like anybody in the group (or most) they are not just colleagues. But there is just a softness with him.

- React to Palermo 'Boum Boum Ciao' the same way the professor does. Seem annoyed, middly ashamed but also taken by the energy around (to crack a smile like the professor).

- Can be very intimidating if choose to, but in relaxed situation seem very kind/soft and not unbearing or obnoxious/showing.

- Extrapolations on Canon, Theories and Headcanons -

- The last hit he gave the professor when they were fighting is not because he misread the situation but because the professor just said Lisbon could betray them (which is technically true) and his hit was his way to say, 'have some faith/respect in your wife'

- During that fight he intentionally took hit from the professor to allow him to unload stress/give him a win. Why ? Because he is a trained ex-soldier who clearly shows good physical abilities, he knows how to fight and could probably take on Sergio even if he know how to fight too. Prior to this we see two scenes. One in a relaxed sitting (the soccer match) where Helsinki give him a slap and he doesn't react badly, he takes the hit and laugh, they were in front of each other he could have potentially avoid the hit, but did not hold grudges for that hit, basically taking a hit or two is not much for him and won’t be enough for him to get angry/escalate a situation. BUT during the pig scene to remove a micro, he reacts badly to physical provocation by Denver after he had to defend his position not to touch the animal with the rest of the team. Even if just a few said something, the whole team was baffled by his decision/principle, it was a moment where he was 'alone against all' and he defended himself in a quick and efficient manner.

They are in a middle of a heist, they are allies and he clearly does not want to fight, he fights because Sergio wants to fight and he probably doesn't give his all but just enough not to get bullied and give Sergio a mean to keep unleashing on him. (Man I swear you're doing too much)

- Definitely have some trauma and problem concerning human and trust. In two separate points, he has lost a lot or enough, and he had been deeply hurt by that (his friends all dead, his animals), probably have some unhealed emotional scars or one that heal badly and one way to cope is to keep a bit of distance + he seems to have a certain discipline/restrain in general.

Second, he mistrust humans, he is careful around them. Probably (definitely) has seen a large panel of the worst humanity has to offer. Probably don't trust easily but love when someone proves him they are worth trusting - which I think is what happened with the professor. Otherwise probably work alone or keep some distance.

- Jumping on that. He completely agreed to the professor as the boss, and his boss. Coming from a military background, he is used to having someone above him giving order and he answer promptly to the professor order or demand without questioning it/arguing (except when it touch to something the professor explicitly stated they should not do like improvisation, then he will argue). Overall he trusts him, might even admire him or have a deep respect for him and his plan/what de does/his personality.

-> I also believe his personality is one of a 'shadow' by that I mean he is his best as close support to someone/something acting behind for the good of the plan (which he does in the series), but I think he thrives in that role. He is a real doer. Dude will do anything that need to be done. like, he is perfect for a second, with someone above him to direct the action.

- Always had a good relationship to animals, now it had become a coping mechanism and a way to have companionship without the burden of 'human' nature. Not that he doesn't miss more close relationship to humans. Nor is it not painful when he loses someone or an animal close to him. it's just he find solace in animals compagny.

- Very soft, kind, caring inside. He let that out for the people he care about/trust. We see him mostly with the professor and above it being his role to care for the professor and all the 'beside' matter and needs. There are a lot of moments where he is very attentive to the professor or caring in ways that go above a professional setting (I'm sorry but when in the latest season when he put the cover back on Sergio as he sleep.. Such tenderness I swear ! or the way he tries to offer him emotional comfort/help)

-> Also the way he care for Sofia..

- Give off asexual vibe, sorry not sorry but it's true. That man is ace.

- Why is he on the heist ? I think outside of money and personal material gain he might be in for revenge against the system. He was a soldier, an executor in the government hands, he may want to fuck the system, give shit to a system that has used him, that took a lot from him. Maybe he was betrayed by that government and the people in it, root for his mistrust of human or just added enough to a preexisting base.

- The way he reacts physically and violently to Denver grabbing him when he turn away is very telling. He has a strong instinct and sharp reflex. But also definitely found himself in a situation where this would have been a life of death situation or overall high danger. This is absolutely pure speculation but outside of his work as a soldier and now hitman this reaction could be rooted deeper in child abuse and trauma, which could also reflect to his discreet and unshowing personality, he keeps to himself.

Anyway this looked like reflexes from training and from past traumatic experience. -> In a way his reaction seemed a bit too much (definitely) for the situation they were in, but also somewhat 'slow' (I'm interpreting too much the acting but whatever) as if he thought about reacting the way he did, nearly didn't but still did because he was pissed off from earlier and had been triggered. So he just decided to go with the outburst, and set his position straight.

-> Being grabbed from behind/prevented from leaving might also be from a fear/trigger to be trapped (the way he place himself behind in the class, close to the door (which could be nothing lol x) )). Which could also be tied to his time in military where his agency had been stripped from him completely/where he was lacking freedom and had to do things he didn't want to do.

- A big BIG softy, but also those hands have killed and will kill again. (in a way him and Helsinki are a bit alike)

- Keeps most of his emotions inside, tend to stay mostly neutral and what he show is just the tip of the iceberg, but don't be fooled, that man have a lot of emotions.

- Probably need a lot of time to open up, but do info dump at time when he think it might be relevant (ex: during the pig scene, or in the car with Sergio after Lisbon 'death') and you're like 'what ?' very likely need to be asked question if you want to know things about him.

- He likes honesty, but probably won't be himself, tend to be secretive, probably a good liar. He will be honest on a few important things otherwise...

- That man way of love his act of service x)

[qqueenofhades]

Hi. You made a post a couple of days ago about how queer historical fiction doesnt need to be defined only by homophobia. Can you expand on that a bit maybe? Because it seems interesting and important, but I'm a little confused as to whether that is responsible to the past and showing how things have changed over time. Anyway this probably isn't very clear, but I hope its not insulting. Have a good day :)

Hiya. I assume you're referring to this post, yes? I think the main parameters of my argument were set out pretty clearly there, but sure, I'm happy to expand on it. Because I'm a little curious as to why you think that writing a queer narrative (especially a queer fictional narrative) that doesn't make much reference to or even incorporate explicit homophobia is (implicitly) not being "responsible to the past." I've certainly made several posts on this topic before, but as ever, my thoughts and research materials change over time. So, okay.

(Note: I am a professional historian with a PhD, a book contract for an academic monograph on medieval/early modern queer history, and soon-to-be-several peer-reviewed publications on medieval queer history. In other words, I'm not just talking out of my ass here.)

As I noted in that post, first of all, the growing emphasis on "accuracy" in historical fiction and historically based media is... a mixed bag. Not least because it only seems to be applied in the Game of Thrones fashion, where the only "accurate" history is that which is misogynistic, bloody, filthy, rampantly intolerant of competing beliefs, and has no room for women, people of color, sexual minorities, or anyone else who has become subject to hot-button social discourse today. (I wrote a critical post awhile ago about the Netflix show Cursed, ripping into it for even trying to pretend that a show based on the Arthurian legends was "historically accurate" and for doing so in the most simplistic and reductive way possible.) This says far more about our own ideas of the past, rather than what it was actually like, but oh boy will you get pushback if you try to question that basic premise. As other people have noted, you can mix up the archaeological/social/linguistic/cultural/material stuff all you like, but the instant you challenge the ingrained social ideas about The Bad Medieval Era, cue the screaming.

I've been a longtime ASOIAF fan, but I do genuinely deplore the effect that it (and the show, which was by far the worst offender) has had on popular culture and widespread perceptions of medieval history. When it comes to queer history specifically, we actually do not know that much, either positive or negative, about how ordinary medieval people regarded these individuals, proto-communities, and practices. Where we do have evidence that isn't just clerical moralists fulminating against sodomy (and trying to extrapolate a society-wide attitude toward homosexuality from those sources is exactly like reading extreme right-wing anti-gay preachers today and basing your conclusions about queer life in 2021 only on those), it is genuinely mixed and contradictory. See this discussion post I likewise wrote a while ago. Queerness, queer behavior, queer-behaving individuals have always existed in history, and labeling them "queer" is only an analytical conceit that represents their strangeness to us here in the 21st century, when these categories of exclusion and difference have been stringently constructed and applied, in a way that is very far from what supposedly "always" existed in the past.

Basically, we need to get rid of the idea that there was only one empirical and factual past, and that historians are "rewriting" or "changing" or "misrepresenting" it when they produce narratives that challenge hegemonic perspectives. This is why producing good historical analysis is a skill that takes genuine training (and why it's so undervalued in a late-capitalist society that would prefer you did anything but reflect on the past). As I also said in the post to which you refer, "homophobia" as a structural conceit can't exist prior to its invention as an analytical term, if we're treating queerness as some kind of modern aberration that can't be reliably talked about until "homosexual" gained currency in the late 19th century. If there's no pre-19th century "homosexuality," then ipso facto, there can be no pre-19th-century "homophobia" either. Which one is it? Spoiler alert: there are still both things, because people are people, but just as the behavior itself is complicated in the premodern past, so too is the reaction to it, and it is certainly not automatic rejection at all times.

Hence when it comes to fiction, queer authors have no responsibility (and in my case, certainly no desire) to uncritically replicate (demonstrably false!) narratives insisting that we were always miserable, oppressed, ostracised, murdered, or simply forgotten about in the premodern world. Queer characters, especially historical queer characters, do not have to constantly function as a political mouthpiece for us to claim that things are so much better today (true in some cases, not at all in the others) and that modernity "automatically" evolved to a more "enlightened" stance (definitely not true). As we have seen with the recent resurgence of fascism, authoritarianism, nationalism, and xenophobia around the world, along with the desperate battle by the right wing to re-litigate abortion, gay rights, etc., social attitudes do not form in a vacuum and do not just automatically become more progressive. They move backward, forward, and side to side, depending on the needs of the societies that produce them, and periods of instability, violence, sickness, and poverty lead to more regressive and hardline attitudes, as people act out of fear and insularity. It is a bad human habit that we have not been able to break over thousands of years, but "[social] things in the past were Bad but now have become Good" just... isn't true.

After all, nobody feels the need to constantly add subtextual disclaimers or "don't worry, I personally don't support this attitude/action" implied authorial notes in modern romances, despite the cornucopia of social problems we have today, and despite the complicated attitude of the modern world toward LGBTQ people. If an author's only reason for including "period typical homophobia" (and as we've discussed, there's no such thing before the 19th century) is that they think it should be there, that is an attitude that needs to be challenged and examined more closely. We are not obliged to only produce works that represent a downtrodden past, even if the end message is triumphal. It's the same way we got so tired of rape scenes being used to make a female character "stronger." Just because those things existed (and do exist!), doesn't mean you have to submit every single character to those humiliations in some twisted name of accuracy.

Yes, as I have always said, prejudices have existed throughout history, sometimes violently so. But that is not the whole story, and writing things that center only on the imagined or perceived oppression is not, at this point, accurate OR helpful. Once again, I note that this is specifically talking about fiction. If real-life queer people are writing about their own experiences, which are oftentimes complex, that's not a question of "representation," it's a question of factual memoir and personal history. You can't attack someone for being "problematic" when they are writing about their own lived experience, which is something a younger generation of queer people doesn't really seem to get. They also often don't realise how drastically things have changed even in my own lifetime, per the tags on my reblog about Brokeback Mountain, and especially in media/TV.

However, if you are writing fiction about queer people, especially pre-20th century queer people, and you feel like you have to make them miserable just to be "responsible to the past," I would kindly suggest that is not actually true at all, and feeds into a dangerous narrative that suggests everything "back then" was bad and now it's fine. There are more stories to tell than just suffering, queer characters do not have to exist solely as a corollary for (inaccurate) political/social commentary on the premodern past, and they can and should be depicted as living their lives relatively how they wanted to, despite the expected difficulties and roadblocks. That is just as accurate, if sometimes not more so, than "they suffered, the end," and it's something that we all need to be more willing to embrace.

[anthemxix]

So... how far did Cia go exactly? I haven’t played hw but I’ve read several fics, and she’s always very... extreme.

hi anon! thank you for your ask!

by “extreme,” i’m thinking you mean stories where she’s a psycho who tortures link or forces unwanted sexual advances on him. which makes for fantastic angst! but that characterization of cia has never felt quite authentic to me.

in the game, she has a roomful of his portraits, like a shrine. that’s extreme. she technically starts a war because of him, which is very extreme, but i don’t think that’s about lusting after him, as people often joke. she says some off-putting stuff, and you could infer that she behaves in an inappropriately “seductive” way, but. she doesn’t really. do anything, like fics might imply. she’s creepy and lewd. i’m sure she makes him uncomfortable as hell. but as for what she does, the extremeness in fics is mostly fan extrapolation.

that’s my short answer! but i kinda got carried away while responding to this, and. um. wrote a lengthy character analysis of cia? XD i thought about not including it, but i spent so much time thinking about/writing this that i’ll go ahead and share.

in my opinion, hw does not present a clear picture of cia, and it skews fan interpretation of her.

(putting this under a cut because it got long 😅)

the story the game gives at the start is straightforward. there's a "guardian of time" (whatever that means) who watches over everything but never interferes. she admires the purity of the hero's spirit. she comes to love the heroes, then to want them. she's lonely. she doesn't want to just watch anymore. she wants to experience love.

gradually her desires become something darker. she doesn't only want the companionship, she wants to possess.

ganon sees this darkness in her heart and causes a split. the darkness separates from her, becomes its own person (a la dark link). the "good" part is lana, the "bad" part is cia.

for ganon, this is all part of a larger plan. in hw, his spirit is divided into four fragments that have been sealed away in different eras. he manipulates cia and gets her to open time gates so he can gather all the fragments together. a key fact: one of the fragments has been sealed away by the master sword, so ganon needs a hero to draw the sword.

cia willingly allows herself to be ganon's pawn because in so doing, in starting a war to force the hero to emerge, she thinks she'll get what she wants. throughout the story, she gives more and more of herself to ganon, fracturing her own spirit further and further, because she is so desperate to claim the hero for herself, to own him. lana repeatedly warns her to stop before she does irreparable damage to herself, but she doesn't listen, and ultimately she...well, dies, i guess. fades from existence. (that's how the original hw ending goes. they added stuff on later that changed this.)

ok, so. we have some interesting stuff going on here. arguably, cia is a tragic figure. a victim even. her underlying motivation is loneliness. viewing it through this lens, the story becomes an exploration of what isolation does to a person. how desperate it can make us. how we become willing to sacrifice anything for love--and i mean "love" broadly, not in a romantic sense. how it makes us vulnerable to manipulation and abuse.

let's also not forget the whole reason she focuses on the hero's spirit to begin with. after witnessing all the atrocities of history, she admires the purity and goodness and self-sacrifice of the hero. it has nothing to do with link being attractive. in her temple (the temple of souls), she has statues of different heroes from different eras, including wolf link and oot/mm link. she is certainly not lusting after an animal or a child, i assure you.

so why does she have frickin portraits of hw link, specifically, (not any other hero's spirit incarnations) plastered all over her walls, if not for lusty purposes? why does she dress so damn seductively? i'm not claiming lust isn't part of it, but i think there's more. she wants to feel surrounded by him, you know? she wants to feel like he's looking at her the same way that she looks at him--with desire. it's delusion.

and holy hell, she's nothing if not deluded. some examples of her actual in-game dialogue: "no matter what betrayals I may suffer, at least I know the hero will always love and protect me." and [to herself, as she's losing a fight] "the hero is still by my side... the hero is still by my side..."

and it's sad. she pretends that he loves her, that he will protect her, because she doesn't have any real love in her life. she doesn't have anyone.

and what's even sadder is that she's condemned to all these feelings and delusions because that's who she is. she is corruption and darkness personified! she's doomed to this lonely hell, to being ganon's servant, to self-destruction.

that's how tragedy, and tragic figures, are defined: hubris. characters that have an innate flaw that inevitably leads to their downfall. that's what a traditional tragedy is.

don't get me wrong here. i'm not saying she had no choice, or that she had to start a war. she can be tragic and we can sympathize with her while also accepting the fact that she's corrupted beyond redemption. morality isn't black-and-white. our understanding of characters, or of real people, isn't black-and-white.

...but. BUT. there is a major "but" here. the game sabotages its own character and its own story. the game opts for the path of least resistance. screw grey areas of morality, screw the tragedy of loneliness, screw exploring vulnerability and abuse and hubris... they sensationalize. cia is a joke.

have you seen her frickin outfit? her character design? she's an uber-sexualized caricature. all those portraits of link in her temple can easily be viewed as a joke, too. "lol, look at this crazy, horny bitch." hell, they even have her say innuendos about the master sword, like, “come show me what your sword can do” or something to that effect. 🙄

it's all very surface level. they don't go deep at all with cia. they give us no substance, only these little bread crumbs of information that i've laid out for you. and not only that, they set this up so that it feeds into old stereotypes. the salient details easily allow us to interpret cia, consciously or not, as an embodiment of feminine hysteria, a woman guided by irrational emotion and obsession, fixated on winning the ultimate prize of a man's love.

so koei tecmo's own confused presentation of this character muddles up fan interpretation and has us falling back on the familiar stereotypes we know and understand. that’s the basis for these depictions of cia as extreme. that’s what fans are extrapolating from when they try to imagine how she might act or what she might say. so in the end, she isn’t really depicted with accuracy. she’s like a caricature of a caricature at that point.

…or at least, that’s my opinion. 🥴