#because a lot of times the problem is they misunderstood a setting which is making everything else wrong

[spop-romanticizes-abuse]

since i’ve talked about how and why ambrosius and ballister’s relationship was healthier than c//a, despite being similar, i think it’s time to talk about how nimona’s arc as a victim of abuse and trauma was a lot better than catra’s.

nimona and catra are slightly similar in the sense that they’re both heavily traumatized characters who turn to repression, aggression and chaos as a coping mechanism. but there is a lot more nuance and complexity to nimona’s character than there ever was to catra.

first of all. nimona is impulsive, unpredictable, she wreaks havoc, but none of it is intentionally harmful. sure, she talks about wanting to attack people or destroy things, but she never actually causes any real harm. and even when she does end up causing anything more than general wreckage, it’s not as cold and calculated as catra’s actions.

secondly, nimona has good intentions from the beginning.

she seeks ballister out because she finds him to be a kindred spirit, someone who was also shunned from society and villanized, just like her. that in itself is an act of open-mindedness and kindness, to offer him help when no one else did.

she is also mature enough to acknowledge that the system is the problem, not the people. unlike catra who continues to serve the very system who abused her and instead takes her anger out on innocent people, nimona knows enough to not make unrelated people suffer for the things she went through.

even though in nimona’s case, the regular citizens do discriminate against her and even try to kill her because they were brainwashed by the system, she still knows that they are not the real villains.

even in the end when nimona's trauma manifests into this huge kaiju. she never actually hurts anyone. she just knocks down that one commercial that tells people to destroy anything that is different from them. any harm caused during that scene was because of the knights’ reaction to nimona, not nimona herself.

meanwhile, catra's immediate response to any kind of trauma is not just to lash out, but to make sure someone gets hurt while she lashes out. in fact, most of the times when she does something despicable, she's not even lashing out. she's calm, collected, and even enjoying herself.

just to make it clear, i'm not comparing trauma here. both nimona's and catra's trauma are valid. and even their reaction to it is valid. what is not great, however, is catra's arc and how her trauma was handled overall.

nimona finds belonging and her abrasive nature is slowly healed through her friendship with ballister. and the entire system is addressed there. there isn't an immediate fix to the system, but seeing ballister accept nimona is a good start.

catra however is not only forgiven by all of her victims almost immediately and without hesitation, but there is no true healing. and the system, which is the horde in this case, is not addressed as the main problem. in fact, catra and hordak - the biggest perpetrators, are set free (i don't count the cleaning of beast island since it's technically not canon and even if it was, catra wasn't included in it).

i'm honestly kinda glad i watched nimona before realizing that it was nate's work because i'm not sure i would have watched it if i knew. and it's honestly so much better than spop, idk if it's nate's writing or just the skill of the directors and screenwriters.

either way, if you still haven't watched this movie and you're hesitant because it was written by nate, i highly recommend you to watch it. it scratched every itch that spop left in me — a healthy enemies to lovers relationship, an actually good misunderstood “villain” (in fact, two good misunderstood villains), a better representation of a brainwashing cult, pretty solid storytelling, etc.

[lesbianalanwake]

hello! I have been reading through your posts on Alan Wake and I saw that you're a therapist? I was wondering, do you think Alan has narcissistic personality disorder, or do you think there's something else going on? I know it's a popular interpretation in the fandom but I want to hear from an expert. Also glad to hear your OK!

I'm a school counselor for ages 4 to 8. 😭 I don't diagnose; I make educated guesses for the purposes of offering advice or adjusting how I work with a kid, or using verbiage like "shows characteristics of x."

but this is make-believe land! so: setting aside ethical considerations of those kinds of diagnoses, the armchair assignments of "narcissistic personality disorder" from Internet denizens is ridiculous. everyone needs to shut up and stop throwing words around.

that being said, pre-Bright Falls, Alan is depressed and burned out, while also naturally being a bit of a grouchy introvert (nothing wrong with that - I am also a grouchy introvert). it's a case of poor communication skills between people who otherwise mean well. like, textbook depression and lack of communication, and if I was a therapist and he and Alice came to me it would take maybe a 20-minute conversation to suss this out. any non-hack, non-agenda-driven clinician worth their salt could (so, not Dr. Hartman).

I've mentioned before that post-arrival at Bright Falls, Alan experiences what is essentially supernaturally-driven brain damage and mental illness (amnesia and psychosis). but the heart and origin of it is that Alan experienced a sudden windfall of success, enjoyed it for a time but grew to resent the pressure of performing on demand for non-intrinsic reasons (something that all creatively-inclined people have to deal with), grew to hate something that he had previously loved, and experienced the massive mood drop of completing a project and having a period of heightened emotion come to an end. developing a mental resistance after something like that is perfectly normal. but he handled it poorly and failed to communicate these feelings as they were developing, so Alice and Barry, each with their own baggage, misunderstood and mostly saw that Alan was struggling with something he loved. so they used the wrong type of encouragement and help - "you'll get to writing again" "you'll be successful again" - which Alan's depressed brain with self-worth issues heard as "your writing and success is the main catalyst for our love and attention, and therefore anyone's respect or affection is dependent on this." which exacerbated the problem and the mental resistance, and because none of them are exceptionally gifted at communication or emotional intelligence, the problem could not resolve with time.

all of this is reflected in Alan's experiences with the Dark Place - normal problems ghoulishly come to life in demented funhouse mirror fashion, and really just boiled down to a need for worth to be affirmed as intrinsic rather than production-dependent.

this is why Alice returning to the Dark Place for Alan, and Alan's realization of it, is so critical. he threw himself into hell for his wife, but was at such a low point that he didn't think anyone would do the same for him - an incorrect assumption and an exaggerated supernatural example of a cognitive distortion.

prescription: a long beach vacation with a lot of sun, maybe some Zoloft, and nobody is allowed to talk about writing outside of therapy sessions for at least a year. would've fixed them right up.

[communistkenobi]

Wrt your posting about the jedi taking on children, I disagree thst the argument about force sensitive people 'need' to be trained for everyone else's safety. It's like Dragon Age mages or BNHA quirks, it's not special if someone can fireball me if they're having a bad day, some random person can already beat or strangle me with just their own two hands in the real world, no fireball necessary.

I mean idk I feel like Star Wars does a fairly decent job of establishing how dangerous force sensitivity can be - it’s not just extra strength or throwing things, but also mind control, healing (which i know is rare tbf), communicating with animals, etc. It also establishes how scary it can be to have those sorts of powers without knowing how to deal with them. I think Rebels does a good job of exploring this kind of thing with Kanan and Ezra.

However I also agree with you that it doesn’t “need” to be a problem, like force users are not inherently doomed to darkness/violence unless trained eternally across all space and time. But I think force sensitivity introduces a wholly organic way to accrue power (both physically in the sense that you’re more powerful and socially in that you have a type of organic ‘capital’ that can be used to gain social and political power in society, either because people adore you and want to follow you, and/or because they fear you), and having that type of power isn’t dependent on class position or family history*, it’s essentially random chance if someone is force sensitive or not. Which creates a threat to the types of societies depicted in Star Wars where there are durable ruling classes who want to maintain power.

And I think the Jedi Order offers a solution to this problem by capturing that type of ‘organic capital’ for lack of a better term; you monopolise an institution responsible for moulding force sensitive people into a particular type of subject - one that is not a threat to the prevailing societal order - and in exchange for being forced to be a Jedi you get massive amounts of privilege via access to knowledge, social status, material needs, and so on. While this creates civil unrest and distrust of the Jedi from a lot of laypeople, it’s a pretty sweet deal in the eyes of the Republic if it means not having to deal with rival force sensitive groups using their power to make political demands, especially through violence.

I think looking at it this way explains why the Jedi don’t really accept or allow any other type of force user, especially as they become more enmeshed with the Republic (the coven in the acolyte is a good example, the dathomiri witches, etc), and why a lot of force users who are not Jedi are labelled Sith, either because they adopt that label themselves or because they’re labelled that by the Jedi. And I’m not saying “the sith are just misunderstood victims” or whatever, but that in a scenario where you have a very powerful monastic order that controls how the rest of society understands and interacts with force sensitivity, force users who fall outside of that are going to be treated as a criminal class who are a threat to the republic (because they are - Maul is treated this way, Dooku and Anakin quite literally topple the Republic, etc). So like in the settings Star Wars tends to play in, force sensitivity is narratively understood as a source of incredible potential power, and capturing that power via an institution like the Order makes sure that power potential is not disruptive to prevailing society and power interests. Which is why I think the Jedi do have a fairly good rationale for taking kids and training them, even if that rationale is tied to the maintenance of the status quo - the Order’s power depends upon the maintenance of their own monopoly

*KIND OF. obviously some of the canon loves doing blood lineages with palpatine and shit, the midichlorian thing, etc. which sucks so bad. But general canon consensus as far as I know appears to be that anyone can potentially be force sensitive

[softpine]

So this might be a weird question. Do they have sex? Neither of them seem inclined

RIGHT WELL ABOUT THAT.... there are a ton of things i had intentions to write but probably wouldn't have gathered the courage to post because they ended up becoming far too personal for me. and frankly i don't think people were ready to read and be compassionate about this specific plot line, which was a huge problem because it was so personal to me. i don't want to go into detail, but it had a lot to do with intrusive thoughts. i realized that i couldn't portray that in the specific way i wanted to using this visual medium. i was terrified that my meaning would be misconstrued considering the topic is already so misunderstood by those who haven't experienced it. basically, i wrote myself into a corner by setting up this plot line and then realizing i actually am sooo not ready to share this with the world.

but i can still answer your question!! the short answer is yes, sometimes.

the long answer is that casper is ace, but for many reasons, you wouldn't hear him use that language himself. he wholeheartedly believes his complicated feelings about intimacy stem from OCD (oh yeah idk if this will be surprising to anyone, but i was in the process of saddling him with that 😌), and who his biological father is and knowing he shares his genetics, and also due to the way he was raised (mikaela may have been really good about teaching safe sex, but she was also a young mom who gave him an extreme fear of pregnancy lmao). it's hard to make sense of these outside factors and how they relate to inherent sexual attraction, and well, honestly... casper is not the type of person to investigate his feelings in this way. as he gets closer with coco and things start heading towards a relationship, he tells her that sex isn't his thing. he likes all the other parts about being in a relationship, he just wishes sex didn't have to be part of it.

she doesn't believe him at first and thinks that he's just using this as some kind of manipulation tactic. given her trust issues and the experiences she's had throughout her life and her career, she genuinely can't imagine that any man would want to be in a relationship without sex – specifically with her, as she has a hard time viewing herself as valuable outside of her sex appeal. neither of them are particularly good at communicating their feelings, so they end their already tenuous relationship and go back to being friends. but with time she realizes he's being honest. it makes her think about what she actually likes & doesn't like about sex. for her, it's a foregone conclusion, something she does even when she'd rather be doing something else, and the times she's enjoyed herself the most are when she's alone (truly alone, not in front of a camera) or when sex is the vehicle by which she can get closer to someone.

later, when they do get together, coco makes it clear that she's fulfilled with the relationship as it is, but that if he wanted to try it, she wouldn't make it a big deal. she knows better than anyone what it feels like to have sex with someone she's not sexually attracted to. it can still be fun, feel good, strengthen bonds, etc. and of course they would stop if it wasn't working out. this is something casper never got from the other people he's been with, no matter how understanding they tried to be. it's the first time he doesn't feel like he's being left out of a joke, or that he has a ton of expectations to live up to. so it does work for them sometimes! just not super often. but everyone's needs are being met and no one is getting pressured so it's all good :)

obligatory disclaimer: this is only representing the experiences of two individuals, this is not meant to be a representation of all asexual people, or all sex workers, or all people with trauma, etc.

[isfjmel-phleg]

Yesterday, Stephen McCranie and the cast of the Space Boy fan dub got together to read the pilot for a proposed Space Boy TV series that was pitched to and ultimately turned down by Netflix.

And as much as I would love a Space Boy TV series to happen, I'm actually relieved that this one didn't. For one thing, it was live-action, and I don't think the story would translate as well in that form since the art style is a lot of the charm. But also because the pilot didn't understand the characters very well.

As in the comic, Amy's establishing character moment is her discussing her perception of other people's "flavors," but the next thing we get from her is seeing her and Jemma win a drone flying competition at school, make a point of complimenting the losing team, and then talking smack about them the second their backs are turned. She's a lot more angry, resentful, and angsty--more like a sterotypical teenager. The comic's emphasis on her sense of wonder at experiencing even the most mundane parts of life on earth is all but gone.

And the problem with this is that Amy's good-heartedness and optimism and love of life are such important traits to the plot. They drive who she is and the kinds of decisions that she makes and the nature of her relationships. Much of Oliver's fascination with her is because she sees the world so differently from the way he does. The contrast between the two of them, especially at the beginning, needs to be extremely striking, and that can't really happen if she's moody and catty.

But it's not just Amy who's misunderstood in this pilot; it's pretty much everyone else. Oliver is introduced nearly running Amy over on a motorcyle that he has for some reason (probably to visualize his recklessness and noncaring attitude toward existence but still. what on earth.), and he's more worried that Amy hasn't been around after their first meeting because she's avoiding/abandoning him--not because he's worried that he might have made her up, as in the text. A small distinction, but one that shifts the focus of his character. There's also a heightened focus on the romance between him and Amy. Which is definitely a major thing in the comic, but it's an incredibly slow burn there, while the pilot seems to be having them do a speed run on their relationship. They meet sooner, spend more time together sooner, and their interactions come in places that in the comic are devoted to building Amy's relationships with her school friends.

Which is another problem. Amy still has friends here, more or less, but her bonding with them is very downplayed, with moments like her going to Cassie after a disagreement with her mom and having a night out at the pier with Cassie, David, and Zeph omitted. The Agriculture Club is not a thing. Tammie and Schafer are absent. (Unless a hypothetical second episode would have set them and the club up, which doesn't seem likely given what's going on with the pacing.) Those who do remain are altered. David is no longer the first classmate that Amy bonds with, and their connection is lessened. Cassie is more like the mean girl stereotype that she avoids being in the web comic--she's in a rivalry with Meisha (who in the comic is part of her and David's friend group) and jealous of the attention Amy gets from classmates. Earnest, dorky band kid Zeph is now an emo with piercings and a guitar. They seem to be standard school story tropes that are set dressing for Amy's world, not individuals with whom she builds a wide range of friendships.

And the downplaying of these connections affects Amy's characterization too. In the web comic, she's warm and friendly and ready to connect. It doesn't take her long to find friends on her first day of school. It's in her nature to be part of a community, and this is another thing that strongly differentiates her from extreme loner Oliver. Presenting Amy as a sort of outsider at school may look like an attempt to give her and Oliver something to bond over, but that's not what brings them together in the source material. An Amy who would reinforce Oliver's sense of isolation would have less of a positive effect on him, be less likely to challenge his worldview and encourage him to open up to a wider world.

And McCranie and the cast talk about all these things in the livestream, I'm not being wildly original here, but all of this gives me a deeper appreciation for what the comic is doing with its characterization and relationships. The vast variety of relationships gives the story more depth and texture than if it were primarily focused on a romance, and because of this, that romance works better because the narrative wants us to invest first in these characters as people with full lives. The supporting cast is fully necessary, because they enhance the themes while being complex figures in their own right. Making them stock roles not only makes them much less interesting but also lessens the likelihood of getting to see the character development that they go through in the original story. And Amy's character is so important to get right. She is the heart of the story, and it's vital that we find her sympathetic and endearing from the start. She's not perfect, and we definitely should get to see her flaws as well, but we need to know that she is a genuinely good and kind person whom we can root for, and we see that through her actions and her relationships. We need to know what is so different about her that draws in even the chronically closed-off Oliver.

This cannot be accomplished by making her Generic YA Heroine #7428937.

So--I can't believe I'm saying this, but--good call, Netflix. Here's hoping for an animated series instead someday, written by adapters who better understand the themes and characters.

[writing-for-life]

Hi love, how are you?

Would you like to talk a little about what Morpheus finds attractive, sexy in a woman?

opinions, theories, anything aaaaaa

Hi friend, always so lovely to see you in my inbox! And everyone else: Send me asks, too, I love them!

Oh, an ask about Dream’s sexual/romantic proclivities and his “type”—the excitement!

You could of course read my fic, then you’ll know what he wants/needs 😜

In all honesty though: I’m not in his head, so who can tell? I guess we can only go by certain hints we get in the comics and draw our own conclusions. So here come a few thoughts:

I think he has a thing for dreamers? Sounds obvious I guess, but many of the women we know he got involved with were women with strong connections to the Dreaming (Killalla, Nada, Calliope, even Thessaly), for a multitude of reasons. And having that connection is, by extension, a connection to him. If we’re getting conceptual about it: They are actually, in a way, pursuing him first (and in the case of Nada and even Killalla and Thessaly, we are basically told so in a way). Which then leads to his courting them, because they are interested in him. And I think that’s something very integral to his being: He is extremely, devastatingly lonely. He craves not being lonely. So the very fact that someone would even contemplate being interested in him, giving him their time of day (or night), would probably already mean a lot to him.

I think we can also see a pattern for women who are fairly strong-willed and speak their mind. Whether he always likes that is a different question, but Titania, Alianora, Nada, Calliope, Thessaly are all prone to talk back and not take shit.

I’ll leave the whole Desire-involvement out of the equation because that skews things. He tries to avoid D/desire because of the sibling-conflict yet definitely feels it. So I neither subscribe to the theory that he’s asexual nor aromantic (some corners of the fandom think he is, fair enough). Especially not aromantic. That’s a contradiction in terms. He’s Dream. Dreaming is idealised and unreal. In love, that’s the very definition of romance—having pink goggles on and aspiring to something that’s not grounded in reality (one of the reasons his relationships ultimately all fail).

So I think he’s prone to romantic gestures (we know that from especially Calliope) and would probably also appreciate them from his lover? That also means: If you want to keep it going, there’d probably always need to be something that keeps him interested. Questioning even (but not in the way like with Thessaly, because she completely removed herself). By definition of his being the unreal, reality setting in is the very thing that makes it all come crashing down. Push/pull, back and forth is probably something he secretly likes? It wouldn’t surprise me if he enjoys a certain amount of drama—again, not the type that makes it all come crashing down, but just enough to keep him on his toes and wondering. Just enough to keep the illusion of impermanence and striving for the impossible going, but not so much that it really turns into an issue. And that’s exactly the problem, because that sounds like a fairly tricky line to walk if you ask me. And exhausting 🤣

Now to the more speculative side:

I think he desperately needs someone who removes the proverbial stick from his arse. He needs to learn to laugh again (if he ever did so in the first place). With others and at himself. I spent a lot of time in my fic to build on that. Ultimately, I think he needs to feel safe enough to let his guard down completely with someone, and I honestly don’t think he ever experienced that with any of his lovers. And for that, he needs to be able to trust. Could be via shared experience of sorts, but I think most of all, he needs someone who truly listens and doesn’t try to change him. Because he is D/dream. Being perpetually strange and prone to be misunderstood is the essence of his being, and he needs someone who is comfortable enough with that fact. So weirdly enough, I think he would change if people stopped trying to make him change, if that makes any sense? He needs acceptance, not blunt or subtle force. I guess you can give dreams the space to change and grow, or you can try to control them—and the latter just doesn’t work. We also see that with him—his rigid sense of control is ultimately his downfall, not what truly helps him. And I think that extends to everything he is, including his relationships.

As for what he likes in terms of bedroom shenanigans (and the purely speculative, but obviously what Tumblr seems to be most interested in 🤣): In my mind, he’s the ultimate switch, if you will. He’ll get a kick out of everything that turns you on, because he is D/dream, and I think it is his very essence to also be that for sex dreams (we don’t need to talk about Calliope’s inappropriate speech at the Wake in this context 🙈).

BUT, and I think that’s an important one: Maybe, just maybe, he needs something that is just for him? Giving in to his own desires (there’s that messed up sibling relationship again). Giving himself permission to do that by being given permission. Be very afraid of my sequel… 🤣 No, that sounds all wrong because my sequel is really not about that alone and will be reliably sad and heavy in parts, like the first one, but I wouldn’t be a romance writer if I didn’t explore relationship dynamics through sex. Because sex is never just about sex 😉

@morpheusbaby3 ask answered

[justmeandmysickies]

Okay so Nick and Joe are back together but that's not actually what happened? Or how can I understand that? Not trying to be mean just trying to understand their story! Maybe you could give a rundown of the events you haven't written out? I love those two and I'd love to know more about them and their relationship! All love

ooh thanks for asking anon!! some additional information/ explanation of the "You're a coward" storyline under the cut:

1. Joe and Nick have never been in a healthy functioning relationship

2. When they first got together it was just supposed to be about sex however they developed feelings and figured they'd try

3. they fought more than anything and they both cheated on one another (to deliberately hurt the other i might add)

4. they ended that dumpsterfire of a relationship in mutual agreement

5. they both did some healing in therapy and otherwise after (they stayed friends the entire time because they have a mutual friend group)

6. Nick couldn't let go of Joe, realizing that he did actually kinda love that man and after a long time and lots of talking Joe agreed to try again

7. everything went well for a while (most of my fics with them are set during that time) but they still had loads of issues to work through

7.1. most prominently Nick's commitment as well as his abandonment issues and Joe's control issues

8. Nick broke up with Joe three separate times and Joe talked him out of it because he realized that this was Nick's trauma talking and not what he actually wanted

8.1. basically the more serious the relationship got (usually when hitting relationship milestones like saying 'i love you' for the first time or moving in together) the worse Nick's self sabotage got

8.2. "I'll leave him before he can leave me so that I won't be the one getting hurt"

8.3. that is the reason why Nick broke up with Joe and left when he realized he was actually thinking about marrying him

9. after the whole "You're a coward" storyline it took them much longer to get back together because turns out Joe met someone while Nick was gone - it was basically just sex as a distraction but Joe developed feelings for that guy and then struggled hard with the fact that he seemingly had feelings for two people at the same time

10. Nick obviously had a huge problem with that too (also the guy's name is Ira, and he became an official part of the friend group while Nick was gone)

11. because Ira got adopted by their friends both Joe and Nick have to see him all the time which drives Nick absolutely crazy (he hates Ira on principle) - so Joe has to spend a lot of time reminding Nick that he chose him and not Ira and that he is happy with that decision

12. Joe then has a falling out with his best friend Erik because Erik has a deeply fueled hatred for Nick because of what he did to Joe (and the fact that he also abandoned Erik and their other friends but that's secondary)

12.1. so Erik does not approve of Joe getting back with Nick and never misses an opportunity to remind Joe that he thinks that this is stupid (Joe feels absolutely misunderstood and unsupported by his best friend)

12.2. that puts a strain on their relationship as Joe is really struggling with what to do (he doesn't want to lose his best friend either)

13. right now Erik and Joe are basically just coexisting (and both hurting because of it) while Joe and Nick are working hard on their relationship and making good progress as well

aaand that's everything I'm gonna tell for now because the rest of their relationship may get relevant in the future ("another story arc yay" the crowd says)

[kinkyrius]

Need to think more about why I mostly bounced off Human Domestication Guide. A lot of the features of the setting are present in other work I undeniably really liked, but something about HDG just felt like it was missing.

My current best guess as to what's missing is that HDG doesn't feel very self-aware. The Affini are in the right because the story requires them to be, but they're still doing fucked-up shit while the narrative is putting them in that position as the saviours of humanity or whatever so it just comes across as disingenuous. To quite from the wiki's “writing guidelines”:

If you give the Affini a surface-level examination, they look pretty awful, but when an abusive human says "it's for your own good," it's an excuse. It's a deflection. It's a way to justify what they're doing to you. When the Affini say it, it’s true. They make it true, sometimes through bizarre and even unethical means (by human standards), but you will be better off when they’re done.

Basically the setting wants to place its characters in bad situations, but it doesn't want to grapple with what thoughts those characters might have on the systems in play or why they might think those things. (Those guidelines also say that the Affini won't tolerate exploitative systems. Lol. Lmao even)

There's a trope present in some kink fics to have society set up in such a way that some group of people are inherently “lesser” – sometimes it's gender (men or women having a position above the opposing gender), sometimes it's species (humans/beastfolk/elves/aliens/etc. being above or below other races), could be anything really – I just in general find this sort of institutionalised inequality to be rather distasteful. HDG manages to fall on the wrong side of this line for me with how Affini society treats other species, but this wouldn't necessarily be a problem if it was more self aware; there's a fic I really like that has a society where men are completely subservient to women – arguably an even more extreme case than HDG – but because it actually cares about the politics of its world it can actually do something with it that I don't dislike (though it's not perfect).

Plot is an interesting consideration here, my points sort of imply the necessity of the sort of detailed world you only get by having a plot, but like, I also read plotless porn, it just has lower standards I think. HDG doesn't have that much of a plot but its plot still exists, it sort of sits in a middle ground where it has enough plot for me to have higher standards for it, but not enough where it could do something interesting with it if it wanted. Perhaps this is different for some of the other works in the universe, there are still two fics I want to read but haven't found time for – Annabool's Divaricated and Kanagen's No Gods, No Masters – which are much longer and may fix some of my problems.

I don't hate HDG, it was a fun read and I can see why people like it, it just wasn't what I was looking for in the world of fucked-up porn. Also I think I've been a bit too absolute in writing this, there are very few things that are absolutes for me in fiction, I could almost certainly like a plot element in one story that I disliked in another for reasons so minor even I have a hard time seeing them, maybe I'll even come back to this tomorrow and realise I've completely misunderstood my own thoughts on the matter, oh well.

[bornwholocker]

Yeah I’m making another character rant post sue me, but it’s actually crazy to me how many people I’ve seen just going full hater mode on toshiro?? Obviously you’re allowed to not like a character, but people are villainizing him so hard, it’s wild. Like as an autistic person who has had people pretend to be friends with them, yes that shit HURTS. And the way toshiro went about his relationship with laios(especially for so long) definitely wasn’t healthy, but also like. It’s so much deeper than that?? And I’m glad I’m starting to see more people talking about this lately because honestly, it’s right there guys.

First things first, I do want to remind people that being “polite” and not telling people you don’t like them, but subtly signaling it, is still the standard in most social situations! And it doesn’t make much sense to me and it sucks for a lot of people and causes miscommunication, but it’s not like toshiro’s some big bad evil guy for following unspoken social rules that most neurotypicals also follow. Also also, given that dungeon meshi’s setting is definitely not modern, the characters probably don’t know what autism is! They just know that Laios is weird about monsters and doesn’t do well socially. All the characters have problems, many of which are accentuated for us by how normalized a lot of things are in a modern world, and a lot of things not being acceptable/normal. Obviously these are still issues for the characters, and are addressed/resolved as such, but we need to put it in perspective just a little bit.

Toshiro lashed out because A) he had just gone through some CRAZY ASS SHIT, which I feel like no one brings up. He just learned that his party companions used illegal magic that pretty much everyone agrees is dangerous on the woman he loved (yeah the way he proposed to falin without any previous communication was weird but that’s a whole nother can of worms), and it ended horribly for her! and B) he was exhausted. He had just gone days with little to no food, very little sleep, and there’s Laios, well fed and rested and to toshiro, not at all treating the situation with the seriousness it deserved. And it just hit home with how much he and Laios had clashed, how Laios was so open and honest about every little thing, and oblivious to what toshiro thought was extremely obvious. Toshiro had been raised to be quiet, polite, respectful, etc. and as a result learned to bottled up his feelings, so when he saw Laios being able to say whatever was on his mind, he understandably envied that. Even though we know that it’s difficult to be on Laios’ end, toshiro saw it as a privilege. Not only that, but he had been trying to signal to Laios (not exactly effectively but) how he felt for YEARS. And his point never made it. Everyone talks about Laios being misunderstood, but what about toshiro? What about his years of trying to communicate in the way he knew, and not being understood? I think everyone knows exactly how frustrating it is to feel like we’re being SO obvious, only for it to still cause miscommunication. So why not extend that understanding to toshiro?

Aside from all this though, it’s still clear that he does care about Laios, even though he’s annoyed by him. He literally gives Laios a bell that, when rung, would ring a matching one and be a call for help. Another example- which albeit anime only’s probably won’t know, I only know because I saw the panel- is in the finale I think, toshiro defends Laios to the elves. He sticks up for him and places his trust in him, even after everything.

Neither side was really in the wrong, but people are bashing toshiro like crazy. Unfortunately we don’t have a lot of big scenes with him outside of that meeting in the dungeon, so most of our opinion is formed off of that one moment, but that moment tells a much bigger story than just, “toshiro bad and ableist, laios poor autistic puppy.” It’s been said countless times on this hell site and beyond, but I am BEGGING people to please have a little critical thinking as a treat. Like Ryoko Kui wrote this story and the characters so much more complex than good guy and bad guy. (Slight spoilers maybe) Not even the BBEGs are really all bad, when you get down to it. Everyone’s feelings and experiences are shown from their perspective and contextualized to the audience extremely well IMO, which is one of the reasons I love dungeon meshi so much. Anyway point is think deeper folks.

[sunnysam-my]

Dark Academia is a subculture and it isn't problematic, just misunderstood.

I am so tired of people that aren't a part of this community shitting on dark academia literally any time it gains popularity again, claiming that it's pretentious, elitist and racist. It's not problematic, at least not in a way most people criticise it for.

What all of those people don't seems to understand is that there's the dark academia aesthetic and there is the dark academia the subculture. Even when they do understand they still put people who are only interested in the fashion and overall vibe together with people who are dark academia.

Why is dark academia a subculture?

First let's start with what even subculture is?

It's a cultural group within a larger culture, often sharing a collection of values, beliefs, rituals and traditions. Despite what many believes, it doesn't have to have any connection to music, like Star Trek and Star Wars fans, but there's no need for having a shared fandom at all, like the gays, bikers and youth.

Participation in the dark academia subculture is not limited to following a specific set of fashion. It suggest preferred activities, hobbies, philosophies and lifestyles. The focus is on reading and expanding one’s horizons, on becaming the best version of oneself no matter the cost, especially by engaging in classical literature, history, foreign languages, mythology, art and philosophy. On top of that DA is actually connected to certain music (classical and neoclassical) and fandoms.

The (incorrect) criticisms:

1. One of the more common criticisms of dark academia is that of its superficiality and pretentiousness – that it is more a fetishisation of intellectual life than real intellectual life. "Instead of being a reading society, it's a Dead Poets Society cosplay." This is just simply untrue. Yes, there are people who are purely here for the aesthetic and vibes, but they aren't part of the subculture. People who are genuinely part of this community do read all those books, write poetry, journal e.t.c regularly and try to be well educated.

2. The money issue. Now this is where it gets funny. Dark academia is often called classist and racist because of it's "idealised vision of the academic lifestyle in which the money is simply there". Obviously in places where higher education is strictly financially driven studying is a bitch. Nowadays there are even a lot of doctors who are homeless, especially in US. But DA is mainly a European thing, and in a lot of EU countries studying isn't that expensive, it's not cheap either (books costs a lot and not working doesn't help), but you don't need to pay for a good education, you need to study hard and compete with others to get good education.

This however is not a dark academia problem. It's a harsh reality. One that we need to fight with. Getting higher education shouldn't make you get into a debt. It shouldn't make you sacrifice social life for studying all your life only to end on the streets.

3. "Eurocentric obsession". This is so dumb I don't even know to say. How can you possibly call people, mostly from Europe, problematic for being fascinated by Europe's history, it's past culture, Greek mythology, mostly European philosophers (but American too), Latin that is still fucking taught at many schools here, etc. All of things are taught in schools here. There is nothing wrong with you being obsessed with Asian royalty and making it part of your personality, but God forbid, you, a white person, are obsessed with the best parts of your history and culture 🙄.

4. Another criticism of dark academia is that it encourages unhealthy behaviour, both physically (caffeine overconsumption, smoking, drugs) and mentally (perfectionist, constant competition). The pursuit of perfection comes at a price. The entire idea of DA is to study as hard as possible so you can reach enlighten. It's workaholism, except it's school, not work. Now this is why I think dark academia isn't problematic in a way people think, but is misunderstood.

A melancholic comforting dream

It's easy to understand why people think DA is unhealthy or fake. Nights spent studying, writing essays for hours on end, drowning in books and writing excessive notes. For many this sounds like a nightmare, but dark academia romanticise it. It see it as the true joy of university life. At the same time there's taking joy in reflecting on what is irretrievably lost, pessimistic and melancholic.

In reality most people in this community are overworked neurodivergent, usually twice exceptional, youth who struggles mentally. So many people are twice exceptional and it's very obvious. The hyperfixetions, the love for linguistics and humanities, the hate of math.

For many Dark Academia is a coping method.

Staples of dark academia fiction explore intellectualism, classic literature and self-discovery, but also the struggle of fighting for your identity, the way humans are shaped by their trauma, the way they destroy themselves to be better. The word "dark" in Dark Academia is primarily about those dark sides of the human nature, not just the dark colours of the DA aesthetic.

If you think that Dead Poets Society romanticised suicide or Kill Your Darlings academicly motivated drug use then you're the crazy one here. People loved those movies, because of how relatable they were, even the suffering.

Studying is a bitch. If you make it fun then you are less depressed about the fact that you don't have the choice to not study all night. It's not just nostalgia for what you haven't experienced, but what you have to endure all your youth. Some people are forced to study to be the very best and sacrifice their (social) lives, because the system is so broken, but if you can make it into your own, comforting, time - it's better. Sure, the movies and books have lots of harmful copying mechanism, but irl (or in this case online) this community encourages healthy methods like reading, making art, journaling, acting etc.

I do think there's a lot of to talk about when it comes to, for example, sexism, and I do agree DA needs more diversity than just white cis man, but like I said, it's not problematic in a way most people criticise it for.

[thelittlecrookedtalecomic]

Wow, Ariel was only 34?! Poor thing sure didn't age well 😔 Sorry, maybe you're tired of questions about her, but I'm just curious: you said there were many plotholes in the original movie, what are they? (I must sound dumb 😂)

Alright, this is going to be a LONG answer and I hope I can explain myself good enough 😁

The Little Mermaid is one of those scripts you have to completely flip because you're changing the original idea in an opposite way. In the original story, the mermaid is not an exemplary character, but rather proof that we cannot force someone to love us just because we have become infatuated with them. No matter how much we self-sacrifice or try, "no means no." She is a selfish and reckless character who shows growth in the end by letting go of these traits and choosing to sacrifice herself when she had the option to save herself and crown her greatest selfish act.

In Disney's case, the premise was obviously that Ariel had to be a heroine, carry a moral message, and triumph over evil. To do this, they chose the path of victimization. Ariel had to be a misunderstood social outcast who fell into a trap set by a very evil figure who was then defeated. But the resources employed were insufficient, as they kept too many elements from the original script.

Demonizing the figure of the witch was an obvious step, turning her into a deceitful character with "I want to conquer the world" ambitions to quickly cast Ariel as the victim. The problem with this is the initial premise: literally everyone in the ocean knows Ursula can't be trusted, and she proudly displays her victims in her garden. This makes Ariel look like a foolish character for making a deal with her and downgrades a lot of the "I’ve always wanted to leave the sea" narrative into just a "teenage tantrum." Sure, she’s an impulsive teenager, but the point of this narrative device was to victimize her, and it achieves the opposite. Personally, I would have made Ursula a more discreet and manipulative character, someone Ariel saw as a victim, which could later trigger a sense of betrayal in Ariel.

Then there’s the often-discussed aspect that's always used as an argument: Ariel's fascination with the human world. It’s a great nuance to add to the story, moving it away from being solely about a romantic interest. Ariel needed her own background, hobbies, and goals, like exploring that unknown world. The problem is its execution—it’s insufficient and tedious. Ariel is a fanatic about the human world, with an oversized ego about what she thinks she knows, and her extreme idealization is used as if it were irrefutable evidence against her father. I always use the same example for this: in neutral terms, Ariel looks like someone who idolizes and defends an extraterrestrial way of life she knows only through the garbage she collects, while everyone else knows these beings hunt humans. Essentially, she comes across as an crazy and obsessed person.

This fascination with the human world is sold to us in a propagandistic and absurd way, focused on "we, the audience, are humans, and Ariel says we’re great, therefore she’s right. Her father keeps giving us a hard time, so he’s a tyrant." By the end of the movie, Ariel becomes the "superior species" because her father bends for absurd reasons. During the first half of the movie, Ariel’s love for the human world is heavily emphasized, but it falls flat when the weight of the original script lands on us. It all turns into a race against time for the woman to win over the man, and all the prior development becomes mere decoration that could be removed from the plot without affecting it at all. If Ariel hadn’t met Eric, she wouldn’t have left the water. This is also shown when it’s not until Triton destroys Eric’s statue that Ariel is devastated, unintentionally showing in the script that the rest of the cave treasures (and her character’s corresponding nuance) were mere additions. You can literally erase all the first part of the movie until Ariel meets Eric and there's no difference in the script development. In the end, what matters is the man, and that’s what moves the story. It’s Eric who makes Ariel seriously want to leave the water, and his statue is the crown jewel of her collection. Eric's cracked stone face is what pushes Ariel to take the step, as Flotsam and Jetsam don’t tempt her with exploring the human world but with winning over "her prince," just like Ursula does later too. Everything in the deal and the song, revolves around seducing Eric.

Personally, on this point, as I said, the script had to be completely changed, and that’s why they could have taken more risks by simply eliminating narrative elements that doomed the story to follow its original course. Ariel shouldn’t have fallen in love until she left the water. There are tons of stories they could have told about a mermaid being deceived by a witch to fulfill her dream of becoming human, and then introduced the romantic interest after she achieved her initial goal. This would have not only affected Ariel but Eric as well, who also loses out in Disney’s version. Originally, he was a prince who at least knew he had no romantic interest in the protagonist. Here, he’s a puppet obsessed with a voice while also being attracted to a mute stranger, despite being "in love" with the owner of the voice, and then goes on to marry a third woman who, no matter how much they try to sell us the idea that she "hypnotized" him, her physical appearance raises serious doubts in a realistic context about how much of a womanizer and fickle person Eric is.

Then we have poor Triton, the real victim of this script. He’s the most logical character in the film, battered by forced scenes where he loses control of his temper to demonize his perfectly logical ideas, and suffers absurd accusations of patriarchy against the protagonist (because we can all see how Ariel is locked in her room with no freedom, having tons of real obligations in her privileged underwater bubble). He’s also used as a cheap tool to emphasize human supremacy over the marine world.

Another aspect that should have been more balanced is the presence of animals. Ariel is by far the most dependent protagonist on others because of this. The supporting characters do absolutely all the work for Ariel, whose only accomplishments in the movie boil down to dodging a shark, saving a man from drowning (which was already in the original script), jumping into the water to swim after the wedding ship (for which she also needs help), and grabbing Ursula by the hair. One could argue that Cinderella also relied on her friends to escape her confinement. The difference is that Cinderella herself took the initiative by ordering them to bring Bruno, a course of action that made sense due to the development they had, making it a logical resource to use as a consequence. We are shown how Cinderella built relationships with her friends, so these friends help her in her moments of necessity. But in Ariel’s case, her friends act and solve things without communicating anything to her. Ariel controls none of the situations, and everyone else solves the problems for her.

Considering the decades that had passed, I’m still surprised at how all the nuances of the film end up making Ariel a much weaker woman than her predecessors, who didn’t navigate their plots pretending to be heroines like the case of the Little Mermaid. Ariel doesn’t learn or reason through anything during her experience. She doesn’t control any of the events around her or discover anything for herself, doesn’t apologize for her mistakes, and conveniently gets a rather undeserved happy ending. She doesn’t adapt to circumstances (the circumstances and characters adapt to her needs), she suffers no disappointments from the human world she so idealized because she walks on clouds as the privileged guest of a prince, and nothing happens to pull her out of her comfort bubble.

Essentially, it’s a script that not only retains 80% of the original nuances but also worsens them by making the mermaid’s actions affect more people due to her recklessness, and on top of that, rewarding her for being the most problematic and useless character.

[reverescents]

Canada is high on the list for countries with the best education systems; but its "support services" and importance placed on mental health and well-being that are reasons why they are high on the list, don't even result in anything actually helpful and effective from my experience and observation. Why would it? School vice principals and guidance counselors, social workers, anyone with the duty to support students, don't understand or know many (actually, countless) crucial things, which in turn affects their attempts at helping you. Another thing to consider in the first place is that the world itself with its people is extremely, unbelievably problematic and cruel and sad and flawed. That is important here obviously. They simply don't get it and therefore students (who may not even understand many of the same things themselves) feel unseen, unheard, misunderstood, not understood, confused, and angry. Those people with their roles think they are being of help or that they are dealing with the issue but they simply don't see, they don't see a lot of issues and things, they talk about the wrong things and say the wrongs and think and assume the wrong things, unintentionally cause harm, etc. Those wack mental health and crisis helplines/hotlines are exactly that; wack. Useless. There are so many problems with it. I have direct experience and I am speaking based on that, and my experience was far from..."helpful". It simply just doesn't work. They act like counseling or therapy and mental health support services like those hotlines are a big fix, a solution, or significantly or genuinely effective and helpful. But none of it is what they think it is. There are various issues, a ginormous, complex web of interconnection that is always, at every moment, present everywhere, many of which I am not even aware of myself. Those hotlines are just ridiculously unimpactful (well, positively) to the point that they're laughable.

Besides from all of that, students have to go to school early in the morning and finish around 2 or 3 of course (that is, if they don't have extracurriculars after), and they have assignments and projects to complete at home. Additionally, they have to do 40 hours of mandatory volunteer work that, obviously, they don't get paid for. On top of that, they have to work or get/have a job so they can save up money in order to make paying for their next step easier, and living on their own if they want to move out (probably because they loathe their family) easier (and this is extremely common). Kids as young as 15 work a job to do that. Teenagers also have to participate in extracurricular activities and invest time and energy in that if they want to increase their chances at getting into a good university. That's not exclusive to Canada, in fact, none of what I am saying is.

These school systems (including colleges and universities), in the first place, are not even designed to suit, adapt and adjust to, support, and work for individuals and individual needs + differences. Differences in learning styles, capabilities, (natural) skills, talents, potential, circumstances, problems, etc. Psychological differences as well. But people don't even have a clue about that (yet?) unfortunately. The systems are not built that way, and they were not set up for the students or the public, with the people that will be participating within it in mind and being prioritized. They still follow the old traditional system, which has many problems of its own. College/university is absurdly expensive and leave people with debt. They expect us to fit into one big box, and to function well. Sure, inside that system they may be apparently "improving" things and may include and offer certain "options" and alternative pathways in order to support and help us somehow individually. But it is barely much. It's almost nothing. And oh, the illusion of choice. We don't realize just how little control we actually have over our own lives and paths, just how controlled we are [instead], how in actuality, we have very little choice and even every single one of those choices that we make are not free from the influence of a billion things, and the illusion of "options" and "choices" and "paths" that is created to give us the idea or false sense that we have freedom or control (funny) and the power to choose/decide when in reality, only it is withheld that it is determined and decided for us by others what choices, paths, and options we receive or have in the first place, and what those even are. We don't decide that. Within those meager sets of options, we pick. We have choices, albeit a very narrow set of them, but what those choices are is predetermined for us. We don't decide what we choose between/among; not that I am saying that is what we need or should have necessarily, either. But we are so deeply entrenched in this order of things and have been for so long, we barely realize any of this. Even if we become aware, we easily forget or it slips away, and it is difficult to truly grasp and internalize it or incorporate it into our viewpoint. And that is, of course, just a result of this very large and complex system.

We don't decide whether we pay for water or not. We don't decide to not work. Even if you do, you have to rely on others and somebody else who does work, to survive. Everybody depends on everybody, all the time. We don't decide to participate in or not, be part of or not, this unfair, cruel, harrowing, tormenting, and torturous system. We have no choice but to live and participate within the broad systems and structures we are existing in; that is what we have and that is what we have to accept. We don't decide how we are shaped and impacted every moment of our lives since birth by the people around us, and our parents and siblings and family and routines and structures, or the words we hear and the tones with which we are spoken to, the facial expressions we are shown and the ways we are treated, the actions that affect us and what we observe, what we learn and are taught directly or indirectly, the various forms of media we discover and consume and absorb, and the narratives and stories we are fed, and the information we are told about, what we experience and what we see and what we watch and what we read, and anything and everything that ever happens to us or is done to us. We don't control how any of those things mold us and impact us, and we also don't control or decide the "what" (what those things are and are like, etc). You don't choose how you are influenced and you don't choose what influences you (which is everything, in some way) and what those things are like or all the processes [by which you experienced/read/watched/found/saw something, for example]. Behind something is another thing, behind everything is another thing, and another behind that, and that, and so on. There are various things behind anything. Everything is behind everything. Everything is behind every decision you ever make. When you choose a movie to watch, there is already an entire complex history and web of events, occurences, influences, processes, ways you were impacted and shaped, things you read or heard or found, everything, that led to that moment where you pick that particular movie. Many of those things were chosen by you, and many weren't, and the things that were chosen by you, had everything behind it. Your choice of the movie and the very fact that you even decided to watch a movie — that whole complicated history is behind that.

It probably would be very difficult for these school systems to 'tailor to' every individual or be able to support and work for them personally according to their needs and who/what they are, and I don't have any ideas about a better system myself due to my lack of knowledge, but that doesn't mean the status quo cannot be criticized. In fact, it is very much in need and deserving of scrutiny (as well as insults). I can still criticize and question it even if it would be difficult to achieve something greater, or there is no obvious "better" alternative, because it is still severely harmful and just tragic, honestly. It collectively causes serious harm and damage, a lot of which isn't immediately obvious or recognized [at all, or ever].

Perhaps Canada is just high on the global list because it really is still better compared to most other education systems. You can't even trust the information you read, or the sources where you read them, it can give you a positive impression of something if you haven't experienced/seen/had/used/it, etc., but who is writing this information? Who are the people gathering the information and how? What do they know? What is behind it all? Aren't there things they're missing? Aren't there problems and issues they can't see? What is the process, exactly? There are things they aren't considering and aren't basing whatever they are writing on. There are things they are basing what they're writing on, that shouldn't be used as foundations. There are various things they are misunderstanding. There are things they think are true or right or good, when they aren't those things, at all. This just makes you more distrustful and skeptical of official and established things, lists, information, and descriptions. Remember, "official" doesn't [always] mean true or good or correct/accurate.

[tellthemeerkatsitsfine]

Watched the new season of Not Going Out. Enjoyed it. Spoilers ahead.

I love that Lee Mack's single-handedly keeping the traditional sitcom alive. That's how I want it. I don't want anyone else doing it. Those "classic", traditional sitcom tropes have (mostly) died for very good reasons - there were a lot of problems with those things. I'm glad society has largely moved on.

I don't believe that all comedy TV shows should be comedy-drama either. I think there is lots of middle ground, where you can have interesting, creative, subversive, progressive comedy shows that are still focused on being funny first and foremost, with any drama or emotional stuff as a distant side issue. And you can have those alongside the smart, touching, thought-provoking comedy-dramas that have more of a balance, jokes sprinkled into emotional plots and messages. I like that that's mainly the TV comedy landscape these days, rather than the model from 25+ years ago, when it was all about formulaic classic sitcom tropes.

But I'm glad there's one person keeping that latter thing alive (I mean, I'm aware that lots of people are involved in making Not Going Out, but it seems to very much be Lee Mack's vision). Every 18 months or so, we can trot out a new season, a six-episode memorial to a rightfully bygone era. But this version is the one that's done well enough to be worth keeping around.

The show is so loose with continuity and overarching plots. Every character, every set piece, every plot element, is only there as a device to set up more jokes. And yet, the show's been running for so long that even without episodes dedicated to actually fleshing out any of those things, I've seen enough of the main characters to feel invested in them. And I think this whole paragraph is quite an accurate definition of the classic sitcom format.

Lee Mack is the perfect person to keep the traditional sitcom alive. He's staunchly traditional in his comedy style, but he's also actually funny (as opposed to... I mean, I guess I'll avoid naming specific names, but there are definitely some of those older comics who are supposed to be really really good, but if you actually listen to their stuff, you'll realize that they probably only got so successful because stand-up comedy was a smaller thing at the time and there was less competition). His entire career pays homage to the traditional jokesmith style, but he's also willing to keep moving forward, following what comedy has become, and writing new material. His ridiculously quick-moving mind is one of those un-teachable skills that's perfect for this style of comedy. And Lee Mack manages to be old school without being, you know, a dick. To the best of our knowledge, at least. We don't know what he's like in real life, but we do know he's not out there giving interviews about cancel culture to the Daily Mail (cough cough cough Jack Dee).

So I nominate Lee Mack to be the sole ambassador for the old school sitcom in the 2020s. Which is just as well, because the people who have the power of those things had appointed him as that anyway, regardless of my nomination.

There was some wild stuff in this latest Not Going Out season. I enjoy the way that Lee Mack has now established the bones of his sitcom - Lee, Lucy, and their relationship - well enough so he can play with all kinds of different scenarios within that. That campervan episode, what the fuck? Lee Mack writes fanfiction of his own sitcom, horror movie AU. I spent the whole time waiting for it to turn out that Lucy and Lee had comically misunderstood something, Scooby Doo-style, and it would turn out that what seemed like a dangerous threat was actually fine. Like that time in an earlier season, when they thought Hugh Dennis' friend was going to kill them but it was fine. But, nope. This time, Lynn from Alan Partridge was genuinely trying to kill them, and Lee Mack had decided to show us how his characters react in that scenario. And then, in the next episode, act like it never happened. Classic sitcom.

I suppose I should have known, because last season, there was that coffin episode, and I spent the first half of that episode waiting for it to turn out that Lee was actually fine, that due to a madcap series of hijinks, he'd never been buried, and was just locked in a closet or something. But nope, that turned out to be actual horror too. And yet, always true to sitcom style. It's impressive.

That final episode was a masterpiece of a classic farce. I did find it funny when Lee, in the middle of such an amusingly formulaic farce scenario, realizes he's accidentally swapped cell phones with his neighbour. It was such an odd juxtaposition, modern cellphones alongside Pink Panther-esque farce.

I'm down to have this show keep going for another couple of decades or so. Let's follow them (the characters and the actors) to the retirement home.

[iam93percentstardust]

Welp it's been almost an entire year since the last hate comment in my inbox, so I figured I was due for another one (and trust me, dear nonnie, you have nothing on the three months of targeted bullying and hate I went through at the end of 2022/beginning of 2023). But I think this is a good time to spend some time talking about authorial intent. Now, don't get me wrong, I think there are many, many things wrong with this comment, but their complete misunderstanding of what I wanted to accomplish with this fic is indicative of a wider problem that I'm seeing in fandom at the moment, so we're gonna talk a bit about critical thinking and authorial intent.

So I could point out that this comment sucks because the fic they're complaining about is a gift fic and the giftee loved the fic so anyone else's opinion doesn't matter, and thinking that your opinion matters more than the giftee's is the height of entitlement (but let's face it, being called entitled doesn't matter to this person).

Or I could point out that this fic was tagged with "Infidelity" so they had to have known what they were getting into when they first opened the fic and shouldn't be so horrified that the cheating fic contained cheating (but let's face it, we all know that they didn't read the tags, and I'm not even sure they read the fic since both characters were cheating, not just Tony).

But what I really want to focus on is how badly this person misunderstood what I was writing. This is a smut fic masquerading as a breaking up & making up fic. I wrote this fic specifically so I could write 6 sex scenes (which was the original prompt anyway). I didn't really want to focus on the feelings. They're there, they're present, they get mentioned to set the stage for the sex, but I don't spend thousands and thousands of words talking about the feelings and mental states of Steve and Tony.

Which means that for the parts where Steve and Tony are being "toxic" and "shitty," I don't go into a whole lot of detail as to why they're being toxic and shitty. I have a personal headcanon as to why they're acting like this, but it doesn't actually matter. What matters is that I made a deliberate choice not to include the justification for their actions so I could write the smut instead. I knew that I was writing Steve and Tony as toxic and shitty because that was the entire point.

Now, let's be honest here, this commenter doesn't care about any of this. "Disgusting" and "grossness" are a deliberately inflammatory word choice, and as my friend pointed out, they're being puritanical and moralistic. In other words, they're like any other of the growing number of pearl-clutching members of fandom I see these days.

But this post isn't really for them. This post is for everyone who's only reading fic through their own lens and forgetting that the author also had a purpose when they wrote the fic in the first place.

This isn't the first time someone has completely misunderstood what I was trying to do with a fic. It's one of the meanest, but it's not the first time. It happened with the professor/student fic I wrote in 2022 where I argued that just because two people were wrong for each other when they were younger that doesn't mean they're still a mismatch when they're older. The pining Tony/serial one-night stand Steve where almost all of the early comments were about how it should be switched and missed that that was the entire point (that Steve is the obvious choice for pining, and I wanted to explore what would switch that dynamic). The Christmas fic in 2021 where someone straight up told me I tagged it wrong just based on the summary.

So here's the thing: death of the author is only one interpretation of literary criticism, but it's by no means the only. Authorial intent is a perfectly valid way to interpret a fic, and in this case, it's arguably more valid than looking at it through the lens of death of the author because if the reader isn't considering my reasoning behind why I wrote the fic the way I did, then the point of it will go right over their head. Getting so hung up on my intentions, my background, my style of writing not mattering, on only their interpretation mattering, means that they only read the surface level of this fic. And that works just fine in other fics, but it doesn't work here. At all. Because the entire point of this fic is my intentions. I intended to write a smut fic that glossed over the feelings of the two characters involved. I intended for it to look like a toxic relationship from an outsider's perspective. I intended to write the prompt I saw for the person who prompted it.

And if you're not looking at it through what I intended, then all you're going to end up with is dissatisfaction and the belief that I made a mistake somewhere instead of realizing that I achieved exactly what I set out to do.

[kaifish-pond]

CG/Regressor Subtypes!! (Pt. 1)

(Note these are my OWN personal opinions/how I view them! Please take it with a grain of salt!)

Fatherly  CGs (note you are NOT required to ID as He/Him to use these labels!)

Papa CG (one of my favorite CGs)

Papa CGs to me, are sterner than Daddy CGs, but not as rigid as Father CGs. They offer a lot of gentle wisdom, encouragement, and a silent strength. They are prone to setting expectations (not rules) but then sometimes faltering on enforcing them all that much. But when they DO get fed up, OH BOY! 

They never punish or anything of that nature, but they do expect things from you. They are not wholly indulgent like a Daddy CG might be, but are more apt to let you have your own way than a Father CG would. 

They enjoy planning, keeping on a loose schedule, and mealtimes that consist of balance. They always make sure you drink water, but will of course let you have your iced coffee or energy drinks fairly often. 

They love giving treats when you deserve it, and driving you to get ice cream (Even in the middle of winter) is a huge treat even for them, because they love to see you happy! 

They love taking you on day or weekend trips, nothing too expensive but definitely a place that will be memorable! 

Papa CGs DO NOT need to be he/him to call themselves a Papa! Any gender can be a Papa!

Papa CGs are HIGHLY protective over their little one(s) and will never stand for anyone making fun of or bullying. They will also protect littles that aren’t theirs! 

Papa CGs always have your favorite candy on hand to reward you for a good job! 

Daddy CG

Daddy CGs are probably the most chill between Papa & Father CGs. They just want their little one to have the best time ever. They are just as silly and funloving as any little could be. They hardly ever get upset, and when they are the opt to just laugh it off or gently talk to their small one. 

They’ve never met a bad little in their life (except for a*usive littles, which are a thing) only misunderstood ones. They would rather get down to the root cause of what’s causing a little to lash out, then raise their voice

Daddy CGs also have expectations, but the main one is; Have Fun Kiddo! 

Daddy CGs LOVE to spoil you, toys, games, stuffies, colouring books. If you can dream it and its practical a Daddy CG will try and give it to you! 

Daddy CGs can often be taken advantage of because they are just so darn giving, so they have to be on the lookout for things of that nature! 

Daddy CGs will take you on the most amazing roadtrips & drives. They’ll just pick up the car keys and ask “Wanna go for a drive?” And next thing you know you’re two states over having the best pizza you’ve ever eaten (ONLY DRIVE WITH PEOPLE YOU KNOW AND TRUST THO!)

Daddy CGs LOVE to see you smile and will do ANYTHING to make you happy. They shower you in all the best snacks, drinks, etc. 

Father CG

Father CGs are the most stern, and even a bit reserved/hands off. They watch you with loving adoration from afar (But NOT in an inauthentic/uncaring way) 

Father Cgs love their littles just as much as any other Cg, they just love watching you be independent and tackle life’s problems head on! 

Father Cgs are always looking out for their littles in ways that the little one may not even be aware of. Such as keeping receipts for taxes, or making sure their car has a full tank of gas, putting away money to treat them later 

Father Cgs may or may not be big on affection

More often than not Father Cgs have a HUGE well of knowledge to draw on to help out their little one when they’re in a scrape/bad spot and love to give advice

Father Cgs can be a bit rigid in their planning or schedules. “It's time for sleep NOW, Little one.”

Father Cgs are who you call when shit is hitting the fan and you need honest and practical advice 

[papikyoo]

I've been thinking lots about your 'what drew you to Kabumisu' answer and your kbms comic (especially the one with ex-classmates Laios au) I'm curious if your relationship with your partners or any relationship reflects with Kabru/Mith also how? Maybe it's too personal or self-serving but there is something that sets apart your fandom arts and thoughts on this ship from others and I feel it's a delicate sense of empathy and devotion to real-life relationships as well! which makes your arts really good and deep at certain times such like when you portraited how Kabru would treat his relationship with Mith towards Laios in that one comic I loveee that so much (no need to answer if you're uncomfortable!) I only noticed you say your gf once, and I adore this ship with my partner, my gf too! (She prefers the Farcille ship more than kbms and saw us as one tho lol)

I'd say, yes, my romantic relationship and experience definitely has a role in how I depicted kabru and mithrun's relationship.

I usually set up how I view characters with association of irl people, experiences, and a little bit of theories (childhood trauma, upbringing or mbti etc etc) though it might sway from canon bc of my own bias but I need to gain more insights from different sources and I like my art to have reasoning behind the portrayal.

Both my gf and I relate to kbms, even though our relationship doesn't work the same way. She has an approach in life similar to Kabru, and it's always fascinating to observe, I understand the thought process even though I don't actually relate to. There's some pattern in Kabru's behavior, that you can find the same kind of people in real life and they would be misunderstood a lot for the fact that they can accurately deduce people's motive and act according to the circumstances. They are not "pretending", it's just how they are, they need to strategize their actions for benefits of a majority. (according to their own morals) and I really admire this aspect. even though it's not always seen as a good thing, it's a quality that shines through for me. it's not like they will bend for anyone's will and offend no one, actually they believe so much in their perfect vision that they will do anything to pursue that. I view that as a very strong backbone.

I remembered when I read Kabru's thoughts in Six Days chapter, and I thought "I really need to have this level of compassion." I wouldn't do all that to strangers, but I know my gf would. The only thing I can relate to Kabru is the need to exert control/influence which, I guess, also reflects in my art. XD

She also said I behaved like Mithrun... Mithrun is like your friend's partner who appears out of nowhere, who is very private and rarely seen. I'm that guy. Mithrun brings chill vibes to the table, I like to believe he makes Kabru feel calm and grounded. In the manga, Mithrun offers practical solutions to Kabru's problems, he's very straightforward so Kabru doesn't need to waste mental energy in that matter. Kabru also builds self esteem from spending time with him.

kbms is just my ideal of romantic relationship that two people need to be the mirror of each other that reflect their own flaws and strength. I also value my romantic partner a lot. When you distrust people, you have very few people to bond with, you really can't help but keeping people at arm's length emotionally, which is how I view Kabru's relationships, I can sense distance between him and others even though he is outgoing, it's like he always plays a role of an observer and gatekeeping his real inner world.

That's something to unpack. i think it's a beautiful experience to let this one person in your world and growing along them. Tho it might be good to share my thoughts to more people, to feel like a human being, to experience valuable relationships beyond this. just like how Kabru decides to tell his own personal story to Laios as they strengthen their relationship. Kabru tries to act casual because he's a bit scared of an unknown territory, there's still some kind of distance as it's never linear but it's still a beautiful moment.

Thank you for the ask. sorry if it's too much information. it's also something that i've been thinking for a while and it's great to know i'm not the only person who draws a connection between these things and there are like minded people out there. I'm glad you like the comics! Love to hear that my art has a lasting effect. it looks very simple but i had a lot of thoughts behind them too... I like to think that fictional characters also lead a life like us, it makes us feel less alone.