I jokingly thought before that reading Junie B. Jones as a kid turned me into a feminist, but unironically, it kind of did.
I honestly think it comes down to the fact that Junie B. was not only allowed to be "weird," but her character arc never concluded like other girl characters would. In other media featuring "weird girls," the girl always ended her arc tamed - by force or convince, she would be prettied up, she would smile and be polite, and she would never speak out of turn. She would be perfect then, and would shed her veneer of individuality with the freedom that is conformity. As a kid, I noticed that girls weren't permitted to be "weird" like boys were. So when I read Junie B. Jones, I loved that she was frankly just fucking weird. She said things out of turn, she was rambunctious and imaginative and she was a realistic portrayal of a little girl. I loved reading those books because the narrative taught her lessons without punishing her for being weird, if that makes sense. So often, narratives punished weird girls for the crime of being a socially unacceptable girl, not for any true wrongdoing like lying.
Anyway, I just think it's interesting, because I watched and read a ton of books and shows and movies featuring girls and women, but none of them truly empathized with (or even tried to empathize with) weird girls on their own merits and capabilities and terms, or embraced the idea of a "socially inept/unacceptable" girl without punishing her in some way for her supposed ineptitude.
202 notes
·
View notes
Henna not being back in any capacity in the second Mariposa movie gives me two impressions:
1). untapped potential for a 3rd movie where we get Henna reformation or some such.
2).
Mariposa: I wonder how Henna's doing out there.
Willa: ..... what if she's dead 😧
Mariposa: 😨
Honestly it's entirely possible that she IS dead; a lot of her control over the Skeezites hinged on the promise of invading Flutterfield, and we can see their patience wearing thin throughout the movie. It's possible her failure to follow through would be the final straw, and that her lights would only be able to carry her so far when her entire army is against her.
I do like the potential for another sequel to tie up that loose end though, in no small part because "dramatic revenge declaration followed by offscreen death that's never mentioned" is just kind of anticlimactic. Even if it's been a decade and that ship has sailed at this point. We could've had it all. Two fairy trilogies.
Also consider: The Skeezites don't seem to be a threat--or even present at all-- in Fairy Princess. They're not once brought up unless in past tense. Regellius brings up Flutterfield defeating them when that's not necessarily how it happens in the first movie(which she does point out but focuses more on the method than the outcome so it's still unclear). Yeah they succeed in driving them off, but if Mariposa's quest or the fact that they've been terrorizing the kingdom for centuries says anything, it's that there are probably way more hanging around than Henna's immediate army. I'm imagining a midquel where she manages to get the Skeezites to hold out for a little longer so she can get her Revenge Plan in, and Flutterfield deals with them for good.
34 notes
·
View notes
She didn't say "children".
She said "common children".
English is not my first language so I didn't know if I was overinterpreting and that it was something that was actually said in English. But apparently no, it’s a deliberate choice. So let's overinterpret.
Let's leave aside the fact that she criticizes Tood and Ambrosius at the same level while the latter only defends himself against idiotic attacks and arguments (you can argue he should have been calmer but everyone was against him, not just Todd, and he has a few problems with his boyfriend).
First of all, it’s not the first time she hears something like that, like when Tood mocked Ballister (in a really classy way) at the beginning of a very important ceremony or when he complained about Ambrosius and his "lavender smell". She clearly heard that, but she didn’t say anything. She could have : bullying someone or imitating and insulting another of being a "dork" and having a good smell (?) are way more childish behaviors. At least for the second case, she could have at least frowned (Todd said this literally in front of her from a distance of a meter).
(Yes she looks like she ate a lemon but she looks like that throughout the whole scene, not just for Todd)
So the problem has never been how they act but how they don't act. They are currently not acting in ways that she deems useful but are instead wasting time. (And she is definitely only complaining about Ambrosius and Todd, not the other knights who joined the latter in accusing the former of nonsense. Alone against everyone, Ambrosius is not the problem, much less the one who started it)
I put it there, but when did the nobles (apart from Ambrosius who is not only an exception but is also obliged to appear impeccable) show themselves to be more distinguished than the commoners? Without wanting to defend them, when we see commoners acting in a despicable way, it is largely because they are being lied to and manipulated. The knights have no reason to harass Ballister - Ambrosius doesn't - and seeing as the squire is a fan, he's probably not the only one. It doesn't take a genius to know that you shouldn't harass people, no matter the situation.
Do we have a scene with a knight like with this woman in the subway who gives a coin to a musician? Todd when he's on the wall in honor of Nimona? OK, but that's after the ENTIRE kingdom has learned their lesson (meaning it's not just him and that's exceptional) and having been a huge asshole for the entire movie.
Also, the knights and the Director, when have they really been around a commoner? Who is the only commoner they know? Ballister. Ballister who most represents the values that the Institute and the knights are supposed to embody. He's the best of them (1st in his class), he's courageous, kind, intelligent (he built his arm on his own), competent (he infiltrated the Institute several times without being detected), strong (the fight of 2 against all) and he sincerely wants to protect the Kingdom. He is also much more polite (he is the only one to have thanked the squire).
Are you trying to seduce me gay boy?
As far as I know, he was always very courteous to everyone, especially to the Director. Her only real reference to commoners is a hard-working, competent and polite man. (The only time he was "wild" was when he attacked a wooden mannequin before entering the Institute. But he was a child, and it didn't exceed the level of violence of Todd, an adult.)
The Director uses commoners as an insult, when overall, commoners act much more distinguished than nobles.
100 notes
·
View notes
Why can't we have a batman is the spirit of Gotham au?
He already is, in meta, in character, in theming. Him and the joker. He is so very built upon what Gotham is made of, and Gotham builds from what he needs in turn, the setting of his story.
What if that is the reason he can take damage that would permanently ruin a physical career and come back? What if that's how he's managed to maintain his no-kill streak to such an extent? What if that's how he manages to maintain such high maintenance and all consuming identities?
For the heart and soul of a city containing all extremes, the richest nobility and the lowest of the poor, the cruellest villains and the most compassionate heroes, orphaned children and ancient lineages, a city rooted in fear and madness and grit-teeth determination and hard won kindness, what better choice could you find than Bruce Wayne?
But what if he wasn't alone in that? What if Gotham has sunk to such a low because its spirit is damaged and corrupted?
For the heart and soul of the cruellest city in the dc universe, the most unrelenting and uncaring, the one that practically laughs at your pain and suffering as you try to make it through another day, what better choice than the Joker?
80 notes
·
View notes
i'm sure it's been said but i feel like both Raxtus and Ronodin can be argued as "the only gay kid in the family and consequently shunned/rejected" and it's like. so weird bc Mull is so Mormon he'd probably rather eat his shorts than even acknowledge the possible existence of gays but
i mean. Raxtus literally has a fairy form. he's a fairy dragon.
Ronodin was just emo lol
and they both get so thoroughly rejected and sidelined by their families their whole lives and it turns Raxtus into an awkward but basically decent guy who runs back to the approval of his family once he's performed masculinity/violence enough to be accepted, only to then realize that he's basically just being used and still not fully trusted/accepted and having to betray them to save his real friends
(who sadly are probably actually homophobic but that's ok bc they're not dragon-phobic so that works out for him)
while Ronodin's like "fuck it. chaos and murder then!" and can you really blame him? he spent his entire life trying to conform to the "right" (in this case, Light) way of life, started spending time with the outgroup and learned to question things, then was told he was "too corrupt" to remain in his home
like. the symbolism is right there.
it's so funny, because sure Raxtus isn't a bad guy, but Ronodin definitely is and he pretty much gets sent to a type of hell at the end of Dragonwatch
and while Raxtus gets kind of a happy ending, like, him becoming an effective killer in a war and being accepted by his dad for being Good At Murder in the first Fablehaven series is presented as a happy ending. if Celebrant didn't wind up being the main villain for Dragonwatch, that probably would've been the end of it! gay kid learns how to soldier and is finally accepted by his homophobic family bc he's finally aggressive enough for them to love him
(i mean i have MANY issues with Celebrant being the main villain later and the reasons he's framed as bad but like. that's a separate rant lol)
the queer reading is right there. but also it's very bad and you can tell completely unintentional. or at the very least highly repressed. idk man i don't look into Mull as a personal individual bc i doubt i'll like what i see and i don't care that much but Dragonwatch was SO MUCH MORE MORMON than Fablehaven already was and it's so weird, seeing the fingerprints of it all over.
i feel like he either has a new editor or he's been doing this for long enough and sold enough books that he has the clout to veto changes made by editors or SOMETHING, bc i feel like? he's gotten worse?? and more unfiltered?? that or something happened and he's like. even more religious than before or something idk
like fablehaven was just kinda generic/bland fantasy with some fun ideas for magic items/powers/one sentence character premises, with just a hint of sus Mormon ideology, and then Dragonwatch just went. Full Mormon.
but then there's somehow even more weirdly queer shit. like. he's repressing so hard he's approaching queer from the other side??
idk man i wish this deeply mediocre man's writing wasn't a formative piece of middle school reading, leading to me still giving more of a shit than i really should over questionable children's literature now
34 notes
·
View notes
Asking out of pure curiosity and definitely not because of something that just happened over @pokemonheritageposts, have you ever closed your askbox?
No, if there is ever an ask that I genuinely don't want to answer I just ignore it tbh.
71 notes
·
View notes