#and not even bc i'm not a fan of rachel i just feel like narratively considering both of their characters.....mercedes works much better

[theghostofashton]

.

[genericpuff]

To me the problem with lore olympus and rachel is that she keeps the fan feedback too close to her chest, yes it does "affect her because she's very sensitive" which is smth rachel has said before in interviews and stuff, but the problem is that if u let fan opinions get in the way of ur work maybe u should set boundaries with the way u interact with fan content OF UR OWN WORK.

Im not sure if im explaining myself correctly, but the way rachel somehow always tries to prove criticism wrong and has slowly started ignoring the foundations she previously set is making everything just so flat and boring. She doesnt work with what we've already read but trying to somehow "fix" things that are sometimes not clear on the get go.

For example, u (and a lot of people) complained about how demeter explicitly said she always put persephone in white (when persephone has willingly been wearing that color through the entire series). Meanwhile, i remember having read a post from loreolympians on instagram (iirc) analyzing perse's change of color scheme during s2.

The problem with these things is that rachel has most likely been engaging with these fans who take for granted that she plans everything out or that everything has a deep meaning (which to a sense you should do, because having faith in the author is usually how to go about analyzing storytelling), and somehow it's become a strange echochamber and it results in these weird, very blatantly written to be noticed, details or moments htat try to be smart but are just flat bc rachel doesnt give any effort to anything else aand prefers telling rather than showing so she can feel like a good author when fans obviously point these out

Jdhdjd these are just my two cents and sorry for the long rant but yeah basically rachel should separate herself from the fandom and try to write more objectively and focusing on the narrative instead of taking every little criticism of her comic so personally

Honestly, I can get being a little squeamish around criticism, shit I've had analysis stuff on my work that's consisted of praise and it's still sometimes a little overwhelming to read (I've got a big one in my asks right now that took me like 10 minutes to get thru because I had to keep taking breathers and I still need to actually share it LMAO it's not even criticism! it's just got so much in it, ahfdsaklg)

When it comes to criticism, I still get a little "aw man" sometimes. I recently got feedback from Pyrrhic & Victoria on my Reaper redraws and even though I'm pals with them and know they aren't gonna be harsh, it's still an incredibly vulnerable position to put oneself in. Especially when it's projects that you hold very close to your sense of self.

RS has definitely taken it a little too far in tying LO to herself as a person. Criticism of the comic = criticism of her , and her fanbase seems to view this the same way, that if someone doesn't like the comic, that has to automatically say something about them as consumers when... it really doesn't. If anything their reactions to criticism say way more about them as people than the criticism existing lmao

What's more upsetting and simultaneously eye-rolling is the fact that Rachel goes out of her way to look for things to be upset about. On multiple occasions now over the past 4-5 years, she's snuck into groups containing criticism, attempted to strongarm power away from moderators so she could have criticism removed, and basically just ruined her own day over other people's opinions whether or not they were meant to be read by her.

It's why I stand by the fact that people shouldn't be directly messaging RS with criticism or hate because that would just be unsolicited cruelty. While she should be more open to criticism, that doesn't mean she needs to open the floodgates on her DM's because there are plenty of places for criticism to exist outside of her peripheral. But she keeps turning her head to look at it. Like, she'll throw a hissy fit over criticism that wasn't even really directly aimed at her, just meant for the sake of discussion. And that's where I'd really honestly wish she could just get a grip.

Like, I'm sure there's criticism of Rekindled out there already. Shit, I've had other projects from yeeears ago that ended up being made fun of outside of where I posted it. It sucked, but going out and actively looking for it for the purpose of erasing it from existence wasn't going to make me a better creator nor was it going to benefit me as a person.

It's a shitty reality, but the bigger you grow as a creator, the more you will have to separate yourself from your audience. You don't have to stonewall them completely, many people follow these works for the creators themselves, but you're not entitled to everyone's friendship and praise, and if the criticism really bugs you that much, then fucking work on the thing they're criticizing, don't double down on it or try to control how your audience consumes your content.

It's why it drives me so nuts when RS does infiltrate these groups because it's an incredible invasion of privacy as well as the creator-reader relationship. Q&A's, panels, and personal socials are where you go to interact with the creator. A creator sneaking into a Discord group or subreddit or FB group with the intent of "listening in" would be equivalent to J.K. Rowling showing up in person to a book club meeting. It's just disrespectful to your audience and makes you look like a huge asshole. Have some grace and for once, I'll tell Rachel and her fanbase to take their own advice - if you don't like it, don't read it.

[farfarawaygirl]

Re: your last ask, if Tim's feelings for Lucy started in S1, what's your take on his relationship with Rachel by the end of S2 when he was meeting her father, and then considering moving to NY with her (he even asked Grey how he could enter the NYPD). I remember feeling really blindsided watching those episodes bc we'd had so much chenford before with 2×11, Kojo, Tim passing the sergeant position, etc, and I'm kind of worried the writers will pull the rug out from under our feet again in S4.

I don’t think the network will let them?

Writers and show runners do have to answer for numbers, and the network exec most likely don’t watch the show, but they are definitely informed of what trends on Twitter, what grassroots stuff is happening, and what fans want to see. The same way a writer can’t just up and decide to kill a character, or massively change a direction of a show, they are responsible to answer for choices they make. I do think that the show writers and producer hear what the fans want. Alexi might not be on board, but I doubt he’s micromanaging, and I bet that enough people could overrule him.

But, onto Rachel.

I think Rachel was important for a few reasons, she played the role of distance maker between Tim and Isobel, which is needed in most narrative stories. They like to have proof that the character can move on, or in this case that Lucy isn’t a rebound. Rachel was an emotional palette cleanser if you will.

Tim thought things were ‘easy’ with Rachel, and even though he asked Grey about the NYPD, in no way, shape, or form do I think Tim would have ever made the move. He was already invested in Lucy, and he had turned down the Sergeant’s position. I think that was probably a lazy writing misstep, or there was a cut scene that might have explained it. Tim did want to impress Rachel’s dad, but that was more about Tim wanting to prove that he’s a good guy than specifically desiring Rachel’s dad approval. For me, at least, the push back there was because the dad was trying to call the shots, and Tim was not here for it. I think the Rachel and Tim relationship was an other way to show how good Tim is at relationships. He stayed when Isobel didn’t. He offered to stick around and see what happened with Rachel (Huntington’s diagnosis), rather than run scared. Where else do we this consistency? When he interacts with Lucy post Caleb. When he reluctantly becomes Angela’s best man. Tim is driven by a desire for fairness and justice, and once you’re in, you’re in. It’s hard for him to abandon people, or leave them behind. Hence he was going to meet Rachel for one last dinner and then *boom* breakup and let her move.

I do think that Tim exploring those options, was a final way for the writing team to allow Tim to try to find a life outside policing. What is interesting about that, is that anything with Rachel is clearly clouded by Lucy! Lucy is their connection point. I mean, even as they talk about her moving to New York, she still doesn’t have deodorant at his place? And Lucy’s dog is on the bed beside her? Those are some pretty obvious clues. For me, this cemented that Lucy is the one he is ultimately moving towards.

I will say it was weird how there was no mention of Rachel at all since she left. In my mind her and Tim broke up quietly two days after she got to New York.

[head-and-heart]

Do you agree with what many showrunners fear re: the Moonlighting curse -- that once a pair is together, it's boring? Even Eliza said it would be boring to have Bellarke bc 'they'd be happy and then what'? As shippers we want them happy, but as storytellers, is it boring especially in this genre of tv? This show is a tragedy/angst-fest, so I wonder if making a happy couple of your leads is considered stale from a writer's POV - like they don't find it exciting to write? I'm curious to understand

Hmmm, I agree to a certain extent. Some couples are kind of boring to watch after they get together. But I don’t blame that on any sort of curse - to do so is a writer’s cop-out. It more-so lies in an issue with the way the writer’s are choosing to develop their romantic relationships in the long-term versus pursuing actual canon relationships themselves.

We have to ask ourselves these questions:

a) Is the relationship dependent on the will-they-won’t-they trope in order to function?

For this one, I think of Ross and Rachel from Friends as being a prime example. For ten seasons, the question of whether or not they would get together in the end was one of the largest focuses on the show. In fact, I’d say a significant portion of Ross’s storyline as a character (and Rachel as well, although I think her storyline actually had more to it) revolved around the journey and evolution of his relationship to Rachel. Say they got together in Season 6. For real this time, no more “breaks” or complications … Then what?

Would Ross and Rachel be considered the iconic pairing that many believe it to be (regardless of your personal feelings on the pair, I’m not a huge fan of them myself but)? Probably not.

It’s important to note, however, that it has more to do with a conscious decision on the writer’s part to drag out the ship and constantly have Ross and Rachel struggle with their feelings and milk the hell out of the will-they-won’t-they trope in order to best entertain their viewers. In the case of Ross and Rachel, the entire relationship pretty much depended on them never becoming full-out canon until the very end of the show for that story to work.

To apply this situation to Bellarke, I don’t think we need to worry too much. Because, as much as the media likes to refer to Bellarke as a will-they-won’t-they ship, the narrative itself has never actively strung the readers along in the same way. Mostly because the show itself and Bellamy and Clarke’s respective character arc’s don’t actually revolve around each other. Which means that they can still have an interesting relationship (and an interesting story) without relying on the potential romantic aspect of their relationship to carry them. Obviously, the question on whether they’ll become romantic or not is still there (and there are still many narrative reasons to suggest that it will), but the relationship itself doesn’t function only because of the will-they-won’t-they trope.

Basically, what that means is that Bellarke can develop in any way and their story can still continue. Unlike with Ross and Rachel, it doesn’t depend on the question of their feelings for each other in order to function.

b) Does the story itself end when the romantic pairing gets together (aka. an ultimate resolution to whatever the conflict in the show/book/piece of literature is)?

This is more specific to the romance genre, which quite literally revolves around the romantic couple itself. In a lot of romantic stories, the story ends when the couple finds a way to finally be happy together. And that’s it. And if you think about it, wouldn’t The Notebook be kind of boring if Noah and Allie just got together and instead of focusing on the conflict in their relationship, just let them be happy and carry on? Not much of a story to tell, is there?

But that’s the nature of the genre. It’s interesting to me that you mentioned that perhaps the sci-fi genre makes canon romantic couples especially boring. I actually disagree. Because the plot doesn’t revolve around/depend on romantic couples in order to continue, I think that actually makes it a lot easier for writers to have canon relationships that are still interesting. Those relationships don’t have to move the plot like they do in the romance genre, so it’s possible for them to exist and the story to still be suspenseful and intriguing.

So contrary to what you say, I think that the fact that Bellarke exists in a plot that is constantly moving and changing, even without their relationship, actually bodes quite well. It means that there is opportunity for that relationship to develop romantically and yet never become boring, because of the nature of the story (where stuff is ALWAYS happening and changing, which means that our characters/relationships are always changing too).

c) Will all conflict within a relationship be resolved by making it romantic, thus making it relatively uneventful and “boring”?

This is more specific to relationships where the main focus/conflict in their relationship is that they’re NOT together. Whether it’s because they’re struggling with their feelings for each other, or because they’re part of a love triangle (in some cases) or some other instance where any issues in their relationship that can be resolved by finally becoming canon - that’s what this question is specific to. I think that a lot of couples that are commonly referred to as slowburns fall under this section. Think Chuck and Blair in Gossip Girl. They hooked up and they tried having a relationship but it was never really some solid thing until the end of the series. And then there was nowhere else to run with it, right? The conflict was resolved (and oh my was there a lot of conflict in Chuck and Blair’s relationship :/) so the relationship wasn’t interesting anymore. It literally depended on the constant angst and denial of feelings and fighting and etc, etc.

Again, to bring it back to Bellarke, I really don’t think this situation applies to them because the conflict in their relationship has never been about them struggling with their romantic feelings for each other. It has always been about something else, so if they became romantic, it wouldn’t be a barrier to any interesting conflict/resolution the writers intend to pursue in the relationship. Therefore, their relationship wouldn’t automatically become “boring” just because they’re in an established relationship.

d) Is there room for the relationship to continue developing after becoming canonically romantic?

This is probably the most important question of all of them, and the one I was mostly referring to when I said that I don’t really believe in the moonlighting curse versus poor writing decisions. When writers are writing a slow burn, and they only focus on the lead-up to that relationship becoming romantic but NEVER consider what will happen after they finally reach that point … that’s where they run into troubles. THAT’S when it becomes boring. Why?

Because the relationship has already reached it’s endgame. It’s developed to the highest possible point that the writers ever planned for. They didn’t think about where they wanted that relationship to go after it became canonically romantic; therefore, it stops developing and becomes stagnant.

It has nothing to do with the couple or the characters themselves, and everything to do with the writer and their lack of vision beyond the ultimate goal (a kiss/love confession/established relationship/whatever it is).

This the question we’re currently facing with Bellarke, and here’s what we need to consider:

Is there room for Bellarke to develop after they become romantic? And the answer is this: yes, absolutely. There is ALWAYS room for development. It just depends on how committed to the relationship the writers are, and if they can continue to think of ways to keep the couple interesting and develop it.

In the case of The 100, it’s not as concerning, because the show has typically focused on the development and conflict between characters in relationships that are not necessarily romantic in nature. What this means is that the conflicts they’re used to telling don’t typically revolve around the transition from a non-romantic couple to romantic couple itself. Which means that any relationship probably won’t remain stagnant even after becoming romantic, so long as it gets sufficient focus. For more minor characters, their relationships won’t be developed as much. But since we already know that Bellamy and Clarke are the core of the show (confirmed by Jason Rothenberg himself), it’s pretty safe to say that the writers will never just let that relationship become stagnant. It’s essential to the story that it is constantly changing and evolving.

This is basically my extremely long-winded way of saying that I don’t think it’s really likely (or even possible??) for Bellarke’s relationship to ever become completely stagnant and boring because of the nature of the show, and their significance to the plot.

You brought up a quote from Eliza that she said and I’m not quite sure if it was a recent one or a different one I’m thinking of from back during Season 1. If it’s the latter, that was a long time ago and she said that she thinks it would be better to draw the relationship out a bit more. This is because slow burns are typically more interesting to viewers AND writers and are a lot more satisfying to watch. It doesn’t mean that the couple will never get together, it just means that it’s going to be a long journey. What I think Eliza was referring to is when a pair gets together almost right away and then it just feels … kind of pointless? Personally, I agree that those relationships are boring. They don’t do it for me. I like to see the characters grow and develop with each other first, and then become romantic.

A well-done slow burn (like Eliza was talking about) and a ship that’s been drawn on way past the point of natural development are two very different things.

To be honest, I think it’s also important to point out that Eliza can’t spoil anything to do with Bellarke and she was most likely deflecting that question to some extent. Cast interviews/panels should always be taken with a grain of salt.

also just because two characters get together it doesn’t mean that they’ll necessarily be “happy” right away which means that there is still story to tell

I’m rambling a bit now so I’m going to stop, let me know if you wanted more clarification in a certain area or if I didn’t quite interpret your question properly!