#but their stories are SO important to understanding how we glorify abusers and abuse

[gece-misin-nesin]

I hope it’s ok if I rant a little about MHA because your post about Endeavor walking free reminded me of how detrimental some of the messages MHA can be. (I’ll try not to write much, feel free to delete this tho!)

It is so frustrating how the story doesn’t linger enough on the weight killing people that have yet to commit a crime, people that are a threat to the status quo, holds.

Sometimes I legit feel insane because people will be saying things like, “He could be a threat, so of course they should kill him.” And then talk about Deku and class 1A “changing the world for the better,” when the series doesn’t care to unpack its systematic issues past individual issues + the series essentially maintained the system that failed so many—resorting to reforms and expanding programs doesn’t actually solve the problem imo.

And it’s so hard nowadays to even try to have a conversation that entails criticism of the story, when so many fans fall for the condescending righteousness the story feeds as a response just because it came from heroes. Even though the story itself presents reasons why we shouldn’t blindly trust heroes (Endeavor literally right there) 🤦

Like, the story presents characters being oppressed and the ultimate response to their plight is constantly, “Just be a better victim.” The whole situation with Touya and Endeavor + what Deku says to Touya, is absolutely insane to me.

It made me sick to see people saying, “This is what Touya always wanted.” This is what people are taking away from the story, when many people who grew up being abused and didn’t fit the “perfect victim” criteria will tell you how fucked up that ending was.

Anyway, sorry for ranting. It’s so hard to find people who understands criticism in the MHA fandom 😭 The story has a lot of good points and potential, Hori just couldn’t handle it properly.

I am ALWAYS happy to listen to bnha rants!! I devour the bnha critical tag like a wild beast lmaoo

As for your thoughts, 100% agree. I feel like a big part of the problem is that the story spends so much time setting up systematic issues and then just..drops them? Acts like they don't exist? And instead it redirects all blame and reason to indovidual problems, like Endeavor for example. Touya became a villain because of Endeavor..but the conditions under which he became a villain could have been massively prevented if the ranking system didn't exist and if so much value hadn't been placed on it. Or if the wealth and privilege that being a hero had brought to Endeavor hadn't let people turn a blind eye to his bullshit. Because are you really telling NO ONE had even an inclination that something was wrong in that household? Really?

This also applies to Tomura. In the beginning The Walk where he spent some amount of time on the streets without anyone helping him seemed very important to his backstory. He didn't become a villain just because his father was a pos, he becane a villain because the state of heroism led to a society that glorified heroes to such an extent that people didn't help a bloody kid on the street because a 'hero would'. But instead most of his memories Deku interferes w are about the Shimura household instead of the very important bystander syndrome. And THEN to top it all off, we learn the stupid 'AFO orchestrated Tomura's whole life' thing. I cannot find the right words to express just how much I loathe that.

Anyway, Touya and Tenko are just two examples. Overall, the story chooses to resolve individual problems (and how well even those are resolved is certainly debatable) and frame them as the leading causes of villainy when its mostly systemic issues that cause it and then act like there were no systemic issues in the first place. I mean, literally no one has a problem with the HPSC casually having private assassins to commit extrajudicial murder, so. Guess Nagant should have just been "optimistic" and waited for someone to, idk, topple the literal government.

[pathfinderyderss]

Heads up! The user barbex is a proshipper (supports romanticizing abuse in fiction).

Hi! So, I apologize for my delay in responding to your message - I have had a lot of thoughts and wanted to make sure l was expressing them in the best way possible.

I want to be honest, when I first read your message, I didn’t know what pro-shipping was, but I do know @barbex --I've been following her for the better part of a decade and she is an excellent author and l enjoy her views on the Dragon Age lore (and her views on Anders). I've also done more than a few of the prompt months that she's put together.

With all of that said, I wanted to better understand your viewpoint and see what it is that is defined as part of your block list. So, I hopped on your blog! I found your blocklist and the items you've listed as egregious enough to report users and as a former Literature Major, it saddened me to see such Puritanical and Orwellian views being broadcast with such vitriol.

The first thing I want to address is that in my fifteen plus years in fandom I have always subscribed to the “Don’t Like, Don’t Read" mentality. I am unafraid to block people on this website for a single take I don't agree with, and with that I am a FIRM supporter of accurate community labels as there are many things that I myself do not enjoy or want to read - so my blocked tags are plentiful and the blogs I block are many and that curated experience is why I do not get involved in any sort of fandom drama. 

I implore you to do the same. Fandom can be such a wonderful, constructive experience when you surround yourself with like-minded individuals. A dear friend of mine reminded me of the phrase, ”No Good Fandom, Only Good Friends” and nothing could be more accurate. Your tiny corner of the Fandom is an amazing way to flourish socially and mentally; however when your energy instead is spent on searching for others with ideological differences the experience instead becomes a witch hunt full of dog piling and negativity.

Now, on your blog, I noticed that you bemoan that you are unable to have a conversation about Fandom/Purity Culture/Fanfiction and I feel like this is an important topic to discuss so l am going to indulge in this against my better judgement, and at the end if you don't like what I've said, l implore you to block me as well.

My primary issue with your block list is that it derives from anti-intellectualism and a puritanical view of fandom. Which, if that is how you want to experience fandom, that's fine, but publicizing it is beyond ridiculous and leads back to my earlier point about witch hunts and dog piling.

Based on your list, your primary concerns in your block list stem from the following topics: rape, incest, pedophilia- including predatory age gaps and abuse. And I wonder; do you devalue fiction in the same way?

The first thing on your list that caught my attention was your adamant disapproval of the Thanatos/Zagreus ship in Hades. Is this just a general distaste for all Greek/Roman mythology as all of it could meet your block list above? Does Disney's Hercules get a pass due to the inaccuracies in the retelling — does the Hera/Zeus relationship get a pass because it isn't explicitly mentioned? And does it matter that it is a more inaccurate retelling of the myth?

In that same vein; are stories like Jane Eyre (which contains both a predatory age gap and a horrific example of a mentally ill character) or Wuthering Heights (which contains incest and abuse) not worth telling to a modern audience because they show these things? Are we forgoing media literacy and critical thinking now because these things glorify the worst parts of humanity?

And regardless of if it is a piece of classic literature or a piece of modern fanfiction making the decision for others that they cannot read these things due to them being "bad” or "wrong" or "shameful" is no different than banning books. And you devalue the readership of these pieces of literature by saying that they are unable to critically think for themselves and find the value of an individual piece of fiction.

I emphasize again, YOU as an individual do not have to view or interact with this material if it makes you uncomfortable, but I beg you not to police others in an Orwellian fashion over the media they choose to produce or view. Use the block button and blacklist tags you don't like or make you uncomfortable - that is what they are there for. Instead, talk to people who share your views but do not turn this into a witch hunt or an NC-17 purge that we've seen so damaging to our communities in the past.

All of this is to say; find joy Fandom — whatever that may mean for you and let others do the same. 

I hope this was informative.

- Ryder

[nartml]

it's not "entirely made up", which is the entire reason people are complaining lol have you seen what the fandom has done to the nazi allegory?

i agree that the people complaining are toxic, but also, a lot of the changes are both misogynistic and homophobic, and there's a lot of toxic masculinity and abusive romance tropes being romanticized, are people not allowed to call them out? representation is important, isn't it?

you literally tagged your post, adding to the toxicity

most new works follow the "new model" and people who write different things are harrassed (i've seen people be harrassed simply because they don't ship wolfstar). how are we supposed to change that if we don't call it out?

discourse in fandom is normal. you can just as easily follow your own advice and not read it/block it.

Y'all are quick lmao

Okay, okay, so, to get the easy stuff out the way:

I unfortunately made another hasty post, I didn't elaborate enough, that's definitely on me.

In my defense, it's 2:30am, I need to be up in five hours at the latest, and I saw the fifth post hating on jegulus and/or other fun parts of the fandom that I genuinely cannot find anything objectively problematic about.

I got pissed.

I tagged my post, and I agree that I further fueled the discourse.

This has been something that I've done before, unfortunately. I'm used to thinking of tags as part of screaming into the void, I'll be sure to erase them after this.

But as you said, it's normal for there to be discourse in fandom.

And honestly, that's what I usually do. Ignore it. Like I do with a lot of things I don't agree with on the internet.

I don't remember contributing to this whole ordeal before tbh, and I've been here for a decent amount of time.

But I got so ticked off, I wanted to get it off my chest for once.

Lost my grip there, but I honestly didn't think too deeply about it.

Anyway, yes, yes, obviously it's not entirely made up. We have the HP series, aka the source material, in which we do see quite a bit of Remus and Sirius.

I was more referring to the fact that every single other character in the marauders era, is, in fact, made up.

It's undeniable that, despite the bits and pieces we've heard throughout the books, we can't possibly have any sort of concrete understanding of how these characters were during their Hogwarts days, before the war.

Not only because the bits and pieces don't in any way make up a whole picture, but also because some of them might've been entirely unreliable.

So these characters; younger Remus and Sirius, as well as James, Peter, Lily, Regulus etc etc etc, have more or less been crafted on very arbitrary ideas.

They are made up, and very rarely reconcilable to their adult counterparts, which makes sense from several standpoints. (E.g. their canon characters have been severely beaten down and traumatized. AUs take place in entirely different settings; the context changes entirely, and so do the characters)

Now, as for the nazi allegory, I assume you're referring to a) morons who are glorifying the death eater tattoo (jesus christ), or b) the 'Slytherin Skittles'?

In b's case, I'd wager it started with Regulus and the potential to explore the Black Family dynamics, which then escalated to giving him his own friend group and creating entertaining dynamics between them.

However, I genuinely do not see the harm in this.

It hardly matters that they're canonically deaths eaters, or that they were most likely blood supremacists and horrible people; or whatever else could've been going on with them.

They were so barely mentioned in the actual story. Doesn't matter what effect their existence had on the story and how it served the narrative, because they were barely ever directly there.

We know next to nothing for fact. So it's next to impossible for most people to care for their actions in canon, and just see them as blank canvases.

I can't really fault them for that.

People project whatever they want on characters that are firmly established and thoroughly explored; characters that are borderline non-existent are free real estate.

And yes, changes can totally be problematic.

A prime example is definitely the hyperfeminization of Sirius, to make wolfstar fit the classic heteronormativity that plagues queer ships.

As for the romanticization of abusive romance tropes, I honestly have never seen it.

I mean, I hear people complaining about it, but I swear to fuck, it feels like you guys are fighting ghosts sometimes 😭

Either it's a part of the fandom I've somehow steered clear of, despite being balls deep in it, or some people are exaggerating, which isn't out of the realm of possibility, but I kind of doubt that's the case.

As for toxic masculinity, again, I literally haven't seen it. Hand to my heart, scout's honour, I have not.

Hyperfeminization? Definitely.

Toxic masculinity? Macho men? Written in any context that's not challenging it, and is promoting it? Nope.

Representation is important, and that was the other part my post was based on.

I've seen people hate on the liberties others have taken to explore gender through these characters, which ticked me off even more.

And this is coming from a cis individual, who doesn't really fuck with he/they Sirius, they/them James, etc etc.

I don't think that there's any harm in people creating/enjoying content that is representative of their struggles/experiences with gender (or any other part of life).

Exactly because in the marauders fandom, characters are incredibly flexible, for aforementioned reasons.

Blank canvases, remember?

Usually this hate, from what I've seen, comes from people who prefer sticking to the canon part of this whole story.

In which case, totally, the 'new model' is very. Very. Unrealistic.

(There are definitely harmful headcanons out there. Even within this context, there also exists content that fetishizes the very thing I just defended. But I physically can't sit here and list off every problematic thing that has happened in this fandom. I don't have the energy. And that's not what the post is about anyway)

-"People who write different things are harassed".

Yes, glad that you get my point, even though I obviously didn't get it across.

This goes both ways. This goes all ways. Yeah, people who don't ship wolfstar get hate.

But people who headcanon Regulus as trans get it too.

People who prefer Jily get hate.

But jegulus shippers have their hands full as well.

People giggling over silly headcanons that are honestly just that: silly; can't catch a break.

What was that, you like the new model? Here's all the ways I think it sucks ass.

Oh, you prefer canon? What a loser, you're in the wrong fandom.

Ultimately, the joy gets drained out of everything.

This is meant to be fun. This is meant to be a break from real life stress.

It's not meant to leave you exhausted because you're too busy apologizing about not taking something too seriously, or defending your ship preferences.

In the end, however, I obviously get what you're saying. There are harmful changes that deserve to be pointed out.

But I never said that they didn't. Calling out the notions that are inherently problematic when perpetuated is important.

Constructive criticism is welcome. It's crucial. It only adds, it deepens people's understanding of media and brings attention to problematic aspects of certain interpretations.

That's not what I was referencing in my original post; at least, not intentionally.

I was talking about how so many people love to mindlessly complain about things they don't like, without actually bringing up any substantial points.

The only goal is to tear other people down.

As we've agreed, some of these changes are problematic.

But so is the way some people convey their disagreements.

Some of y'all use your complaints about new character developments to also hide your general prejudice against something.

Like, there's no need to get this heated over genderfluid Sirius.

In this particular instance, it's because the general concept of the 'new model' is pretty mainstream, so it's hard to avoid it. So I know that I'm being a bit unfair when I say, 'ignore it'

Ignoring it is rarely easy though, no matter how mainstream or minor.

It should be, because logically this is all fictional and it doesn't matter if someone dislikes your OTP, or if you think someone's hc is painfully unrealistic.

But we can't help it. It's impossible to care about how fictional something is when it means so much to us.

And seeing something antithetical to our interpretation can feel like some sort of personal attack, even when it's really not.

Part of it also stems from how, when you see fifty other people throwing in their two cents, you also want to.

Because it's a base instinct to want to be heard.

All that said, ignoring it, despite the circumstances, is often the best way to go, because a lot of the time it can be irrational.

Hating on someone because they don't like your ship can be irrational.

Starting a fight over someone's differing interpretation of a character can be irrational.

Think critically before you speak, and be careful when phrasing your points.

Being respectful is crucial, and if you're not getting the same courtesy, then stepping back is the smarter choice.

I'm still working on always maintaining these things myself.

I've been doing a bang-on job, broadly speaking.

I had a slight moment of weakness earlier :P

(For those wondering, I took the og post down. It wasn't anything tragic, I just said that most people who complain about the fandom's toxicity actively contribute to it when they hate on stuff others enjoy.

In the tags I went off a bit, my ultimate points being that the fun is often sucked out of everything, and that if I personally don't like something, I avoid it, stick to my stuff, and don't venture into others' spaces if I'm not willing to be open minded.

But I was definitely more aggressive with the delivery, which was my bad. I hate it when I break my own rules on how I want to behave on here.)

Anyway, so sorry for this long rant, and sorry if I've missed something or made a bad/harmful point. I'm borderline asleep.

And it's now 4:10am and I got too absorbed in this *sigh*

[elsanna-shenanigans]

December Fanfiction Contest

Betcha didn't expect us back in a normal timeframe (after we ghosted y'all for half a year.) It's holiday time for a lot of folks, religious or not, so let's make this contest a comforting refuge from the hectic preparations. To make sure everyone has time for everything, we are putting the deadline a little later than the end of the month!

prompt: Spice. Whether in the literal sense, be it sweet, hot, sour or bitter, or in a more metaphorical understanding of the word, make sure to spice up our girls' life! word limit: min. 1,500 and max. 5,000 words  lemon: up to M rating obligatory: no major character death (explained below) bonus: include the parents, Elsa and/or Anna refuses a gift (explained below) deadline: January 7th

Please also tag your story (if it has any of it) for: angst, tragedy, major character death, violence or abuse, suicide and self-harm mentions, horror elements or anything not mentioned here that you think might make your readers uncomfortable. Non-/dub-con is NOT ALLOWED, unless it is an important part of the story and not described in detail/used as cheap thrills/glorified. Be mindful and respectful.

Restrictions and Bonuses Click here for more detailed answers to user submitted questions. It will be updated if any more questions roll in, so keep it bookmarked!

OBLIGATORY restriction: seasonal affective disorder is hard enough without our faves dying. For this month, your submissions cannot depict Elsa and/or Anna dying. Stories need to end with both of them alive, without implication that that's soon to change.  Obligatory restriction means if your story has Elsa or Anna die in it, or implied to die shortly after the story ends, it will be disqualified.

DISQUALIFICATION means your story will still be posted (unless it breaks our general contest rules) but will not be eligible to go into voting and win.

Bonus 1: They had to come from somewhere. This holiday season, do not forget about Elsa and Anna's parents! Include them in your story in a way that significantly affects the prompt for this bonus point. More explanation in the FAQ.

Bonus 2: No, thank you. Have Elsa and/or Anna refuse a gift (from anyone) in your story. More explanation in the FAQ.

These are not obligatory restrictions, however following them will be rewarded with an additional point in the favorites column for each bonus. In other words, stories that don’t include any of the restrictions will start off with 0 base favorite votes, those that do - with 1 or 2.

Please write down where and how you used the bonuses at the beginning of the submission to make sure the mods can verify your points (the note will be removed before posting.) If you’re not sure if your story meets the requirements for the bonuses, you are free to contact us to check.

Read the contest rules before participating. We’ll be accepting submissions through the submit button on our blog starting today till Midnight (on Baker Island, GMT-12) of January 7th. Please remember to submit anonymously to make sure the voting is impartial, and contact us off-Tumblr (best via Discord) after submitting to make sure your story didn't get eaten by the Tumblr gremlins.

If you have any questions, read the month’s FAQ, send us an ask or join us on Discord.

Happy writing!

[quinloki]

hello, sorry if this is too real of an ask if you're not feeling too well recently, but I've been meaning to ask if you have any advice when it comes to tackling really dark topics in fanfics?? I've been meaning to write a darkfic with the Kid pirates main 4 as slasher movie villains (think Jason Voorhees vibes) with a touch of yandere tendencies, so there's not gonna be a lot of comfort/fluff in this fic. this is naturally gonna be hard to write especially when it comes to wanting to write dark and disturbing scenes without wanting to glorify or romanticise abusive behavior or stockholm syndrome, not to mention not wanting to upset or trigger survivors, especially as one myself, so any advice would be lovely. thank you ^-^

I’m going to start this off with what I think should be your most important takeaway from this:

It’s okay to romanticize abuse in fiction.

It’s okay to romanticize horror, murder, etc. etc. in fiction.

Fiction is where we can do the really uncomfortable stuff. Where we can explore the darks part of existing, because it’s good to be able to go “I connect with this and I should consider why.” Or “this brings me comfort, how can I break that down?” Stuff like that.

Sometimes it helps us realize a view or understanding we had that we thought was good is inherently flawed. (I am reminded of viewers being very angry when they realized the character in The Boys they connected with was *not* a good guy and did not get redeemed.)

What we have to be careful about is not condoning such themes in reality.

Horror movies and books go into deep dark territory all the time, but often hobby writers can be held to odd standards by comparison, which gets a bit frustrating at times.

How to avoid that AND present dark fic properly?

On Ao3 and tumblr just tag your story - character death, gore, stalking, Stockholm syndrome, abuse, toxic relationship, dubcon, noncon as applicable, excessive descriptions of blood and gore, etc.

You don’t have to get specific - you don’t have to say who dies/survives. You can admit to “this has a bad end” if you want - I had a webcomic warn me about that and it was NOT kidding.

Some responsibility is on the writer for dark fic, yes, but honestly that’s just in terms of being sure you label it well. Avoiding and heeding those tags is solely on the reader - as long as you didn’t, say, write about disarticulation in exacting detail without warning “excessive descriptions of blood and gore”.

You can put additional warnings in the summary, or even as a heads up before a particularly intense chapter.

And, you’re not going to be perfect. If someone says “hey can you add [x] tag?” Be open to it - but don’t add any and every tag requested - sometimes people can be demanding in tag requests and you have the right to decide where the line really is.

For example someone might ask that you add a tag involving eye-trauma. It’s a squick of mine, people getting injured on, in, around their eyes, and I wouldn’t be upset with a heads up - but I also think it’s covered under warnings of gore.

Someone might ask that you tag a specific character’s death - personally? I wouldn’t. “Character death” is enough. “Slasher/horror” honestly should really be enough cause even though I don’t watch horror movies I have a keen understanding that you do not get attached to characters in a horror story.

As long as you hit the broad strokes, I think that’s enough. The idea is that no one wants to walk into a slasher when they were expecting fluff.

As for taking care of ourselves as writers while we write dark content, that’s harder to give advice on. I really have to be in a steady frame of mind to write dark stuff, but if I know there’s vindication in there somewhere it’s much easier. (There’s a stalker in A Light Touch that gets his due and as someone who has had more than 6, it was cathartic to write.)

But sometimes there’s catharsis in the bad guy winning too. You’ve got to understand those lines for yourself - I can’t really give you advice cause it’s so different for everyone. But listen to yourself.

If it feels like a slog, leave it.

If it’s not getting out of your mind, write it.

You’re not “weird” if you write your darkest shit when you’re happiest, or vice versa. What you need to do is just keep an eye on yourself - there is no world in which you should suffer in order to write “good dark content”.

For better or worse, that’s the best advice I have - I hope it’s helped ^_^

[burned-lariat]

Dex Heller is a sad, sad creature.

I've talked at length about how underwritten he is and how little the writers care about one half of a couple they supposedly really, really like. I've also talked about all the wasted potential he has and how he's a glorified Benson prop. But this one's gonna be different because after watching Friday's scenes, I find something quite...nasty in what Dex has become.

So, according to Dex, his two elder brothers beat him up constantly and hospitalized him more than once. His parents were bystanders throughout all of it. And with his parents specifically, with his philandering father and "cowardly" mother, he had a shitty image of love presented to him. While it would be logical for him to think that 1) betrayal and hurt equates to love, and 2) no one will save him - he needs to save himself because of his upbringing, he's actualized that his childhood was, indeed, shitty. So one would think he'd make sure not to emulate a single second of that (AKA one would think he got help/therapy and healed as well as he could).

Friday's scenes...they were rancid. It made feel a bit ill.

Like Dex, I grew up in a terrible household. My upbringing was all about survival, specifically from an emotional standpoint, and I'm still reeling from it to this day. It's affected my mental well-being (duh), my relationships with people, everything important like that. And with those desperation scenes, of having Dex willing to martyr himself so openly so to not cause further pain, I understand it just a tiny bit and I'll give EH a kudo or two for an attempt to display that desperation.

But here's the thing - what Dex claims he can't without is the thing that hurt him all those years ago.

Josslyn was never good to Dex. She belittled him and his thoughts/feelings, stalked him, talked down to him, guilted him, played on his fears of getting caught to keep him attached to her, went behind his back and disrespected his wishes, literally almost killed him, and has as much pleasantry as nails on a chalkboard. Dex is an abuse victim stuck in another abusive cycle, and this show treats it as romantic foreplay. This couple never got actual development. They got a plethora of sex scenes, which is fine if they were meant to be fuckbuddies, but not fine if they're meant to be a real love story. They need actual development beyond sex and that never happened. The "I love yous" and the arguments about needing each other to live are flat and empty because there's no grounded support.

Hearing Dex say that no one loves him like Joss does, that he can't lose her and she makes his life worth living...it just hurts my soul.

I hear that and think about how abused he was, how the only difference between that and how she treats him is the physical violence (or lack thereof). I think about how she harassed him when he didn't want the PCPD involved after the meat hook. I think about her giving him an infection when she didn't back off and adamantly refusing to get him proper help until the last second. I think about her trying to get him fired from his job with Sonny and how she barked at his disapproval, on top of how quickly he forgave her when he was right to be mad. I think about how she disregarded his feelings on working for Sonny and how sick he felt when Sonny got arrested, and expressing contempt for that to his face. It's all these things and more that make the case that she doesn't love Dex as a person. She loves what he can do for her benefit.

We kind of get what Joss sees in Dex, but we don't get what Dex sees in Joss. Her treatment of him is poor, and she hasn't made any concerted effort to genuinely get to know him outside of plot-forced moments (not to mention how she doesn't care/like it anyway). One could argue he sees the same thing Joss sees (sex), and if that's the case, then there is something fairly wicked and depraved for a man closer to thirty to want a barely legal girl like that. I'd know - I was that girl at one point in time. That doesn't make him a romantic lead, it makes him someone who needs to be monitored.

Any which way you slice this, it's not good. You have a Dex who is a bit of a creep (to be nice) and/or a Dex who loves a version of the abuse he claims to despise. This character has been so underwritten, so regressed as a functional player and it's a miracle he's lasted so long. Like I said in a completely separate rant, I've come to resent what Dex Heller has become, and that hasn't changed. If anything, I also feel disgusted by what these writers have done to him, and the end of their scripts can't come soon enough.

[hiraethwrote]

how are you liking A Little Life? I have a copy of it that i got for christmas that one of my close friends got me as a gift, but i’m scared to read it bc i heard it’s so devastating 😭 i want to read it but i don’t want to wreck my mental state in the process!!

aaah love that you’re asking this!! and sorry if i end up rambling for too long but i kinda feel it’s necessary as it’s such a hefty book that deals with a lot, to say the least

i am loving it. i actually think it might end up on my very exclusive list of all time favourite books. going into it i had fairly high expectations as well, because i had been told it was right up my alley, and i have still to be disappointed.

yk, it’s a big book and i was scared it would be a difficult read technically speaking, like the language would be unnecessarily hard and just overall pretentious wording but it flows surprisingly well. overall, it’s sooo incredibly beautifully written and hanya yanagihara has a way with words that is seriously unmatched imo

but that’s the technical aspect which isn’t exactly what it’s known for lol

whenever i read, watch etc a new story, the characters and the relationships is definitely what matters the most to me. i’ve always valued that the most in my enjoyment, more so in books than anything else. and a little life, as much as the story, plot and writing is important, is definitely a character and relationship based book. it takes a deep dive into a great catalog of a bunch of different characters that are so incredibly fleshed out. you’ll connect with them so quickly bc they’re written so thoroughly.

so, it’s absolutely no secret that I’m an avid reader of angst. it’s basically tattooed on my forehead. i enjoy, for the lack of a better word, the pain i read about. personally, i think it might have something to do with the fact that i’m an overly emotional person who just likes to be in touch with them and express them (but that’s kinda besides the point hehe)

TRIGGER WARNING!! it does not shy away from taboo and hard topics. there’s a lot of graphic depictions of SH, SA, abuse, mental illness, p*dophilia, ED and in general just themes like these. if one is easily affected by stuff like this, i would highly suggest one look up content warnings so you’re aware of what you’re getting into.

because of the graphic contents, i’ve seen it been described as torture porn and i cannot stress enough how much i disagree! everyone is of course entitled to their own opinion, but it pains me when people just boil it down to the suffering that is told in the story. this isn’t some tiktok dark romance that glorifies topics they shouldn’t (that’s a different discussion lol).

a little life is so beautiful, in its own twisted way. it’s been a long time since, if ever, i’ve read about relationships as deep and meaningful as the ones we meet in this book, and i think i have to search for a long time until i find a book that does it to the same degree as this one. aside from the horrible things in this book, there’s so much beauty in this story — about love and friendship, and just the hardships of life. that is what i believe this book is about at its core

so i absolutely, 100% recommend it — IF you can deal with the topics it presents. i know a lot of people that stray away from it because of it, and i can totally understand it. if it’s triggering and doesn’t do your mental any good, stay away. but if you’re up for it, i say it’s worth the experience

and if you ever decide to pick it up i would love to hear what you think about it <3

[benjaminthewolf]

I need to have another serious conversation with you guys, this time about unwilling vore and fatal vore

WARNING: DISCUSSIONS OF R@PE, MURDER

I am leaving this marked for everyone because I believe that we can be mature enough to have a civil, serious conversation on this topic together, which ultimately, everyone in this community should consider, because this is VERY important.

****

These past couple weeks have just been one thing after the other after the other

First, transitioning into a Keto diet to lose some weight left me with horrible carb-flu for a week (withdrawal of carbs producing flu-like symptoms such as body aches and cramps),

Then I had to wake up at 7:30 and 6 respectively on summer days for high school graduation rehersal and graduation,

I was struggling to hold myself together at graduation because of my school-related trauma,

My brother and dad got into a fight on the way home,

Today I had to go through four and a half hours straight of online college orientation,

And now, finally, once I reached that online orientation's interactive module about sexual misconduct and what exactly rape is, I utterly broke. Because there it was right in my face, a statement that I had already known since I was old enough to understand the concept, yet something which I had never seemed to fully process the implications of when applying it to this community.

"If the sexual activity is done without the active, informed consent of both partners, its rape."

It's no secret that I have indeed written some NSFW stories which have since, thanks to a previous discussion, been properly marked as mature and will be reblogged onto my NSFW blog on a once every Monday schedule, but, it is also no secret that some of those NSFW stories, sexually charged fics, feature unwilling vore.

Or, to state it more bluntly, per the definition above, they feature rape. I have willingly written rape, read over the rape multiple times, thoroughly enjoying it, and have put it out for the world to see. Especially considering that these stories were available to everyone including minors for quite some time, I cannot see how this is anything other than abhorrent. I was taking enjoyment from the sexual abuse I was writing into existence, and I feel utterly sick.

It seems to me now that "unwilling vore", particularly in the NSFW vore community, is simply a way of saying "rape" that makes it less taboo and more acceptable to talk about and create content for. It's become so normalized now, that I could not find a single post in the "unwilling vore" tag that was having this discussion when I searched for it. Instead it was all posts glorifying the concept, which ultimately, in an NSFW context, is rape. Period.

This can also extend to fatal vore and how I so enjoyed writing and reading about acidic murders. It's murder. Full stop. Especially in an NSFW context, I should not be enjoying such a concept.

But I do.

And honestly, I'm not entirely sure that removing the NSFW context makes it okay either. It may not be sexual, and thus won't constitute as rape, but just think about how paralyzingly traumatic the experience would be to an unwilling prey...and for fatal vore, it is most certainly still murder! Why am I normalizing and glorifying this kind of stuff? Why?

What the hell have I been doing for these past few years? Why have I loved and enjoyed so deeply this concept and this community which encompasses such abhorrent actions and not only normalizes them but turns them into hot fun time fics?

I have no idea anymore, and I have tipple the no idea of how I was able to last like this for so long without any sort of justification to speak of. Was I just suppressing what I already knew because I was scared to face reality? Honestly, I think that might be it.

I'm sorry, I'm just rambling at this point but I honestly have no idea anymore. I just feel awful, that's the bottom line. Rape and murder, in stories that are sexual. That is what I have created. I am nothing more than an insensitive, uncaring, unsympathetic, immoral, horrific piece of shit who thought for years that this was okay. These things have hurt real people in real life. I feel like I am shitting on their stories and their experiences for each and every single NSFW unwilling vore and fatal vore story I have created. Glorifying, normalizing, and sexualizing the pain, agony, and trauma these real people went through, for nothing more than my own pleasure. How am I not behind bars? (/gen)

-Benjamin

[abri-chan]

Regarding sadistic beauty bl side story... Why is it so toxic? 🤔 I somewhat can understand 90/mid-2000 even like bl stories ten years ago that skip over repercussions of rape and glorify toxic, abusive relationships... But this author was aware of these, hell since she has twitter she was definitely made aware through feedback... It's 2022 and yet again and again I see this trope in the story, where main character despite awareness of abuse they go through still ends up with abuser and it's presented either as somewhat happy ending or, like in Minho case, as inevitable, which might be worse... Like, why is it so normalised in bl stories? Authors main Sadistic Beauty ending presented similarly, but it's through abuser pov (Duna), not abused (they are in bdsm relationship, but honestly Duna more than once goes over boundaries)... and that ending wasn't depressing and in a light "at least I'm not lonely" :/ Not to mention since when WK became Minho's fifth most important person? He shouldn't even be in top 1000 after what he did... Sick story. I blame patriarchy x) But seriously... wtf

so... i agree BL has some romanticized, or at the very least normalized dish of abuse that wouldn't extend to other stories.

My personal opinion on all this? I think the writer can't be made to willingly write m/m stories. That is no way mean to shame her; it is well and valid for an author to only want to write stories centered around women, which translates to f/m and f/f ships only. Sadistic Beauty (the main comic) did this, and it worked great for the plot, that is not just separate smut scenes that were hot (SB BL had this too!), but a sense of where the story is going as though some overall plan has been laid out. Unfortunately, BL sells way more than f/f or f/m (and boy do we need good f/m with some decent female leads and away from the male gaze), and the Sadistic Beauty spinoff was in my opinion because of two possibilities: 1) the writer tried to milk the bl popularity (unlikely) and 2) the writer really wanted to close up the plot-threads for the remaining characters of the Duna-harem, but she overestimated how much her heart was into writing m/m, realized it half-way in, and defaulted to generic bl tropes for each chapter. That is to say, the plot of SB BL became a piece of paper pulled out of a hat as to what generic abuse WK will pull on Minho this chapter. Don't get me wrong, I think the spinoff had some moments or insights (I really loved how the visuals portraying Minho's depression and suicidal tension, and I think the writer does have hot sex scenes, which by themselves can be quite good--Minho taking the lead and WK being assigned to bottom for once, right before Minho decided to attempt suicide.), but overall those are few and far in between, and the overall plot was left hanging: won't WK have no money now that mom cut him off? will the cues about Minho loving writing over Duna lead nowhere, that is won't we see any hint of Minho going back to writing and having self-realization that extends beyond being with WK? will WK learn shit from this story (no he wont', he got Minho in the end after throwing a fit, and he didn't have to change a thing. Because he also wanted to get rid of his mom, and he cut ties, so Minho was only cinder in a fire that already existed to push him to do so)? I was reading some other "unhealthy" BLs as I was reading this spinoff and the spinoff gave me flashback to many of the same scenes even I had seen in those mangas: chain to bed, kill him if he leaves, uke somewhat never makes the smart decision of getting out when he can... etc etc...

So in short, my take with the spinoff is not how healthy or unhealthy it was, but lack of direction, where the twists or scenes felt copy-cat but done with better art or sensibility, but nothing that kept me wanting to re-read like the main Sadistic Beauty. I think maybe the writer eventually realized where her passion lies, so who knows, she may not write any m/m in the future because she always want a woman in the mix. In a way, I respect that, and that also provides an answer to everyone that complained by SB had all men available to Duna and no proper m/m relationships, as in strictly gay: it is because the manga was meant for women, and it pandered to women (boo hoo, deal with it, pandering to women for once), so similarly to how in anything pandering to men all women are straight or bi, but never lesbian because the man needs to insert himself, all men were bi or straight in SB, and all women were bi or lesbian, so Duna, and in that way, the female reader, could insert herself in any situation. I don't think the writer is under any obligation to give us strictly male gay couples; don't like, don't read. I did wish the BL spinoff tied more ends though, not so much that I care about m/m, but because WK was my favorite male character from the original, and I highkey wanted him to be tamed by Duna and end up as her sub. I had high hopes and he kinda disappointed me in the spinoff, proving he can't be a proper dom, and all he does is out of spite for not being able to outdominate his mother.

Eventually, you need passion to break the mold, of toxic BL in this case, and the passion for m/m just wasn't there for this writer, it seems.

[mintacle]

Of course there are other characters, such as Mia Dearden or Helena Bertinelli who have similar story beats as Jason, but first of all they aren't the same story and the nuances matter to fans of any one of the characters and more importantly, Jason is kind of an exception in the rules of victims. I'm about to explain why that matters.

First of all, in the interest of honesty, I have to admit some fans are probably influenced and led by subconscious sexism in the form of caring more deeply about men than women to prefer Jason. Sure. But he's really not the exception here; see the fandoms focus on the 'batbros' or general preference of male characters. This is a whole different battle. One I'm all for, but it's important to state that the problem isn't Jason or the fans of one specific other character, but a general mentality we find both in the larger dc fandom and in the regular Population too.

With that disclaimer out of the way, let's talk about Jason as a male victim.

Victim stories are largely surpressed or expressed in euphemistic manners anyway. It's not a nice topic and it's a visceral pain, so it's easy to see why most media, when they do show the victim's side at all, choose still keep a careful distance. (And most victims in media get no voice at all actually, it's just the grief of their loved ones that matter, the wickedness of their abuser/murderer, and the detective who cracks their case. If this interests you more, you should totally check out the "Bad Women: the ripper retold" podcast by pushkin industries.)

One way of making victims feel more easily digestable is to label them as partially guilty. The victims of the ripper for example were actually homeless women living in poverty. And yes, some such women did use prostitution to earn a meager amount, but this was occasional and it is known that this does not apply to most of the ripper victims. Jason's story also changed to make him more digestable, more dismissable. "He was always too angry, too headstrong." The original Robin Jason was excitable and yes, in some occasions unaware of the immediate danger, but he was a child. He got angry on occasion, but not to a higher extent than Dick or subsequent robins would.

The next thing that happens to victims in media is who they are. Victims are white. Victims are girls. Victims are weak.

There is more sympathy for a victim who isn't such a generic cookie-cutter personality that you can stick in one story just as well as in the other. And mostly that's fine, because again, it's not really about them. It's about those who are left. (See: fridging)

But Jason didn't follow the archetype and his story didn't follow the pattern. He was not fridged, but completely meaningless, nothing changed because of his death.

if he wasn't male, then he wouldn't have gotten a plaque reading "a good soldier". Can you imagine a girl's memory being honored in such a way? No, because women still can't be soldiers and no, because we feel an obligation to be sentimental. But men aren't granted that emotional commitment by others. if he wasn't male, then he wouldn't have died the way he did.

The fact that we have a victim story told so honestly and opening the problem of who is allowed to be a victim, ergo, who gets our sympathy AND that the victim is not weak matters. Do you think real life victims want to see themselves only as poor, helpless souls or sinners who got their due? No.

It's nice to see a male victim, because I personally identify more with that and it's nice to see I don't have to be a girl to be a victim. It's nice to see a strong victim, because I want to be that too. It's nice to see a victim who commands such attention. I don't think Jason actually raises his voice and screams, I think he leaves us, the readers, and the character, Bruce, Dick, etc., No choice but to listen, even if he were to whisper it.

"It happened to me. It happened to me, not you."

So yeah, just, this is the thing about Jason.

[spockandawe]

Well, this is interesting! So, in that post yesterday, there was one line that really baffled me, a thing about people brushing off a character as an asshole “because he shows literally zero growth.” I kind of set that aside because it was such a weird non-sequitur, and guessed that it was just someone’s sentences not quite keeping up with their train of thought, which has happened to me many times. Apparently I was wrong! I already spent long enough on that one post, I’m tired of talking about that, but this is new and interesting. 

Okay. I kind of wanted to see if I could talk about this purely in terms of abstracts and not characters, but I don’t think it’ll work. It would be frustrating to write and confusing to read. It’s about Jiang Cheng. Right up front: This isn’t about whether or not he’s an abuser. Frankly, I don’t think it’s relevant. This also isn’t about telling people they should like him. I don't care whether anyone else likes him or not. But I do like him, and I am always fascinated by dissecting the reasons that people disagree with me. And the process of Telling Stories is my oldest hyperfixation I remember, which will become relevant in a minute.

I thought I had a good grasp on this one, you know? Jiang Cheng makes it pretty obvious why people would dislike Jiang Cheng. But then the posts I keep stumbling over were making weird points, culminating in that “literally zero growth” line.

So! What happened is that someone wrote up a post about how Jiang Cheng’s character arc isn’t an arc, it’s stagnation. It’s a pretty interesting read, and I broadly agree with the larger point! The points where I would quibble are like... the idea that it’s absolute stagnation, as opposed to very subtle shifts that still make a material difference. But still, cool! The post was also offered up as a reason why OP was uninterested in writing any more Jiang Cheng meta, which I totally get. I’m not tired of him yet, but I definitely understand why someone who isn’t a fan of his would get tired about writing about a character with a very static arc. Okay!

Now, internet forensics are hard. I desperately wish I had more information about this evolution, because I find this stuff fascinating, but I have no good way to find things said in untagged posts, reblogs, or private/external venues. But as far as I can tell, that “literally zero growth” wasn’t just a slip of the tongue, it’s become fashionable for people to say that Jiang Cheng is an abusive asshole (that it’s fucked up to like) because he doesn’t have a character arc.

Asshole? Yes. Abusive? This post still isn’t about that. This is about it being fucked up to like this character because he did bad things and had a static character arc.

At first, that point of view was still deeply confusing to me. But I think I figured out the idea at the core of it, and now I’m only baffled. I’m not super interested in confirming this directly, because the people making the most noise about this have not inspired confidence in their ability to hold a civil conversation and I’m a socially anxious binch, but I think the idea is: ‘This character did Bad Things, and then did not improve himself.’

Which is alarmingly adjacent to that old favorite standard of ‘This piece of fiction is glorifying Bad Thing.’ I haven’t seen anyone accusing mxtx of something something jiang cheng, only the people who read/watched/heard the story and became invested in the Jiang Cheng character, but things kind of add up, you know?

Like I said, I don’t want to arbitrate anyone’s right to like/dislike Jiang Cheng. That’s such a fucking waste of time. But this is fascinating to me, because it’s like..... so obviously new and sudden, with such a clear originating point. I can’t speak to the Chinese fans, obviously, but exiledrebels started translating in... what, 2017? And only now, in 2021, do people start putting forth Jiang Cheng’s flat character arc as a “reason” that he’s bad? I’m not going to argue if he pings you in the abuse place, I’m not a dick. I’m not going to argue if you just dislike his vibes. I’m just over here on my blog and in the tag enjoying myself, feel free to detour around me. But oh my god, it’s so silly to try to tell other people that they shouldn’t like him because he has a static character arc.

I want to talk about stories. I don’t know how much I’ll be able to say, because it’s impossible to make broad, sweeping statements, because there are stories about change, there are stories about lack of change, there are all kinds of media that can be used to tell stories, and standards for how stories are told and what they emphasize vary across cultures and over time. But I think that what I can say is that telling a story requires... compromise. It requires streamlining. Trying to capture all the detail of life would slow down most stories to an unbearable degree. Consider organically telling someone ‘I made a peanut butter and jelly sandwich’ versus the computer science exercise of having students describe, step by step, how to make one (spread peanut butter? but you never said you opened the lid)

Hell, I’ve got an example in mdzs itself. The largely-faceless masses of the common people. If someone asks you to think about it critically like, yes, obviously these are people, living their own lives, with their own desires, sometimes suffering and dying in the wake of the novel plot. But does the story give weight to those deaths? Or does it just gloss by? Yes, it references their suffering occasionally, but it is not the focus, and it would slow the story unbearably to give equal weight to each dead person mentioned. 

Does Wei Wuxian’s massacre get given the same slow, careful consideration as Su She’s, or Jin Guangyao’s? No, because taking the time to weigh our protagonist with ‘well, this one was a mother, and her youngest son had just started walking, but now he’s going to grow up without remembering her face. that one only became an adult a few months ago, he still hasn’t been on many night-hunts yet, but he finds it so rewarding to protect the common people. oh, and this one had just gotten engaged, but don’t worry, his fiancee won’t mourn him, because she died here as well.’ And continuing on that way to some large number under 3000? No! Unless your goal is to make the reader feel bad for cheering for a morally grey hero, that would be a bad authorial decision! The book doesn’t ignore the issue, it comes up, Wei Wuxian gets called out about all the deaths he’s responsible for, but that’s not the same as them being given equal emotional weight to one (1) secondary character, and I don’t love this new thing where people are pretending that’s equivalent.

When Wei Wuxian brutally kills every person at the Wen supervisory office, are you like ‘holy shit... so many grieving families D:’ or are you somewhere between vindicated satisfaction and an ‘ooh, yikes’ wince? Odds are good you’re somewhere in the satisfaction/wince camp, because that’s what the story sets you up to feel, because the story has to emphasize its priorities (priorities vary, but ‘plot’ and ‘protagonist’ are common ones, especially for a casual novel read like this)

Now, characters. If you want to write a story with a sweeping, epic scale, or if you want to tightly constrain the number of people your story is about, I guess it’s possible to give everyone involved a meaningful character arc. Now.... is it always necessary? Is it always possible? Does it always make sense? No, of course not. If you want to do that, you have to devote real estate to it, and depending on the story you want to tell, it could very possibly be a distraction from your main point, like the idea of mxtx tenderly eulogizing every single character who dies even incidentally. Lan Qiren doesn’t get a loving examination of his feelings re: his nephews and wei wuxian and political turnover in the cultivation world because it’s not relevant, and also, because his position is pretty static until right near the end of the story. Lan Xichen is arguably one of the most static characters within the book, he seems like the same nice young between Gusu and the present, right up until... just before the end of the story.

You may see where I’m heading with this.

Like, just imagine trying to demand that every important character needs to go through a major life change before the end of your book or else it didn’t count. This just in, Granny Weatherwax and Nanny Ogg go through multiple novels without experiencing radical shifts in who they are, stop liking them immediately. I do get that the idea is that Jiang Cheng was a ~bad person~ who didn’t change, but asdgfsd I thought we were over the handwringing over people being allowed to like ““bad”” fictional characters. The man isn’t even a canonical serial killer, he’s not my most problematic fave even within this novel.

And here is where it’s a little more relevant that I would quibble with that original post about Jiang Cheng’s arc. He’s consistently a mean girl, but he goes from stressed, sharp-edged teenager, to grief-stricken, almost-destroyed teen, to grim, cold young adult (and then detours into grim, cold, and grief-stricken until grief dulls with time). He does become an attentive uncle tho. He..... doesn’t experience a radical change in his sense of self, which... it’s...... not all that strange for an adult. And bam, then he DOES experience a radical change, but the needs of the plot dictate that it’s right near the end. And he’s not the focus of the story, baby, wangxian is. He has the last few lines of the story, which nicely communicate his changes to me, but also asdfafas we’re out of story. He was never the main character, it’s not surprising we don’t linger! The extras aren’t beholden to the needs of plot, but they’re also about whatever mxtx wanted to write, and I guess she didn’t feel like writing about Jiang Cheng ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

But also. Taking a step backward. Stable characters can fill a perfectly logical place in a story. Like, look at Leia Organa. I’m not saying she has no arc, but I am saying that she’s a solid point of reference as Luke is becoming a jedi and Han is adjusting his perspective. I wouldn’t call her stagnant, the vibes are wrong, but she also isn’t miserable in her sadness swamp, the way Jiang Cheng is.

Or, hell, look at tgcf. The stagnant, frozen nature of the big bad is a central feature of the story. The bwx of now is the bwx of 800 years ago is the bwx of 1500+ years ago. This is not the place for a meta on how that was bad for those around him and for him himself, but I have Thoughts about how being defeated at the end is both a thing that hurts him and relieves him. Mei Nianqing is a sympathetic character who’s also pretty darn static. Does Ling Wen have a character arc, or do we just learn more about who she already is and what her priorities always were? I’m going to cut myself off here, but a character’s delta between the beginning of a story and the end of a story is a reasonable way to judge how interesting writing character meta is, and is a very silly metric to judge their worth, and even if I guessed at what the basic logic is, for this character, I am still baffled that it’s being put forth as a real talking point.

(also, has it jumped ship to any other characters yet? have people started applying it in other fandoms as well? please let me know if this is the case, I am wildly curious)

(no, but really, if anyone is arguing that bwx is gross specifically because he had centuries to self-reflect and didn’t fix himself, i am desperate to know)

And finally. The thing I thought was most self-evident. Did I post about this sometime recently? If a non-central character experiences a life-altering paradigm shift right near the end of the story (without it being lingered over, because non-central character), oh my god. As a fic writer? IT’S FREE REAL ESTATE. This is the most fertile possible ground. If I want to write post-canon canon-compliant material, adsgasfasd that’s where I’m going to be looking. Okay, yeah, the main couple is happy, that’s good. Who isn’t happy, and what can I do about that? Happy families are all alike, while every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way, etc.

It’s not everyone’s favorite playground, but come on, these are not uncommon feelings. And frankly, it’s starting to feel a little disingenuous when people act like fan authors pick out the most blameless angel from the cast and lavish good things upon them. I’m not the only one who goes looking for a good dumpster fire and says I Live Here Now. If I write post-canon tgcf fic, it’s very likely to focus on beef and/or leaf. I have written more than one au focusing on tianlang-jun.

And, hilariously. If the problem with Jiang Cheng. Is that he is a toxic man fictional character who failed to grow on his own, and is either unsafe or unhealthy to be around. If the problem is that he did not experience a character arc. If these people would be totally fine with other people liking him, if he improved himself as a person. And then, if authors want to put in the (free! time-consuming!) work of writing that character development themselves. You would think that they would be lauded for putting the character through healthier sorts of personal growth than he experienced in canon. Instead, I am still here writing this because first, I was bothered by these authors being named as “freaks” who are obsessed with their ‘uwu precious tsundere baby’ with a “love language of violence,” and then I was graciously informed that people hate Jiang Cheng because he experiences no character growth.

[nicanario]

this post is a product of its time

tw: discussion of racism, homophobia, misogyny and a short mention of sexual abuse.

ok, this is basically gonna be a very long rambling post about my not fully developed thoughts on the justification many people give to bigotry when talking about the past: "it was a product of its time"

it would be fair to say, with me being a raging SJW socialist scumbag, that I don't think this is a very good argument and is most of the time actually an excuse to not think about the problems inherent to our society, historical or not, and, by extension, the problems with ourselves. but I do think that sometimes, just sometimes, this can be a valid point, or at least one that raises some interesting questions.

I'm going to cite examples from several pieces of media, but fear not, I'll try to make this as accesible as I can.

so, let's take Star Trek: The Original Series (TOS) as our first case study. this show has, correctly, been called progressive by everyone except for clueless people who don't know much about Star Trek's history, Star Trek's crew, Star Trek's cast, or, frankly, Star Trek. because if you ignore the clear, sometimes in-your-face political history and present of the franchise, I don't think you know much about it at all. I do think you can call yourself a fan if you like it, you may have watched every single episode for all I know. but lots of mental gymnastics are needed to ignore the political progressiveness Star Trek has had since its very beginning.

episodes like Let That Be Your Last Battlefield are obviously anti-racist, at least in their intention. but the episode in question really is "a product of its time," and at the very end fails to uphold its ideals. the episode ends with the two aliens (who are LITERALLY. BLACK ON ONE SIDE. AND WHITE ON THE OTHER. BUT IN THE OPPOSITE SIDES.) fighting each other on their devastated planet, and the crew is like, "oh yeah if they both would give up on their hatred that they both share both of them equally" when it has been firmly established that one is the oppressor and the other one is the oppressed.

and that's a lot of Star Trek, not just TOS. even Discovery, one of the most recent series, has done Bury Your Gays (and Trans) TWICE (though both times literally rectified it, which is cool). there are episodes of the franchise that are overtly racist, or misogynistic, etc. TOS is lauded, mostly justifiably, as very progressive, especially for the standards of the time. they put a woman of colour as one of the senior staff, for fuck's sake. of course, when you analyse that same character, as with most of their intentions at being progressive, you'll see that she was relegated and sometimes even outright mistreated when she had the potential to be much more. but, at that time, it was a lot.

I had a friend (emphasis on "had") who, after I told him about TOS's both progressiveness and constant misogyny, told me something like "imagine feminists trying to complain about a show from the 60s." so, with unearned spite, he was, in some way, trying to make the argument that it was a product of its time.

you could say Star Trek, all of Star Trek, is "a product of its time" in the sense that it's not always perfect. uh, yes, I would agree. but that doesn't mean people have to accept it. well, I mean, the show is kinda over, you have to accept it's that way. but you don't have to accept that it's not wrong just because it was a product of its time.

H. P. Lovecraft, as another example, was a greatly influential writer whose works still shape a lot of people's ideas to this day. I have only ever read like one of his stories, so don't expect me to have an opinion on his works. but I can have an opinion on what I know about him as a person (he did have a life outside his writing, after all). and, yeah, he was a huge asshole. if you want to know more in depth about the subject, please watch Hbomberguy's video on him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8u8wZ0WvxI

but basically, he was incredibly racist & homophobic. some people might even say, "he was a product of his time." well, there are two possible rebuttals to that. the surface level one, and the one that examines why that argument is wrong to the core.

The Surface Level Response to "it was a product of its time": um, no it wasn't. Lovecraft was more racist than a lot of people even in his time. he wasn't just a guy who carried the racist beliefs of his society like everyone else, he was a reactionary who actively thought and discussed how racist he was, and how right he was for being that way. but that's only applicable to Lovecraft. one can't argue the same for Star Trek: TOS, because TOS did try to be more progressive and more anti-racist than the rest of its society. that leads us to the next response.

The Response that Actually Deals with the Fact that No Matter How Progressive You're Trying to Be, Your Failings Can Still be Criticized: the thing is, trying to excuse Lovecraft's or Star Trek's bigotry because they were "products of their times" misses the fact that racism is still wrong, and some people knew that in those times as well. people from these times weren't all naive or stupid or whatever. they had the capacity for rational thinking. they could stop and think, "hey, maybe what we're doing is wrong." and the fact is, some people did. not perfectly, not to our standars, but they did. everyone could have stopped and think. but most of them didn't, and we can criticize them for it. racism, homophobia, sexism, etc. HURT PEOPLE. horribly. massively.

also, even if you agree with the "it's a product of its time" argument, some people aren't criticising people's or work's bigotry: they're explaining why they don't want to experience it.

The Talons of Weng-Chiang is a 1977 Doctor Who serial, and it's one of the show's more racist stories. almost all the villains are Chinese, every single Chinese person is a villain. there's yellowface, slurs, stereotypes, the Doctor speaking nonsense words instead of actual Chinese, and a general belittling of Chinese culture.

note that I'm neither Chinese nor of Chinese descent. I have been searching for hours for a few posts I've read a while ago (some by people who are of Asian descent) about this episode and I can't find them. sorry.

suffice it to say, even though I love Jago & Litefoot (the audio series and the characters), it's not an acceptable episode at all. but it's also important to remark that, because of it, some people aren't going to want to watch it. sometimes, people aren't saying "the episode shouldn't be this way," which causes others to answer that it was "a product of its time." sometimes, people are just saying, "this is an episode that attacks real people. I don't want to see it. I don't care if it was common in that era to be racist, i don't want to experience it."

however, there is an interesting point to the "it's a product of its time" argument. after all, everything is influenced by its society, for better or worse. and we can't change it anymore. TOS sometimes didn't quite understand the political themes it wanted to explore. Lovecraft was a horrible bigot. Talons was racist towards Chinese folks. and that's that. I don't think we should change the episodes/stories or anything. edit them in any way. that would be, in a sense, changing history. and we wouldn't learn anything from it, about how we can do better.

I think there are two solutions to this:

1. warnings before starting the text: this was done with The Talons of Weng-Chiang. on Britbox, where you can watch Classic Who, this serial has a content warning before the start. that's good.

2. the removal as a whole of the text from some places: I think before applying this one, there should be a lot of thought put into each case. I don't think removing a whole serial of Doctor Who or Lovecraft's stories from anything would be, well, fair. especially on tv episodes a lot more people worked on those, not just the writers and the directors. Lovecraft's writing influenced thousands. we shouldn't erase them or anything. but sometimes, for some cases, we should.

those in the US might seen a Confederate statue being taken down. that is, in a way, a form of removal of a piece of history.

but that is a good removal. statues glorify. one sees a statue and probably thinks "this was a person worthy of admiration." they should be taken down, maybe even with a permanent mark of why this was done (a plaque that reads "a statue of X was here, but he didn't deserve it because of Y" could be put in place of the statues, for example).

another example is the removal from DVDs of the short episode A Fix with Sontarans, a Sixth Doctor minisode that featured Jimmy Savile, a presenter who was later found out to be sexually abusing children.

the removal of that minisode is good, actually. it's not a full episode (it's not even Doctor Who). some might say that's "erasing history" but, like, you can still find it online or information about it if you want. this minisode deserves removal from DVDs and Blu-Rays and whatever more than content warnings. it's not an important part of the show and it prominently features a horrible person who did horrible things during that time.

so, after all that, I have explained why I don't like the "it's a product of its time" argument. it is an interesting point that deserves to be examined, but it's not very good.

I have had this in Drafts for so long I've probably forgot some of the points I was going to make, but eh, what can you do? hope you enjoyed reading this.

bye

[lulu-zodiac]

I feel stupid for this but the prequel really bothers me. Not only are they trying to glorify an abuser (my dad had a lot of similarities with John) but they are once again trying to push this heteronormative love story.

trigger warning: abuse

oh man do I feel this. sending you lots of hugs <3

your feelings about this are SO valid. the stuff with j*hn has always bothered me too because, like you, my dad has a LOT of similarities with him (definitely one of the reasons I've always identified with dean so much, but that's another ted talk).

if they do glorify an abusive parent in the prequel, I will be so upset about it.

BUT I don't think that has to automatically be the outcome just because they're writing about the relationship with j*hn and mary.

in film and media, I feel like abusers are often portrayed as evil, one-dimensional characters and this can actually be counterproductive for victims of abuse, because the reality of it is often more complex than that. I think it would genuinely be helpful to have more exploration in film/tv of the fact that abusers aren't always abusive all the time in every situation, but that they're also complex, often charming, intelligent etc and this is part of what makes them so dangerous.

the popular idea in the media that abusers are just terrible people always doing terrible things is, I think, damaging and unhelpful, as it frequently dismisses the experiences of victims. most victims know their abuser well (e.g. a parent, partner, sibling), and therefore are probably just as familiar with the charming/seemingly positive qualities of their abusers as the negative ones. in portraying abusers as one dimensional villains (as hollywood often does), many victims may feel that the abuse they suffer isn't "bad enough" because their abuser isn't always this evil villain, and may often show moments of love, regret, or understanding towards them.

so yeah. I think this very common portrayal of abusers is just super unhelpful because it doesn't help victims recognise some of the most common types of emotional and physical abuse (e.g. love-bombing combined with emotional/physical violence, parents caring for you while also being abusive), and might go so far as to actually dismiss victims suffering from these experiences. also, significantly, it doesn't help us better understand why people abuse, and therefore how we can help them stop abusing.

I think, from what jensen has said before, and his nuanced portrayal of dean and dean's trauma, that he has the potential to create a show that explores all these important issues in a really interesting way. to explore the different sides of abusive people, how they interact in different relationships, their red flags, and ultimately why they choose to behave the way they do.

that's just my take on it at the moment, I'm trying to be hopeful!

also, just to clarify, because I feel like it's super important to be clear about a topic like this: I am absolutely NOT justifying any kind of abuse. I just think humanising abusers (whilst also recognising how awful, damaging and inexcusable their abuse is) ultimately helps victims more than othering them. but that's just my personal opinion, I'm sure there are plenty of people who have had similar experiences to me who would think totally differently on this, and that's equally valid.

as for it being a heteronormative love story... if that ends up being true, I'll be disappointed, because the media is FULL of heteronormative love stories and honestly? I'd love some better representation. BUT again, it's jensen and danneel, and, as their chaos machine productions logo shows, they are very much a part of the LGBT+ community, so who knows where they'll go with it... (I'm rooting for bi mary, and appearances from cas)

sorry this ended up being such a long-winded answer, portrayal of abusers in the media is just something I feel really strongly about (obviously lol).

I really relate to you struggling with this, I honestly felt pretty triggered by it when I first heard about the prequel, but I feel a little better having had some time to think and organise my thoughts on it all. really hope you're okay, please take the time to look after yourself <3

also, if you ever need someone to talk to about any of this stuff, my asks and my dms are always open, so please don't hesitate to reach out <3

[wooahaes]

Oooh what's your thesis on? Do you have a specific topic that it has to be based on or can you decide your own? I have to start a dissertation this year so I need to be thinking about all that stuff (I'm doing graphic design in case you are interested haha). I loved dad!svt, very nice thoughts to wake up to haha. I have officially melted -🍧 anon

ooo graphic design is fascinating <3 i hope it goes well for you!! i feel like there's so much out there to talk about :0

also im gonna make u regret asking sdkfhsdf i love talking abt my thesis so sorry for the long answer ahead

so the topic in general basically has to be about 20th and 21st century novels. that's pretty much all the guidance we've been given, they specifically say "literature" and i go the route of "any published work that has a lot of cultural meaning, good or bad" with that (and i got (a lil reluctantly) approved, so... hehe). outside of that, we're pretty much on our own!

my thesis in particular focuses in on books written within the past two decades by women authors that have a narrative that romanticizes abuse. i think all of them classify as "romance" in some shape or form, which was vital to this topic, and they have to be popular enough. all three of my books received movie adaptations of their entire series (at least the mainline ones--there's been spinoffs... all in the same vein, of portraying the shitty love interest's perspective). i was told the books were "dreadful" btw and tried to be persuaded to look into british lit but i'm pretty set in my topic. it'll look at why these books are popular, especially during the #me//too era (because all of them were published after the first instance of it in 2006, although the hashtag didn't rise to prominence until 2017).

excuse the way i'm gonna cut up titles, but i don't want this showing up in searches: 5/0 sha/des, twi/light, and af/ter.

all are popular books written by women with a female audience over the past two decades (2007 for tw*light, and i believe 2011 and 2013 for the following, although aft//er didn't get it's official publication as an "original" work until 2016). all of them feature similar protagonists (white women who are meek and bookish and have never had a relationship before in their lives) and abusive men in varying ways. all three received film adaptations of their series due to their popularity as well, and all three have spinoff novels told from the male love interest's perspective. i feel like there's something to potentially be said about things like slut-shaming in each (i know af//ter has it, but i'd have to revisit the other two--there's definitely unwarranted of other women), but i might not go anywhere in particular about that.

ultimately: i'm focusing on 1. the portrayal of female protagonists and their role in the story (are they impacting it, or is it being driven by their love interest? how do they view other women? their partner? can you argue it's almost stockholm syndrome-esque how they fall for their men?), 2. the male love interest and their actions and why exactly they are abusive, and how the texts romanticize this (typically through the "he cares for ME!" mindset), and 3. the reason why these works all drew as much attention as they did and why it's important to acknowledge exactly what makes this a bad thing, especially with the rise of #me//too.

eventually i'll have to do a thesis defense and i think part of it will be about how we need to do better for people and condemn these novels for the abuse they represent and glorify. it's one thing to indulge in trashy novels for fun, it's another when so many things promote this idea of toxic masculinity and an idea that you can "change" a man with your love in order to tell vulnerable people that they CAN fix their abusers when its not their job to do so. some of this is being consumed by younger people who don't have the ability to fully understand every aspect of it. young people aren't stupid, but there were things i thought were okay at 12 that i look back on and realize were incredibly fucked up because i've educated myself and i can discern abuse from love.

anywayyy as you can tell. i'm excited to cover this topic despite the fact i know i'm gonna have to dig for credited sources, likely looking into the more psychological aspect of abuse? it's a topic i care a lot about, especially when two of the three novels have had a younger audience reading them.

[khaleesiofalicante]

I want to say thank you

Because a lot of fan fiction authors favour unhealthy relationships, and glorify those dynamics and situations, which (not condemning those authors, they can write what they like) can lead to readers getting warped ideas about what a relationship, be it platonic, romantic or sexual, should be like.

And even though your stories feature unhealthy relationships, you also show how healthy relationships should be, regarding communication, consent etc.

This is really positive, and can be encouraging to readers about how to approach their own relationships, and what boundaries they might want.

I also appreciate how you don’t have representation for the sake of representation. You do it justice, you give these themes and these people problems and you work through them, which reflects the realities of life.

Of course, not all fiction needs to be about showing healthy relationships and discussing important themes in society, it’s supposed to be fun. But your work, particularly lbaf, blends these two aspects spectacularly well, especially regarding coming to terms with sexuality, toxic relationships, abuse, racism etc, but in the lives of characters we’ve come to love, which makes it all the more real.

Characters like Roman and Gabriel, are examples of what good partners should be. Selena shows us that you can escape and survive toxic situations. Gigi and Roman exemplify good communication. Rafael is a great leader

I also think that showing things from the parents point of view can be beneficial to young people. I know that many teenagers instinctively blame the parents, when often they’re trying to protect them. I’m not saying that parents don’t get it wrong, and I think you show that through Magnus’s mistakes, but it’s helpful to show young people that often their parents are coming from a place of love, even if their methods are wrong.

It similarly highlights how parents can be abusive, and the importance of escaping those situations.

Honestly, LBAF is an allegory for so many things, and you’ve addressed so many important themes and ideals that I could write an entire essay on how awesome it is.

Your writing makes people laugh, makes them think and reflect on themselves, on other people who may be in those characters’ situations. This is so essential in this culture, so thank you for bringing it into the fandom, thank you for all that you’re doing.

I think this is perhaps the most beautiful asks I have ever received.

Storytelling is something that is personal to me. I believe in it's importance and power when shaping our values and attitudes towards ourselves and each other.

I use storytelling (mostly digital) as a tool in my advocacy work. So, it is has a become a part of me, I suppose.

I know for a fact a lot of us don't really get to learn about these things like consent or abuse or racism or healing in real life. It's partly due to cultural and social restrictions, but also due to self-censorship because at some level we are uncomfortable talking about these things.

I think fiction has the power to teach us these things without making these topics seem too intense or scary or uncomfortable. It makes it easier to digest.

the shadowhunter chronicles and the work of CC (and some other authors) was a big inspiration for in this case because I love using fantasy to connect these real life issues.

When I write these stories, I do hope it resonates with the readers and help them understand these concepts better. It's not a goal of my writing (in fanfiction) but it's a wish. And it's so gratifying to see this wish come true.

So, thank you for sharing this with me. This means more to me than you can ever know.

Much love.

Dani x.

[strawberry1212]

Kdrama Sexist/Toxic Male Lead Tropes

(originally made this post as part of another post about Run On but it got to be so long I just thought I’d made this list it’s own post)

-Possessive and easily jealous, and this is often played off as romantic. For a large portion of kdrama watchers who are younger, and for the majority of us who aren’t chased all the time by hot men, this toxic trait can easily be sold to us as an exciting and flattering trait. But this is in fact not respectful of the female lead’s autonomy. I enjoy the little humorous jealousy moments, (I am reminded of Crash Landing on You) but too often this leads to the classic “two male leads each grab the innocently wide eyed female lead and glare at each other” trope. Women are not ropes to play tug of war with! If jealousy over the instances like the girl simply having a conversation with another guy rupture into real problems in the relationship it is not romantic, but possessiveness is often mistakenly portrayed as an expression of love, when really possessiveness is just that: possessiveness over an object.

-Uses violence to solve problems. This is another thing that can be easily seen as flattering--someone is willing to go to great lengths to protect you/defend your honor/whatever the reason is for the male lead to use violence. This trope was deconstructed in the American movie 500 Days of Summer, where the male lead punches a guy “to defend the honor” of the female lead, but she when she is upset and embarrassed at the situation, he gets angry at her for not being excited over his violent sacrifice.

-The typical “tsundere” narrative of abusive language, but paired with romantic gestures, usually the Grand Romantic Gesture trope. I see this all the time, where the guy berates the girl, sometimes to point of just full on bullying, but then he throws his jacket at her when she’s cold, holds the umbrella over her while he gets wet, etc., In other words he may be verbally abusive but it doesn’t matter because he Truly Loves her. And that she should accept that and understand that about him and not expect him to be polite and respectful.

-He treats everyone but the female lead like trash. Well...he often treats the female lead like trash at first too, but this quality is also marketed as flattering. He treats everyone badly but you’re different! In reality this is super toxic. In fact, it is essential that a person treats *everyone* with decency if they are to meet the baseline requirements of being a person capable of giving and receiving love in a healthy relationship.

-He chases her one sidedly. Oftentimes he chases her even when she rejects him, which shows that dominating, male persistence is a behavior to be rewarded. Again, this is a fantasy easily marketable when many of us aren’t chased around by hot men. It is flattering for a person to be so interested in us that they are incredibly persistent, but this fantasy had very unhealthy, and even harmful real life connotations. There is a very important line between friendliness/respectful attention/flirting, and creepy and domineering. I think it is also equally important to note that in this toxic trope, it is important to teach both men and women that no means no and yes means yes. Not that you can’t have playful/teasing banter, but playing hard to get when you really want to be gotten, is an unhealthy coping mechanism for cowardice in relationships.

I think for this one as with other tropes on this list, it appeals to our childish, insecure, and relationship-immature side of ourselves that would rather have everything fall into place than be honest, vulnerable, and have agency in our romantic interactions. What I mean is, the fantasy of a hot male lead persistently pursuing us after a destiny meet cute is a fantasy where we don’t ever have to put ourselves out there. Where don’t have to consciously try to meet new people, express interest in others, set boundaries, i.e. do the hard work of negotiating our place within other people’s lives.

The hallmark of a bad drama for me is when the give and take between the male and female lead is: the female lead has to put up with the meanness and constant mistakes of the male lead as he hurts her (usually in tangent with the Noble Idiocy trope, where he breaks up with her and steps all over her “for her own good” for some bs reason), but in return she gets the Grand Romantic Gesture, and the male lead does most of the chasing. In a healthy relationship, there aren’t constant hurtful arguments, and both do an equal share of the “chasing,” or a better term would be meeting each other halfway in expressing interest in the other.

-Power imbalance. It really disturbs me how Kdramas fetishize power imbalances between male and female characters to create the helpless/incompetent/somehow indebted but also plucky/cheerful/abuse-taking female lead. This can manifest itself very overtly in the many Kdramas between CEOs and secretaries, which I still cannot believe are popular in 2021. Secretary Kim did a better spin on the usual trope--the secretary holds the power of being very good at her job, and therefore indispensable and respected in her own right, but it remains a mystery to me why these super narcissistic and childish CEOs are played off as “adorable manchilds” that always need a little soothing of their ego. But to return to the power imbalance, besides obvious power imbalances of wealth/power/etc., oftentimes the guy has supernatural powers, or by nature of his job has abilities that render him the “protector” in the relationship (My love from another star, descendants of the sun), or the girl is infantilized in some way to need to protection from the male lead (legend of the blue sea, she is a mermaid and therefore dependent on the male lead for guidance in the human world, bring it on ghost as well). I think these latter power imbalances are constructed into the setting of the story because more overt forms of power imbalances are frowned upon now, but they serve the same patriarchal purpose. 

This power imbalance inevitably leads to the female lead putting up with some abuse from the male lead because she “needs” him for some other end, and him holding his power over as a way to keep her close. It fits very well into the enemies to lovers trope in this way, especially some contractual enemies to lovers, where due to the power imbalance he is able to exploit/use her in some way, and keeps her close, and she hates him but has to put up with it for her own survival in some way, but they slowly fall in love. It’s super toxic and not at all romantic because they didn’t choose each other at all, they just were pushed together by circumstance, but again it buys into our fantasy of falling in love due to circumstance, rather than our own agency.

-Overly protective (OP) vs respectfully supportive. (RS) Essentially I can divide Kdramas into these two categories, OP and RS. OP romances can commonly be found in love triangles (where jealousy flourishes) and high school romances (where characters usually have less of a personality lol), and RS relationships are more common in working adult romances, where each character is pursuing their career/dreams and they support each other in those dreams. OP relationships infantilize the female character, render her as just an object in need of saving, and power dynamic between the leads is usually he constantly needs to save her, and in return she “softens”/“heals” him which, under deeper analysis, reveals itself to be quite an insidious and harmful stereotype, the kind of psychology that keeps women in domestic violence relationships. RS relationships are also better in that the leads have something going on outside of their romance, and are motivated beyond just ending up together. My favorite of RS relationships are Miss Hammurabi (two judges that work together to confront injustices in the judicial system), Run On (two leads from v different career fields, but they take interest and support each other throughout career ups and downs), and Hello My Twenties (probably my favorite example of an RS male lead--Sungmin supports Song as she uncovers her past traumas and stands up to an abuser, but does so following her lead and not doing her work for her, but rather simply staying by her side supportively).

Conclusion

This is not all the toxicity in the kdrama world--this is just what I can come up with off the top of my head as my least favorite tropes that disempower women and glorify toxic men and toxic relationships. And of course this is not a problem unique to Korea, and is by no means a condemnation of Korean culture, etc., but I simply happen to enjoy the aesthetics and innocence (compared to American shows haha) of Kdramas, so that is the entertainment world I am familiar with, and feel able to comment on.