#but this is my take and I'm entitled to like or dislike whoever I want

[mirrorofliterature]

fic author interview

stealing this from @glorious-spoon because it looks fun - essentially a q&a for fanfic writers. tagging @elisedonut, @broomsticks, @felixantares, @certifiedbisexualdisaster and whoever else feels like doing it!

How many works do you have on AO3?

75.

2. What’s your total AO3 word count?

254,450 words.

3. What are your top 5 fics by kudos?

Mostly my Percy stuff with my most popular shadowhunters work thrown into the mix.

a study of cracked gold (1662)

everything not black and blue (1311)

whispers got nothing on the truth (1058)

why do i care at all (495)

falling from dusk into dawn (408)

4. Do you respond to comments? Why or why not?

Ideally, I would love to respond to comments, but practically I don't because they pile up, I get busy and stressed. It's often a choice between replying and writing - I normally chose writing. But I do read and appreciate all my (non-rude) comments.

5. What's the fic you've written with the angstiest ending?

the storm howls, and everything turns to ashes is absolutely brutal malec MCD I wrote for Shadowhunters Ficlet Instruments in 2019.

On par with this is:

Imelda finding her husband's dead body: if i fall

Magnus forgetting Alec: i miss all the times we had

All the Blacks dying: dreaming of a happy ending

Writing stories with tragic endings is fun!

6. What's the fic you've written with the happiest ending?

A lot of my fics sit in the grey area of happy endings but not like, butterflies and rainbow. It's hard to say.

If pushed, I would say i just want to be wanted. It's a relatively light pining get-together malec fic at ~3.7k that ends with them getting together. I say it's my happiest because it has a clean, tidy resolution, without lingering existential angst.

7. Do you write a cross-overs?

I have written cross-overs. I have day-dreamt about cross-overs. I have not yet published any.

Mishmashing different fandoms is really fun. The Old Guard x Shadowhunters fic with Magnus running into the immortals in 17th century England and saving Quynh with his magical skills... I love the idea. Be great to write at someday.

8. Have you ever received hate on a fic?

Not outright death-threats or the like, but I've had weird, entitled comments.

The most akin to a hate comment was someone disliking my fic because I made a disparaging comment about 1984 in it. That was weird.

9. Do you write smut? If so, what kind?

No. Just not my thing.

10. Have you ever had a fic stolen?

Not that I know of.

11. Have you ever had a fic translated?

Nope.

12. Have you co-written a fic before?

Also no.

13. What's your all time favourite ship?

I do not have one, overall. The perils of having multiple fandoms.

14. What's a WIP that you want to finish but think you never will?

My malec wwii AU. It's 42k and contains some really good writining, but it would take so much effort to make it publishable.

Also, that is the angstiest ending I've ever written. I wrote a lot just for that ending.

15. What are your writing strengths?

I am very good at generating ideas and writing introspection, particularly of the existential nature. This helps a lot when writing character studies!

16. What are your writing weaknesses?

Dialogue. And long plotty stuff. Fuck dialogue, it always feels so... stilted and awkward.

17. What are your thoughts on writing dialogue in other languages in fic?

If it is small phrases like si, senora, ciao, that's fine. I write a little Spanish in my Coco fic, following the style of the movie. But I'm not going to go into full blown sentences - the characters in my Coco fics are definitely speaking Spanish, but my grasp of Spanish is not good enough + it's generally confusing for most readers.

18. What's the first fandom you wrote for?

Published? Harry Potter in 2017, buried at the back of my AO3 page. Written? Total Drama. It exists, somewhere.

19. What's a fandom/ship you haven't written for yet but want to?

The Old Guard! Feels like a fun sandbox to explore and I think the fandom is cool (all the drama had boiled off before I watched the movie last year).

20. What's your favourite fic that you've written?

falling from dusk into dawn because it's my longest published fic, it was a labour of love, and I'm really proud of its construction.

[omg-im-such-a-masochist]

Okay, so I'm gonna say this and be as nice and kind as I possibly can, because honestly, things are just so frustrating. Who you like support or don't support or choose to write for and not write for is completely up to you. I'm not here to take that away from anyway. I'm not faulting you and others for being upset with Sammy about what he said. But understand this. For some of us (particularly those who have had experience meeting him personally or have received a Cameo from him or that have some kind of personal connection with him in some way), it doesn't come that easily. I wish it didn't and the decision to cut someone off shouldn't be a difficult one to make. But sadly in cases like this, it is. It's not that we agree or are condoning certain types of behavior or expect you others to like them. It's just it's bad enough we're already hurt by seeing a person we admired and looked up to turn out to not be a good person. And top of feeling let down and being disappointed, we see all this negativity from other fans and it really doesn't help matters. And this doesn't just go for Sammy, this pretty much does for any wrestler, because obviously he isn't the only one to have done something stupid. As for Tay, what she said was in the past and she doesn't say stuff like that anymore. And she certainly shouldn't be blamed for the shit Sammy has done. He's a grown ass man that knows perfectly well what he's doing and he's the one that should shift the blame and take the accountability. Not Tay or anyone else. So, that's all I have to say. Take it how you'd like.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion, so here’s mine:

You can like whoever you want, support whoever you want, it’s totally up to you. It’s your life and you decide what to do with it. Now I suppose you’re aware that actions have consequences. Whether they’ll be good or bad will depend exclusively on the actions you chose in the past/present. It doesn’t matter how much you like or dislike a person, this fact alone will not erase the good or bad they do or have done. I do not like Sammy and that’s my opinion judged by some of his actions. I don’t like Tay and that’s my opinion judged by some of her actions. I’m entitled to have my list of favorites and you’re entitled to have your list of favorites. Who I like or dislike will not affect your life the same way yours won’t affect mine. I personally think people should stop seeing wrestlers under this shiny light of idolatry and just admit they have their flaws and make mistakes just like any other human being does and understand the world is not against them when someone makes a bad comment about their attitude. I don’t dislike someone because they fucked up once, but I dislike them when some behaviors become repetitive enough to be classified as toxic.

Do I like Sammy? No. Should that opinion be respected? Yes. Do I have the right to verbalize my opinions? Yes. But those same rules apply to you as well. Feel free to be a supporter, just don’t come to my page if you don’t wish to hear my opinions 🤷‍♀️

I think we need to grow up and stop acting like 13 year olds having an online beef. It’s pretty simple actually: You don’t like people speaking ill of Sammy. I do not like him or his actions. I figure you’re a smart person, so do the math.

And I make your words my own: Take it how you’d like.

[unhonestlymirror]

Thank you for what you said about Maki. I can kinda understand why she did it since it was literally after she witnessed a traumatic event, so she wasn’t emotionally stable. But you can understand a character’s reason for doing something without saying that it justifies their actions. Megumi is proof that Zenin men aren’t born evil and are likely the way they are due to how they were raised. Also if you were a low born Zenin man, you’d probably get punished yourself for going against the Zenin ways.

Being abused sucks(I experienced it myself) but that doesn’t entitle you to hurt whoever you want, as badly as you want to. Also people can grow and unlearn toxic behaviours if they’re willing to, I’ve seen it many times in real life.

Thank you for this ask, you are completely right!! I'm really happy because I don't feel alone in my thoughts.

I shall say more - Toji himself is the proof Zenin men aren't born evil, otherwise, he wouldn't get married with Megumi's mom.

I'm sure your experience made you stronger and wiser, though I hope you don't have to deal with it now! I was kinda abused as well, and not only by women - and even if I strongly dislike those people for what they brought to my life - the thought about badly hurting or killing them makes me sick.

Of course! people can unlearn toxic behaviors - that is what life is about, we learn how to be better people. The take "toxic people should be killed" is REALLY disturbing.

[mirceakitsune]

I do NOT justify what I think, feel, or create to anyone

I want to make something clear in very direct words for today's cult of a society: I do NOT justify myself for what I think what I feel or what I create, especially not under pressure or under threat. I need no thought passport from and for anyone: I owe no information or explanation to any individual or platform or government, especially because some twisted minds think certain content has special meaning associated with remote harms in their paranoid minds. I can draw or render whatever perfectly normal or completely crazy thing I want if I feel like it, I can freely share what I think feel or make with whoever I want, I can be whoever I want and was born being… you own nobody and the rights to their mind, period.

I have no obligation to trust anybody I don't feel like trusting… particularly not anyone who's looking to take away my rights and freedom, especially corrupt oligarchs now playing the role of popes while hailed as saviors by the very people they're ripping off. I don't need to know or care how your mental triggers work: I don't have nor comprehend them, I can see an image of the most horrible stuff and just scroll past it. I respect that some don't work this way and are more affected by what they put their eyes on, until the moment their sensitivity threatens my right to exist as a being with individual thoughts and creative freedom: If one's "empathy" and diseased complex thinking spiral to the point of going crazed tyrant, it's time for some spirits to be crushed and desensitized in tears, because the rest of us aren't going to live in a hell of angry authoritarian children harassing us everywhere we go because some have too many feelings and can't keep it to themselves! At that point fuck feelings, you're gonna be made into a man sonny: Here's your ticket to Ukraine for treatment soldier, go shove your nose up a few dead bodies scattered on the streets till your empathic condition has been cured.

I'm sickened by the way complete strangers, including the owners of large services or politicians to the comedy of it all, address me as if they're my parents / brothers / children and entitled to my trust whereas I'm obliged to understand their culture. I'm sorry but what hole in the ground did those people crawl from and who the fuck are you? I don't even know you nor need to, at this point I actively don't want to nor want anything to do with your demented world! You think just because I exist I need to be in line with your choir and part of some fashion, be it far-left or far-right or any other woke trash I need to pick from the official lists of ideologies? I feel and believe only what I personally experienced, which was rather isolated from society and other people thank goodness for that! if you think using every direct or indirect method imaginable to endlessly harass and control and interrogate me is going to change that, you're upping what you see here every single time.

My only obligation in this shit world is to not practically and realistically harm others: No going out on the streets mugging or pick-pocketing folks to steal their belongings, no kidnapping punching stabbing shooting poisoning or creepily touching people, and as far as the internet goes no hacking of accounts or making bomb threats… the list goes on for similar common sense stuff. Those clearly justified things are the only actual obligations me and everyone else have: Beyond this we have zero! I'm not obliged to understand anyone's culture and whatever struggle for the "common good" (WTF) they feel I need to be involved in… in turn you aren't obliged to understand me, in fact I actively want people to not truly understand me as any info they have can be used against me by the enemy.

This is an issue of concept and principle, something I know few people these days have instead of wrongly thinking they do: I will be up in arms over it even if it's things I'm not into or downright dislike. Stuff like toddler / very young cub porn is in fact on that list, not to mention death or gore which fuck that shit: It's really not my thing if I'm being completely honest… yet I will defend it too to the death, because just as they can judge and attack those that like it so can their judgmental mind turn against me if the random paranoia already in their brain ever gets rewired, and I'm not gonna play around with monkey brains to find out how this shit works just so I can briefly imagine "maybe I won't be next on the list".

Thing is that the more people try to stop me or interrogate me over things I normally wouldn't even think about if I didn't hear them from others, the more it makes me want to create those things just to spite them. I'm starting to feel that if I don't make my art offensive toward whatever is in fashion today I'm wasting the effort, this doctrine shit actually pushed me into feeling like that. Which sucks because I wish I could at least just focus on what I truly like doing… but hey, if even thoughts are a weapon in some medieval ideological war to you, may as well mix them up and play along a bit!

To sum it up: If I feel like it I can draw swastika dick monsters wearing a "black face" yelling the holocaust never happened while fucking 7 babies and their parents at once: Don't look if you don't like it, none of your or the world's business ootherwise. Capiche?! Of course I likely won't draw that in particular as it's seriously not my thing, plus I don't want the simpletons thinking it must be something I truly believe if I made a drawing about it… that's just to say it is my right to create whatever insanity I'd want free of your hateful judgment.

Was going to talk about the shithole Patreon and more have been turning into, but I ended up writing this instead so best left for another time if still necessary. Just yeah; I've more than reached the end of my rope with whatever alien society is out there beyond my bedroom window… if there's no way we can let each other exist any longer, best I don't speculate.

[mostlikelytofangirl]

Which MDZS characters do you have grievances with? You seem to like MY, NHS and JC, who are the most controversial members of the cast, so I'm curious.

Oh anon, why would you do this to me :')

Mine is a very unpopular opinion regarding the characters I have my things with, but that's mostly bc I'm Like That, you know?

The reason why I'm a JGY/MY stan, Nie lover and JC respecter is bc I'm weak for morally ambiguous characters. It fascinates to no end the way they can push the limits of what's wrong or right in pursue of something they personally perceive as The Correct Thing To Do, especially when they are not exactly wrong. It makes them feel like real individuals with their own codes and experiences instead of, y'know, "this is the right thing to do, and I'm a good person, so I'm gonna do it and that's it" or "this is wrong and I'm a villain so that's what I do".

That, of course it's just me.

With that in mind, I can't really say that there's any character I hate on canon alone, not even the ones who are clearly and plainly stated as the ones we must hate. Not WRH, not WC, not even JGS (surprisingly). I feel like they fuflfil their role in the story and it wouldn't have happened as it did without their actions. And since I LOVE mdzs, I appreciate their contribution.

My grievance is actually with fandom. Namely, the way it insists on grouping characters in Good Guys and Bad Guys, and thus erasing the nuance that make some see complex antagonists as villains and the protagonists and those who align with them as ppl who never did anything wrong, ever, not even a word misspoken.

Mdzs is a complex and human story about an imbalanced society and its impact on individuals, not a YA fantasy of Hero Against Evil.

Aaaaaaaand here is where my main issue comes: Inconsistent Energy.

Some characters get a pass for virtually the same things others get crucified for and the difference is solely whether they are a Good Guy or a Bad Guy according to their own simplistic interpretation.

That said, and to answer your question already lol. I'm not the biggest LWJ fan ^^;

As I said, I don't hate him. Hell, I don't even dislike him! I'm honestly indiferent towards him, and I definitely appreciate his role in the story. But for starters, he is not the kind of character I normally gravitate towards, nor find particularly interesting. But it's mostly the fact fandom would put him on a pedestal when I PERSONALLY think there are bones to pick with him at points. And that's totally ok! That's his character, that's the story. It just... frustrates me how universally accepted it is that he is perfect, and while even canon itself insists on this at points (not big on that either tbh), most fans shut down the possibility of even a friendly discussion of any flaw of his while gleefully tearing apart even the way other characters breathe orz

[gentil-minou]

It does make me happy to read your takes on Adrien from the pov of a therapist. This is partially because a person I followed said they could speak on psychology because they took psych course(s?) in post-secondary yet said that Adrien's storyline was like listening to the world's smallest violin and that essentially made me question on how much "credentials" someone should have to be taken seriously. I know I don't have any but that their POV was insulting, especially if they've taken psych

So I'm kinda torn on this ask because I know anon is being complimentary towards me and what I have to say and while I am genuinely flattered I do think it's worth taking other folks' opinions into account. So yeah I guess that salter's opinion is valid and I don't want to be like they're views are wrong. Everyone is entitled to what they think.

But also, here's the biggest difference between someone who studies psychology and someone who does it clinically with real people: as a clinician we cannot let our own biases interfere with our perception of the client. In my work, I frequently come across people who have completely opposite personalities and ideals from what I have. I've come across people who if they met me in real life we would actively disdain each other. And I still see those clients. Because at the end of the day, if I let my own views interfere with my perception of them or their case I would cause legitimate and definite harm.

Let's take Chloe for example. I've made it quite obvious that I dislike Chloe, but fun fact I have clients who are Chloe. And I still treat them. If Chloe were my client, instead of focusing on how I hate her actions and how she's digging her own hole (like I mention when I talk about her as a fan) as a clinician treating her we would focus mostly on her trauma and abuse, as well as the reason why she gets into volatile relationships, with a focus on building self-esteem within herself as well as focusing on positive relationships. Never, ever, would I invalidate or tell her she's a bad person.

The fact is that anyone can understand the psychology of a character and their motives, but it's our biases that interfere with that. The person you are referring to, whoever they are, is letting their bias interfere with their analysis of Adrien. They have the knowledge, but they may not fully have empathy.

I know this probably comes across as vagueposting but I see this way to often in the fandom and how it's actually extremely invalidating. Because the reality is people can see themselves in these characters. That's why I react so strongly when someone hates on a character, because I know a lot of people, especially they kids I work with, who see themselves in the characters. So a person who thinks they are Adrien is going to feel attacked, just like how someone who identifies with Chloe is going to feel attacked when folks badmouth her (which is why I try not to do that too much).

People often forget that while the characters we talk about aren't real, the people who love them are. When someone learns how to balance unbiased psychological analysis with empathy, it's usually pretty obvious because they will be neutral and not let their own opinions interfere.

Even I'm not perfect, and still working on changing how I talk about characters. But if any one person starts claiming they're an expert in a character, then I start to doubt them because the reality is the only expert is the character/individual themselves. Everyone else, including me, is just trying to interpret and should be able to accept when they're wrong.

[hopeymchope]

See, that previous ask is exactly what this anon was talking about. That person doesn't like Mikan, so they either hold her responsible for what she did while brainwashed, or outright make up stuff that never happened (like you said, the story never used her past to justify anything bad). When anon said that fans don't make principled judgments, just decide who they like and who they don't like and then decide morality based on that, that previous ask is what anon was talking about.

IT'S THE MIKAN TSUMIKI QUINTUPLE-ASK EVENT!

Note: This first ask is a reaction to this previous ask. And actually, the last two asks at the end of this post are replying to that post, too.

And I can't say for sure whether that person was actually some kind of "Mikan Anti" or whatever, but it does read that way. Of course anyone is entitled to dislike whoever they want... but let's not kid ourselves about the who the actual villain is here.

Or, as this anon put it:

Exaaaactly.

And there's ANOTHER anon who has thoughts on the matter of Mikan Tsumiki being "annoying" or not.

I certainly hope not. Although... they're entitled to still find such a person "annoying," I suppose, so long as they don't lose sympathy for those people/actively hurt those people, y'know? Like, I can find someone "annoying" without actually trying to drive them away from me, because I'm capable of discerning between my gut feelings and my conscious knowledge/thoughts. So even if someone may feel awkward and "annoyed" by a person who's been reduced to a quivering mess due to their years of suffering, I'd only ask that said' "someone" not give that kind of person any additional emotional baggage by trying to brutally reject them or ghost them, y'know? Just... be gentle with them, please.

And that's an interesting statement you make there about people viewing some things in fiction the opposite of how they see them in real life. I think I tend to see things in fiction pretty similarly to how I see things in reality, although I'm probably more forgiving in reality than I am in fiction. Because in reality, people tend to be far more complex than fictional characters. After all, we're not following a fictional character throughout every single step of their days - most of those moments don't even exist. They're defined only by the moments they're written in, whereas I can be more forgiving of someone in reality when I remember there are "off-screen" details in their life that I are not privy to.

She does nervously admit at one point that she enjoys the feeling of taking care of someone who is reliant upon her partly because it gives her a sense of control and power. And given how powerless and out-of-control she usually feels, I can see why that kind of thing gives her a high. I can't really fault her.

And as for the other thing... yeah, ok, I did forget about that moment where she suggests that. At least she backpedals on it almost IMMEDIATELY.

Even so, perhaps I should've said she's pure of heart. .... Even if she isn't pure of mind, because there's some obvious damage there.

[iamanartichoke]

Please do not screenshot or link to this post on any other blogs/discord servers. If you think my take is hot trash then you are more than welcome to reblog and engage with me about it (or just think I suck bc you're entitled to your opinion) but I cannot stand being talked about behind my back, so to speak, so please just don't.

The Problem With The Term “GirlBoss” (aka The New Mary Sue)

The thing that I really dislike about the term Girlboss(TM) is that it's become so ubiquitous that any original, possibly positive meaning of the term has been lost, bc it's now a label that's slapped onto seemingly any woman character who is assertive and/or has the physical prowess to defend herself; Girlboss now functions to, essentially, be another box to shoehorn women into.

I don't know where or when Girlboss originated, just that I see it increasingly applied to women characters across media (including, of course, Sylvie, but I'll talk about her specifically in a bit), and the ease with which fans apply it to this or that character honestly just irks me.

It's dismissive. It's limiting. It's reducing a woman character to the sum total of her parts and saying, this character is Label and nothing else about them matters; they should not be taken seriously and also I hate them.

(Cut for length.)

And, I mean, I'm not saying people can't dislike women characters for whatever reasons they want - but, to see fandom adopting the term and it becoming so widespread just makes me wonder if the inherent misogyny in it is just lost on them, or if they realize it but just don't care.

So like, okay, let's really think about the term Mary Sue for a moment, bc the Mary Sue is kinda the predecessor of Girlboss (in my opinion).

For literal decades (at *least* going back to the 90s, as far as I'm aware), Mary Sue has been liberally applied to women characters whom audiences decided were too perfect in some way - whether they were liked by everyone, effortlessly good at things, incredibly smart, or some combination of all these "flawless" qualities, Mary Sues were consistently called out for existing in the space of a story and not being flawed enough to earn her spot there.

The Mary Sue isn't always the main character, but often she is, which adds another layer of contempt to the term bc in addition to being flawless, the Mary Sue is also accused of being a stand-in for the author, a vessel through which the author can write out her fantasy of *checks notes* being well-liked and good at things. Or her fantasy of *checks notes again* finding a partner who is both very attractive and also kind, respectful, and thinks the sun rises and sets on her.

In other words, calling a character a Mary Sue is implicitly saying that a woman who either doesn't have enough flaws, or fantasizes about an idealized version of herself and her life, or both is a woman who deserves to be mocked. Bc that's what the term Mary Sue is used for - to mock, dismiss, and just generally hate on a character who exists in a story.

If Mary Sue equals a "flawless" woman ('flawless' as defined by whoever decided that a woman should have A, B, and C wrong with her and if she doesn't, she's perfect, regardless of whether or not she's dealing with D, E, Q, S, and W. But I digress.), then a "flawless" woman equals a woman who has no depth or complexity and deserves mockery.

And when the Mary Sue is also functioning as the author's stand-in? Well, the author deserves mockery, too. Little boys can fantasize about being knights and slaying dragons, or being professional baseball players, and adult men can fantasize about being Tyler Durden or whoever, but if a woman fantasizes about being loved by everyone and good at things and having men fall in love with her for no reason except that she exists, well, that's stupid. That's cringe. Chuck Palahniuk gets to be critically acclaimed and Stephanie Meyer gets to be a joke.

This isn't about saying Fight Club is actually bad or Twilight is actually good, for the record. This is about saying that women characters in media - and by extension, women writers - are held to different, kinda impossible standards and the term Mary Sue is emblematic of that. Something a male character is admired for is something a female character is mocked for. Etc.

And, yes, I realize that "Gary Stu" exists, but 1) it doesn't hold the same weight or negative connotations that Mary Sue does, and 2), even if it did, I rarely see it applied to male characters who "earn" it, and 3) even if that character did get defined as a Gary Stu, well, that's not okay, either, bc it's just as flawed a concept as Mary Sue.

But, so, thinking about Mary Sue in this context - as a dismissive label - provides context for Girlboss, in that the Girlboss is a Mary Sue but also she can fight. Or she's just physically strong or athletic. Or she's written as being "better than the boys," in-universe.

Girlboss (TM) is what happens when the same kind of people who resent "flawless" women characters also resent flawless women characters who then outshine the men.

Because why else would being able to fight be seen as a negative? Why else would speaking her mind or being better than her male counterpart at something be seen as a negative? And therein lies the misogyny, the kind of misogyny that says a woman needs to "earn" her existence in the story by being the "right" kind of flawed that aligns with "complexity and depth" but also she can't be better than the men or outshine them or basically do anything that's going to detract from the Male Hero of the Story. It's like how guys get pissed when their girlfriend is better than they are at a sport or a video game, stereotypically "male" things, or how women and mens' sports teams compete separately bc they can't risk the possiblity of any of the women beating any of the men. (See: that Olympic swimmer.)

And, I mean, I might be getting kind of jumbled here but the point is that Girlboss is just another term that contributes to keeping women characters in boxes, and those boxes are getting smaller, not larger. And that just means that the woman who is writing the story is also being pressed into a box. Writing is hard enough, but now the writer also has to be cognizant of whether or not her character is flawed enough, or too flawed, or if giving her a mean right hook is going to dismiss the entire rest of her arc bc readers think she's a Girlboss, or just - these labels are just tools to limit creativity, not inspire it. And it's really, really frustrating to see.

This is going to have to be a two-part post, bc I don't have time to write anymore and it's ridiculously long but I also intend to talk about Sylvie. I'm gonna throw caution to the wind and hit post without editing (I will regret this) but if nothing else, please don't take this post as me saying that women as characters are not allowed to be disliked, bc they absolutely can. Some characters are good and well-written and some are shitty and poorly-written and a lot of them fall somewhere in-between - *gasp* just like male characters. It's almost like what I'm saying isn't that these labels are bad bc women characters shouldn't be criticized, what I'm saying is that the critera with which you criticize the character shouldn't rest solely on the few attributes or deficiencies that the label you gave her has reduced her to.

[sweetfirebird]

I know I am largely oblivious to things, and also white and oblivious to things, but watching a fandom go full "I want to speak to your manager" against a fandom writer who hasn't really said anything all that controversial, but said it while Black, is just one of the more stunningly unselfaware things I've seen people do. Trying to get someone fired for not at all offensive shit is some entitled white person behavior. Every single thing that this writer has been accused of has been demonstrably untrue or greatly exaggerated. All the accusers seem determined to misuse the term "harass" and also seem fairly quick to fall back to "but I'm queer/ND" when someone points out that what they are doing is the actual harassment.

Someone, even someone semi-famous or well known, disliking your ship, or studying it critically, is not harassment. Like. That is pretty basic. Someone discussing how fandom in general chooses certain types of ships and we do that because racism is ingrained in us like a lot of other bullshit, is not harassment. You getting your feelings hurt is not harassment. (And also, someone discussing how fandom likes white ships more than POC and Black ships is not... antishipping. That is also basic. Do these people just... want to be the victims here? Does that make them feel better about their boring ships? lol)

Also I saw... a very long... very long... thread in which a person was making the case that "antis" are actually TERFs (with the implication that this writer, who is not an anti, was in fact a crypto anti and therefore a TERF). And look, fandom can't seem to decide what an anti is, so first of all, define your term--and do not use the phrase 'fandom cops' to do it because cops kill people and abuse their power, and fandom people are dorks who like to bully on anon, and you sound immature and inexperienced when you say "okay, cop" to any criticism of your actions. No one in fandom has the power to arrest you or throw you in jail or beat the shit out of you. No one in fandom has the power to stop you from shipping anything. There is no fandom jail. Hell, some of the biggest jerks in fandom history have book deals now. So no one in fandom is a fandom cop, jfc.

And secondly, someone commenting on racism in fandom is... not being an anti??? Someone who talks about liking a/b/o fic and lusting after villains is... not an anti??? You can't just throw that term at people who have legitimate questions and complaints about fandom. It weakens your arguments by making you look you were shouting about Goody Proctor.

AND THEN, the number of these people who get upset when they are blocked and take being blocked by this writer as some sort of gotcha or something??? People are free to block whoever they want for whatever reason they want. But if you are friends with assholes who get blocked? You can get caught up in a blockchain. That's on you, friend. Maybe keep better company.

I block people all the time. It's not my job to listen to strangers on the internet. Are all these accusers new here? You can just block a writer you disagree with. Strange how that never seems to occur to them....

[ocegion]

Why do you feel that Daryl is poorly written? I'm not disagreeing; just curious

Alright so, for starters, I wanna make this clear. I don’t necessarily dislike Daryl, although he’s very far from being a fave. I did like him in the first seasons, but as the show went on his characterization fell down more and more and made him unenjoyable to me. But yeah, my beef is with the writing around him more than him himself. Therefore, to whoever who keeps reading, be warned that this is probably gonna be upsetting if you’re a Daryl fan.

Alright, so my main beef is, first and foremost, how the plot and characters bend themselves to cater to him. It wasn’t so pointed in the earlier seasons, but as the show’s gone on, I’ve noticed very clearly that one of the main reasons Daryl is there is to steal screentime and focus from others. So we had him being actively involved, and to a deeper level, on looking for Sophia. Alright, this was fine, because it didn’t take away from Carol’s struggle with it. Let’s take a look now, for example, at Beth. You know, Maggie’s sister. The only family she had left. Let’s take a look at how Daryl was ever so concerned about it and Maggie barely even seemed to remember or care that she had a sister until it was a plot point. Most of the focus of the Beth storyline was given to Daryl and Maggie was swept aside. Then there’s another case with Maggie. A character who has been widowed, within show time, what, a week and a half at most? Saw her husband and father of their unborn child brutally murdered in front of her, yet she’s the one who hugs him to comfort him, not the other way around. And I don’t think Daryl was to blame, per se, of Glenn’s death, I think it was more of a thoughtless reaction than a decision, but his action were the direct cause of Glenn’s death all the same, and while I can see Maggie being able to see past that, doing it so 150% so soon after the fact? No, I’m not buying it.

There’s also Denise. Tara’a girlfriend who got killed by Dwight. She was Tara’s girlfriend, and Daryl spent the entirety of half an episode with her. Yet who is the one presented as having the ultimate right to feel entitled to claim revenge over her? Daryl, of course.

I also want to point out that in s8, the Saviors got out of the Sanctuary because of Daryl putting his own desires over the plan (and therefore, the wellbeing of a lot of people). I don’t care they said they’d have gotten out sooner or later; they got out because of him, and that ‘later’ in the sooner or later would have been enough for Rick to fulfill his plan and win the war with minimum damage. Yet everyone’s first priority when the Saviors get out is to reassure Daryl that it’s not his fault. By the way, Michonne went extremely OOC at that moment just for Daryl to have backup on his idea. Hell, Rick Grimes, who lost his son less than 24 hours ago, makes time and sympathy enough to tell Daryl that he’d done nothing wrong. Because no character’s struggles and pain are more important than maintaining Daryl’s holy cow status. They all have to put everything aside, independently of their own characterization, to cater to Daryl.

Another point I want to adress is that Daryl is, for the most part, a plain character. Not plain in the sense of ‘has no depth’, necessarily, but plain in the sense that he’s not a character that evolves. I… I honest to god can’t tell what develpment at all he’s had in quite a while. He learned not to be racist and to be less self-focused, back on the first few seasons, but other than that? Nothing. He just grunts, looks though, and goes on. And in fact, he’s gone back. I’ll take the luxury of pointing out again that he risked and effectively ruined Rick’s whole plan because he was putting his own wants to see the Sanctuary destroyed before everything and everyone else. He shrugged away the possibility of hurting innocent people. He’s gone back to being selfish and self-centered. This wouldn’t necessarily be a bad thing, characterization-wise, if it was adressed. Is it? No. As I said, Rick takes a moment in his grief to reassure Daryl that he was right all along. Particularly striking when Rick’s made to realize that he can’t just kill relatively innocent people just to deal with his own anger, but Daryl, who’s shown to do the exact same thing early in the season, doesn’t have it adressed at all.

And in a story that uses zombies not as a main point, but as an excuse to put characters in a dystopian situation that forces them to develop and change psychologically, a character that shows no growth doesn’t fit in at all.

Another point is that he’s… overly glorified? Not just that everything he does is suddenly the Right and Only Way, it’s like everything he does is automatically the coolest thing ever and he’s the most badass and blah blah blah. Well, you know who else is fucking badass? Literally every single character. All of them. Daryl is able to do nothing that no one else can, and that wouldn’t be a flaw… if they didn’t present him as the coolest motherfucker, within the show but mostly in publicity and shit. Hell, in my personal opinion, Michonne is by far the most badass character (how she uses the katana, man). By making him out to be the coolest, they’re actively refusing to acknowledge other characters’ merits. As @hatterized once put it, the glorification of Daryl as the most badass is in a sense the glorification of white male mediocrity.

Also, I’m not gonna question Norman Reedus’ capacity as an actor, but what I will point out is that Daryl’s writing has him being silent and broody and generally unemotional basically all the time with very few exceptions. I’ll repeat: not Norman’s fault, but the writing’s, but the point remains that the acting of his character leaves a lot to be desired, and I personally find it hard to be invested in a character that is ice personified 99% of the time.

So, in general, I think Daryl is the worst written character because he’s gotten so popular, that he’s stopped being an actual character that is treated under human psychology like all the others, but just something they use to keep it ‘cool’, when the Walking Dead is about something else entirely. 

As a personal thing, I’ll add that I just straight up find it infuriating that he’s promoted as the best and only character in the show when he’s just a secondary. I’ve wasted so much time looking for TWD stuff that’s not just Daryl’s face. It is, again, a case of not acknowledging other characters’ merits.