#clearly the most unproblematic faves of all | Explore Tumblr Posts and Blogs

mc-critical · 3 years

Note

hey, it's been a while, hope you're doing fine!

your unproblematic faves in mc/mc:k and why?

mine from mc would be mihrunissa (she's the queen of s4, and also my 2nd favourite character from the franchise overall), cihangir (the king of s4), mehmet ( a non-existent character imo, was loving to everyone from what i could tell & was pretty so why not), nergissah (ik she didn't have much of a character but she was extremely loving, even towards mihrunissa who wasn't her biological mother, adored her relationship with mahi and she was the only family mahi had left after musti, nissa & mehmet died apart from fidan & yusuf), atmaca, yavuz, taslicali (musti's loyal friends; and i adored taslicali w/ mihrimah, the only guy i shipped her with tbh), and i guess that's it, i may be missing someone considering there were several characters.

from mc:k it would be geverhan (the queen of s2, i love her so much and she's my second most favourite character from the franchise overall, such a kind & sensitive soul, she truly deserved a better ending, i just wanted to see her happy), zulfiqar (one of the most loyal people in the entire franchise, deserved a better ending, dying in the place he spent his blood, sweat & tears was definitely a tragic death but also ties into his character, had a sweet relationship w/ humasah who also deserved a better ending), mustafa (my boy! he's just so adorable in the series, the baby & the adult, the joke he played on halime had me in tears, davut's reaction to him sending the table for a walk; i'm sorry but he was the mvp of s1 and deserved so much better than mu/rat killing him ((fuck mu/rat)) but i guess it's kinda cool that he got to sail a ship before dying considering he always loved ships? idk but he's just fantastic and such a cutie + the english subtitles w him were hilarious), and i guess that's it, most characters were kinda problematic in the series, even humasah who i adored but i definitely don't appreciate for trying to put iskender on the throne which would cause the death of kosem & her children. i would've added ibrahim, who i think is such a cutie and i don't understand any hate towards him; i understand the things he did in s2 ending were problematic but he was just having a severe mental breakdown and what he needed was therapy, not that turhande dethroning him. honestly, fuck mu/rat & turhande.

(also mustafa from mc though i don't think he would be considered unproblematic? )

sorry for the rant lol just, unproblematic faves are so good to talk about because you aren't conflicted with them like you are with characters such as hurrem, mahidevran, nurbanu, kosem, nigar, selim, bayezid, etc.

i hope you're having a great day!

Hey, I'm happy to see you back! 😻

We share a lot of unproblematic faves! I love almost everyone you mentioned!

In MC I love Mihrunnisa, because, as you said she's an absolute queen and the best match for Mustafa for me. She suits his level of maturity and they had a very deep, pure, truly genuine bond you didn't see with anyone else from his women. What's most unique about her character is that they didn't put any opposition around her, her story wasn't overshadowed by a love triangle and that helped the relationship between her and Mustafa shine all the more and we saw her have more agency as a character. Cihangir is such a cinnamon roll and cutie pie and yet he's so smart and perceptive of his surroundings. Neither his love for Mustafa, nor his deformity define him and I love what they did with him in the span of a little more than a half-season. Taşlicali, Atmaca and Yavuz are the best trio ever and I loved watching them in action. How loyal they were to Musti and how they wanted to protect him. 😍😍 I loved Taşlicali's moments with Mihrimah and Mahidevran as well as Mustafa, I loved how Atmaca put Rüstem in his place (we stan!) and Yavuz was so cool and they killed him too soon. We should've seen more of Nergisşah, tbh, but her relationship with Mahi is everything and like all of Mahidevran's relationships with the people she loves, she brought the best in her. And she also seemed like a loving and caring human being to everyone else she interacted with, too, she's just... lovely. Screw SS for marrying her off like that, this piece of trash should be killed with fire.

I would also add Helena to my list of unproblematic favourites, because, writing-wise, she's one of the better handlings of a tomboyish girl in the franchise, a mash-up of both Armin's plot and Aybige's character done much better. Yes, just like all the girls with tomboyish personalities (Aybige, Diana etc.), that trait of theirs was either diminished or gone, but with Helena the blow wasn't as hard as with the rest and you could definetly say that this is more a side of hers allowed to show from her completely new environment and is probably the one most restrained by it. The girl clearly deserved better than what they put her through and I loved how much she cherished her own freedom, rights and family. Her relationship with Rita was great, too.

I really want to say and Mustafa and Gülfem, as well, to be honest, because while they're flawed and far from perfect, they're overally consistently positive characters in the eyes of the narrative and their questionable actions aren't as drastic for me to put them in the "problematic" category. I mean, compared to everyone else.... Okay, they still technically don't count, but I love both of them too much to refrain from mentioning them at least hehe 😅 Gülfem should've gotten much much more in the way of storylines of her own, but the moments where she shone really scream potential. She's such a loyal, patient and understanding person and her strenght to listen to other people's sorrows, be considerate of them and seemingly being able to forgive people because from whom she suffered (Mahidevran apparently) or made the people she loved suffer in a way and involving her in this, too (Hürrem), is extraordinary for me. And she tried to kill SS, about time someone did it, I stan, she left the show like a queen! And my adoration of Mustafa is pretty much endless, so I won't delve too deep into it. His relationship with his mother, his resilience, his intuition, his still firm hand contrasted to his loyalty to his father that crushed him, but I can't help but respect... yup.

For MCK I have the exact same favourites, as well, only I would add Meleksima, because she was pretty harmless, deserved better and loved Osman and their kids. Gevherhan is my favourite dynastic sultana in the whole franchise (followed by Hatice) and I love her selflessness and humanity. She subverted all the sultana tropes, basically, I don't recall a scene where she was ever elitist to someone below her, she didn't intrigue or scheme and she didn't have an agenda of her own. Her suicide was her breaking the ties she had with her environment and her deciding to finally be the selfish person for once, to do what she wanted, to decide her own destiny. Deserved to be happy with Silahtar more than anything else ever. Zulfikar was so understanding and noble, I'm surprised that the palace didn't devour him, his death was so heartwrenching. Mustafa is a precious bean that also got sucked by his own environment and by the horrible Fatih law and game of survival, his psyche was soo destroyed you can't help but feel sorry for him, at the very least. The same goes with Ibrahim who is also a product of his own environment and even the conflicts of his brothers, I get why he would turn his back on everything and everyone and fixate on the only thing that could bring him a bit of peace and escapism - his harem. He and Mustafa were put in roles they had no capacity to play anymore and I'm sobbing. And yes, Ibo didn't deserve to be so screwed over by Turhande, screw her and Murat. (and also Atike, what she did with her sister because of her selfish, unrequited love and she was told about it by Sil himself! was disgusting, interesting character, but so were Murat and SS and even Turhan in her thematic utility.)

#magnificent century #muhteşem yüzyıl #muhtesem yuzyil #magnificent century: kösem #magnificent century kösem #magnificent century kosem #ask #raaz-here #yes I love me some delving deep into complex characters #but unproblematic faves also are wonderful to talk about!

3 notes · View notes

spiritscraft · 4 years

Note

Hey so I reading your post about Doreen V and you mentioned that she was a queer ally and feminist and I was wondering where you found info on this? Since a biography about her I read a few years ago mentioned that she had a complex history with joining far-right racist hate groups. Which seems like a conflicting choice for a feminist and queer ally to make. It's hard to imagine that someone who believed is racialism and engaged in neo-nazi groups would support queer individuals.

When she left the far right group she wrote a letter that stated clearly why she was letting her membership lapse mentioning her belief feminism and gay rights. There is a good wikipedia article that summarizes it if you read the whole thing that may refresh your memory of her biography. Her biographer Heselton suggests she may have been continuing her espinioage during her membership in these groups and so does Ronald Hutton. They knew her better than we do, but I also believe her writings speak for themselves. The nationalist movements of this time period are very challenging as some were members to promote what they believed were the indigenous rights of native peoples. For example, Doreen firmly believed Wicca/Witchcraft was an indigenous religion of native British people. That is highly debateable obviously. The IRA is another such nationalist movement that pagans were involved in trying to preserve native Gaelic culture and so on and some were pro-nazi others were not. Certainly its red flag. Some historians compare these groups to the Green Party for wanting to preserve the environment and cultural ways of life. However there was certainly a white supremacist element and whether Doreen was performing espinioge on connections to Nazism or not, I suppose can only be circumstantialy supported by everything else she wrote and did and what people who knew her say. However, all these neopagan revival folks were racist at least casually and problematic to a high degree. She is not an unproblematic fave. Cultural appropropration is rampant and most of these people were pretty priveleged. It's up to each person, do they need unreasonable doubt that she was a nazi or unreasonable doubt that she wasn't, is she guilty by association? In a trial, I think there is enough evidence in her favor. It's up to you.

10 notes · View notes

ramblings-of-a-mad-cat · 4 years

Note

Fandom ask for Timeless?

Sure thing! (I’ll most likely be factoring in the continuation.)

Favorite character - Flynn. I know, it’s the popular choice. But what can I say? This is the character that made me love this show. Up until The Watergate Tape, I was enjoying it...but then we got to his monologue recounting the death of his family, and I was completely hooked. He is so complex, so interesting, and such a snarky boi. I just love him so much.

Second favorite character - Gotta love Rufus. I could easily go with Jessica, because I love her arc in Season 3. I could also go with Emma, because she’s evil in a wonderful way. But Rufus is just...such a swell guy. He’s such a sweetie. The time team literally broke all the rules just to get him back. That’s how you know this brilliant cinnamon roll is worth it.

Least favorite character - Nicholas. Dear god, he was so pointless. Especially looking back on how much they built him up at the beginning of Season 2. He was supposedly the new head of Rittenhouse, but all he did was sit around and make vague commentary that he clearly thought was intimidating. Somewhere between his demanding deviled eggs and marveling at his new phone I just yelled at my screen, “You are so boring! Do something evil!”

The character I’m most like - I’d again have to give this one to Rufus, with all due modesty. I’m a dork. I’m not nearly as smart as he is, but I get tongue-tied around other dorks when they’re pretty, and I’m super loyal to my friends.

Favorite pairing - Is it cheap to go with Rufus and Jiya? They’re the unproblematic faves and I love them. I just really dig it when a relationship is portrayed for multiple seasons with healthy problems and no petty drama like love triangles. *Side eyes Season 2.* It’s part of why I love Chandler and Monica.

Least favorite pairing - Lucy and Wyatt. I completely understand shipping them and I have no desire to offend anyone, but this ship always felt forced to me. It felt like they fell for each other because the show wanted them too. I preferred them being best friends - we don’t get nearly enough representation of male/female friendships in media, and when we do, there’s always some “reason” why they aren’t a couple. That isn’t necessary.

Favorite moment - A couple different ones come to mind. The entire sequence with Lucy protecting John Rittenhouse from Flynn, and then that moment at the end of the season, “Flynn? I’m not here to fight. I want to help you.” As almost a spiritual successor to that moment. The other moment that occurs to me comes at the end of Season 3. “Rittenhouse made me a killer.” To avoid spoilers for anyone who hasn’t read the continuation, that’s all that I’ll say. But if you know, you know.

Rating out of 10 - Solid 8/10. I love it so much, but it's not perfect. Season 2 especially 😂

#Timeless #NBC Timeless #Fandom Asks

1 note · View note

invisible-mirror · 6 years

Text

You know what? I’m going to talk about this, because it’s Tumblr, and where can I fangirl about obscure literary characters no one else cares about if not Tumblr? Y’all are gonna think I’m an absolute weirdo but that’s OK, my friends already know I’m a weirdo.

Here’s the thing: I’ve discovered a website with English translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

(It’s here and it’s glorious: dssenglishbible.com and yes it’s run by a random amateur, but the bit I’m about to tell you I cross-referenced with the Septuagint so I know it’s right.)

So this site highlights the differences between the text of each scroll and its counterpart in (an English translation of) the Masoretic Hebrew text, which forms the basis for most English versions of the Old Testament. Most of the differences are insignificant, but there are some chunks here and there where you get whole sentences added or taken away.

For example, the traditional version of 1 Samuel 14:24 reads as follows:

The men of Israel were distressed that day; for Saul had adjured the people, saying, “Cursed is the man who eats any food until it is evening, and I am avenged of my enemies.” So none of the people tasted food.

The DSS version (and as I later confirmed, the Septuagint) of that same verse reads:

But Saul committed a great sin of ignorance that day; for Saul had adjured the people, saying, “Cursed is the man who eats any food until it is evening, and I am avenged of my enemies...

And because I’m a weirdo, this makes me SUPER HAPPY, no seriously, you don’t understand how happy this makes me. Because this verse (in all manuscripts) is followed by a dumpster fire fiasco in which Saul’s eldest son Jonathan, precious unproblematic cinnamon roll fave don’t @ me, goes and Tastes Food omg, but it’s totally not his fault because early that morning he’d gotten bored and snuck out of camp to go wreck the nearest enemy outpost, as you do. So he’s off killing Philistines and misses the Morning Announcements, then when he gets back nobody thinks to fill him in on the whole not-eating thing. So later that day he happens upon a honeycomb in the woods (because this is 1000 BCE and honeybees are not yet endangered) and starts chowing down on the honey before anyone around him can say “Oh snap, you really should not be putting that in your mouth.”

(Side note: This is Reason #2 why I love Jonathan. I empathize deeply with anyone who demonstrates that level of enthusiasm for sugar.)

But listen: He almost gets away with it. Only a couple people saw him and they ain’t talkin’, because Jonathan is awesome and a cinnamon roll and everyone loves him. So there’s no reason Saul should ever find out, except for how Almighty God, the God of Israel, Lord of Hosts and King of Kings and all that jazz, freaking TATTLES ON HIM. I’M SERIOUS. Freaking snitches on him to Saul. Saul is off performing divination using Urim and Thummim – and when I say “Urim and Thummim,” think “Magic 8-Ball with a direct line to God” and you’ll have an adequate approximation – Saul is using divination to ask the Lord yes-or-no questions, and the answers all start coming back as REPLY HAZY, ASK AGAIN LATER. So Saul asks the Lord, are you giving me the silent treatment because you’re pissed about something? YES. Well shoot, okay, clearly somebody screwed up... give me a “yes” if it’s someone in my family and “no” if it’s one of the common soldiers. YES. He freaking TWENTY-QUESTIONS his way to the revelation that Jonathan Screwed Up and now Saul is oath-bound to execute him.

(Spoiler alert: He does not execute Jonathan. Mainly because a bunch of army officers make veiled threats to the tune of “you want him, you’ll have to go through ALL OF US.” Which is how we know objectively that Jonathan is awesome and everyone loves him.)

(Also protip: This is why, if you must swear on YHWH’s name that you will execute somebody, you find out who that somebody is BEFOREHAND.)

But it always bothered me, how the traditional text kiiiiind of hinted that God might want Jonathan dead. There are two possible readings: Either Saul is the idiot who swore an oath on God’s name and then failed to keep it, or Jonathan committed a capital offense and the fact that it was a stupid rule he didn’t know about is judged irrelevant. In support of the first reading, Saul does a number of idiotic things and pisses off God on something like a weekly basis; in support of the latter, this is YHWH we’re talking about, and we all know how he gets when people eat things they’re not supposed to. So I had Concerns about the moral of this story.

Which is why I’m inordinately pleased to find a half-sentence that dumps the blame squarely on Saul’s shoulders. This is officially about the oath, not the eating. God didn’t really want Jonathan dead; he was using him to call Saul’s bluff and he totally intended the thinly-veiled-mutiny-threat thing to happen. (As opposed to, say, Saul going against God’s will by listening to the mob, or some other interpretation.)

God is just, Jonathan retains unproblematic fave status, bada-bing bada-boom. Thank you Dead Sea Scrolls.

#religion #fandom #squee #shh #we do not talk about the battle for mount gilboa on this blog

10 notes · View notes

monsterrates · 6 years

Note

I love you and I am here you everything this blog is about. so extremely good, all good content. can I submit for you rating, a throwback character? Goliath from the Gargoyles cartoon. Or like, really any of the gargoyle characters, I love them all and they were a big part of my youth.

GOLIATH (Gargoyles)

Oh boy, I know people have Strong Opinions on this show, but I am just slightly too young to have watched it as a child. I know people like This Guy in particular, and a brief skim of the wiki reveals he was the only hot one and the human lady got with him so I Understand now.

INTRODUCTION: This monster is the leader of the newly founded Manhattan Gargoyle clan. I’m not sure what it is they do on the show, but since it was the 90s I can only assume the answer is “fight crime and/or evil gargoyles.”

PROS:♥ FINALLY an EXCELLENT pair of digitigrade legs. These legs are definitely my favorite part of this design, because they ALSO have some lovely clawed toes. The back claw on the heel? Excellent very good.♥ SPEAKING OF CLAWS, we’ve got some finger claws here too. They’re pretty basic, but they’re there, and I recognize them. I just feel like they could be bigger, because look at his FEET. The head horns are pretty subtle too, but I don’t hate that. if they were much bigger, they’d probably just look silly. But a third pair would have been nice. On the other hand, those elbow spikes are an excellent addition.♥ Now THESE are some good demon-style wings. Sharp angles and BIG size. I always respect a pair of ginormous wings, partly because it makes their flight close to being scientifically viable, but mostly because it’s more dramatic.♥ This is.... the perfect amount of beef. It’s hard to fully appreciate because the cowards over at Disney refused to give him distinct pectoral muscles and covered his abs with that horrible belted loincloth, but I know.... they’re there. The name Goliath is well deserved.♥ I definitely approve of the idea that he’s the BIGGEST STRONGEST TOUGHEST GARGOYLE but also apparently likes to read fine literature. Again, I see why Goliath was such a hot secret crush. Everyone likes a man who has brains AND brawn.

CONS:♥ If you’re going to put a tail that tiny on a man this big, don’t even BOTHER, Disney. Now, you could argue that a big meaty tail wouldn’t be very aerodynamic. Well, then but some fucking fins on it or SOMETHING, this is just sad.♥ This fool.... his fashion is very bad. From the aformentioned belted loincloth, to whatever the hell that hair is doing.... Long hair can be very good on a man, but the 90s in particular can’t be trusted to use it responsibly, and I don’t understand what it’s doing with that sharp angle. I’m almost ready to let him get away with the fashion purely for the sheer ingenuity of how he uses his wings as a cool batman cloak, but that hair.... it’s even more inexplicable in his human form.

♥ ”MY HAIR GIVE ME SUPER STRENGTH” -Goliath, probably? Anyway, I’m really not sure how to feel about human Goliath, something about it is off, but I can’t pinpoint why. MORE IMPORTANTLY.♥ I JUST NOTICED HE HAS CLEARLY DEFINED PECS HERE. DOES THIS MEAN MALE GARGOYLES ONLY HAVE ONE SINGULAR TIT? I SAW THE LADY GARGOYLES, THEY HAVE BOOBS. DISNEY, EXPLAIN. EXPLAIN GOLIATH’S MONOTIT.

RATINGS:MONSTRUOUSNESS: 7/10Though I do think it would be even better removed from the Disney artstyle, this is an excellent, handsome monster man. Perhaps almost too handsome for this particular metric. He’s still pretty manlike, despite being purple.

FUCKABILITY: 9.5/10Not only supremely fuckable aesthetically, but also seems like he would take care of you? Literally the only reason I can’t give him a 10/10 is because I’ve only given that to Cu Alter who, as my personal favorite, has to remain the uncontested most fuckable on this blog.

PERSONAL RATING: 7.5/10A good choice for an unproblematic 90s fave. As an impartial outside observer, I give Goliath two thumbs up.

#Anonymous #request #goliath #gargoyle #type: therian #type: demonic

17 notes · View notes

kenobei · 7 years

Text

so, i know you’ve probably seen too many losers’ club + social media headcanons, BUT what if each loser had one (1) site they’re most active on. hear me out:

BEN HANSCOM. you know for sure his book loving ass actually uses that book nerd site, goodreads. ben has a popular blog for book reviews, and he also blogs about architecture. but he’s a lot on goodreads, he’s that positive beam of light on your timeline, gushing about release dates and liking everyone’s statuses. his tbr has 2000+ books. he has the full amount of friends you can have on goodreads, and he’s a top reviewer. people really like his reviews because they’re well thought of, and even though he finds some books problematic or doesn’t like them, he’ll never completely bash them. ben also has a bookstagram, but he always forgets to update it so he’ll post a picture of his bookshelf like once a month.

BEVERLY MARSH. now my girl beverly. she’s on twitter pretty much 24/7. she posts a lot of rants, is involved in a lot of dumb drama but she’s never on the dumb side. she follows everyone back, but is quick to unfollow is some fuckery happens. because a lot of stuff happens to her, she’ll post a lot of little storytimes, always beginning with “you’ll never guess what happened to me…” bev is also that person who gets retweeted by celebrities, and they’ll reply to her too, and she really doesn’t know what draws them to her, she’s even followed by some. bev also changes her icon a lot, they vary from flawless selfies to crappy memes. she also changes her handle, it’s either her name, a variation of her name (e.g. meme, festive) or just something vague for the #aesthetic. beverly has a tumblr, but she doesn’t like it there and she’s online like once a year.

BILL DENBROUGH. what does our dear writer boy use? well, tumblr of course. bill won’t touch wattpad even if he’d receive 1k. he’s in too many fandoms to count and his fics are flawless, one of them has a cult. bill claims to be busy but he still manages to write a drabble a day. he’s inbox is full of prompts, and he plans to fill them all, simultaneously working on novel length multichapter wips. people leave kudos to him on ao3 even before reading the fic. he replies to every comment, and is open to ideas and always credits people. every fandom is dying to have him in a group chat, but sadly he hasn’t have time to be that active in any of them. bill tumblr is basically only his writing, but he also reblog other people’s fics and he loves moodboards, no matter how shitty. he’ll die if you make a moodboard for his fic. and whenever bill posts original writing, everyone is shook.

MIKE HANLON. mike is actually the most internet famous of the losers. he’s a youtuber, he began when was 12 and gained followers pretty quickly. he used to post acoustic covers of his favorite songs but nowadays he mainly just documents his life. he’s the nicest guy ever! truly an unproblematic fave! he does daily vlogs on his side channel, but he’s pretty active on his main as well, posting every thursday and Sunday. he’s always on schedule. he replies to his followers often with the nicest things, and his reactions to hate comments are g o l d e n, they’re those things that people screenshot and get to trend on tumblr and twitter and instagram. one of them even becomes a meme (richie’s fault). mike’s not one for youtube trends, he never wants to write a book or go on tour, but he fully supports those youtubers who do. mike just wants to do what he loves. his channel is super funny, but there are discussions of serious topics like racism.

EDDIE KASPBRARK. eddie is the friendly neighborhood instagram addict. well, he’s not on instragram that much, but he has a large following that he gained almost accidentally. he posts a lot of pretty selfies, he’s the king of taking selfies actually. he has no bad angles. he doesn’t even need filters. he leaves everyone shook. the instagram is 90% of his selfies, actually, and his captions are always long and he’s ranting about this and that. he speaks a lot about gay rights, of course. beverly’s always commenting, adding her insightful thoughts, and she and eddie have full on conversations in the comment section. richie leaves a caps lock comment on every post. eddie blocks him three times a month. stan leaves a purple heart on every post, and eddie replies with a pink one.

RICHIE TOZIER. imagine a world where vine didn’t die because our richie tozier is a viner. his vines are quite absurd. no one really understands his humor, and when they do, they recognize the jokes are quite crappy. but richie has influential friends, like mike hanlon. richie actually has a youtube channel as well, but he mostly just vines since he’s so bad at editing. he appears on mike’s videos a lot, and people are either exhilarated or annoyed. they can’t fathom the fact that richie is friends with so many popular people. they catch on with his friendship with bev when richie takes over bev’s twitter. bev punishes him by posting a lot of unflattering pictures of him, but richie doesn’t mind. he’s also friends with that book nerd kid, ben???? richie starts to make vines where he walks up to ben and asks what’s he reading, and ben will answer something like “fifty shades of grey, but with chickens” even though he’s clearly holding the great gatsby. richie also makes cringy musical.lys. we don’t speak of those.

STANLEY URIS. stan is so lowkey on social media. he has tumblr for the sole reason of reblogging each and every one of bill’s fics, and it’s a joke among bill’s readers. like people will post “managed to reblog bill’s latest drabble before birdboystan!!!!”. stan has a private instagram and he has posted four (4) pictures: a blurry artistic selfie, a photo of a bird’s nest, an inspirational quote and an thing richie tagged him in. he gets follower requests every day, because he’s that guy eddie kaspbrak always replies to. stan never accepts any. he’s only let eddie, and for some reason richie, follow him. but you what is stan’s main place? pinterest. don’t tell me this boy doesn’t have the neatest and most aesthetically pleasing pinterest boards.

#the losers club #it 2017 #it movie #richie tozier #eddie kaspbrak #stan uris #beverly marsh #mike hanlon #bill denbrough #ben hanscom #it #stephen king

171 notes · View notes

occupyvenus · 7 years

Text

On why Dany should be an antagonist ( ≠ villainy villain )

Season 7 is right around the corner and I have some thoughts, opinions, speculations and theories I have to get off my chest. I will try to keep any book-specific analysis out of this discussion. This is (as much as possible) show only.

Something that always struck me as odd was the existing controversy sorrounding Daenerys’s character in the fandom. With all other characters, the audience can generally agree on where they fall on the “morality-spectrum”, so to say. Jon Snow is an unproblematic fave, if there ever was one, Joffrey and Ramsay are among the most evil characters to ever grace our TV screens, the Hound made a text-book antagonist-to-protagonist transformation (even receiving in-show absolution via Arya taking him of her kill-list) and show!Stannis - before the daughter-burning incident - was clearly planted in the middle. People liked him and even rooted for him, but no one’s arguing that he was involved in some very dubious, evil, amoral shit. Show!Cersei was ripped of most of her book-counterparts cruelty, but the fandom generally agrees that she is one of the clear antagonists / villains of the series.

The point is that the audience - minus some radical stans or antis - can generelly agree on where characters are on the good-evil, protagonist-anatgonist chart at any specific time of the story or during a particular arc. If not on the exact point, at least on the general vicinity.

But Daenerys? Her placement jumps all over from divine saviour to unreedimingly mad queen depending on who you ask, unlike any other character on the show.

In the end what’s really important isn’t to wether a character’s behaviour is 100%, 75% or 50% evil/good but wether we - the audience - root for them (protagonist), root against them (antagonist) or aren’t really sure about it.

If there are any clear protagonists, or hereos if you will, in GOT and ASOIAF it is the Starks. There is nothing they could do that would actually turn the audience against them. I know I promised to keep any book stuff out of this, but there is a reason A Promise of Spring’s original title was A Time for Wolves. The Starks are the heart of the story.

A little sidenote on starkbowl and Sansa becoming an antagonist (which I really can’t see happening): Sansa turning into a villain also comes at the cost of her being a Stark, just like Tyrion tuning into a good guy severed him from the Lannisters. When talking about “the Lannisters” you mean Cersei, Jaime and Tywin. Tyrion and his family have become two separate entities in the collective mind of the fans and show watchers. If Sansa really were to team up with Littlefinger and turn into an antagonist/villain she wouldn’t be ‘a Stark’ anymore. Even now, with her clearly being a protagonist of the series, anti’s will always fall back on the ‘she isn’t a real stark anyway’ rethoric. A Stark simply cannot be evil. (grr martin and D&D might let me fall straight on my face with this prediction, but I’d say that its veeerrrrryyyyy unlikely.)

But Daenerys? There is no other character in GoT who’s ultimate and inherent good-ness or evil-ness is so bitterly fought about. While misogyny definitley plays into it, I think it would be false to see it as the sole or main source or reason. Her character is set up to be ambigious. I disagree with those who accuse her of being a ruthless tyrannt, willing to do anything to achieve her goals and those who see her as a benevolent messiah who can’t do anything wrong. She is - at the same time - both of those things and neither.

To the general audience she is very much set up as a protagonist. It’s easy to root for her when she overcomes her abusive brother, fights for agency in a partriarchal world, destroys slavery or is on a subjectively honourable quest to restore her families legacy and reclaim her home.

But what happens when her goals and desires clash with those of our other protagonists? If the Starks are our heroes and her enemies/rivals, what does that make Dany to us, the audience?

But why can’t she just team up with the Starks and be a good guy ???

Two reasons: Drama and avoiding a clear good vs evil dichotomy. Going into season 7, our main-ish characters are set up as follows:

The Protagonists / Camp “Good Guys” Team Stark (Jon, Sansa, Arya, Bran, et al), Team Targaryen (Dany, Tyrion, Theon et al)

The Antagonists / Camp “Bad Guys” The White Walkers, Team Lannister (Cersei, Jaime et al) & Euron, Littlefinger

Has Game of Thrones really introduced us to some of the most sympathatic villains, problematic heroes and placed almost every character somewhere in-between only to have it end with various constellations of Camp “Good Guys” batteling differing fractions of Camp “Bad Guys”? No, I don’t think so. (Unless D&D stray faaaaar from grr martins original plans and intentions, which could happen, sure....) In order to prevent merely explicit good vs evil fights one or more characters/parties have to move towards the opposing camp. In my opinion, the most likely candidates for that are The White Walkers turning more good-ish -or less less bad-ish, if you prefer - and/or Dany expiriencing a similar shift in the opposite direction.

The show already laid the groundwork for the first option by revealing that the White Walkers originally were first men, who were turned into ice monsters by the children of the forest. [ The Youtube-Channel “A Theory of Ice and Fire” has some really good videos on the Origin of the White Walkers and the True Colors of the Children of the Forest. I recommend everyone to watch them and his other videos. His analysis and theories are very insightful and definitly worth a watch.] But humanizing the White Walkers can only go so far. It will be really hard, if not impossible, to make us actually feel any kind of remorse over their demise. They are such big threat to all of humankind, that any moral ambiguity about destroying them is lost and any question wether our heroes should oppose them becomes obsolete. Comparisons that come to mind are eradicting a virus or putting down a rabid dog. The dog isn’t responsible for the state it is in, but ultimalty it is for the best.

I will go into Daenerys transformation from pro- to antagonist at the end of the post.

To make for some interesting drama we also need tension and conflict between characters that are on the same side. Finding possible sources for this within Camp “Bad Guys” is pretty easy. Jaime is probably going to turn on his sister at some point and every alliance with Euron is going to be fragile at best and will turn into chaos for one or both parties at worst.

What about Drama within Camp “Good Guys” and it’s individual fractions?

Jons parentage is going to cause some tension within Team Stark, yes, but I don’t see any of the remaining stark children ‘throwing him out Winterfell’ because of it. I don’t see Jon discarding his identitiy as a Stark neither, especially after Arya and Bran come back into the picture. His relationship with sansa is so controversial that I don’t want to touch on it, but he isn’t going to go full Targaryen with his little sister and brother around. Can we at least agree on that? They will insist that he still is one of them and so will he. (I stand by my opinion that R+L=J and more importantly Jons reaction to it will cause a rift between him and Dany, not him and the starks).

The Dothraki and their way-of-life are probably going to cause some conflict within Team Targaryen. Dany isn’t as ruthless as some parts of the fandom make her out to be and she will be conflicted about bringing so much destruction to “her lands and people”. She might try to silence her conscience, because the ends justify the means, but she and her allies will have to face some really difficult choices. Tyrion might feel just a bit bad about attacking his home as well.

It’s as good as impossible to predict or speculate on Bran’s or Arya’s story line, since they are kept top-secret, but I don’t think they involve one of them turning bad.

Sure, Sansa and Littlefinger could team up and cause some drama in camp ‘Good Guys’, but they simply don’t have enough influence to put the stakes sufficiently high. Seriously, against a Jon&Dany tag-team, what could they - or anyone really - do to oppose them? What use is an antagonist if he doesn’t pose a vital threat to our protagonists?

Daenerys turning into an antagonist ( ≠ ultimate evil villain) simply makes the most sense from a storytelling-perspective. Both to cause tension between our protagonists, shake up Camp “Good Guys”, color our final conflicts in a nice shade of grey and lead us toward a bittersweet ending. Why is Dany the best character to “break bad”? She is the most powerful human character right now. (With the threat of the White Walkers looming over everything, any secondary antagonist/”villain” will have to bring a lot to the table to form a interesting, engaging plotline. I think it’s safe to say that Dany’s help against the army of the dead will be crucial. Keeping her allegiance unstable or it coming at a great cost would be substantial enough to stand on it’s own, while still being connected to the bigger arc surrounding it.) She is allied with some shady characters (As stated above, the Dothraki aren’t going to magically turn into peaceful people. Bringing an army whose entire culture revolves around raiding and raping and pillaging could be seen as a questionable move. Also, I do not think that her alliance with the Greyjoys is a coincidence. Yes, we all need to put our differences aside to face the White Walkers, but the Iron Born have caused so much havoc in the north, so recently, that their presence NOT causing any issue for a Dany-North alliance is hard to imagine. Specifically putting established enemies of the North - including Theon with his very complicated relationship to House Stark - on Danys side has to have some significance. As for the rest: I honestly believe that Olenna is going to kick the bucket very soon, she’s only still around because she’s so good at sassing people. I refuse to waste any more thoughts than necessary on the Sandsnakes, but murdering your family in cold blood isn’t exactly nice? Tyrion might be the only person on Team Dragon that has any kind of positive connection to the Starks. show!Tyrion, at least, does have a rather agreeable relationship with both Jon and Sansa.) Her political goals stand in direct conflict with those of the Starks (The Seven Kingdoms vs Northern Independece - and yes northern independence is actually important to numerous characters on the show) Jon’s parentage will cause some tension between them (some people believe that she’ll see him as a potential rival to the Iron Throne. I disagree. I believe the reason for Dany ‘turning against’ Jon won’t be him being a Targaryen, but him not wanting to be one. I am pretty sure that Jon’s initial reaction to R+L=J will be to utterly reject his Targaryen heritage, to get through this majore identity crises. And Dany will, understandebly, feel utterly betrayed by that. She won’t see him as a threat, she will try to persuade him to become ‘the man he was always meant to be’, she will want him to be a Targaryen and she will want him by her side -wether in a romantic way or not- when she takes the Seven Kingdom. And this is something that Jon will not give her. He will choose to be a Stark and that will be a hard blow for Dany. Her beloved brothers, Rhaegars son calling the “usurpers dog” his father. I don’t know who much this will influence the overall plot but it will definitely strain the relationship between Jon and Dany.) The North, Vale and - presumably- Riverlands allience (Having the same regions rally behind Jon/House Stark “against” a Targaryen queen smells of Rebellion 2.0 ~with a twist~ this time opposing a conquerer, not the established ruler. I admit that this leaves out the Stormlands but with Gendry coming back, who knows? He has a friendly - possibly romantic, *wink* *wink* -relationship with Arya and if he’s put in any position to make such a decision he will ally with her side.) She has shown the compasity for cruelty & violence (You can argue wether or not her opponents had it coming - yes for Kraznys mo naklos , no for the randomly crucified & burned masters of meereen, mayybe for the khals; but the fact that she’s willing to use such questionable, violant measures while having giant fire-breathing dragond at her disposal opens her up for a very dark path. Someone with nothing but swords going a bit too far wouldn’t have the same consequences as the mother of dragons stepping over the line. Speaking of dragons) Her dragons are a ticking time bomb, she can’t properly control (At one hand they will play a crucial part in defeating the army of the dead, but on the other hand they are fucking dangerous and Danys ~varying~ inability to control them is a well established plot point. Reducing their final role to being magicals weapons bringing down the big evil would be so chliche and go against many of the problematic themes concerning them. Btw when has one person having so much power ever ended well?) There will be no Iron Throne or Targaryen Restoration (I don’t believe that ASOIAF or GOT is about Dany restoring the Seven Kingdoms to it’s “ideal” previous state of absolute Targaryen rule. Not only would this render Roberts Rebellion meaningless, it would portray it as a mere temporal disruption of the rightful order which is just... no. The rebellion was a justified uprising against a tyrannical king, it’s the event that started the story and it should still have significance at the end of it. Sorry, not sorry, but Dany isn’t simply going to press the ‘reset button’ on Westeros. The Iron Throne is doomed, so is House Targaryen and so is Daenerys - unless she peacefully settles down as Lady of Dragonstone, which is ... rather unlikely.) The controversy about her character is exactly what grr martin wants (This whole long-ass post started with the extraordinary discrepancy concerning Danys position on the evil-good spectrum. People can’t seem to be on the same page when it comes to her. And you know what? That’s the point. No ones objectively ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. Characters are on opposing sides for their own reasons, not because they are inherently evil or good. Everyone can either agree or disagree with those reasons and form an opinion accordingly. Having the audience “choose sides” between two fractions we both rooted for when separeted, once their stories collide would be an appropriate ending for the story.

I propose the theory that this contradiction (rooting for the Starks and Dany) and Danys role reversel when switching from her own separate to the shared storyline (from protagonist to antagonist) is already in full effect within the more obsessed part of the fandom (who loves to speculate and “think ahead”) and will hit the the casual viewer in season 7.

Last, but not least having all of our protagonists team up after meeting for the first time and descending on the evil dudes with immense force just feels so ... boring, predictable,anticlimactic, lord-of-the-ring-sy? Everyone coming together and defeating the White Walkers after having some serious beef with each other (sometime mid to end seaon 8) would be way more dramatically satisfying. I think that Daenerys will take a clear antagonistic role against the starks until the very end when she comes around to save the day.

Since I know someone is going to bring it up: I am not saying that any of this would be an impregnable obstacle for any romantic relationship with Jon. It would complicate things, yes, but also make them a lot more interesting. Neither am I saying that Dany will turn bat-shit crazy and burn down all of Westeros just because.

In the end, these are only my thoughts and opinions. Maybe I’m wrong about all this and the show will move into a completely different direction. We won’t truly know until the last episode, will we?

Thanks for sticking with me until the end, you’re a champ, and tell me what you think.

#game of thrones #got speculation #got season 7 #got meta #daenerys targaryen #meta #my stuff #my opinion #got #loooong post

95 notes · View notes

putris-et-mulier · 7 years

Note

so do you appporve the new arc of captain america, or you find it 'offensive"?

I agree with it, it makes perfect sense and I’m kind of disappointed in how so few people understand what they are trying to do

I’m not defending Marvel, I’m defending Nick Spencer. I believe wholeheartedly in his premise and I want him to get a chance to finish the story, whether he will do a good job or not remains to be seen.

It’s really convenient that everyone remembers when Captain America punched Nazis but not the multiple times he was a Nazi. Which even occurred when the creators were writing his book.

Captain America is not Jewish, he’s America. What he really represents is America as a nation and at his best has been used as a personification of America. He was punching Nazis before real American soldiers ever did and when we look back his creation, along with many others, encouraged Americans to actively take a place in World War II. He was a propaganda tool of social dissent. Sometimes the best way to tell his stories, to put them in perspective to its readers (which were not children, comic books are something everyone read regardless of age and gender and they were up until the Comics Code Authority) is to make him sympathize and work with Nazis. If your protagonist can’t understand something then neither will you and avoiding issues isn’t going to help anyone. If your protagonist doesn’t work things out to the core of the issue it’s a book in an ongoing series and I don’t want this world to get a sequel, I want to just wrap this one up with the best ending possible.

America just elected Trump as president. I could list a bunch of other things but that should sum everything up. In the last few years it’s become clear how infested our nation and government is with white supremacist eugenics and to all of us it seems like everyone who has any humanity left lost and a lot of us, a lot of marginalized groups, can see more clearly how close we are to becoming victims of World War III.

I get it, that’s why you don’t want Captain America to be a Nazi. He’s your unproblematic fave, if you ignore 90% of his cannon, and if he’s going to represent America then he damn sure represent what America was meant to be, what those white able-bodied racist social elites meant for it to be.

I would be so disappointed if Marvel didn’t allow this pitch to go through. Captain America being a nice guy and punching out people you demonize is not going to teach you anything. And Americans have things to learn. As a nation we need to be taken to school.

It feels like everyone complaining about this has never read anything or has ever seen a movie or TV show or have any grasp on critical thinking… This is art. This is what art is meant to do. If art doesn’t make you mad or sad or furious it’s pointless and un-motivational, especially when it’s sociopolitical. If you aren’t mad enough about the way the world is enough to do something, you need something to put a fire under your ass. Nick Spencer might not be a good enough writer to take this on but we won’t know until he tries and people definitely need to tell this story in as many ways as possible.

Captain America is becoming a Nazi because America is a fascist country and the personification of American propaganda being a Nazi only makes sense. No one actually believes this is permanent, do they? Captain America is going to fix everything in the end and that’s the point. To show him not just grandstanding, as America is want to do, but to show Nazis as actual people with love and fears, they aren’t monsters.

It would be easier if they were monsters because we could eradicate them with no lingering guilt about mass murder. It would be easier if they were monsters because that would mean none of us can turn into one. That’s the lesson that needs to be learned.

Trump didn’t win the popular vote but he got a lot of votes and demonizing the people who voted for him isn’t going to solve anything. We are in this together, they are our neighbors and a part of our American family, even if we fucking hate them. Until everyone stops treating bigotry as a foreign object that can be taken on and off at will nothing is going to improve.

As a disabled person I’m relieved a story like this is being told and that they are pressing forward despite the backlash because a lot of the people complaining have time, but we don’t.

The Nazi party didn’t just spring out of nowhere with the power of political and social support to just get to work on concentration camps. It takes time.

Let’s ask the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum what the initial steps to the Holocaust were:

1. Nazi Germany sterilized 300,000 to 400,000 people under their Sterilization Law (1934) who targeted the “abnormal” (a.k.a., disabled people) as apposed to the “asocials” (non-aryan races) citizens2. The Marriage Law (1935) required all people to provide proof that they could not produce children with disabling heredity diseases3. 1939 Hitler made it legal to give disabled people “mercy deaths” by their physicians as the government saw fit4. Systematic killings of disabled people in government, church, and nursing homes were done under the secret operation called “Operation T4” in reference to Tiergartenstrasse 4. Patients targeted were identified by a red cross on their papers (hilarious irony)5. In 1940 the preferred method of killing these patients became gas chambers. 70,273 victims were recorded between 1940 and 1941, 5,000 of these disabled people were also Jewish6. In 1941 Operation T-4 ended the killings went public with the slogan “useless eaters” to justify the murders7. It is estimated that between 200,000 and 250,000 people were murdered under Operation T-4

8. Many of the gas chambers used in the infamous Nazi camps were originally built for the T-4 victims and physicians trained through this operation went on to work at the camps and run the chambers.

These were social acceptable things that gained the Nazi party popularity and directly, and literally, created concentration camps. If you compare that time to what’s going on now it should be obvious why people like me have no patience for babying anyone.

Right now in North America more and more states/provinces are making assisted medical suicide legal and although it is still the disabled person’s choice whether or not to go through with it insurance companies are beginning to only cover the assisted suicide because it’s cheaper than covering all the costs it takes to be a disabled person. So disabled people are given the choice of slowly dying or just letting someone killed them now. To put it in perspective, it’s a very simple process that you do yourself at home by taking 9g of secobarbital or 10g of pentobarbital. Pentobarbital is disgusting so I doubt that will be the preferred poison but it would’ve been fun to be referred to as a P–10 patient, it’s more fun to say then S–9 patient.

So, given all that and the fact that there was a massive genocide of disabled people last year, a manifesto calling for our eradication and everything, in a first world country and no one talked about it, just like no one talked about any of these things, makes me pro Nazi Captain America. Fuck, it wasn’t even just a genocide, it was very efficiently done because of segregation, the names of the victims weren’t released because outing people as having disabled relatives, even freshly dead ones, would have been embarrassing to the families, and tokens like flowers/candles/gifts from citizens weren’t allowed to even be put outside the facility on city property.

Give me Nazi Captain America.

I didn’t mention where the genocide happened or what it was named for a reason. If you guys reading this can tell me off the top of your head at least what country it took place in I don’t give a shit what you think about Captain America being a Nazi. If America isn’t a place where people at least knew when one of our major allies had and honest to God genocide then that’s the Captain America they deserve.

If you’ve heard about Chechnya’s gay concentration camps but haven’t heard about this try thinking about why that is.

No one is learning from history so I hope to God at least a few people can learn through literature and art.

Boycott the company if you like, I’m actually glad people are because I believe boycotts are one of the most effective protests in a capitalist country so the more common the better, but don’t tell me Captain America isn’t a fucking Nazi.

#crowley-crow #abelism #actually disabled #disability #spoonie #Signal Boost™ disability #nazi #captain america #Nazi Captain America #racism #eugenics #world war ii #Genocide #Info

212 notes · View notes

myownfrogblog · 5 years

Text

All the Fire-Bellied Toads

FIRE-BELLIED TOADS! So incredible you’d be forgiven for thinking they were an invention of the fantasy genre, these boys really are something special!

Their fantastic moniker derived from the red or yellow patterns on their ventral regions as a warning to predators. These fellas engage in Unkenreflex when threatened (arching back, raising front and back legs to display coloration) and there are SEVEN species in total! Lets get started!

Bombina bombina (European fire-bellied toad)

Native, predictably, to mainland Europe, the European fire-bellied toad is the largest of the Bombina family at a length of 26-60mm. They have heart-shaped pupils (!) and produce a poison through their skin that protects from bacteria, fungi, and potential predators. They shed their skin by puffing up and coughing it off, and then eat it for the nutrition! Very resourceful.

Would say: this is a boy who likes his space, or he wouldn’t be producing poison through his skin. Although clearly a lover (the pupils!) not a big one for hugs and cuddles, but certainly would appreciate some words of affirmation! Not that he should need them, look at those beautiful spots!

Bombina lichuanensis (Lichuan bell toad)

Not a lot of info on these sweethearts. Found in Sichuan and Hubei in China, their natural habitats are temperate forests, swamps and freshwater marshes. Who doesn’t love a marsh?

These poor babies are threatened by habitat loss, and their conservation status is Vulnerable. You can just take a look at this young man’s face and see that he’s not happy about it, and you shouldn’t be either. A boy who is struggling against the man, but staying positive and collected, he keeps his head screwed on.

A later post will include links of where to donate if you’re interested in fighting against habitat loss for frogs, toads, and other precious creatures.

Bombina fortinuptialis (Large-spined bell toad or Guangxi firebelly toad)

Another Chinese native, this lad found in the Guangxi province, and sadly another fighter against habitat loss. This guy’s little face does it all for me. He knows how high the stakes are, and he’s staying brave even through the hardship. This little fellow really is making my heart melt.

Bombina maxima (Yunnan firebelly toad or large-webbed bell toad)

A physically distinctive baby indeed! Now considered a synonym of the Bombina microdeladigitora, the Yunnan firebelly toad is native to most provinces of Southern and Southwestern China, and northern Vietnam. The boys grow up to 49mm in length, the girls up to about 45mm. The lumps and bumps on this boy! He’ll stop traffic for sure. Its that hint of a smile that makes him really special.

Bombina orientalis (oriental fire-bellied toad)

Now THAT is what we call a bright colour! These absolute wild men, found in Korea, northeastern China and Russia, are commonly kept as pets and are sometimes known as “tuti toads”! It is the bumps on its back that mean its commonly referred to as a toad, where “frog” might be more correct, but look at this guy! Rejecting labels left right and centre.

Lads that do well in captivity given that they are properly looked after and having their needs considered, although they produce a milky toxin through the skin and therefore are not recommended to handle regularly.

Although toxic, these are some unproblematic faves!

Bombina pachypus (Appenine yellow-bellied toad)

Once thought to be a subspecies of the yellow-bellied toad, Bombina pachypus is a very, very special and unique boy. These fellows are endemic to Italy, and can be very sleepy, hibernating from November to April.

Another “toxic” one, producing a toxin through the skin, these soulful little creatures are declining in numbers, and nobody really knows why. This small brave man is facing challenges we can barely comprehend, and his species is officially classed as Endangered.

Please send your love and good feeling to this special species. I think we can all learn a little from their stoicism, and hopefully there’ll be more success in the research into why their population is declining. Small toads - big hearts.

Bombina variegata (Yellow-bellied toad)

I wonder where he gets his name from! Our final fire-bellied toad, Bombina variegata ranges from 28-56mm, and raised warts and swirls on their backs. Swirls! Reliant on brooks, rivers, or now more commonly temporary water sources such as puddles, ditches and tractor trails, these boys prefer mountainous or hilly regions in central or southern Europe. No-one can say these guys don’t like a view!

#frogs #toads #fire bellied toads #bombina #china #russia #vietnam #europe #italy #guangxi #lichuan #yunnan #hubei #toad #info #amphibians

0 notes

jaelijn · 7 years

Note

Carnell, Servalan, Gan

Oh, you’re making it hard! XD

Under the cut for length.

Carnell (whom I have given next to no thought before so here goes…)

1: sexuality headcanon: Pan, I think. I don’t think he’s bothered by gender (roles) in general, let alone in his partners.

2: otp: Idek? I like the dynamic he and Servalan had, but I can’t see it ending in any way other than how it did. Actually Orac would probably find him interesting and vice versa.

3: brotp: He… doesn’t really interact with many people… I also can’t really see him getting on with anyone on the Liberator. Perhaps Blake would be the most likely to be willing to overlook that he’s a psychostrategist…

4: notp: Oh what the hell. Him and Jarvik? That’d be horrid, anyway.

5: first headcanon that pops into my head: I think he’s the most likely of all characters to survive to old age.

6: favorite line from this character: Ppppffft, he’s in one episode! Possibly this: “Supposed to be the best chess computer available.Cost me a fortune. I don’t suppose you’d care to discuss myfee at this particular point, would you?“

7: one way in which I relate to this character: I… don’t know that I do. Possibly the fact that I have not given him much thought is a sign that I don’t feel much of a connection. Although I have just found one quote that I agree with so this: “Almost the only thing I never find boring:contemplating the infinite.“

8: thing that gives me second hand embarrassment about this character: Not directly embarrassment, but it will always amuse me that a by her very nature overlooked (former) slave brings down all those best laid plans.

9: cinnamon roll or problematic fave?Oh, sinnamon roll. ;)

Servalan

1: sexuality headcanon: Hmm… I can’t headcanon everyone as pan, can I? It comes down to: possibly heterosexual, but would use sex as a means to get what she wants regardless of gender of the other person if she thinks it’d work.

2+3+4 (doing these together now): otp/brotp: Um? Not Travis. Not really Avon either. But if circumstances were different perhaps a brotp with Avon. I don’t think a romantic/sexual relationship between them would work out well. notp: Avon when it’s even vaguely non-consensual from either side, which it often ends up being in fic (and in canon, really, but perhaps I’m oversensitive in this). And Jarvik and Egrorian, but that goes without saying really.

5: first headcanon that pops into my head: You can’t ask this about Servalan after forcing me to think about pairings… Essentially, that she uses and has always used sex as a way to power and that the only time she slips up with this is with Avon. This is not even really just a headcanon, there’s a bunch of canon evidence for this.

6: favorite line from this character: “It’s an old wall, Avon, it waits.”

7: one way in which I relate to this character Her fascination with Avon? :P No, in all honesty I feel the “career woman surrounded by idiots” thing sometimes, though far less in the circles of people where I can be myself that I’ve found lately.

8: thing that gives me second hand embarrassment about this character Her fascination with Avon. I’m completely convinced that that is the sole reason for her losses. If Travis was obsessed with Blake, she is obsessed with Avon, and it won’t end well even though we never see it on screen.

9: cinnamon roll or problematic fave?There are no unproblematic characters in B7, really, but since she is also a villain and my favourite villain, problematic fave probably fits.

Gan (last but not least!)

1: sexuality headcanon: Honestly, he is probably one I’d really headcanon as just straight.

2+3+4: otp: No one among the crew… I think he really loved the woman he was with pre-canon and wouldn’t want to be with anyone else so shortly after. So, her, I guess. brotp: Oh, Vila, clearly. notp: I don’t know. Possibly any considering what I said for OTP, but the crew are too multi-shippable for that to really be the answer. I mean I don’t particularly mind Gan/Vila even though I think Gan is straight either… Servalan?

5: first headcanon that pops into my head: It’s… not so much a headcanon than something I have from a fic, which is that at some point or another him and Avon connected over the fact that the person they loved PWB is dead.

6: favorite line from this character: Gan has horrible lines. Half the time it’s background chatter… I really don’t know. “You know, Vila, for a minute out there, I was actuallyquite beginning to enjoy myself.” from Deliverance is in my head, but that is all.

7: one way in which I relate to this character He doesn’t often get to take a stance, but there is something admirable at least about the steadiness of his morals. It’s not necessarily something I relate to, more something I think is worth aspiring to.

8: thing that gives me second hand embarrassment about this character: Blake just twists him round his finger every time. Despite the moral objections, even.

9: cinnamon roll or problematic fave?I don’t think even Gan is a cinnamon roll. But perhaps closest to it by comparison.

#jaelijn answers #i-fought-space #ask game for ts #oooooh this was hard!#much harder than i thought it would be #blake's 7

3 notes · View notes

wendynerdwrites · 7 years

Note

Im glad that u also like archer. Ive been rewatching it (im on s2) and i feel guilty as a feminist for liking it so much :( i know a lot of the jokes are supposed to be ironic but i still feel bad for laughing, and my bf has made comments abt "how can u laugh at that as a feminist" (he isnt one, hes using it as a gotcha). How do u feel about this? Any advice for separating myself from toxic fandom to just be able to enjoy something problematic? Love ur blog btw happy friday 💋💋

Thanks, and don’t worry, anon: You’re not a bad feminist.

It’s funny you ask this, but I used to have an entire essay series on this exact topic, and on Archer, particularly!

My philosophy is: don’t ignore the problematic, examine it. Use it as a springboard for analysis so you can learn more about the issue conveyed. Use your problematic responsibly! Because, let’s be honest, there ARE no unproblematic pieces of media. So just use it to educate yourself instead. For instance: my love of West Side Story (starring Natalie Wood as the Puerto Rican Maria) got me to learn more about the issues of white-washing.

Being a feminist is not about being perfect, it’s about learning and being open to examination and learning. Use your fandom for good!

Laughter is the balm for the soul. And listening to your boyfriend telling you how to be a feminist… less so. Kind of the opposite.

My old articles are lost, for the most part, but under the cut, I’ve pasted them for reference and included a great video on satire that also very easily applies to this discussion (just substitute feminism with the Holocaust)

Our Faves Are Problematic (And So Can You!)

Nothing and no one is perfect, so isnt it about time we learn how to call out the things we love?

We are all familiar with guilty pleasures: those things we like in spite of ourselves, that we are ashamed to admit we enjoy. Usually the term is applied to something we enjoy despite a perceived “lameness”, or because we’re not the right demographic for something. For instance, I still have a deep, abiding affection for Sailor Moon: that colorful, stock-footage-laced Japanese phenomenon that still gets me shouting “MOON PRISM POWER!” when I’m in the right mood. Yes, childhood is over, and yes, the show’s American dub did give me incest panic as a child, but I can’t help but love it.

But then there is the more difficult brand of guilty pleasures guilty pleasures that involve actual guilt instead of “mild embarrassment”. I’m talking about problematic faves the stuff that we love despite it containing clearly objectionable material.

willing18

(Image copyright Vertigo Comics)

…This is a panel from Bill Willingham’s Fables. The character there is Bigby Wolf, one of the main (anti) heroes of the story and the character the writer identifies with most. The person Bigby is waxing poetically on pro-Zionism to is someone literally called “The Adversary”.

Fables also happens to be one of my favorite comic book series on the planet.

Safe to say the issues surrounding Israel, Palestine, and the Middle East are a bit more complicated than that. And my own feelings on the matter are far more complicated. But this glorification of Israeli military policy is… um… in very tame terms… uncomfortable. After reading this, I resolved to only check Fables out of the library: a way for me to enjoy these comics in a legal way without financially supporting these ideas, however indirectly.

There are other problems with Fables: a lack of ethnic diversity, some murky racial and class commentary, and instances of some objectionable tropes, but there is a lot to recommend of these books as well. The stories are fantastic, the art brilliant, the characters well-fleshed out, and there is a definite progressive take on issues like gender and sexuality. But as much as I love this series, there is no getting around the fact that these stories have issues.

No excuses.

But it’s not just Fables that has disappointed me in the past. I am now and forever a Trekker, yet despite how horribly sexist episodes like “The Turnabout Intruder” are, or the very troubling anti-Semitic coding of the Ferengi. The Star Wars prequels famously had racist caricatures with the Trade Federation and the infamous Jar Jar Binks.

In the world of media, there’s no shortage of problematic content. From the novels of Robert Heinlein containing pro-fascist commentary, to HBO’s Game of Thrones misogynistic adaptation decisions, there’s nothing that is quite free of some messed up messages, subtle and blatant alike.

Now, when we talk about such media, we don’t merely mean triggering factors (i.e. the presentation, portrayal, or discussion of potentially traumatizing issues like domestic abuse, racism, hate crimes, substance abuse, or sexual assault), but rather how these matters are portrayed. A piece of media, such as Marvel and Netflix’s excellent Jessica Jones series, can portray certain issues (such as sexual assault, domestic violence, and mental illness) in a respectful, progressive, and sensitive light. Thus, while the content of the show can be triggering, the skill with which they portray these matters keeps it from being problematic.

In contrast, something like Game of Thrones, which portrays sexual assault in a thoroughly insensitive, exploitative, and misogynistic manner, is highly problematic.

Unfortunately, progress has been a slow-moving process, with many issues such as race, gender, sexual identity, mental illness, substance abuse, and violence only being examined in a more nuanced way fairly recently. As a result, almost all media is problematic in one way or another. Especially since even today, the majority of executives crafting, publishing, and greenlighting books, shows, comics, movies, and other forms of media are in fact cisgendered, heterosexual white men.

So what do we do?

Good news: here at Fandom Following, we don’t believe in dropping something you like just because it’s problematic. Why?

Because knowing, examining, and yes, even appreciating problematic content can be incredibly important. While certain content can be damaging, it can also teach us a great deal. Not only about current issues, but also about how to go about discussing these matters, and constructing narratives in general.

The racial issues in things like Star Wars and Star Trek can teach us much about how coding works, and how to avoid reinforcing stereotypes. The exploitation of women and rape on Game of Thrones can open up a dialogue of how to portray these things properly and improperly.

There are three tricks to enjoying problematic media: 1) Recognizing that there is an issue, 2) Being ready for a dialogue, and 3) Not ignoring or silencing the complaints about said issues.

Well, we here at Fandom Following have decided to tackle this issue head on with a series called “Our Faves Are Problematic (And So Can You!)”, where we will be exploring specific media franchises, creators, and works and, specifically, the problematic content they contain. In this series, we’ll be examining the issues, talking about why they’re important, discussing what this piece of media did wrong, how to approach the issue in a more progressive way, and the best ways to go about discussing the issue itself. Various writers will be contributing to this project, and we’re excited to present this feature to you!

So let’s get down and dirty, people. We all have our problematic faves. Let’s talk about them.

My Face is Problematic: Archer

Honestly, doing a post like this on Archer, a show which is deliberate in its dark humor, is a bit hard for me. Not because I like the show, but because I think there’s true validity in the argument that humor and narratives about really messed up, problematic stuff has its place. The show exists to be as outlandish and absurd as possible. The extremes and the awfulness of the characters’ personalities and their actions is the point.

I VUZ BORN IN DUSSELDORF AND THAT IS VY THEY CALL ME ROLF!

Joking about awful things, awful circumstances, and awful people is hardly new ground for comedy to cover, nor does it send a poor message, necessarily. Mel Brooks wrote a movie in which one of the characters was a Nazi, who wrote an overblown pro-Nazi musical produced by men deliberately trying to make a flop. Springtime For Hitler, as it exists in our universe, is not problematic. The Nazis are the butt of the joke, in which any pro-Nazi sentiment can only function if it is wildly fabricated and over-the-top, and even then, it will still be taken for satire. Because Nazis are utterly terrible, they built their movement on total bullshit that they dressed up in shiny boots and Hugo Boss uniforms and German exceptionalism and “glory”. This song-and-dance number about “Don’t be stupid, be a smartie, come and join the Nazi party” only ever deserves to be a joke, as the Jew who wrote it can tell you. Nazis fucking suck and it’s hilarious that anyone would ever suggest otherwise.

There’s justice in reducing Nazis to self-parody, and doubling down on that by making a joke about them being reduced to self-parody. Especially when said self-parody and depiction of it is crafted by the very people Hitler tried to destroy. No one enjoys or masters mocking Nazis like the Jews. Plain and simple.

Joking about awful things and how terrible they are can be a good way to process things and not allow them to hurt you anymore. Comedy, at its core, is a defense mechanism against horror and pain. There’s a reason slapstick is a classic subgenre of comedy that people have built entire careers around. Laugh at terror and pain to make it go away. Unfortunately, some of the things we manage to find humor in can really make you wonder if were all just terrible and have no limits.

Angela’s Ashes is a memoir by Frank McCourt about his impoverished, abusive, dangerous childhood in Ireland. In it, he chronicles his own starvation, life-threatening illness, abuse, and suffering at the hands of alcoholism and brutality from adult authority figures. He was a child laborer who went days without food while his father drank away the family’s money and abused the rest of the family, who often came down with horrifying illnesses as a result of the terrible conditions he lived in, and spent his formative years suffering along with all the people he loved. Three of his infant siblings die within the space of a chapter. We get a glimpse of the time when his father, overjoyed at the birth of his daughter, finds the will to stop drinking, stop mistreating his family, go to work, provide for his family, and just generally be a better person so that his children don’t have to suffer. For a short period, the McCourts have food, heat, and happiness. Then the baby promptly dies and Frank’s father is back in the pubs, once again squandering any pay he manages to acquire on alcohol and returning home at three am to scream at and beat his wife while his remaining children try to cover their ears and sleep on the cold ground.

Along with being praised for it being a both an unflinchingly brutal depiction of poverty and a testament to the triumph of the human spirit, the book is also praised for its humor.

Remember: Angela’s Ashes is a true story written by the very man who suffered through all of these horrible things. And it’s considered a pretty funny book. And the author who, once again, is the person who actually suffered all of these horrible things, actually did intentionally try to make people laugh as they read about that time he was in the hospital with Typhoid Fever and enjoyed it because it was the first time he’d been in a place where he was fed regularly and got to sleep in a warm bed.

Hilarious.

That being said, there’s satire and dark humor, and there’s just gratuitous, shock-jock bullshit. There are jokes that are terrible simply because of what they’re about and how they’re handled. George Carlin said that anything can be made funny, even rape, if you imagine Elmer Fudd raping Porky Pig.

If we can build entire films and musicals about how any pro-Hitler sentiment can only ever be taken as satire, isn’t that proof that you can joke about anything?

Yes, you can, but that doesn’t mean you should try, that the joke is funny, or that it’s alright, necessarily. Maybe Elmer Fudd, Porky Pig, and Springtime for Hitler prove that anything can be made funny and that’s okay. But if that’s true (and no, I’m not saying that it is), that still doesn’t mean every attempt at making something funny is either acceptable or funny.

Springtime for Hitler is not a get-out-of-jail-free card for any attempt to make a terrible subject the object of humor. Standards need to exist.

Unfortunately, the line between good or acceptable dark humor and simply gratuitous, insensitive, inherently problematic jokes can blur. The excuse of humor can only go so far. Yes, make light of Nazis. But there’s still a point where “humor” is used an excuse for people to act like assholes. And it’s an excuse that is used all too often. Radio Shock Jocks have been using that excuse to help reinforce racism and rape culture for quite a while. Whether certain dudebros like it or not, there’s a point where it stops being gross-out and just starts being gross.

Which brings me to Archer, the animated spy comedy on FX that premiered in 2011. Like many comedy series like Seinfeld or It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia, a major part of the premise is that certain characters are, quite simply, terrible people. These characters and their abhorrent behavior is the joke. And, as the show is about spies, these terrible people are often put into highly dangerous, outlandish, and traumatizing situations.

So, the main characters, by virtue of their profession, spend a lot of time killing people in cold blood. Or trying to seduce or manipulate enemies. Or engaging in clandestine operations of sabotage that harm a lot of people. Horrible, violent things are going to happen, things violent enough to serve as narratives on their own. But most of the characters are as awful as the situations they encounter, so the horror is amplified. And it’s a comedy.

Indeed, in the first episode of the fifth season, we get the whole main ensemble recounting all of their actions and experiences working for the spy agency ISIS that we’d witnessed over the course of the show’s run at that point. Drag racing with the Yakuza, knee-capping the Irish mob, encountering human traffickers, 30 year affairs with the head of the KGB that only ended when the guy was blown up because one of the ISIS members had choke sex with the victim’s cyborg replacement, actual piracy, paying homeless people to fight for spectators, defling a corpse, defiling a different corpse, sexual assault, kidnapping the pope, blowing up oil pipelines, “smuggling Mexicans”

Yeah.

There are comedic arcs about cancer, illegal immigration, kinky S&M bondage murders, cocaine addiction… a lot of stuff, basically.

Now, take those situations, and add in characters who get aroused by things like homeless people, being choked, sex with food, and the thought of their mother dying. Who spend their weekends starting fires, making hybrid pig-people, rubbing sand into the eyes of their employees, competing in underground Chinese Fighting Fish tournaments, and calling in bomb threats so that they can get a table at a fancy restaurant. You get the idea.

And it’s all totally awesome and hilarious and god damn it I kind of love these characters.

This show has a season-long sub-arc about one of the main characters getting so aggressively addicted to cocaine that she not only consumes (literally) half a ton of it in the space of a few months, but almost gets her head chopped off for buying amphetamines from the Yakuza with counterfeit money. It’s one of the most incredible things the show has done.

Pictured: An absurdly self-centered man feeling genuine dismay and concern over his friend risking her life to achieve an unrealistic standard of beauty.

The title character has a butler named Woodhouse who practically raised him. One of the first interactions we witness between them is Archer not only threatening to rub sand into Woodhouse’s “dead little eyes”, but making him go out and buy the sand himself and check if they grade it, because he wants the sand to be coarse. He’s also done things like make the man eat a bowl of spiderwebs and deliberately keep him in the dark about his brother’s death and funeral.

Another character is a mad scientist and possible clone of Adolf Hitler who kills a young intern by giving him a drug designed to turn him gay. That’s one of the less disturbing things Dr. Krieger has done.

Frequent gags on this show include one guy repeatedly getting shot, another character repeatedly getting paralyzed (it’s complicated), people trying to remember the inappropriate puns that they wanted say as one-liners, the horrific abuse and neglect Sterling Archer has received from his mother his entire life, and basically everyone being a sex-maniac.

There are plots revolving around mind-control, drugging people, and hypnotism. You can imagine the paths some of those episodes go down. Yes, there is a character that has tried to sexually assault one of her sleeping co-workers. And later deposited two unconscious, naked coworkers in a bathroom stall with an octopus, in an episode that has already made tentacle hentai jokes. Yes, the openly gay character on the show is often the target of jokes about him being gay or a woman from his coworkers. Yes, the female lead, a black woman, is referred to as a “quadroon” at one point by one of the characters.

Yes, the following exchange of dialogue does take place in an early episode:

“Oh my god, you killed a hooker!”

“Call-girl!”

“No, Cyril, when they’re dead, they’re just hookers!”

And yet… Oh my god. How it manages to play around with stuff in an amazing fashion. For one thing, it is amazing how often this show skewers micro-aggressions and fucks around with stereotypes. And, despite how unabashedly messed up it is, the writing in it actually manages to be oddly pro-social progress in ways that most modern media doesn’t even seem to be aware of.

I take pride in my sex work and I will not put up with your bullshit!

For instance the “hooker” referred to in that exchange? (spoiler alert: she wasn’t really dead) She’s Trinette, and she an unbelievably refreshing and strangely progressive depiction of a sex worker. While she’s a minor character, every time she shows up, it’s awesome. Trinette is a sex worker who is unashamed of her job, a woman who truly does take pride in and enjoy her work, who does not put up with poor behavior from her clients, and is just generally awesome. She call people out and makes them pay for any mistreatment she receives, from calling out micro-aggressions by insisting on her preferred terminology for her profession (“Call-girl, you puke!”), shaming men for their sexual misdeeds (“How can you cheat on Lana bare-back?!”), demanding restitution for any injuries or threats she’s suffered (Threatening Archer into giving her his car after he fakes her death and stuffs her in a rug to fool Cyril into thinking he killed her), and determining her work and clients (“What about Trinette? She said that? Damn it!”). When she has a baby, she gives it her last name along with his father’s (“Magoon-Archer”) and she unapologetically proud of her Irish heritage. She’s easily one of the most functional characters in the show, and every one of her appearances on the show manage to defy at least one whore-phobic trope a minute. She’s the best.

Then there’s the show’s handling of race, which is mixed. While arguably the most important female character in the series (the show, despite its name, is very, very much an ensemble, especially as the series progresses. But in the early episodes when they focussed on fewer characters, she was the one who got the most screentime) is Lana Kane, a highly-competent (for ISIS) African American woman who is really, really well-developed, there is also the fact that she’s the only POC in the main cast. Granted, part of that IS the point. One of the earliest episodes is “Diversity Hire”, where, aside from Lana, the spy agency is so overwhelmingly white that they hire a “diversity double-whammy!” Conway Stern, a black Jew.

“Sammy Gay-vis Junior!”

Now, granted, that doesn’t sound great the way I describe it, but there are so many great moments in this episode alone. For instance, when Mallory Archer, terrible woman and owner of the spy agency mentions their lack of diversity, Cyril, the tragically white accountant and “nice guy” puts his hands on Lana’s shoulder and says he thinks they’re pretty diverse, a statement Lana finds hilarious. Cue Sterling Archer, other horrible person, telling Lana she’s “black-ish”, then responding to her offense at this with “Well, you freaked out when I said quadroon!”. The framing of this entire discourse is that Cyril and Archer are fucking idiots and Lana is of course taking offense because, duh, she should. The episode proceeds with a lot of references and discussion about racism, highlighting casual racism in a nuanced, funny, and organic way. For instance, Archer’s relief that Conway didn’t sleep with his mother. While Archer freaks out about anyone sleeping with his mother, regardless of race, Conway believes it’s racism on Archer’s fault. And in no way does the narrative act like he’s overly-sensitive or irrational for thinking that. Because the stereotype about black men seducing white women and fear from white men about this is still a very real, pervasive thing that has somehow managed to survive in our “enlightened” times. Of course Conway encountering a guy who displays a downright violent fixation on whether or not his new black coworker is sleeping with his mother will assume it’s a race thing. Because why would anyone be so preoccupied with such an idea? In that situation, it’s almost certainly based on the long-standing paranoia white men have about black men’s sexuality “conquering their women.” It’s one of the most common varieties of anti-blackness in existence.

Of course, since it’s Archer, who has kidnapped a LOT of people under the suspicion that they were having sex with his mom, we know this is the one case that it isn’t racism. It’s Archer’s disturbing, Oedipal relationship with his mother. He even kidnapped and threatened his role model, Burt Reynolds, for dating his mother. When he says “Not in a racist way” to Conway in this episode, it’s actually true. He’s just honestly that screwed up where his mother is concerned.

Conway’s conclusions on this, regardless, are still framed as a totally understandable. To the point where the episodes suggests that it would make no sense for Conway to think otherwise. Part of the joke is that no, Archer isn’t a horrible racist at all. He’s way too screwed up for his actions to be motivated by racism.

And before anyone asks, no, this wasn’t the “episode that acknowledges that racism is a thing.” You know the ones… The episodes that talk about race and why racism is bad to prove to the audience that they’re not racist, then proceed with the rest of the show, which never acknowledges race and racism again. There are frequent instances of highlighting racism, from violent outright bigotry to common micro-aggressions to clueless white people demanding how the thing they just did/said could POSSIBLY be considered racist! They’re not racist! How is THAT racist?! Cue Lana face-palming.

I just really, really like this. It doesn’t just end there, either. Racism is called out pretty frequently on this show, and not in a cliche, strawman way. Nor is it treated like something that only exists in the form of aggressively bigoted bad people shouting slurs and holding cross burnings. Nope. The “heroes” of this show just say shit that you could easily imagine someone saying in real life, shortly before getting defensive about any racism on their part. It’s treated as a common, pervasive thing that Lana and other PoC have to deal with every day, and the offense they take at it is treated as nothing short of sympathetic or justified (even in the cases of misunderstandings, like with Conway). This includes Mallory telling Lana to “put [the race card] back in the deck!” as reminder of how much of an unapologetic douche Mallory is.

It’s made clear: people say and do some super racist shit on a regular basis with realizing it or meaning to, and regardless, it’s still uncool and people have every right to get upset and call you out on it. See: Ray’s bionic hand at the end of season six.

Lana’s reactions and how they’re framed is usually pretty awesome. Mostly they come in the form of small, reasonable confrontations, which are never framed as an overreaction on her part. The fact that she “freaked out” when Archer called her a quadroon is framed as “well, duh, of course, she should.” Then there are instances like when she, Archer, and their child visit a high-end nursery school where they encounter a pretty obvious racist. The guy ignores and dismisses Lana at first, then expresses surprise at the fact that she’s the mother of the child (despite the baby being black), remarking about the “times we live in” and telling Lana “good for you!” when she informs him that yes, she is the mother, not the nanny or the maid.

Not all of the racism stuff stems from Lana being back, either. They skewer bigotry against Latinos on a pretty regular basis. When an Irish mobster rants about Latinos (he doesn’t refer to them by that name) “taking American jobs!”, Archer immediately calls bullshit, recalling actual history of the Irish being accused of that exact same thing during the mass immigration of the Irish to America during the potato famine, and it’s just as shitty and bigoted to say such things about immigrants now as it was in 1842. He is extremely irate about a mission ISIS is assigned to do on behalf of border patrol to arrest people who just want to get a job, and he ends up siding with and befriending the Mexican illegal immigrants he encounters. All of this while aspects of certain Latinx cultures are often highlighted, often very favorably (“Ramone is Latino, so he’s not afraid to express affection.”)

That being said, there are still a lot of issues in the show. The lack of diversity is definitely an albatross around this show’s neck. Especially so many seasons after the “Diversity Hire” episode. While I do praise Archer for not treating racism as a thing that is rare and only needs to be addressed in one twenty-minute block of time, it is telling that the lack of diversity at ISIS is never addressed again.

Then there’s the approach to sexuality. The show loves gross-out sex humor, especially regarding Krieger. And the depiction of sexuality is actually pretty mixed. On one hand, the openly gay character in the show adheres to a lot of stereotypes about gay men: he mocks Lana about her “knock-off Fiacci drawers”, his go-to alias is “Carl Channing”, his free time is spent at raves, and he loves to make effeminate poses. He’s also a frequent target of homophobic jokes and remarks. His outrage at this is treated as being every bit as valid as Lana’s, but it doesn’t change the fact that their main gay character is basically ALL of the stereotypes, as are a number of the other gay characters.

“Alright! Were off to get our scrotums waxed!”

Then there is the sexual assault. Which, once again, is called out for being what it is, in defiance of many common biases (such as the idea that female-on-male sexual assault isn’t a thing). But this show is way too flippant about this.

While I consider Archer to be very sex-positive, allowing every character, regardless of sex, age, or orientation, to be comfortable and expressive about their sexuality without judgment (a lot of jokes, yes, but not any that come off as particularly shaming). Almost every character, male or female spends a fair amount of time naked or scantily clad. We see Archer stripped down just as often as Lana. And the fan service isn’t relegated to just women who adhere to the typical youth and weight obsessed eurocentric standards we all know and hate.

Pam, who is a big woman (and often the target of fat jokes, which the show always treats as nothing short of detestable) is a total sex goddess who grows to be utterly confident in herself as a woman to the point where she’s giving Mallory (one of the most desired women on the show) advice. When she reveals that she keep ingesting cocaine because it’s made her thin with big boobs, Archer is utterly dismayed, telling her she was way better off the way she was, acting horrified that she’d risk her life to be “hot”, and just generally freaking out about Pam’s desire to be thin. It manages to avoid being cliche or empty given that Archer considered Pam the best sex he ever had before she got thin, to the point of blowing off assignments just to have sex with her, because she’s just that awesome. After she gains the weight back in season six, she’s still sexy, making Archer’s jaw drop in the episode “Edie’s Wedding.” She’s also unapologetically pansexual, which is awesome.

Mallory, meanwhile, is still actively sexual and treated as desirable. While sex and sexuality are always sources of gags and jokes on Archer, never do the jokes about Mallory’s sexuality ever come across as ageist. Sure, some characters make ageist comments on the show, but it’s never treated as valid. Mallory is still treated as being extremely sexy and confident about it. While Mallory is generally a horrible person, her enthusiastic sexual agency is never once treated as a flaw or something disturbing or gross. What’s disturbing, gross, and worthy of ridicule is her son being so preoccupied and reactionary about his mother having a sex life. It’s clear: if you have a problem with Mallory having a lot of sex and enjoying it, you’re the one with issues.

Even the one young, thin, white woman in the main cast gets to be unapologetic about her kinks. It’s really only a problem when her desire for choke-sex motivates her to lead a KGB cyborg to the ISIS safehouse. Or when she coerces Cyril into sex. And generally acts like a violent, awful person.

Essentially, there’s no tolerance for shaming women for being sexual. All of it, regardless of preference, age, size, or race, is nothing but fun and should be enthusiastically represented. “Can’t talk, got a pussy to break!”

Being a predator is shameful. Having belly rolls is not.

Who on Earth finds this funny?

But, then there’s the flippancy about sexual assault. There ARE gags about Pam and Ray dropping their pants when encountering an unconscious Cyril. And sorry, but the framing of it is all manner of screwed up. There’s tons of sexual coersion as well. Another one of the most problematic instances comes in an episode of season two, where Archer is repeatedly sexually assaulted by a sixteen-year-old German socialite. The show goes out of its way to make it clear that Archer explicitly refuses consent, that he’s being violated, yet the show treats this as funny.

While I get that this is a comedy show and that in-depth exploration of the trauma of sexual abuse isn’t going to be something they can spend a lot of time on, the option they should have gone with is, you know, not base an episode around a german schoolgirl raping the main character. It’s not funny, guys. It’s not necessary. It’s actually just uncomfortable and off-putting.

The show mentions things like alternative gender identities, emotional triggers, and sexual exploration in ways that treat these things as totally valid, which is good. It also frequently portrays poor people as jokes in and of themselves, which is a lot less good. While materialism is lampooned frequently, it’s not treated as a joke in and of itself the way poverty is.

The way the show often portray legitimate abuse for laughs also often goes overboard. While the show does a good job of exploring and following through on all the ways Mallory’s abuse screwed up Archer, there’s a point where the volume of “abuse humor” gets to just be downright gross. Dark humor is one thing, not being able to go an episode without a “Haha, ten-year-old archer was abandoned in a train station at Christmas!” joke is, uh… Not great.

Archer is an awesome, immensely watchable show. But it’s not one I always feel clean watching. It’s a show that celebrates extremes, yes, but there’s a point where certain lines are crossed and it’s just problematic rather than gallows humor.

Archer is one of those series that really makes me struggle to distinguish the gallows humor from the simple tastelessness. To give pause to the idea of problematic content being the “point.”

The line blurs with Archer. A lot. It often manages to distinguish itself with the things it gets right, especially since they often do well on things that most shows, movies, and books are often terrible at. And that’s enough to buy it some goodwill for when they screw up.

But seriously, guys, please stop treating sexual coercion and child abuse as bottomless gag wells. I would have really preferred to have Pam and her awesome sexuality without her sexually assaulting Cyril and Ray. It’s not funny or clever or edgy. It’s just gross.

youtube

#archer fx #your fave is problematic #anon #feminism

11 notes · View notes