#and the narrative tends to take their side with no basis in why

[my-thoughts-and-junk]

reading dungeon meshi

[albertonykus]

Doraemon Long Stories Vol. 1: Nobita's Dinosaur

Continuing my mission to (re)read all the Fujio-authored Doraemon works, it's time for the Doraemon Long Stories. This series was the basis for the Doraemon movies released in 1980–1997 (with the exception of The Record of Nobita's Parallel Visit to the West).

Given that I've already reviewed all the movies and they generally differ from their manga counterparts in only minor details, I was originally going to cover multiple Doraemon Long Stories volumes in each post, but I ended up having more to say about the manga than I anticipated, so I guess you're getting at least 17 more separate Doraemon posts. All of my followers are thrilled, I'm sure.

May contain spoilers below the break. My review of this story's movie adaptations can be found here.

Without a doubt, this is among the best-known Doraemon stories, and probably a sizable number of people who grew up with the franchise would name it as one of their favorites. As mentioned in my review of the movie adaptations, I generally think it's... decent. One of the reasons I'm not quite as enamored with this story as many others seem to be is the fact that it being the first attempt at a long-form Doraemon narrative really shows, not only from the perspective of the author but also for the characters.

Unlike many of the later entries in this series, the main characters don't set out with the intention of going on an adventure, and instead get stranded in the Cretaceous by accident. The story has to go the extra mile to come up with explanations for why some of Doraemon's most commonly used gadgets wouldn't solve the problem in this situation. The villains are defeated primarily through a combination of luck and plot-induced stupidity. None of these things would automatically ruin a story (tropes are tools, after all), but I've always thought the many of the later Doraemon Long Stories would integrate the adventure components in more natural and satisfying ways.

As far as differences between the manga and anime go, I was surprised by the number of "intimate" moments there were between Nobita and Shizuka in the manga. I tend to be under the impression that the anime likes to milk this element more than the manga, but neither of the movie adaptations had these scenes! Maybe the author wanted to achieve a more "theatrical" feel for this story.

I enjoyed seeing Doraemon spend a page in the manga discussing mammal evolution in the Mesozoic. This exposition was cut out of both movie adaptations. I understand why, as it has essentially no bearing on the plot, but it's always fun to see the franchise indulge in highlighting its scientific inspirations.

Having reread the manga, I've gained some fresh appreciation for the 2006 movie remake, as I now realize that it incorporates some components from the manga that the original movie didn't—perhaps most notably, a nice scene where Gian takes Nobita's side in a debate due to Nobita saving his life earlier. I may have been too harsh when I said that I couldn't "think of much reason" to recommend the 2006 remake over the original; the two movies may not have many major story differences, but I'd probably consider the remake a more solid movie overall for the changes it did include. That being said, I'd probably still rank the original movie above the remake as a Doraemon work just for its unique status as the first film in the franchise.

[cursed-angelic-art]

For the ship ask game and the crackhead ships I find hilarious and interesting:

BingLiu

LiuShang

MoBing

JiuYuan

(I think they're funny and silly)

Oh man, this'll be a long one. Tysm for the ask! I think as a disclaimer for these asks, to get it out of the way; I can't really conceptualize any of these ships without Bingqiu and Moshang still there, lurking. I try to think of just the ship at hand, but the uninvolved characters from each of these pairing are still coloring my perception of each ship listed.

Bingliu

Ship It

What made you ship it? Honestly it's just the antagonism. I'd like to read some UST into it. Also, while I believe Shen Yuan is narratively the best person for Luo Binghe (on account of him caring so much about LBH and about him having a good story), I think from Luo Binghe's pov, he just needed someone to step in at the right moment and care for him. I like to entertain an au idea of LQG being in the wrong place at the right time and blundering into stopping LBH from being abused, leading to LBH's lifelong obsession with his Shishu.

What are your favorite things about the ship? Literally the enmity. Being at each other's throats for five years, fighting over a dead man, does something to a person.

Is there an unpopular opinion you have on your ship? Idk what's unpopular since I haven't spent much time on just these two. I think if it weren't for sqq, these two wouldn't need much to warm up to each other? At least from Luo Binghe's end. He values loyalty and strength. Liu Qingge is a harder nut to crack imo. It would depend on the circumstances.

Liushang

Ship It (Somewhat)

What made you ship it? From the little fanwork I've seen, I think it could be viable and fun.

What are your favorite things about the ship? Mostly just Shang Qinghua finding more stability among the peak lords and being taken care of. Having someone on his side who is explicitly loyal to him and cares about him more overtly. Idk how things fall that Liu Qingge would end up taking on that role, but I believe it could happen.

Is there an unpopular opinion you have on your ship? Not really, because I haven't explored this ship much.

Mobing Don’t Ship It

Why don’t you ship it? I just see these guys as coworkers/friends, but not even super close friends. Binghe is kind of a young upstart/apprentice to Mobei-jun, and I just struggle to see Mobei going for that??

What would have made you like it? Probably a talented fic author. I'm willing to read any ship, and I think if an author set things up such that Mobei sees in Binghe some of the parts he's attracted to in SQH, but in like early PIDW canon, I could be invested. Beyond fanwork, I think maybe if canon showed them interacting a bit more, that would have helped.

Despite not shipping it, do you have anything positive to say about it? There's loyalty, there's hot guys, there's committing atrocities together. I can see why people ship it for sure.

Jiuyuan Don’t Ship It

Why don’t you ship it? I think I just struggle to see it conceptually? It's hard for me to reckon with Shen Yuan falling for someone who hurt Binghe. That said, I still enjoy some fancontent for it. AU stuff can be really creative in a way that makes me enjoy it on occasion, but I tend to gravitate towards canon compliant or canon divergence type fics.

What would have made you like it? Honestly, outside of enjoying fanwork and aus about, I can't really think of something that could be changed about the canon, that would have made me invested. Maybe if Shen Yuan was at all haunted by Shen Jiu's corpse, that would be really zesty, but would also have changed a lot about the story. I'd def read an au about that though.

Despite not shipping it, do you have anything positive to say about it? I do think that Shen Yuan comes to have very mixed feelings about the previous SQQ, and could be persuaded to care for him more than pity him. In an au, I can see this being a basis for something. I don't think that something would necessarily be healthy, but are any of the pairings in this book? I think an au where they're both inhabiting the body together could be a really fun way of smooshing them together where they have to become wholly invested in each other.

Ship/Don't Ship Ask Game

[feelinkeeli]

Cal Kestis and why people say he's a "flat" character

Alright so.... months? ago I mentioned to @ironhoshi I had thoughts on Cal's character development in Fallen Order and I meant to share then in an original post instead of response.

So a lot of people, gamers in particular, tend to comment that they did not care for Cal as a protagonist because he came across as "flat" to them. A sentiment I don't agree with but I can kind of see how other people got there being a long time gamer myself.

I think this "Flat Cal" feeling is a result of expectations vs. reality people had for Jedi Fallen Order. Particularly when it comes to Power Fantasies and Survivor Fantasies.

Videogames often play into the Power Fantasy trope, especially Dark Souls- like games as JFO was marketed. The appeal of starting off weak and vulnerable and through time, effort, and skill turning into a powerful badass. Cal certainly does start off weak and grows into more power but the game's narrative as well as Cal's character development only briefly play into it.

When you consider it, Cal beats very few of the narrative Big Bads by himself. Merrin helps him with Malicos, the Shyyyo Bird with Ninth Sister, Cere initially rescues him Second Sister | Trilla, Vader kills Trilla, and Cere and Cal work together in the end to escape Vader. Aside from Ninth Sister, there aren't many narrative beats highlighting Cal's rising power in a way that leans into the Power Fantasy trope.

Notably, even the Ninth Sister scene gets dismantled from the Power Fantasy trope. Cal brags about how he defeated the Ninth Sister. Yet instead of praise for taking down a difficult opponent, Cere cautions Cal. She's happy he is growing stronger and more confident in himself but she cautions him against arrogance. A warning Cal later acknowledges as right of Cere to make. Cal learns to embrace humility instead of arrogance or overconfidence. His swagger is tempered. He defeats the illusion of Master Tapal not by fighting but by accepting the past.

Honestly, JFO pretty much dismantles the Power Fantasy trope.

Another trope people expected of JFO was a Survivor Fantasy (which I find very ironic now that the JFO sequel has been titled Survivor). In particular, a Lone Survivor Power Fantasy. The type of trope you see in the Lara Croft reboot and the zombie post apocalyspe horror genre (such as Last of Us and The Walking Dead). The idea of a character starting off weak and isolated and is forced to grow stronger and "harden" themselves so that rise above all the adversity trying to kill them (nature or man or even society).

Again, there's definitely a similar basis for this trope in JFO. Cal is one of a few survivors from Order 66, a survivor that is targeted and hunted. A perfect set up for the trope. Except JFO chooses to explore Trauma Recovery instead. JFO is a story of healing both the self and community. It's why Cal starts off brash and threantening to cut down Merrin to handing over his lightsaber to her and Merrin choosing to aide Cal as a result. It's why seeing all the damage on Kashyyyk pains Cal and how the planet hasn't been completely ravaged gives Cal hope. It's why Cal's flashback to his master result in him moving forward instead of letting the past define him. It's why Cere and Cal go through a bumpy mentor-and-mentee relationship resulting in both of them finding the willpower to stand up and fight for what's right. Why the fight against Vader ends with Cere on the brink of giving into the dark side of the Force again and Cal reminding her she has a choice. JFO is about trauma recovery and the importance of community in that recovery process. That one does not need to and should not do things alone.

In a sense JFO is also dismantling the the Lone Survivor Trope the same way it dismantles the Power Fantasy. Of course this dismantling of tropes instead of playing into them, as many videogames do, results in people feeling disatisfied. Gameplay and premise wise, the basis is there but it isn't explored narratively. So Cal comes across as flat because his character didn't develop the way people expected him to.

In reality, Cal's character development and growth is explored through acts of kindness, empathy, and forgiveness. It's about ending self-isolation, running and hiding from your problems, in order to heal and move forward. Cal's story in JFO is about picking himself up and then offering a hand to the next downed person he sees because it's easier to get up with help.

Cal isn't flat. He simply isn't a typical videogame protagonist.

[ride-thedragon]

Why Nettles (Netty) could be Rhoynish in the show (House of the Dragon).

In the small, nagging part of my mind, I had to draw a conclusion on how I observed the show in the lore of the universe. Seeing as fire and blood is a biased and altered retelling, I accepted that the show is just the canon timelime of events that take place during the dance of the dragons. That being said the upcoming presence of one of my favourite characters in the show Nettles has given me alot to contend with which is why, in an even worse part of my brain I decided that she could just as easily be Rhoynish. However, because I am not a complete anarchist, I decided to list some reasons as to why and how it would make sense in the show's continuity. Note here these points go with the established canon and SPOILERS FOR THE SHOW AND BOOK.

1. The Velaryons are black: The show's creators made the conscious descion to make the Velaryons black. While it wouldn't be an issue for Nettles to be half Velaryon with brown hair, I think it would make more sense to instead make her ethincally distinct while maintaining her character descriptions. This way not only would her status as a dragonseed be easily questioned (with the inclusion of a strong cultural tie to the Rhoynar) but it will also be able to allow for nuances with the prejudice pushed against Netty in the books( Filthy, Foul mouthed, Fearless, Brown skin). The actress could easily be mixed or black, seeing as the distinct features of the Rhoynish can be interpreted differently (not with white, obviously) to show the distinction as well. There is precedence for the prejudice with the history of the Rhoynar and Valyrians.

2. It gives basis for Rhaenyra's decisions: a theory as to why Rhaenyra wanted Nettles specifically dead was because she was a common looking girl who could allow for questions on Targaryen dominion over dragons. Another, sided with by the maester writing fire and blood, is that she is crazy and untrusting. While they are all valid points and ideas, that I support, a good added layer would be that a girl, recognized as Rhoynish (accents, look and so on) would be a threat to her. It would also add to the untrustworthy element of her character (folks tend to be racist to Dorne and the Rhoynish in the story).

3. It's just a fun way for conflict: Above all, I love drama in fantasy. The Valyrians and Rhoynish literally have centuries long beefs, seeing as they were the reason they fled Essos in the first place (shoutout to the spice wars). Making Nettles Rhoynish (partially and culturally) could create an internalised conflict as to why Rhaenyra could prompt that she would be untrustworthy. Her refusal to bend to Rhaenyra as an orphan of the green blood but fight for her claim and so on would be delicious pot stirring.

4. Daemon Targaryen: The man of the hour himself. A lot of what makes Nettles a fan favourite is that she seemingly is the only one that connects with Daemon Targaryen. His best moments( not villainous or monstrous) in the material are connected to her and their relationship as it develops. I just think that it would be an excellent reckoning for the Targaryen Supremicist to care for someone so far away from his family ideals and legacy.

5. My favourite part (Game of thrones fucked over Dorne): It haunts my dreams what they did to my baby. Literally my favourite part of the lore was destroyed in the show without a gun to the writers heads, for free I might add and as a BIPOC I want reperations. Currently, Hotd isn't starting off with the best track record with the way they portray women of colour, but they could attone by giving us a cool darkskin Rhoynish girl on a big, old dragon.

6. A Revised history: Baelor, the blessed changed a lot of stuff, and there are just a lot of things we will never know. With the show, however, we get to see the distinct narrative with the show and the inclusion of Rhoynish heritage would draw connections with the biased descriptions of our girl and the historical perception of the Dornish in the show. Also, she could be born on Driftmark with this explanation while not growing up there.

All this to say that I think it could be a real possibilty that could pay to fan service as well as character developement including but not limited to:

Sapphic interations with Nettles and Baela or Rhaena as the Rhoynish are tolerant towards same sex relationships. And more Sapphics in general tbh. Alysanne, Jeyne and Sabitha carrying the agenda on their backs

Expanding the established lore for the Rhoynar in either series, i.e., Nymeria and the Rhoynish influence in Dorne . What sets them apart.

The strangeness in her connection to a wild dragon. Being the only person recorded to bond with a wild dragon.

Physically setting her apart fron the folks in the show thus far.

Emphasising the Targaryen conflict with Dorne and prejudice in Westeros against them.

Showing distinctive practices and cultures in Dorne and with the Rhoynar as well.

Allowing for leaner rules when it comes to the character and sexual promiscuity

Me hating on the fact that the maester consistantly hates on my girl and sexualizes her, diminshing her agency in her own unknown life story.(I was personally victimized by Master Gyldayn and his maidenhead for a gold dragon and sex for sheep theories)

Lastly and again, conflict with precident other than Mad woman bad and jealous of the groomed poc child.

[midnightstargazer]

Why I Like Regulus Black

Regulus Black is one of my favorite Harry Potter characters, and I want to talk about why. I feel like there's a frequent misconception that people only like him for superficial reasons or in ways that are contradictory to canon, so here's my take on what I find interesting about him and why I think he appeals to me as a character.

Just to be clear upfront, this is not:

An argument that Regulus was a totally good person and did nothing wrong.

A criticism of other morally gray characters or their fans. I am not interested in playing the "only my problematic fave is valid" game.

An attempt to speak for Regulus fans in general. This is my opinion only.

All that being said ...

I like morally gray characters.

Regulus is not the first character I've liked who's done things I would absolutely not condone in real life. I don't tend to like straightforward "pure evil" villains (e.g., Voldemort) except in a "love to hate them" sort of way, but I often end up liking anti-heroes and more nuanced villains.

I also tend to have a very positive view of redemption arcs. That doesn't mean I think every villain can or should get one, or that they're all to my liking. But the potential for one is usually going to make a character more appealing to me, not less. I like the idea that people are capable of growth and change. Of becoming better than they were. And I tend to be pretty flexible on what sort of characters I'll consider redeemable. There are limits, but "teenager who joined the wrong side, quickly changed his mind, and then died trying to back out" is very much on the "not too far gone" side of the line for me.

I'm a fan of the Black family in general.

I don't love all of them, but the family dynamics and backstory are really interesting. Regulus is not even the most obscure name on the family tree who I have headcanons for. Not even close. *gestures vaguely to not-yet-posted WIP about these ladies*:

Sirius and Andromeda are other favorites of mine. I love their narratives of breaking away and taking control of their own lives. Regulus's story is a bit different. He stays behind. He tries to be exactly what his family wants. I imagine both he and Narcissa would be strongly affected by having an older sibling disowned, and all the more careful in their own choices as a result. I almost certainly find Regulus (and quite a few others in the family) more interesting as part of these family dynamics than I would without them.

Getting a bit personal for a moment ...

I grew up in an ultra-conservative area of the United States* and bought into some crappy ideas as a teenager. Not in an intentionally hateful or ignorant way, just in a "most people I know agree on this, so I guess it's true" kind of way. When I grew up, moved away, and went to college, I ended up rethinking a lot of things and forming my own opinions. So the idea of realizing you've been wrong, breaking away, and having to figure everything out all over again as a young adult? I find that super relatable. That's probably a part of why I like Andromeda and Sirius so much.

Regulus, in canon, doesn't do that, or only does it on a very limited basis just before his death. But there's the potential to explore that angle in canon divergence stories. It was very cathartic for me, in my first "Regulus lives" fic, to stick him in a situation where he's separated from the negative influences and slowly starting to question stuff he's taken for granted all his life.

*although my family was actually way more chill than a lot of my friends, teachers, neighbors, etc. For instance, they were fine with letting me read Harry Potter.

How I see Regulus

Now we're getting more into headcanon territory. Regulus is only described second-hand; he never actually appears on the page. So, naturally, fans have interpreted him a million different ways. If I'm going to talk about why I like Regulus, I should probably also mention what my take on him actually is.

I see him as being driven by a strong sense of duty. He wasn't forced to join the Death Eaters, but he knew or believed his parents would be proud of him for doing so and that played a part in his decision. When he chose to turn against Voldemort, he kept it a secret from them in an attempt to protect them (that part is strongly implied in canon).

Despite those loyalist tendencies, I also imagine him being stubbornly independent, trying to take things on alone rather than ask for help. The horcrux is a perfect example of this. He didn't tell his family, any friends he might have had, or anybody on the opposite side of the war. He went after it himself, alone, with just a house-elf for help and without letting anyone know what he was doing. There's probably an element of pride in this, but I'd say also a level of distrust, a feeling that there's no one he can rely on and that he doesn't want to show weakness.

I think it's reasonable to assume he shared the Death Eaters' prejudices and committed crimes for them. But I do imagine him as a lesser evil, so to speak, compared to people like the Lestranges. The way Sirius describes him - an "idiot" who was "soft enough to believe" their parents - is not flattering, but very mild compared to what he says about other family members. There's nothing to imply Regulus was a really cruel, bloodthirsty sort of person, and I find it hard to believe Sirius would be so quick to shift the blame for his choices to their parents if he had been. And there are other signs as well. Kreacher said Regulus believed that Voldemort would "bring the wizards out of hiding to rule the Muggles and the Muggle-borns," which is awful but stops short of what actually happens when Voldemort takes power in Deathly Hallows. And, of course, there's his relationship with Kreacher.

House-elves are a whole other can of worms I don't want to get into right now, but I do think Regulus probably treated Kreacher better than their society would have expected. I'm not saying he was Hermione-level enlightened. He probably didn't see him as an equal or spend his free time campaigning for elf rights. But when the full story of Regulus's death is revealed, it's made clear that he was fond of Kreacher and upset by what Voldemort did to him. He literally drank a potion that caused him extreme agony rather than ordering Kreacher to do it in his place. That doesn't make him a totally good person, but it does hint at a softer side to him and a sort of nuance that isn't typical of the Death Eaters.

He clearly knew what a horcrux was and strongly objected to finding out about the locket, either on the basis of "that's crossing a line" or "actually, the Dark Lord probably shouldn't live forever." Or both. I've seen people question why a Death Eater would have a problem with horcruxes, and I suspect some of them wouldn't. Bellatrix, for instance, would probably be overjoyed to know she was entrusted with a piece of Voldemort's soul. But the idea of horcruxes being repulsive even to many Dark Wizards is actually foreshadowed a bit in Half-Blood Prince, where the author of Magick Moste Evile warns his readers against them. So I do think Regulus was probably not thrilled to find out he was working for someone who had one.

There can be multiple factors in why he did what he did: anger about Voldemort's treatment of Kreacher AND objection to horcruxes AND possibly doubts and second thoughts that had been building up already, since Sirius knew nothing about the specifics but was sure he died trying to back out.

Now, going after the locket on his own, without telling anybody who might have an interest in stopping Voldemort, was not the smartest decision. And I don't see his death as something that should be glorified. I've seen people claim that his redemption arc is more valid because he gave his life, and I disagree with that take and actually find it to be very troubling. Redemption Equals Death can work if it's a meaningful self-sacrifice, but Regulus's death didn't really accomplish much other than getting him killed, and if he had lived longer he might have been able to do more to atone. Like actually destroying a horcrux, for instance, or providing info to the Order.

But still, the fact that he did anything at all is a big deal. The fact that something - or multiple somethings - seemed wrong to him, and given the choice between "a lifetime of service or death," he decided he still couldn't keep serving Voldemort? That's huge. That says something important about who he was as a person. A weird combination of a damaged but not completely absent moral compass paired with an unexpected sense of integrity and courage.

Final thoughts

Most of what I described in the section above is personal interpretation, and there are other valid takes on what might have been going on. But I tried to keep it to just what I think can be reasonably extrapolated from canon, not random headcanons that I'm happy to admit I pulled out of thin air or adopted from fanon.

I see a lot of interesting contradictions in Regulus, and specifically, a lot of positive traits turned bad. Loyalty and dedication towards a family and a cause that don't deserve it. Capacity for kindness that remains so undeveloped it never actually leads him to question his prejudices. The willingness to admit he was on the wrong side and the courage do something about it, but it ends up being a pointless self-sacrifice.

I see him as someone who isn't inherently evil, who could have been a good person if he'd been brought up differently. Someone who might very well have changed for the better and made a positive impact if he'd survived. And yet whose life ultimately amounted to very little. I don't know about you, but that strikes me as a tragedy.

It also screams "opportunity" to the fanfic writer in me. I love "what if?" storylines. I love fleshing out characters who were not well-developed in canon. Regulus has hints of a personality and storyline that I find really interesting, but isn't a main character or developed enough that I feel like the story has already been told in a satisfying way in canon. That's exactly the sort of character I'm likely to end up reading and writing fic for, etc.

[tarobytez]

disability in the Six Of Crows Duology; an analysis of Kaz Brekker, Wylan Van Eck, and the fandom’s treatment of them.

****Note: I originally wrote this for a tiktok series, which im still going to do, but i wanted to post here as well bc tumblr is major contributor to what im going to talk about

CW: ableism, filicide, abuse

In the Six of Crows duology, Leigh Bardugo delicately subverts and melds harmful disability tropes into her narrative, unpacking them in a way that I, as a disabled person, found immensely refreshing and…. just brilliant. 

But what did you all do with that? Well, you fucked it up. Instead of critically looking at the characters, y’all just chose to be ableist. 

For the next few videos paragraphs im going to unpack disability theory (largely the stuff surrounding media, for obvious reasons) and how it relates to Six Of Crows and the characterization of Kaz Brekker and Wylan Van Eck, then how, despite their brilliant writing, y’all completely overlooked the actual text and continuously revert them to ableist cariactures.

Disclaimer: 1. Shocker - i am disabled. I have also extensively researched disability theory and am very active in the disabled community. Basically, I know my shit. 2. im going to be mad in these videos this analysis. Because the way y’all have been acting has been going on for a long ass time and im fuckin sick of it. I don’t give a shit about non-disabled feelings, die mad

Firstly, I’m going to discuss Kaz, his play on the stereotypical “mean cripple” trope and how Bardugo subverts it, his cane, and disabled rage. Then, I am going to discuss Wylan, the “inspiration porn” stereotype, caregivers / parents, and the social model of disability. Finally, I will then explain the problems in the fandom from my perspective as a disabled person, largely when it comes to wylan, bc yall cant leave that boy tf alone.

Kaz Brekker

Think of a character who uses a cane (obviously not Kaz). Now, are they evil, dubiously moral, or just an asshole in general? Because nearly example I can think of is: whether it be Lots’O from Toy Story, Lucius Malfoy, or even Scrooge and Mr.Gold from Once Upon A Time all have canes (the last two even having their canes appear less and less as they become better people)

The mean/evil cripple trope is far more common than you would think. Villains with different bodies are confined to the role of “evil”. To quote TV Tropes, who I think did a brilliant job on explaining it “The first is rooted in eugenics-based ideas linking disability or other physical deformities with a "natural" predisposition towards madness, criminality, vice, etc. The Rule of Symbolism is often at work here, since a "crippled" body can be used to represent a "crippled" soul — and indeed, a disabled villain is usually put in contrast to a morally upright and physically "perfect" hero. Whether consciously on the part of the writer or not, this can reinforce cultural ideas of disability making a person inherently inferior or negative, much in the same way the Sissy Villain or Depraved Homosexual trope associate sexual and gender nonconformity with evil. ”

Our introduction to Kaz affirms this notion of him being bad or morally bankrupt, with “Kaz Brekker didn’t need a reason”, etc. This mythologized version of himself, the “bastard of the barrel” actively fed into this misconception. But, as we the audience are privy to his inner thoughts, know that he is just a teenager like every other Crow. He is complex, his disability isn’t this tragic backstory, he just fell off a roof. It’s not his main motivation, nor does he curse revenge for making him a cripple - it is just another part of who he is. 

His cane (though the shows version fills me with rage but-) is an extension of Kaz - he fights with it, but it has a purpose. Another common thing in media is for canes to be simply accessories, but while Kaz’ cane is fashionable, it has purpose.

The quote “There was no part of him that was not broken, that had not healed wrong and there was no part of him that was not stronger for having been broken.” is so fucking powerful. Kaz does not want nor need a cure - its said in Crooked Kingdom that his leg could most likely be healed, but he chooses not to. Abled-bodied people tend to dismiss this thought as Kaz being stubborn but it shows a reality of acceptance of his disability that is just, so refreshing.

In chapter 22 of SOC, we see disabled rage done right - when he is called a cripple by the Fjerdan inmate, Kaz is pissed - the important detail being that he is pissed at the Fjerdan, at society for ableism, not blaming it on being disabled or wishing he could be normal. He takes action, dislocating the asshole’s shoulder and proving to him, and to a lesser extent, himself, that he is just as capable as anyone else, not in spite of, but because he is disabled. And that is the point of Kaz, harking back to the line that “there was no part of him that was not stronger for having been broken”. 

I cried on numerous occasions while reading the SOC duology, but the parts I highlighted in this section especially so. I, as many other disabled people do, have had a long and tumultuous relationship with our disability/es, and for many still struggle. But Kaz Brekker gave me an empowered disabled character who accepts themselves, and that means the world to me. 

Keeping that in mind, I hope you can understand why it hurts so much to disabled people when you either erase Kaz’s disability (whether through cosplay or fanfiction), or portray him as a “broken boy uwu”, especially implying that he would want a cure. That flies in the face of canon and is inherently fucking ableist. (if u think im mad wait until the next section)

Next, we have Wylan.  

Oh fucking boy. 

I love Wylan so fucking much, and y’all just do not seem to understand his character? Like at all? Since this is disability-centric, I’m not going to discuss how the intersection of his queerness also contributes to these issues, but trust me when I say it’s a contributing factor to what i'm going to say.

Wylan, motherfucking Van Eck. If you ableist pricks don’t take ur fucking hands off him right now im going to fight you. I see Wylan as a subversion another, and in my opinion more insidious stereotype pf disabled people - inspiration porn.

Cara Liebowitz in a 2015 article on the blog The Body Is Not An Apology explains in greater detail how inspiration porn is impactful in real life, but media is a major contributing factor to this reality. The technical definition is “the portrayal of people with disabilities as inspirational solely or in part on the basis of their disability” - but that does not cover it fully. 

Inspiration porn does lasting damage on the disabled community as it implies that disability is a negative that you need to “overcome” or “triumph” instead of something one can feel proud of. It exploits disabled people for the development of non-disabled people, and in media often the white male protagonist. Framing disability as inherently negative perpetuates ideals of eugenics and cures - see Autism $peaks’ “I Am Autism” ad. Inspiration porn is also incredibly patronizing as it implies that we cannot take care of ourselves, or do things like non-disabled people do. Because i stg some of you tend to think that we just sit around all day wishing we weren’t disabled. 

Another important theory ideal that is necessary when thinking about Wylan is the experience of feeling like a burden simply for needing help or accommodations. This is especially true when it comes to familial relationships, and internalized ableism.

The rhetoric that Wylan’s father drilled into his head, that he is “defective”, “a mistake”, and “needs to be corrected”, that he (Jan) was “cursed with a moron for a child” is a long held belief that disabled people hear relentlessly. And while many see Van Eck’s attempted murder of Wylan as “preposturous” and overall something that you would never think happens today - filicide (a parent murdering their child) is more common than you would like to believe. Without even mentioning the countless and often unreported deaths of disabled people due to lack of / insufficient / neglectful medical care, in a study on children who died from the result of household abuse, 40 of 42 of them (95%) were diagnosed with disabilities. Van Eck is not some caricature of ableist ideals - he is a real reflection on how many people and family members view disability. 

Circling back to how Wylan unpacks the inspiration porn trope - he is 3 dimensional, he is not only used to develop the other characters, he is just *chefs kiss* Leigh, imo, put so much love and care into the creation of Wylan and his story and character growth that is representative of a larger feeling in the disabled community. 

That being said, what you non-disabled motherfuckers have done to him.

The “haha Wylan can’t read” jokes aren’t and were not funny. Y’all literally boiled down everything Wylan is to him being dyslexic. And it’s like,,,, the only thing you can say about him. You ignore every other part of him other than his disability, and then mock him for it. There’s so much you can say about Wylan - simping for Jesper, being band kid and playing the fuckin flute, literally anything else. But no, you just chose to mock his disability, excellent fucking job!

Next up on “ableds stfu” - infantilization! y’all are so fucking condescending to Wylan, and treat him like a fucking toddler. And while partly it is due to his sexuality i think a larger portion is him being disabled. Its in the same vein of people who think that Wylan and Jesper are romantically one sided, and that Jesper only kind of liked Wylan, despite the canon evidence of him loving Wylan just as much. You all view him as a “smol bean”, who needs protecting, and care, when Wylan is the opposite of that. He is a fucking demolitions expert who suggested waking up sleeping men to kill them - what about that says “uwu”. You are treating Wylan as a burden to Jesper and the other Crows when he is an immensely valuable, fully autonomous disabled person - you all just view him as damaged. 

And before I get a comment saying that “uhhh Wylan isn’t real why do you care” while Wylan may not be real, how you all view him and treat him has real fucking impacts and informs how you treat people like me. If someone called me an “uwu baby boy” they’d get a fist square in the fucking jaw. Fiction informs how we perceive the world and y’all are making it super fucking clear how you see disabled people. 

Finally, I wanted to talk about how the social model of disability is portrayed through Wylan. For those who are unaware, the social model of disability contrasts the medical model, that views the disability itself as the problem, that needs to be cured, whereas the social model essentially boils down to creating an accommodating society, where disability acceptance and pride is the goal. And we see this with Wylan - he is able to manage his father’s estate, with Jesper’s assistance to help him read documents. And this is not out of pity or charity, but an act of love. It is not portrayed as this almighty act for Jesper to play saviour, just a given, which is incredibly important to show, especially for someone who has been abused by family for his disability like Wylan, that he is accepted. 

Yet, I still see people hold up Jesper on a pedestal for “putting up with” Wylan, as if loving a disabled person deserves a fucking pat on the back. It’s genuinely exhausting trying to engage with a work I love so much with a fandom that thinks so little of me and my community. It fucking shows. 

Overall, Leigh Bardugo as a disabled person wrote two incredibly meticulous and empowered disabled characters, and due to either lack of reading comprehension, ableism, or a quirky mix of both, the fandom has ignored canon and the experiences of disabled people for…. shits and giggles i guess. And yes, there are issues with the Grishaverse and disability representation - while I haven’t finished them yet so I do not have an opinion on it, people have been discussing issues in the KOS duology with ableist ideals. This mini series was no way indicative of the entire disabled experience, nor does it represent my entire view on the representation as a whole. These things need to be met critically in our community, and talked about with disabled voices at the forefront. For example, the limited perspective we get of Wylan and Kaz being both white men, does not account for a large portion of the disabled community and the intersection of multiple identities.

All-in-all, Critique media, but do not forget to also critique fandom spaces. Alternatively, just shut the fuck up :)

happy fucking disability pride month, ig

[caffeinatedseri]

The Significance of Sunsets

We’re introduced to the significance of twilight during the Cannibalism Arc via the Tripartite Tactic. 

The essence of the Tripartite Tactic supports 3 core themes of BSD: moral ambiguity, the cyclical nature of life, and the beauty of humanity. 

First, the Tripartite Tactic establishes the moral balance of the BSD universe through the government, PM, and ADA’s interactions with one another to ensure the balance of Yokohama.

Day and night are binary opposites, similar to how the government and mafia operate on opposite sides. That would imply that the government and mafia are always at war with one another, working to bring the other down, but the Tripartite Tactic suggests otherwise.

Both the government and mafia’s survival are necessary to secure the balance of the city, just like how day and night, good and evil have to coexist in a state of balance.

However, there is a middle ground that bridges these opposing concepts together: twilight — as represented with the agency. 

As the evening acts the neutral point from day to night, the agency acts as a morally neutral organization between the government and mafia. They don’t necessarily abide by the laws and rules of “justice,” but they still work to establish a semblance of “good” in this world. 

We’ve seen the government act in suspicious ways, we’ve seen the mafia act in good natured ways, and we’ve seen the agency do both of the sort. Even though the government and mafia are supposed to represent “good” and “evil”, the fact that they break these molds serves to once again prove the moral ambiguity within the BSD universe. 

Twilight also symbolizes another important idea — the cyclical nature of life. As the passing period between day and night, it represents the end of a day, which will always lead to the start of a new day.

This cyclical nature lends itself to a feeling of hope that drives the journey of redemption — the hope that the night will pass and a new day will begin encourages our characters to persevere and hope for something better. 

Cycles also show themselves through character interactions throughout the generations.

Mori abused Dazai → Dazai abused Akutagawa → Akutagawa abused Kyouka, In this case, the cycle of abuse is born (although it fortunately stops at Kyouka). 

In parallel, Oda helped Dazai → Dazai helped Atsushi → Atsushi helps Kyouka, For this, the cycle of redemption is born. 

As twilight is a time for sunsets, sunsets are an inevitable motif for these themes. The arrangement of colors in the sky, characteristic of a sunset, tends to evoke feelings of awe or admiration for the beauty of such sunset. The beauty of a sunset symbolizes an appreciation for the beauty of humanity, aligning with the theme of accepting human nature as is. (think Dazai)

Keeping in mind these 3 aspects: moral ambiguity, the cyclical nature of life, and the beauty of humanity, the significance of every scene with a sunset becomes more prominent. 

Sunsets in BSD always appear at important points of the narrative, with my favorite being:

This scene’s significance is primarily Dazai’s transition out of the mafia as represented through the light shining through the window — as if light is being shined on the darkness that had surrounded his life.

This scene happens to be one of my favorites because it touches upon all three themes that the twilight-esque light represents.

Moral ambiguity: Oda knows that Dazai doesn’t care about justice or evil, or defining aspects of morality, so Oda argues Dazai should work for justice. Oda doesn’t try to argue that justice is morally correct, but he simply says it is “better” in an extremely vague way. 

The idea of Dazai joining the side of justice with no strong moral conviction opens up the concept of moral ambiguity. Is it important for him to have a moral code if he wants to find the purpose of his life? Can he help others if he doesn’t believe it’s the “right” thing to do? Does it matter? 

Most importantly, does saving others whilst not believing in the standards of morality place you within the boundaries of justice or evil? Or are there no such defined boundaries? 

Cyclical nature: Oda pushes for Dazai to save people, instead of killing people, mirroring the actions of Natsume-sensei who helped Oda come to that same resolve. This starts the cycle of Dazai helping Atsushi, Atsushi helping Kyouka, and hopefully Atsushi getting to help Akutagawa as well. 

This scene also reflects the idea of the “end of the night”, or the start of a new day as Dazai abandons the PM, and starts anew in the Agency. 

Beauty of humanity: PM Dazai was arguably the most “inhumane” version of Dazai that we’ve seen, due to his heavily logic driven intellect and distrusting tendencies. 

However, in this interaction with Oda, we finally see his humanity shine through. Oda gives no reasonable, straight-forward explanation as to why Dazai should leave the mafia, but Dazai follows his advice regardless because of their trust. 

The ability to trust and love, an innate part of human nature, can be seen as foolish from the eyes of the logic-driven, but ultimately that’s what makes being human beautiful. 

I admit the last scene may have been a little vague with whether the setting was actually a sunset, but this one is more obvious!

This takes place after SSKK’s fight with Francis, and they regroup with Dazai, Fukuzawa, and Kyouka. 

Cyclical nature: As the finale of the Guild Arc, the sunset represents the end of a day and the start of another as they close this chapter of their lives. It also parallels Dazai’s “redemption” scene, as Kyouka finds her redemption in sacrificing herself for others and becoming part of the agency. 

Just as Oda was able to help Dazai in the previous scene, Dazai is the one who tells Kyouka exactly what she needed to hear in order for her to survive and find a home in the agency. 

Beauty of humanity: Being human means to be compassionate, and I’d argue that Kyouka was uncompassionate in the past, just because no one had shown her what compassion was like. However, Kyouka grows from that — with the help of Atsushi and Dazai showing her empathy and kindness, she’s able to reciprocate that feeling and be willing to give up her life for the sake of others.

Dazai also praises Akutagawa for a short moment in this scene, which is also an act of compassion from Dazai although Akutagawa deserves more than that.

This scene follows the party at the end of the Cannibalism Arc, as Dazai and Atsushi have a nice heart-to-heart.

Dazai’s toast here is technically an anime-only moment, but obviously all of the sunsets are anime-only. Regardless, I’ll be discussing his entire talk with Atsushi here, along with the toast. 

Moral ambiguity: Akutagawa’s promise to not kill anyone for 6 months mirrors that of Oda — a mafia member who doesn’t kill. By doing so, he directly challenges the morality involved with being a mafia member (what would be “bad”) and breaks away from the black and white labels of “good” and “evil.”

If we followed the code of justice, presumably the morally “right” way, then it would dictate that Akutagawa would need to be punished for the crimes he committed. However, Atsushi’s decision to form that promise with Akutagawa gives him an opportunity to grow and redeem himself, even if Akutagawa fits with the “evil” label. 

Akutagawa and Atsushi are obviously foils — they’re different in almost every way, which you could use to define Atsushi as the hero and Akutagawa as the villain, but it’s undeniable that they also share many similarities. As the line between “good” and “evil” blurs, moral ambiguity is developed. 

Cyclical nature: Once again, this scene closes out the Cannibalism Arc, with the sunset symbolizing both the end and beginning. 

Atsushi’s promise with Akutagawa parallels that of Oda’s dying wish to Dazai; they’re both founded on the basis of trust, and they push towards a brighter future for Akutagawa and Dazai respectively. Thus, the cycle of redemption repeats itself once more. 

Dazai’s “To the stray dogs” statement also parallels his toast with the Buraiha trio (Dazai, Ango, Oda). It could be just a callback to Oda, but it also expresses Dazai passing on the toast to Atsushi, from one stray dog to another. Nevertheless, this still represents a cycle of actions in which the previous generation affects the present. 

Beauty of humanity: Dazai toasting to Atsushi with the phrase “stray dogs” offers a sense of compassion and hope. Dazai and Atsushi have undoubtedly grown closer to one another throughout the entire series up to this point, so it makes perfect sense that Dazai shows that he cares by sharing a piece of his past with Atsushi.

Toasting directly to the stray dogs implies a celebration of sorts for these dogs, who are stray but ultimately not alone. The toast is indicative of a hope for a better future whilst also acknowledging how one can feel lost in life (and how that’s okay). 

Atsushi’s promise with Akutagawa also serves as an attempt to teach Akutagawa the beauty of humanity, since Atsushi believes that Akutagawa doesn’t see the value of life (which is preventing him from getting Dazai’s approval). I would argue that it should be the other way around, but Atsushi has good intentions here.

After Atsushi discovers the death of the Headmaster of his orphanage, Dazai gives some comforting advice.

Moral ambiguity: Atsushi struggles with his conflicted feelings towards the Headmaster’s death, which is perfectly understandable. 

The Headmaster can’t be defined as completely good or completely bad, because he did impact Atsushi’s life in a way that led him to where he is today (once again, no definitive black or white answer as to whether that’s good or not).

Atsushi struggles with the thought that he has to pick whether to feel glad or upset, in order to fit within the neat labels of black and white, happy and sad. In response, Dazai (the definition of a morally ambiguous man) simply says: 

Although Dazai says “There’s no one who can fully grasp the deepest feelings of another person,” in the anime, I think the meaning of that is better stated in the manga. Dazai reasons that he can be both glad or upset, his feelings can be mixed, and there is no clear cut answer for how to feel (as Dazai only gives a general piece of advice). 

Cyclical nature: Dazai’s statement, “when someone’s father dies, they tend to cry”, could honestly be interpreted in a multitude of ways. 

Dazai’s reference to a father figure suggests that this “father” is simply a person who impacted their life greatly and made them who they are today. (since both of their fathers are unknown).

Following this definition, Oda is the father figure to Dazai in the same way that the Headmaster was to Atsushi. Although their methods of “helping” Dazai and Atsushi differ very drastically, the same cycle of this “father” figure impacting the life of their metaphorical son repeats.

Oda giving advice to Dazai, and Dazai giving advice to Atsushi is also another cycle — the cycle of reaching a hand out to someone in need. (which is the more sensical of these two conclusions)

Beauty of humanity: Dazai’s ability to be compassionate truly shines in this scene and shows just how much he’s grown from his time in the PM.

In contrary to PM Dazai’s unfeeling self, Dazai is able to empathize with Atsushi on a personal basis; just as the Headmaster was a integral part of Atsushi’s past, Oda was the same for Dazai. 

Dazai’s growing ability to understand others demonstrates his willingness to grow more accustomed to human nature, and love it for what it is. 

Atsushi’s confusion in dictating what he should feel also speaks on the nature of humanity; his feelings don’t have to make sense for him to feel them. In fact, the more illogical his emotions are, the more human he is.

[vidalinav]

I don’t know who needs to hear this, but...

y’all need to accept the fact that ALL of these characters are and can be horrible people. This is not anti post, this is a let characters be morally grey post. They’re flawed, accept that already. 

I’m tired of seeing posts like but--but Nesta-- But Nesta what? We already know what her flaws are. They’ve been highlighted from day one. They’ve been acknowledged by every character including herself. They have never once been excused, nor empathized with though she needed that severely. She has made friends and no friends by being the way she is. She has made friends who understand her, and has a family who doesn’t understand her. Friends who take into account that she has been through horrible things, and a family who has not. A family who in her own POV has left her behind, because they did. I said this about Feyre, I’ll say this about Nesta, if in a POV someone says someone wronged them THEY DID. But she is not easy, and sometimes not nice. We know this, we accept this. I stan her for this because emotion often is not beautiful, but stop pointing out her flaws like we don’t know. We all know! We also know that she was aggressive for a reason, she was hateful for a reason, she was in a very low place, and she deserved healing and better, unjudgmental treatment by other people which she didn’t get. She helped in a war, she tried to get Feyre back, she talked to the High lord, advocated for the humans, showed she cared for Cassian in ACOWAR, etc, too. We know her perspective is biased and she’s never once been excused for her mistakes, but other character’s are not treated like Nesta is (like Lucien is, Like Eris is, Like Jurian is). 

So, let me go through the ways that all of these characters are imperfect and that you just have to accept as a reader. Okay? Okay. 

Elain is not going to be you’re pretty little doll that has done nothing wrong, because she has and she should. Elain was not a good character in ACOTAR, just as much as Nesta was not a good character. Elain does sometimes seem a bit oblivious to what is going on around her. Elain may be very nice and pleasant but that is and will not be all she is. She is allowed to make mistakes and she should be held accountable if she does. When she doesn’t do too much (because she doesn’t) or when she is not very helpful (whether by plot or by Feyre/Nesta’s POV-whether that is noted or not), we can be like okay, she’s in a bad way, because she was, she’s healing herself. But don’t be a hypocrite and please don’t make her victim of other people. Her narrative right now is that “Nesta coddles her,” but we already know that blame game. We’ve seen it in Nesta’s own POV. No one is in charge of anyone’s actions but themselves. If she wants to help, she can. Stop saying the IC won’t let her or Nesta won’t let her, if Elain wanted to help she can. She will find a way... or at least put her foot down, which we’ve already seen she can do. If Elain wanted to reject the bond right then with Lucien, she could, but she doesn’t.  And, If Nesta says she wasn’t there and she chose Feyre (no matter how skewed that perspective is), and Elain shows in Nesta’s POV that she didn’t show empathy either to Nesta or even love in a way that Nesta could see, or try to understand where she was coming from vocally in the scenes she was featured in regardless of whether she was capable or not of helping Nesta (because she didn’t (i.e scene in library, the treatment spiel, and the “did feyre pay you?”, and also never being around while Nesta was there, but also ACOSF when she took a drink like she couldn’t handle the situation, and then laughed like nothing at all was wrong)) then she wasn’t there for her. She’s a complex character just as everyone else. Let her be a complex character! Flaws are not bad, please stop trying to negate flaws like they shouldn’t exist. She’s great and she stabbed the King of Hybern to protect her sisters, she let the fae into her home, and she chooses to be kind in a world that’s not very kind to people like her, and she’s got a whole lot of story to tell, but she’s a normal character not a disney princess. She’s not close to anyone. Why? That’s not anyone else’s predicament except her own. Neither is her life nor her actions. Okay? 

Mor can be loved because she was very supportive to Feyre in Feyre’s POV, understood because she is the first LGBT character in this book and she lives in a world it seems where she has to hide who she is, and we as readers understand that she has been through also horrible things. However, this does not negate the fact that she is a horrible person sometimes, to both her friends and people outside of their little group. She was not good to Nesta on SEVERAL occasions, even when Nesta was not bad to Mor. This weird love-triangle kept happening because she didn’t want to just admit that she didn’t like Azriel romantically, whatever the reason was. She’s a complex character. Hate her/Like her, but acknowledge that no matter what you choose, she has fucking flaws. 

I see posts sometimes about how people don’t understand where this Rhysand came from, like “he’s so awful in ACOSF, SJM did this to make Nesta look better.” What? He’s been a dick always. He’s just not a dick to Feyre but that could be argued as well really. We as readers can acknowledge though that he like all the rest have gone through horrible things, and though the horrible things he has done are not excused (i.e. murdering children, killing people, his court still having so many problems and their solution being lets go to Vallahan, putting up an evil front to just keep people in line, not instilling any action to help those who need it or not treating people like subject who depend on him as a ruler regardless of whether he likes them or not (i.e the Hewn City/Illyria)) we acknowledge that he can be understood at the same time that he is also a hypocrite. Generally he’s not bad on an individual basis. but he’s not “good!” He’s morally grey. As they all are, but because he’s a ruler, he should be 10x more responsible for all of these problems and for all of his flaws. 

Azriel is a sweetheart and sometimes he’s understanding, and doesn’t seem judgmental. But he’s a psycho! I’m sorry. He’s got a lot of things to work through, I mean. We acknowledge that he has been through HORRIFYING things, but we also should not neglect the fact that he’s a creep and he tortures people on a regular basis. There’s no reason he should have had that insane long infatuation with Mor and now seems to have one with Elain. We understand why he does this, psychologically, but it does not excuse him for making Mor uncomfortable for 500+ years. Take all of him or none of him. 

Cassian. I love Cassian, but he does not think before he speaks, he does have his head up the IC’s ass, and he’s does not connect dots very well. He’s sweet and he’s supportive, and I have less of a problem with him than some other characters, but!!!! He’s got flaws and those are not bad. Those do not make him unlovable, but he’s got them and they’re not going away. 

Feyre has this same issue. She does what she needs to, she’s loving, she gives people a chance, and yes she was there when people needed her, she has also suffered a good amount, but Feyre’s suffering has been acknowledged by everyone. It has been given voice to, it has been reflected in empathy by every single character even when Feyre herself has not been a great character. She tends to be very one-sided in things, as in her own view is the only one that exists (though that’s everyone of them really as we’ve seen, there’s no nuance there) but she’s also not very emotionally intelligent and she does get into everyone’s business, when she should probably let people do their own thing (this has been her trait forever since ACOMAF I think). But she should also take more of a stance to be a ruler, because unfortunately she has that responsibility, and she should hold Rhys more accountable for the actions he does. It should not be a “let’s have sex and all is well” sort of situation. She’s a very biased perspective, but so are all of them. But she’s not perfect and we should never feel that she is. She is not the light of heaven that has glorified Prythrian, she is just an average human-to-fae girl trying to live. She deserves love, yes, but not more than anyone else and loving her should not mean hating other people, which this fandom and the book have a hard time realizing. 

Amren... sigh... I don’t like her too much but for the thread I’ll continue. Amren is probably the only reason anything gets done, realistically, because at least she’s always thinking about the logistics of things. She’s horribly rude, and doesn’t seem to care about anyone’s opinion, but she’s 15000 years old or what not. Emotions probably have to be beneath her at that point, but that doesn’t mean I have to love her, and that doesn’t mean she’s an unflawed characters. She’s very flawed and I think that’s acknowledged but I don’t think any character has really held her accountable for being who she is, they brush it off and are like “Amren’s Amren.” But she’s morally grey for sure, getting to be a darker shade if you ask me (i.e Tyrant Amren). But I acknowledge that even though I hate her, she’s not ALWAYS horrible. 

I don’t know what it is, maybe it is the narratives insistence that the IC are good that makes everyone go off their rocker, but my god, I think I would love all of these character’s more if there wasn’t this insistence that they’re the “good guys” and just have them make mistakes, have them eat their mistakes equally, and have them move on, learn to do better, maybe fuck up again. That’s life lol that’s interesting, morally grey characters. But I write this post not to say they’re all horrible, but to say that it is unnecessary to point out the flaws of other characters in defense of another one. They’re all horrible. Acknowledge it, breathe it in, love them or hate them anyway, but know (whispers for dramatic effect) they’re all horrible. And that’s okay, because that is not all they are. 

Have a good day. 

[frumfrumfroo]

Your answer on fandom conflict was actually helpful and informative. I wasn't trying to "both sides" the issue per se. But from my pov, the resentment/contempt def goes both ways. The difference is one side has more entrenched power/clout (for obvs reasons). And that sucks because I see value in both. Meta is great for enriching your understanding and finding new perspectives. Enjoying lore and "pew pew" doesn't make you a rube. If we could balance/combine them fandom would be a better place.

Oh, glad to hear it!

I do see people being needlessly dismissive of broad subsections fandom as if they're exclusively inhabited by FM dudebros, which isn't cool. And there's nothing wrong with being a lore anorak or with liking spectacle, though I would argue it's still important to understand the story itself if you're going to engage with it actively. The problem comes with people thinking that referencing minutiae is a replacement for plot or with thinking that not caring about story/themes makes you a superior fan because you uncritically accept and celebrate every product with the brand name on it regardless of message or quality. 'True fandom' as knowing every bit of trivia, etc. And 'masculine' fandom tends to fall into that because it is quantifiable, you can compete with other fans and there's a measurable outcome.

Meta and ship fandom does try to have pissing contests, but there can never be any clear winner except in terms of popularity. And you can be the most popular ship without having any basis in canon whatsoever, so that's not much of a 'true fandom' definition. It not being quantifiable gives the whole power struggle an entirely different dimension. To genuinely compete, we'd all have to agree on what the criteria are because we're dealing with something nebulous, and even if we did agree victory would still be a matter of individual judgement.

The sense in which fic/meta fandom tends to be derogatory towards lore/spec fandom is where it has essentially missed the forest for the trees. So you have people who consider themselves superfans of SW but hate and reject redemption and compassion, which is literally what the story is about. But framing this as a problem only ‘masculine��� fandom has fails to acknowledge that there are shippers who are equally uncaring about what the story wants to say and are only here for tropes, dynamics, and images they can appropriate. That there are loads of people writing meta for SW who are so completely missing the point that the point is in another dimension.

To me what needs to happen is for everyone to realise fandom is for fun, it’s not a contest, and however you do it is fine. Even missing the point is your prerogative if that’s what you want to do. The only issue I take is with the hierarchy and the relative treatment different forms of doing fandom receive. And I take issue with people who can’t acknowledge reality. It’s fine to disagree with what a story is saying and decide to read it your own way, but it’s not fine to try to gatekeep and bully the entire world into validating you. It’s not fine to pretend the whole raison d’etre of a narrative doesn’t exist and attack anyone who reminds you it does. It’s not fine to ridicule people who think that it matters and aren’t content with aesthetic trappings.

I’ve hated canon pairings lots of times, but I’m not going to sit  here claiming they weren’t in the text or were actually ‘sibling-coded’ or whatever other nonsense. I’m not going to lie about the thematic content of a text just because I disagree with its conclusions or message. I’m not going to say the essential character of a story, the thing it was created to communicate, doesn’t matter. It’s fiction and we don’t have to take  what we’re given, but at the same time no, not all interpretations are valid. Yes, you can be wrong.

I’ll never tell anyone they have to accept new developments or new instalments they don’t like or that they can’t write their own version of a character, but you do have to acknowledge what the basis of canon actually is if you’re going to play in the sandbox with the other children. You can write whatever fanfic you want, but you can’t demand everyone else cater to you and pretend your version is reality. There’s a big difference between ‘I see what canon is doing but I don’t think it’s done well/I don’t like it/I’d rather it suited xyz preference of mine’ and just… refusing to admit what is front of your eyeballs.

The people angry and threatened by both romance and redemption yelling about how these things have no place in SW are objectively wrong. You can dislike those things and try to minimise them (why not just watch something else? but I digress), but flat out denial they’ve always been central to the narrative and attempting to drive out anyone who mentions them is insanity.

[shrimpmandan]

I’ve been reflecting some on my views lately.

I wanted to give my thoughts on the MOGAI community and my perspective on it as a neurodivergent trans person, and just kind of reflect on my stance on and understanding of it. This is really rambly because it's 3 AM and I'm tired, but this is just my own perspective on the MOGAI community and its relation to transmeds. I think the issue I have with MOGAI is mainly its conflation with being transgender, and how these terms are labeled with -gender at all.

To preface for anyone who doesn’t follow me and is just scrolling through tags, I'm autistic + ADHD, and to my knowledge a binary trans man. I consider myself a transmedicalist and anti-MOGAI, just on the basis that I don't think MOGAI genders can be, well, genders. From what I understand, gender is your neurological sex. I know there's been critiques of the brain sex theory, but it's the one that makes the most sense to me. In essence, your brain can't be pupgender because pupgender isn't a sex. I'm very science-oriented and I'm not inclined to support something as a label if it does not describe a real, proven occurrence. 

Though, I understand why people, particularly people with autism, use these labels. Some of them appeal to synesthesia, a complicated experience often comorbid with autism. I understand how an autistic person with synesthesia would 'feel' their gender. Hell, I know I do. I always described my gender as a feeling. Now, gender is more complicated than just 'a feeling', but my point stands. An autistic person may think their gender is foggy due to synesthesia, though I don't think there are any existing studies discussing such a correlation yet. Other labels, such as "autigender", are simply descriptors. It's not "my gender is autism", but rather "my gender is affected by my autism". This is where I have another issue. MOGAI labels are made for neurodivergent people, so why are they named in such a way that makes it really easy to misinterpret them literally? Even neurotypicals I've met see "autigender" and infer that it means "my gender is autism". Additionally, when getting into neopronouns, a lot of neurodivergent people have difficulties using or remembering neopronouns and how to conjugate them. I literally can't use nounself pronouns because it fucks with my language processing issues so much. But again, I can understand why they're used. Some neurodivergent people have difficulties using singular they/them. I read a post about someone having standard pronouns (he/she/they) be misophonia triggers, so they use neopronouns that don't trigger such a response. My only issue there is just how many there are. Thon/thons existed as a singular neutral pronoun at one point, and I think we should bring that pronoun back for folks who can't use standard pronouns comfortably, without having this laundry list of them.

In my opinion, MOGAI would be basically harmless if MOGAI genders weren't conflated with being transgender. Simply put, most transgender people can't relate to the MOGAI crowd. And by extension, what is MOGAI fighting for? How would their activism fit into ours? I know that many people who use MOGAI labels are also transgender, but some of 'em aren't. Some MOGAI users are cis neurodivergent people who have varying difficulties understanding or describing their gender. Now, I never experienced that, so I can't relate, but I can see it. I can see why a cis ND person would think "my gender feels kinda fuzzy" and then be like "fuck it, guess I'm fuzzgender." But, that doesn't make them trans. This weird conflation between MOGAI and being trans is extremely harmful and what a lot of people in transmed/anti-MOGAI circles take issue with. A lot of us don't relate to MOGAI and feel like our issues are being trivialized by this narrative that gender is just a fun way to express yourself, which is sadly not a reality for a lot of trans people, especially the teens who are pre-transition (the ones who are typically transmeds). It feels extremely invalidating for many. 

I think this is just down to the way MOGAI is presented. MOGAI was originally coined to be a more inclusive term for LGBT after all, and MOGAI genders are branded as, well, genders. I think that MOGAI should be rebranded and adjusted to be more cohesive (so that there aren’t a billion labels that are unused or just repeats of each other) as well as better described so that they don’t necessarily conflate with being trans. I've seen some people propose calling xenogenders "xenoidentities" instead, for example. "Xenodescriptors" could also work, possibly. I'm the type of person who tries to look for compromise. While I do put labels on my stances, my opinions on issues tend to be more complex than the label lets on. There's definitely a way to make both communities happy and healthy and fulfill their intended purposes. It's just difficult to get anything done when most of the online discourse is spent shitting on each other and harassing each other. I frequently see both transmeds and tucutes be doxxed, harassed, suicide baited, et cetera et cetera. That doesn't accomplish anything. That's just bullying. Name-calling and harassment is just bullying. If we could just facilitate a respectful, meaningful discussion and work together as communities to understand each other better and come to an agreement, then this discourse wouldn't need to go on any longer. Nothing is black and white. Both sides have their reasons for feeling the way they do. This applies to literally every other major LGBT discourse going on as well, from bi vs pan to acecourse to whatever the hell else. We need to make an effort to understand each other. This post is absolutely open for discussion if it doesn't get buried. I think I covered both sides pretty well but obviously the experiences of people who actually use MOGAI labels are much more important than my views from the outside. I’m cross-tagging this since I don’t want this to just be flooded with one side. I am actively welcoming interaction from either side on this post. Please just ignore this post/block me if you don’t wanna see it. This isn’t cross-tagged with malicious intent. I simply wish to gain more perspective on why people may use MOGAI labels, and also why other transmeds dislike them so. I obviously could be missing a few things.

[bigskydreaming]

Couldn't the thing with Jason thinking Dick is infallible from Truth and Justice story come from how he is compared to his brother from Bruce. Even when he was Robin with Dick and Bruce fighting, he was told that Dick was better by Bruce. Then he comes back and is a cautionary tale of what not to and how not to be while Dick and Bruce are now getting along.

I mean yeah, you could go with that take, but I’m always gonna argue that even that is more fanon based than anything else, at least before this issue. We’ve seen a lot of that take in the past already, but truth is, there really isn’t that much basis in older stories for Bruce comparing Jason to Dick. And like I’ve expanded on in the past, younger Jason looked UP to Dick, he certainly didn’t resent him. 

With this being true even when he first came back - Dick was the only one he didn’t target at ALL during Under the Red Hood, and when he did finally meet up with Dick a year later, during the Brothers in Blood arc, it was more to fuck with him than any attempt to take things out on him. Like, that arc gets a lot of shit and deservedly so, but I really do wish more people would at least takeaway from it the fact that in it, JASON referenced still thinking of Dick as family. Which just doesn’t mesh up with all the ‘they barely knew each other/they resented each other’ takes.

Pretty much all the times I can think of when Jason was compared to Dick pre ADITF, it was actually not at all what its usually represented as by most fandom takes, such as the time Jason teamed up with the Titans. For pretty much Jason’s entire tenure as Robin up until the Felipe Garzonas arc, Jason was actually portrayed as perfectly secure in his position of Robin and wasn’t threatened by anyone else’s perception of him at all. Even the arc where he loses it on Two-Face has been kinda amplified to make more of it than it was, like.....Bruce was worried about the anger he expressed there, but that was more out of concern FOR Jason and it wasn’t the “Jason was on the verge of getting fired as Robin all along” kinda narrative we tend to see referenced. 

Jason was only made out to be the angry Robin or the less competent Robin or whatever AFTER his death, which is all kinds of shitty, but like......there’s no real basis for any kind of extended history where Jason resentfully suffered under his big brother’s shadow while Robin. The angry/less competent Robin stuff was all DC retroactively railroading him after the fact to justify their choice to kill him off (which was still their choice no matter the existence of a poll), and its the narrative most people have run with because it amplifies Jason’s existence as the misunderstood and unfairly judged underdog of the family.

Now to be 100% clear, as I’ve said in the past.....there is absolutely no reason you CAN’T go with this take if you don’t want to. Nobody has to abide by canon, or a particular canon and I’ll never argue otherwise. My main point has always just been that the thing about fanfic is that its a transformative process, it enables fans to take canon and transform it into something else.....but here’s the thing....those transformations ALWAYS happen with INTENT. People are deliberate in how and in what ways they transform canon, even if they’re not always CONSCIOUS of that deliberation.....it still exists. None of these transformations just happen, they happen for a reason. Because fans want an end result that’s different from what we saw in canon.

So my thing is always just.....yes, transform canon as you like, for whatever reason. But don’t pretend that those reasons don’t exist, and understand that when people look at a canon to fanon transformation that really only results in one major difference.......they’re gonna assume that this difference, achieving this difference, was for whatever reason, the POINT of the transformation.

And here’s where I also want to express something else: my take has never been that most of fandom just hates Dick Grayson. That they’re consciously, deliberately out to smear him or make him look bad. I think there’s a lot of elements in play with how I perceive fandom’s interactions with him compared to other characters, but more often than not, I think one of the bigger issues with how his character is TRANSFORMED from canon to fanon, is just.......he’s collateral damage. I don’t think in most cases the point is even to make actual transformations of his character or characterization......its to apply these things to people he’s in scene WITH......and he just ends up transformed as well, by proximity.

Take a look at some examples:

1) Dick firing Tim

Except as we’ve gone over multiple times, Dick didn’t actually FIRE Tim. He didn’t neglect him, he didn’t turn his back on him, he could have handled that situation differently, sure, but he had none of the ill intent people assign to him when they typically ramp up how bad this period was for Tim. Dick actually called him his equal, begged him to stay, said he was too GOOD to be Dick’s junior partner........but this is not at all how this moment in canon is generally viewed by a lot of fandom. He comes off looking a TON worse, like he just chose Damian over Tim and discarded Tim first chance he got, he didn’t care how Tim was affected, he kicked Tim out of the manor and out of Gotham.

But the thing is.....I’d argue that none of this TRANSFORMATION from canon really had anything to do with Dick. I don’t actually think that tons of fans were just waiting in the wings for the perfect opportunity to make a villain out of Dick and just seized upon this moment as the perfect opportunity. I think it was just all about Tim. It was about accentuating his misery, his aloneness, heightening the whump factor of his character and amplifying the feelings of insecurity, rejection and alienation he was feeling and that people related to.

What happened to Dick’s character in most peoples’ eyes as a result of this transformation, was the symptom, not the point. It was the collateral damage, not the aim.

2) Bruce firing Dick

In contrast, we have more than one canon interpretation of Bruce firing Dick as Robin, with this leading directly into Dick leaving the manor at a fairly young age, keeping his distance from Bruce until he finds out about Jason, Bruce giving Robin to Jason without acknowledging or apologizing for the fact that he was giving away the identity that someone else had crafted and poured their heart and soul into, not him.......but this isn’t how a lot of fandom outside of Dick stans and people who are specifically predisposed towards Bad Dad Bruce like to treat that part of canon.

Here, the transformation is the reverse from what happened with Tim and Dick. Here, the feelings of rejection and alienation and insecurity Dick realistically would have felt during that time are overlooked and even outright invalidated by TRANSFORMING the canon so that actually, this period of extended estrangement is completely disconnected from any version of events where Bruce fired Dick, which he did not do here. And in fact, Dick gave up Robin, he and Bruce had a falling out, and this was mutual and two-sided and thus Dick’s refusal to come home earlier and reconcile with Bruce was not actually him standing up for himself and refusing to settle for being taken for granted and dismissed when convenient but rather just Dick being immature, stubborn and a little spoiled.

But again.....I don’t think that’s the aim so much as a byproduct of the intended end result. Once more, I think that had very little to do with Dick himself, wasn’t about making him look bad specifically....but rather, it was about making Bruce look better. It was transforming the thing he had done in canon which was so hard to defend, ie ignore all of Dick’s feelings on the matter much in the way people accuse Dick of ignoring Tim’s later, and passively rejecting him and refusing to be the first to reach out unlike Dick who actively sought after Tim when he left. Those moments in canon definitively make Bruce look pretty bad, and are hard to reconcile with Good Parent Bruce Wayne, so that is what people are trying to transform. Once again, the way it makes Dick look in contrast is just a symptom.

The further examples are honestly pretty endless.

The aftermath of Forever Evil and Spyral is ignored, transforming Dick into the true villain of that period not because people just want an excuse to hate him, but because they don’t want to or can’t reconcile what Bruce actually did in order to get Dick to act so out of character, or they want to justify Jason and Tim and others’ anger at Dick later rather than have them appear to be inconsiderate assholes just piling on a guy who just had the worst year of his life to date.

The instances of Bruce outright abusing Dick after Jason’s death and at other times like Night of the Owls are ignored, transforming Dick into an impetuous, overly aggressive asshole who isn’t reacting to Bruce’s initial aggression, but rather just popping off the handle because he isn’t being received or treated just the way he likes.

Dick reaching out to Jason and making an offer to be there for him as Robin and later times they interact in Titans as well as any actual bond they build, even if mostly just hinted at off the page....all ignored in favor of transforming Dick into this bitter, jealous jerk who can’t see past his own feelings long enough to realize he’s taking things out on an innocent kid who doesn’t deserve this, even though that’s exactly what he realized and motivated his actual actions towards Jason in canon. And again, its not so much about making Dick worse, its about overlooking the WHYS of Dick’s hurt, turning the focus from what was done to him that justifies him being upset in the first place, to some greater mistreatment he enacts on Jason and thus drowns out any sympathy that people might otherwise have for Dick.

Dick’s periods of brainwashing like under the Church of Blood being overwritten or ignored in order to transform his deliberately out of character attitudes towards his friends and teammates there into just normal outbursts that were part of his characterization rather than signs that something was abnormally wrong with him. Thus turning everyone else’s treatment of him during that time period into again just their part of a two-way street and nothing they had to feel bad about rather than acknowledge that he’d literally not been in full control of himself while they had no such excuse for their behavior.

To be clear.....this kind of thing is NOT limited to just Dick. It tends to happen any time people want to transform a canon event into something more one-sided, to accentuate a particular character’s position as the victim or the misunderstood or neglected party.....or to turn a one-way street into a mutual antagonism, to lessen a particular character’s culpability in some argument or feud. You can absolutely find examples of this same effect applying to every other character in the Batfam as well.

But the reason it happens so often with Dick, and thus every instance of it happening tends to be amplified by the sheer volume of similar situations......is because of convenience. Because ironically, the reason Dick so often looks so bad in fanon’s eyes when it comes to his treatment of his family....is BECAUSE of how Dick is so much more integrated into every one of his family’s lives (and his friends’) than pretty much any other character. He’s the collateral damage to other characters being deliberately transformed in some way purely because he’s the one who almost always is THERE to some degree. Because there’s no one else in the scene that’s being transformed.

And so to bring it all back to your question......I think you absolutely can go with that take. There’s an argument to be made for it, especially now given that this canon issue has actually established a precedent for Jason feeling that way rather than fanon just running with the idea because it makes Jason more maligned. Its still not something that’s ever going to interest me though, even if I can see the reasoning for it, because its not just the fact that this particular dynamic between Dick and Jason has played out thousands of times before in fic, as I said yesterday. Its also because like I laid out here......my bigger issue is that take has absolutely NOTHING to do with Dick himself, says nothing about his character, but his character is inevitably the one who will suffer fallout from that particular take. That dynamic, as you described it, makes sense.....but its entirely, 100% on Bruce or others for raising those comparisons, not because of anything Dick did to Jason himself.....and thus it makes Jason’s dynamic towards Dick MORE a product of other peoples’ reactions and attitudes towards him and his brother respectively.

And that dynamic IS perfectly understandable and valid. But even if its slightly different this time because of more of a canon basis, it still for me falls into the same pattern of Dick being collateral damage to something that’s largely focused on another character entirely, with him and how he’s impacted by extension being kinda an afterthought. 

*Shrugs* And that’s just......a story I’ve read so many many times before, I’m just never gonna be all that engaged by it. 

[metellastella]

ATLA Meta: Power Differences

So, there’s a TV Trope that at first I thought might fit with ATLA. ‘Conservation of Ninjitsu.’ It is where, no matter how many guys a person is fighting, they always come out on top. In any world, realistic or fantasy, with no superpowers, this is obviously unrealistic. Samurai and martial artists of the past could excel, sure, but if they were going up against another army, they had to have the numbers. This trope is called ‘Old as Dirt’ because even in Roman mythology it’s mentioned that one warrior ceasing to fight within a battle turned the whole tide. In media this narrative device tends to play out as the ‘hero’ or hero’s team being able to keep up with multiple nameless mooks, no matter how well trained in martial arts they are.

Think, Ninja Turtles versus hordes of Foot Clan.

ATLA is an interesting twist to this, because you’d expect benders to at the very least knock out lots of nonbenders. Those with powers should overwhelm those without, right? And yet, we see the second highest ranking person in the Fire Nation choose nonbenders as her primary fellow combatants! I’ve given a plausible explanation for this with Ty Lee.

In my fic, she has unique senses that allow her to excel past even most benders in hand-to-hand combat. She can track the movement of their gathering chi, and therefore predict what their resultant move will be. And she can also sense chi pathways, so she strikes with a sure hand. For Mai, I haven’t come up with anything specific. But, I encourage you to note, against benders, the necessity of taking up a ranged weapon like throwing stars and knives, as opposed to a close to the body sword or anything like that. Whether Suki was unusually skilled, or over-confident, or thought she had the numbers, or merely desperate in challenging Azula with a katana, that is up to the viewer’s opinion.

In my fic, I also explain how a nonbender might fight or defeat or disable (or kill) a bender, and extrapolate on how firebenders in particular MUST use non-bender techniques if they are to be truly effective in combat.

Did Suki ally herself with benders in other situations? Was Kyoshi wiped of benders like the South Pole? But their leader said that they stayed out of the war. Surely the original KW were benders? Why are there no adult Kyoshi Warriors?

Anyway, I’ve always liked ATLA because the ‘superpowers’ were subtle, and not truly ‘superhuman.’ It not only made the characters somehow more relatable, it blended with the world better and the stakes felt higher when they couldn’t just keep taking hit after hit like your typical superhero. Katara got knocked out in the North Pole, for instance.

So, this all still begs the question, given the scene where Zuko rescued Iroh from earthbenders, are there vast power differences between benders? Are the ‘heroes’ merely good at fighting because of that narrative device I mentioned earlier, or is their ability to fight off many foes at once canonically based? We have some clues to this, as Aang got his master tattoos earlier than any other airbender. It’s even explained by the fact that he’s the Avatar. So it’s not just typical Mary Sue OP, it at the very least has an in-world basis.

Azula and Zuko are powerful because Ozai deliberately sought out the Avatar’s bloodline, according to the comics. Which makes total sense for him to do. I don’t give a lot of credence to the comics because of the way it clashes with what the creators originally planned for the Ursa-Ozai relationship, but the reversal of royalty looking to “marry into” a family because of bloodline is interesting and really points up the sheer importance and power of this world’s Avatar.

Toph is OP because she is blind, and that has given her a unique connection to the earth. Katara is the only one without an explanation or justification.

If you don’t count Iroh, which I don’t. He is just OP. No explanation needed. Ok, so, I could spin a yarn about how the current dynasty of the Fire Nation retained their rulership because they are the strongest firebenders in existence. But that would only have tenuous basis in canon.

Just remember that the dude, practically in the nude, put a beat down on earthbenders that had shields for firebending (a very inventive use for those hard coolie-style hats). And that was when he wasn’t in shape like in the finale, or in this fic.

He also, in canon, as has been covered with Sokka in my fic, bested Azula’s hand picked team of men early in Season 2.

(These chapters I discuss here have not been posted to my fic yet, but they have been written. It's just getting the in-between scenes written that still needs doing.)

The idea with powerful benders accruing wealth or power might partially explain Toph. We don’t know if her parents are benders or not- maybe in current cultural mores they genuinely think bending and fighting are low class. But the idea that’s where her strength comes from back in family history would not be as fun as canonical blindness powering her up.

So, just how powerful is Toph?

She resisted Wan Shi Tong’s entire fricking several story stone library sinking.

When being pursued in The Chase, she made a wall that appeared to extend possibly a hundred feet in each direction. So thick, Azula had to resort to lightning just to break through it. I’m pretty surprised that, with only two nonbenders at her side, Azula even decided to keep pursuing THE AVATAR in that tank, going up against him AND power like that.

Speaking of Azula’s motivations. I’m going to freely admit here that this is an interpretation that is probably far away from what the writers were going for in canon, for Azula’s actions. But, I am attempting to look at it in a realistic lens, which is what I’ve aimed to do for everything possible in that fic.

For example, Azula’s refusing the hostage trade between Mai’s kid brother Tom Tom and King Bumi, I’m sure, was SUPPOSED to come off as conniving, cruel, and heartless, by the writers.

The implication was probably supposed to be here, that she would ‘rescue’ her friend’s ‘baby brother’ IF she were a ‘good person.’

However.

Bumi is an incredibly skilled martial artist who has most likely violently defended Omashu from the Fire Nation for an entire one hundred years. He therefore by default, by view of any even casual outside observer, is either powerful, or smart, or both. Azula would know this in detail, studying the war growing up.

He would be one of these OP benders. Like, REALLY OP.

The idea that a leader of her country should free such a dangerous enemy man posing a threat to her people in exchange for a toddler, is utterly ludicrous.

Now, maybe the writers intended the viewer to logic that out. But I doubt it.

Therefore, drawing kidnappers out of hiding to have a shot at rescuing him would be using her smarts in service to Mai and her family.

[shmegmilton]

Can you explain how Aaron and Alexander stopped being friends and started fighting?

They were never really ‘friends.’ I assume you got that idea from the play, but I have no idea why the play tried to push that narrative. Civil? Sure, but that was necessary. New York was less than 50,000 people at the time, and they were both accomplished lawyers & statesmen who had to work and interact with each other on a daily basis. Politics is politics, look at how people are acting right now during our election. 

As for your question, it’s a long line of policy & personal disagreements, mostly. They were on opposite sides of the aisle on pretty much everything. Lots of small things, but a lot of big, BIG things.

     Burr was (ironically) kind of a pacifist; he kept mostly to himself, didn’t really speak much publicly & didn’t necessarily go out of his way to confront people unless he’s been pushed long enough (everyone ‘snaps’ at some point, y’know?)

But that’s why the ‘Burr is an evil mastermind’ myth is so pervasive today. Burr just… didn’t bother defending himself, or correcting anything, because he (mistakingly) had faith in the inherent goodness of people that someday people would see him for his true character. So for that reason, we don’t really have a good timeline from Burr’s perspective as to how he felt about Hamilton—but BOY howdy did Hamilton never shut up about Burr.

----

Trespass & Confiscation Acts  (1782ish)

     During the Revolution, the British confiscated the property of patriots that fled the city. New York did the same thing, & for a while it was this game of: ‘Oh, you’re gonna take my stuff? **draws a line in the dirt** Well, everything behind this line is mine now.” It was all very bad, and after the way Tories & Loyalists faced a lot of honestly very fucked up discrimination & forfeiture of their rights. Hamilton (like most Federalists) was pro-British, so he represented a lot of these people in court. I’m sure it wasn’t purely out of the goodness of his heart--most of his clients were loaded--but the sentiment is there. On the other hand, there are multiple records of Burr buying up property around this time, most likely confiscated Tory property, which he would usually flip or give away to people that he knew, so he was taking full advantage of this. Burr also, most likely, went head-to-head with Hamilton on a few of these cases, because Burr tended to work with the ‘common folk.’

French Revolution (1789ish to 1799ish) & Proclamation of Neutrality (1793)

     Burr (like most Democratic-Republicans) was pro-French, so much so that he took in French refugees fleeing the Revolution into his home. He was very sympathetic to the cause.Hamilton was not. He basically saw it the same way that right-wing Conservatives see the Black Lives Matter movement is the best way I can explain it. He also hated it for the amount of immigrants that were now fleeing to the U.S.

Burr Gets Chosen For NY Senate (1791)

     Key word: chosen. As in, he didn’t actually run. That wasn’t how politics worked back then. The Hamilton musical just fucking lied outright about that, let’s be clear. He also never switched parties. Ever. Back then you were nominated by the people who were already in government--usually by one of the powerful families like the Clintons or the Livingstons, or yada yada. So Burr didn’t actually do anything. He didn’t even really want the position either, if I recall. But back then if you were ‘called to serve,’ you were obligated to do it. Hamilton was furious either way because it meant that Burr was replacing his father-in-law, Phillip Schuyler, meaning that he wouldn’t have that extra ear in government that he wanted. Burr also had a lot of views that were considered ‘extreme’ at the time, like getting extra rights for women, immigrants & black people, but I have no idea what Hamilton thought of those individual policies other than he just didn’t like women, immigrants or black people.

1792 & 1796 Presidential Election

Burr wasn’t really that serious about either of these elections, I don’t think (in ’92 he wasn’t that well-known & barely got any support, but it’s worth noting the fact he was nominated to run at all was really impressive. He’s tied with William Jennings Bryan as being one of the youngest people to ever receive an electoral vote, at 36 years old.) In ’96 he faired a little better—he got 30 votes, which is nearly half of what you need to get the ticket nomination, also very impressive.Hamilton was super staunchly opposed to both of these runs, though, and did his typical Hamilton thing of openly campaigning about how the people shouldn’t vote for Burr, yada yada.

Jay Treaty (1794)

     I highly suggest looking up supplemental information on this because it’s a bit complicated, but it was basically a treaty between us and Great Britain to reaffirm that we were going to continue to not mess with France, as well as a couple of other weird hang-ups. It was not popular, at all, especially with the Demo-Republicans. There is a specific instance (that is actually kind of insane) where Hamilton gave a public speech in defense of it, and the Democratic-Republicans in the crowd started pelting him & the other Federalists with rocks. Hamilton got SO mad that immediately challenged a man to a duel, and threatened to fight each of the Democratic-Republicans one-by-one.  

Reynolds Affair (1797)

     Burr had a personal relationship with Maria Reynolds; he was her divorce attorney in 1793/1794, helped her out financially, & successfully petitioned (+paid for) her daughter Susan to attend a boarding school. I believe they also stayed in his him with him during the divorce proceedings, but don’t quote me on that. He never said anything publicly that I could find, but Burr probably had a personal investment in the Reynolds Pamphlet, since it painted Maria in a really damaging light.

Alien & Sedition Acts (1798)

     These were some of the most worst laws ever passed in the history of the country. Like, these were AWFUL. It not only limited immigration, but it limited the freedom of the press and freedom of speech (ESPECIALLY immigrants, my god.)

Burr was right on the front lines helping defend people in court, he actively opposed it & is probably the thing that propelled him into Jefferson’s orbit as a potential Vice President.

John Barker Church Duel (1797)

John Barker Church had accused Burr of taking bribes (which was unfounded & untrue) and they ended up dueling. JBC was the husband of Angelica Schuyler, Hamilton’s sister-in-law.

Neither was injured (though, JBC apparently put a hole in Burr’s coat), but it supposed infuriated Hamilton & his associates so much that they would send out fake letters “from Burr” challenging people to duels.

The Manhattan Company (1799)

    Burr was getting sick of the difficulty he was having getting loans from the Federalist-run banks and decided to do something about it. There had been several seasonal epidemics of yellow fever—caused by mosquitos but, at the time, it was thought to be caused by improperly treated water, miasma (‘bad air’) or (if you asked Hamilton) stinky evil immigrant refuges who were fleeing France and Haiti. Burr saw this and spearheaded a campaign to get a proper water treatment plant, even getting Hamilton to help him. Through some really weird loophole that I don’t quite understand, Burr was somehow allowed to use the ‘surplus capital’ for banking, which essentially turned it into a bank. The actual water treatment portion of the company was plagued with problems due to improper management and things like that.     We’ll never know his exact thought process on this (people normally assume it was malicious trickery because people are biased to hate Burr anyway) & I highly doubt that Burr knew the extent of the issues (he was on the Board of Directors, but so were a dozen others--INCLUDING John Barker Church) so I don’t entirely think it’s his fault, but the fact of the matter is that it most likely exacerbated the existing problems & indirectly led to more people getting sick/dying until they finally fixed the problems.I would say that it’s completely justifiable for Hamilton to be mad at Burr, but, as we established, Hamilton hated both poor people & immigrants (two groups most likely affected by this) so he wasn’t actually mad at him for the reason a… y’know, a normal person would be mad at him. He was mad at him because Burr destroyed the monopoly that Federalists had on banks, making it easier for Democratic-Republicans & others to get loans. He was literally mad at him for making the economy fair.

1800 Election & 1804 NY Governor Election

  These two are self-explanatory, I think, and I’ve already been writing way too long, lol. My hand hurts.

[rainbowsky]

Final round-up of fan fic asks

I've gotten a few more interesting responses to the fan fic discussion so I'm going to round them all up here. This will be my final post on the topic until/unless there's a dramatic new development, or a particularly notable response I want to highlight. Thanks to everyone who brought their thoughts and experiences to the topic. I hope everyone at least feels heard.

The biggest piece of advice that I would like to offer is for everyone to focus on what they love rather than what they hate. If we all did that, the world would be a better place. Alongside that, I'd like to remind everyone to please support authors whose work you like. It's so important. Give them a kudos, give them a nice comment, recommend their work to others. You never know what kind of grief and harassment they are dealing with to bring you these great stories, and our support means a lot.

This is in reference to previous posts here and here.

Anonymous asked:

With regard to fandom and fan fic issue, my years of experience being part of very large fandoms has led me to believe that big accounts are v important in facilitating and enforcing the general consensus of the whole fandom. Unless there will be big accs who'll remind everyone of being respectful & just not being a dick over other's preferences, nothing will change.

This is also the reason why I think certain solo fandoms have adapted weird and twisted narratives as their general fandom story because no big acc has tried to police them & and say hey pls be rational. Whether we like it or not, in a place where how far voices, ideas, tweets, posts get heard is based on the number of followers you have, big accs will have the power and influence in creating/curating/shifting the narratives.

So, if you want to know why your/our fandom thinks like this in general, look at what big accs are tweeting/posting, look at what ideas & values they follow, look at their preferences or how strongly they react to certain situations. it's taxing and toxic for big accs given the nature of social media these days, but it's also the reality of system, the more followers/audience you have, the more influence you will have.

So to anyone reading this I hope we all practice more restraint and reflection before we post anything. Remember that words, no matter what medium you write it in, will always carry weight.

So true. It is easy - even for myself who spends a fair chunk of time answering people's asks - to forget that people can sometimes be impressionable and what we say can influence people whether that's our intent or not. I get used to thinking of myself as a regular guy just doing my own thing when sometimes my thoughts and words go well beyond where I initially posted them.

I think it's important for us to be careful what we say, and it's equally important to be careful what we take from what other people say. Especially when it comes to big claims. Always get a second, third, fourth opinion and don't be afraid to ask for clarification if something doesn't sit right or sounds confusing.

It's also important to reflect on how our words and actions might affect other people's experience of fandom, and err on the side of 'live and let live' wherever possible. It's great to have our own preferences and to champion them, but we should try to do so in a way that leaves space for other people and perspectives.

The more unique perspectives and the more friendly, open dialog there is, the healthier the community will be as a whole.

There's nothing wrong with encouraging and guiding growth in the particular areas we are interested in, as long as it doesn't step on, oppress or attack those who are peacefully enjoying something different.

Anonymous 2 asked: bjyx fans attacking gdgdbaby for including zsww/lsfy dynamics in an event named bjyx then turning right around and attacking the zsww/lsfy event organizer for excluding bjyx? god, can you hear my facepalm and sigh of resignation and incredulity from over there? im genuinely not surprised that they're trying to drive an entire part of the fandom out by disgusting them (and me) with these immature tactics. i believe what im about to say next will sound quite bait-y and i respect your decision 1/?

should you choose not to post this. but i do know that it is not only me, in fact there are many out there, that is of this opinion. we just dont talk about it on twitter to avoid the potential mess it will bring lol. okay, here goes nothing. (do note that im talking about the majority here, not every single person is like this) so bjyx fans tend to be cishet females whereas zsww/lsfy fans are more diverse in terms of age and gender, and most of them are part of the queer community too 2/?

i would like to clarify that most of these zsww/lsfy fans are not dynamic exclusive (in the sense that they are friendly and interact with all ggdd fans) they just prefer to "identify" themselves as zsww/lsfy fans (on twitter specifically) just to form a distinction from bjyx fans who mostly are dynamic exclusive (as in; they do not consume non-bjyx content, and straightup refuse to interact with non-bjyx fans, often blocking them). as a result, id say that the zsww/lsfy communiy is way more 3/?

mature and respectful (after all, they're mostly queer people talking about a queer ship) whereas many problems in this fandom, such as the homophobia, adamantly insisting on "drawing lines" between dynamics, stem from the bjyx exclusive fans, comprised of cishet females who "may not know better". so, it is of no surprise to me that they're resorting to these immature tactics of calling gg unsavory names, and organizing retaliatory events with controversial topics in an attempt to "purify". 4/4

I trust that you have arrived at that theory through your own experience and observation. I haven't personally spent much time immersed in this stuff so I can't claim to have any real insight or expertise. If you say that's your experience of it, then at the very least that's how you've seen things up to this point.

I just want to say that I think we should always be careful about making assumptions about people's age, gender/gender identity, etc.

There are plenty of good reasons to avoid doing that; because those assumptions could be very wrong, because those assumptions are often laced with ageism, sexism, etc., because those assumptions - even when correct - might not be an accurate basis for the conclusions we draw.

But the primary reason I recommend avoiding those type of assumptions is because anything that enables us to clump a group of people together in our minds like that will tend to make them easier to demonize and dehumanize. They are no longer individuals who are each responsible for their own unique perspectives, they are now 'the X group' who is known for 'A B C series of easily attackable ideas or behaviors'.

If we attribute undesirable traits and behaviors to a group of people we feel opposed to in some way, that makes us feel more righteous and justified in behaving unfairly toward them, dismissing their humanity and warring with them. It's just risky behavior to engage in, even when it's well-intentioned.

There might actually be some truth to what you're saying. It could very well be that most of these people are young, inexperienced, heteronormative, etc. but if that's the case then we should try to use those traits to better understand and empathize rather than to better dismiss and discredit.

Just my two cents on that.

It can be really frustrating dealing with what feels like other people attacking us, trying to oppress us, etc. - especially when there are more of them than there are of us. In my experience the best solutions to that sort of problem are generally the ones that focus on what we are doing and want to do rather than what they are doing that we don't want them to do.

As I am always preaching, we can't control what other people say, do or think. The only thing we have any control over is what we say, do and think (and how we respond to what they say, do and think).

I have found in my experience that the moment I step out of a conflict mindset and instead step into a problem-solving mindset, everything starts to come together. I feel better, my outlook is more positive, I can begin to see solutions and allies rather than problems and enemies, and most of all, I become more focused on what I am doing than what others are doing.

So I would recommend everyone who is invested in resolving these conflicts focus on that. "How can we best showcase and encourage the types of stories we enjoy?" instead of "How can we stop these other people from doing things we dislike?"

Anonymous 3 asked:

Hello again! It’s anon #3 from the fanfic post. I really do appreciate reading your thoughts on various issues like this, so thank you for always taking time to write in depth. As for supporting without going to war, the simplest way has always been to just show appreciation for the creators, hype them up. Kudos are the easiest way on ao3 but comments in addition are great. This goes for all content—art, fics, vids..etc. Creators love to see and read how people react to their content. Sharing is also great, fic recs are very helpful, just be cautious with art and reposting though. Hope this helps a bit!

Thanks so much, Anon. I think this is excellent advice. And it's true that appreciation is great, but helping to expand the audience is also great. Recommending stories, pointing people to the pages/websites of artists we like (as opposed to reposting), sharing our own ideas and approaches, encouraging people to try new things... all of this helps build healthier communities.

And here's another one: WRITE! DRAW! CREATE!

I urge anyone with creative interests or talents to bring their voices to the community because we all can benefit from hearing from you.

Thanks again everyone for sharing your thoughts on this issue. I hope that over time we can all work in positive ways to improve the situation.

I think this subject has been well-covered now so I'm going to retire it for the time being. If anyone still feels they want to discuss it further please feel free to message me privately. Thanks.

[whetstonefires]

Since you like the Hellboy...*perks up* Can I ask what you like about it? Does this need to be part of the ask game, if so, smash it in there. But opinions! I would love!

Ooh! Hm. This is actually surprisingly hard to articulate.

I’ve been ‘into’ Hellboy for like. Half my damn life now, and while I could have gone on at length about all the things about it I found fun as a teenager it was at its core very much a ‘this makes me Feel Happy’ thing. And now that glow is less intense but it’s bolstered by that habitual sort of attachment you feel to like. Family members.

Let’s see how far I can break this down lol.

I have never been able to much like most of the BPRD tie-in type materials and I was not at all pleased with the films, so to an extent I think I can say confidently part of what I like is the way Hellboy is situated in a superhero-comic-adjacent space while being very much coordinated by one overarching creative sensibility--like, other people were brought in to work on Hellboy a lot over the course of the run, but Mignola always had a unifying voice and even when I don’t actually agree with his taste or values that level of artistic...intentionality? Judgment? Presence? Something like that. Gives the work a sense of...integrity? Maybe just unity.

Anyway makes it feel less plastic than comics often do. This is a corporate product of course but it’s also just Mike Mignola hanging out doing whatever he thinks would be cool. Drawing rocks and monsters because that’s what he wants to draw. I like that.

Some of the higher-quality webcomics you get nowadays, when they don’t take themselves too terribly seriously but aren’t outright comedic, can land similarly in terms of voice, but even just fifteen years ago webcomics weren’t really at that point yet as a medium, and even now most are still amateurish as well as amateur. Which is fine, but different.

To get slightly less meta, I love the collection of genres that are smeared together for Hellboy--we’ve got a lot of detective noir stuff cut together with cosmic horror and like...the genre where people research folklore and then mostly punch it. Does that have a name? And then there are a bunch of other influences stirred in, sometimes for only a single issue, sometimes more.

Mignola managed to be significantly less offensive than average about the way he adapted world folklore into his weird groddy kitchen-sink fantasy system, which is pretty funny because he doesn’t come across as being careful about it at all. Not that I think there was no effort made, but also he just used research as a basis for narrative much more often than he started with a story premise and stretched the creature to fit, which by default gave him less scope for dickery.

Also I think the only god he ever fights is Hecate and she’s handled from a 19th-century-occultist angle rather than a Classical angle.

Also Hellboy fights Nazis and cyborg gorillas as well as like. Baba Yaga and vampires. The balance of schlock and gonzo nonsense to pathos and sensitive emotional bits is usually about where I like it.

The episodic format is really well used. It lets the storytelling style lean heavily on the late-19th-through-mid-20th-century short story genres that it borrows a lot from, and which honestly has always worked better for comics than end-to-end long-arc serialization. I like how the anachronic order of many sections of the series allowed for a lot of ‘building outward from the middle.’

Also it means the story can stay true to its roots and kill off a lot of characters in gothic excess without constantly sloughing main cast or having to do fakeouts.

...I can’t believe that since Hellboy isn’t really emotionally involved with the issue of his birth parents except inasmuch as it explains the world-ending stone hand, the single angstiest part of his backstory is technically when he went on a drinking binge road trip around Mexico in his teens and made friends with vampire-fighting luchador triplets but then the youngest one whom he was closest to was kidnapped by the vampires and Hellboy had to kill his best friend, and this is all established in a random side story that pushes the intentional genre absurdism to its breaking point and is equal parts comedic and grotesque.

(The second angstiest is probably the bit in volume 1 when he finds his dad murdered by frogs.)

I also just love characters who wear trench coats and are actually really clever and knowledgeable and kind but tend to resort, in extremity, to just hitting problems really hard. Okay? I like that. That’s a fave.

Hellboy’s whole character design is very strong, a bunch of dramatic broad-strokes decisions that contrast interestingly against one another, and then a lot of subtler elements layered in crosswise.

The way his relationship to the narrative ‘occult-fighting antichrist figure’ could be really straightforward, but keeps stepping a little sideways off the usual shape of the tropes in a way that creates depth.

He’s a giant red demon guy who stopped aging in the 50s; he’s never going to be able to be ‘normal’ or pretend he isn’t what he is--but also he’s a dude with a government job and probably a Social Security Number who goes and interviews people about the situation and says ‘I’m Agent Hellboy’ and gets called ‘Mr. Boy’ and is just this guy who knows his shit and can take a beating.

(This was one of the major things I hated in the first movie, that they decided to make him this weird secret cryptid whose dad keeps him locked in a vault when he’s not fighting.)

The way the identity thing is never reduced to comfortable binaries with him except by enemies trying to psych him out is just really satisfying. He fights monsters not because he hates them or himself but because he was recruited into this career young and he’s really good at it, and he feels good about helping people who are being victimized.

When something occult isn’t hurting anybody he’s down to chill, and if it turns out they secretly are after all he’s always so tired and disappointed, and if they really aren’t then he has a new friend. Whom he may never see again or may hit up for a game of cards next time he’s in town.

(I also like how he combines ‘being pretty private’ ‘being very casually friendly’ and ‘being an asshole who makes a lot of enemies’; it’s not that unusual a combo for his type of main character but it’s one I enjoy.)

When he breaks off his own horns as part of his rejection of being Anung Un Rama it’s not ‘choosing humanity’ or w/e it’s choosing not to be used for this. His name is Hellboy, which is an objectively awful name but it was given to him by people he loved and who chose him, not the people who made him or brought him to this world to be used, and he chooses it.

And that has weight. That has force enough behind it to carry a world.

Just in general in spite of all the identity stuff he gets swamped with he’s really good at self-knowledge and letting other people’s ideas of who and what he’s supposed to be just wash over him. As the story goes on and shit gets weirder his sense of identity gets shaken, but he never quite loses that anchor in the knowledge that he is the ultimate arbiter of his own identity.

His exasperation on being told via stabbing that he doesn’t get to be King of England even if he is the first male descendant of King Arthur since Mordred is so funny. Why is this a thing, says Hellboy. Why am I finding out like this. Why do I always find out this shit like this. Why would anyone think I wanted to be King of England. I already punched so many skeletons about not wanting to be King of Witches.

He’s got so much righteous anger that comes out when people are treated as disposable, or as less for being not human or less human or superpowered, and of course it’s founded in his own experiences and his own fight for respect but it’s not about him. It’s about the person who’s suffering now.

One time his combat one-liner before shooting something started with ‘The Torch of Liberty said I was the worst shot he ever tried to train’ that’s so funny! I love that!

He’s my boy okay.