#discussion of ableist tropes in other media

[boatcats]

I did not find Izzy's death ableist in any sense. Before I saw the episode I did have a fear that they would portray him sacrificing himself for the crew because he was "too broken to go on" or some other ableist bullshit. But instead he dies at a point in his life where he's probably happier than he's ever been. That's what makes it so affecting! He has community, he has friends, he's valued and knows it. And all this happened after he lost his leg. His life was not only still worth living, it was more joyful. And he doesn't die sacrificing himself or due to his disability. He dies in a twist of fate during a dangerous situation.

I didn't read him telling Ed at the end that he wanted to go as suicidality. He was bleeding out already. Ed continuing to apply direct pressure to the wound might have kept him alive for a little longer but it was causing him significant pain. He preferred to go a little more quickly but much more comfortably in the arms of someone he'd finally made his peace with.

[elizabethrobertajones]

I would love to hear your thoughts on [Unidentified Media]! We can all try to be grownups and survive disagreeing with a person on the Internet if that's what happens

Okay but I really hope you don't care deeply about this to the point of offence, I really don't want to upset anyone, and people really care a lot and I get it!

It's just that, I was requested to watch the latest Stranger Things by my very non-fandom normcore friend and I'd fallen behind since I forgot the netflix password on my laptop, so I saw all the spoilers before external social pressure got to me and got me to make the effort to watch it on the TV.

I just feel like I watched an entirely different show from everyone who'd got really invested in the first half of the season and then got completely crushed by the second half. First of all, no one spoiled ANY of the main story to me. I was more spoiled on the main story by fukkin BBC Newscast interviewing Kate Bush about the belated hit single, than anything I saw on tumblr.

And I casual fan watched this thing with the expectation I needed to be able to talk to my friend about it more than Tumblr, and you'd all be a side benefit where I could get the fandom goods and slyly ship that new ship on the side and it would just be a nice little thing between us who see subtext since my friend has no shipping instinct at all and the most important detail I had to get right was recognising Friendly Orderly (thanks IMDB) as Jace from the Shadow and Bone movie she took me to a few years back.

Anyway I ended up BAWLING over Max and adoring that storyline which absolutely fucking carried the show, and Eleven and her story which was actually riveting and I could see this was something they'd seeded from the start OR had gone back very carefully to explain plotholes/mysteries they'd flagged up from the first season or two. And the whole thing that everyone else was doing was so thematically tight to that.

I did think the WHOLE Russia plot was entirely stupid and fanservice for the Hopper actor guy to watch back later as the core audience and no one else, and the whole thing would have been a normal length if they'd just REMOVED it whole cloth and got the adults out the way another way. Like, the previous season would have been excellent if the russian thing was waaaaay lower scale and borderline imagined/threadbare single rogue actors concluded in a single season, and the American government was jumping at shadows, the kids legit were always a second away from seeming like they'd conjured the whole thing as a prank and there never HAD been russians in Hawkins, and Russia as a whole remained oblivious to this, like, they didn't order it nor did they actually ever have anything to do with it. IDK maybe the russians were operatives trapped in America and trying to get home by a portal if you HAD to send Hopper there. But frankly you shouldn't. But regardless, once they actually got to the finale movie of the damn thing, it was thematically tight and made sense to the story they were telling even if it was entirely stupid and pointless and also grounded in silly tropes, apparently has caused real world harm with the concentration camp appropriating (??? aargh??!?!?!). But like, that's legitimately my only complaint with the entire season/show storywise, taken at face value and just for my enjoyment/quick impressions of what is a good story.

So, to get to the actual point, fandom has completely and utterly made up the Steddie ship because there's legitimately nothing but a few seconds of actor chemistry, like, the 4 gifsets I saw beforehand are IT. Like maybe 3 shippable exchanges of actual dialogue interspersed through 9 MOVIE LENGTH EPISODES, and I don't even think Steve was putting out the vibes that hard. He was genuinely playing as in love with Nancy and permanently distracted by Nancy even when talking to Eddie. The looking at his lips gifset where Eddie looks moments from snogging Steve would be woefully onesided because that's literally the conversation where Eddie confronts him to tell him he's still in love with Nancy and Nancy leaped into the Upside Down after him in a heartbeat.

I loved Eddie. INcredible character. 10/10 would buy again. He and Friendly Orderly were both great characters with minimal IMDB histories who I cannot wait to hopefully be cast in a ton of stuff to continue their careers post-ST and for us to adore.

But that post about how Stranger Things is written as if being a nerd is the greatest oppression one can face? Literally true. Will crying in the car after assuring Mike that his nerdiness will not stop El loving him is THEE pinnacle of this ridiculousness but you have to understand, they Empire Strikes Back'd the whole story, Which means every single plotline they harped on in this first "half" is now set up for the second. I literally can't comment on how grossly they treated Will because while it seems vile so far in a meta sense that's not where they're leaving it, and Jonathan's reassurance to him and genuinely careful writing to make it clear this was all textual stuff and NOT the actors being goofy and putting gay subtext in means that Will is subtextually gay in an INTENTIONAL way. He's been written like this because they are acknowledging his sexuality, making his story about it until he gets back to Hawkins, and very clearly setting up that he's in absolute shambles, personally, in a way that HAS to be addressed later. Him crying like that was his horrible cliffhanger to be resolved that's just as horrible as Max in the hospital: that NEEDS to be fixed but the writing has put him here, not anything the actor did for funsies.

Meanwhile the sound editing on Eddie parading around the lunchroom was ATROCIOUS and I am 100% without reading a single interview or whatever that this is because the actor voluntarily leaped off the table and wandered out of the range of microphones etc and fucked up their sound set up by treating all the cafeteria as a stage, and it was so hecking cool they kept it in and just boosted the sound in a really weird way that made it all muffled and frontloaded in a way that my TV speakers hated. I could see the improv dripping off this lad. So I don't trust a single thing fandom is saying about ANYTHING he does as intentional writing because there's like 3 things per scene he's in that I feel were actually in the script because they're on message to the themes and the rest is all adorable actor bullshit.

What I can see is a character who they wrote as The Alpha Nerd, the Baddest Badass in this very persecuted subgenre, the man who makes it all worthwhile to be a nerd, the pinnacle of the mountain that these dweeby kids might climb. An accumulation of all that makes the younger ones cool all crammed into a single character. Mike's Heart, Dustin's funniness, Will's creativity, like even sass for sass with Lucas's sister??? Metal is the Nerd Music and you know he's in it for the Lord of the Rings references. And he's KIND to these little uns, even when it seems almost overbearing in the cafeteria scene he doesn't make it about bullying them he still manages to be aggressive but turn it around to a positive conclusion so they're not "in trouble" or ostracised for asking for a replacement for Lucas.

In short, I don't think he was actually meant to have as much characterisation as was brought to the role, and so him being written as an aspirational character makes him like. The Gandalf of D&D, and the rest of them the awed Frodo he's mentoring and setting them off on their journey, to a new level of pure geekdom, the untoxic pinnacle of what this personality trait might be, the unbeatable nerd who can't be bullied, who rises above it, who, of course. In the end will be SO cool that his outro is the bassest badass thing a nerd ever did see.

He was DESIGNED for his one true memorial to be a painting airbrushed on the side of a van showing his final concert, a la wizards on vans. That's his vibe, a living breathing Too Metal To Exist painting from the side of a van you smoke weed in.

It's just wildly unfortunate that he was so good at the role everyone adores him, and is always shipping around for ships they like, and he interacted with Steve twice while Steve was in a relationship quandry since his one true love is technically dating someone else still, leaving him single and open to interpretation (ish). Throw in the bananas good chemistry Steve and Robin have on screen and you get so much more character room to flesh him out so of course he is one of the better characters. And fandoms love shipping the two white boys who look at each other once.

I feel genuinely bad that people feel queerbaited and angry at the end of the season, but I think all the characters they feel were slighted (except Eddie) are being set up for a part 2 which lifts them up, while for example Max was an absolute MVP of the season but it looks like she may be getting a rest now for carrying the story after her FANTASTIC work in this half, so now we can maybe explore Will's story some more, for example, because he got so much less. El's the only one who really needs to be super character explored every season and they consistently do that because, well, she's the mainest plot character and fascinating. But this slanting towards one or the other character while leaving out others has helped lift up a sense that it shit all over certain characters, and Eddie counted as a main enough character to even be included in that group.

He never was, he just was a convincing side character who was adorable and badass so of course people want more of him. But it's not like something happened to make the writers just randomly decide to kill him after the first few episodes aired and they didn't put in a ton of queercoding and they didn't write parallels with him that would seriously mean that he was in contention as a love interest - his only major relationship was with Mike and Dustin and since Mike wasn't there, Dustin carried the end of his story alone (and it was lovely, and, again, made me cry but not bitter tears of resentment, just good tears of sad catharsis and loss of a nice character and grief well-written in the aftermath). If anything they said LOOKED like it was a parallel for love interest stuff, it was to boost our understanding of the main characters and to help us relate back to Eddie in turn by shorthand relating him to the ones we were already invested in (though again, so charismatic these are lines the writers only hypothetically needed if he'd been flatly acted XD)

Anyway as you can tell I think he's amazing, I just can't interact with a single post about him because every single one i've seen has severe poisoning with fandom anger, shock, queerbait allegations, intense Steddie shipping and denial and bringing him back to life etc, all of which are valid normal fandom things for any character, except the overnight aspect Netflix gives us and the ENORMOUS vitriol and also everyone's past fandom baggage like, literally overnight made a blorbo who's floating in a cesspool of stuff I don't agree with and don't want to interact with because I fundamentally don't see it that way and there's no dang normal content about him being cute and funny in an environment where he's not fandom's latest martyr on the My Gay Blorbo Deserved Better And You Murdered Him For Being Gay, JUST LOOK AT HOW THEY TREATED WILL, YOU ASSHOLES.

So, um. Having a normal one over here enjoying a show on the surface level while skeptical and not particularly wowed by the writers' deeper messages beyond "friendship good, family good, love good, everyone happy and successful when love and friend and family" which is, the basicest take ever but also guaranteed to make me cry if done with true authentic belief (and it was) but also in no way inspiring to make me go any deeper on fandoming given the weird worldview exposed by psychoanalysing literally anything that a male character who seems to represent an aspect of the writers does that is not clearly actor improv, and yet also having free access to Deep Fandom due to my entire dash posting this stuff :'D

[cripplecharacters]

Navigation: Helpful Posts

[large text: Navigation: Helpful Posts]

Complication of posts from CrippleCharacters, as well as other blogs providing advice on writing disabled characters!

This post covers the general topics - for posts on specific disabilities, please see part two.

Last update: 15/06/2024

Character Making Basics and Ideas

[large text: Character Making Basics and Ideas]

How to Start Doing Research When Writing a Disabled Character Disabilities that are Common but Have no Representation Facial Differences that Would Be Cool to Actually See Represented How to Do Historical Research Our "Disabled Character Ideas" Tag Our "Character Inspo" Tag

How to Describe XYZ?

[large text: How to Describe XYZ?]

Blindness Tropes: the "Blank Look" Describing Characters with Facial Differences as Pretty Difference between Fetishization and Being Seen as Beautiful First Description: when to mention the Facial Difference How Often Should You Mention Mobility Aids? Dialogue and Speech Disorders Sign Language in Dialogue Words for Residual Limbs (stumps) Describing a Limp Words to Use instead of "Walk" for Wheelchair Users How to not Describe Facial Differences as "Scary"

How to Draw XYZ?

[large text: How to Draw XYZ?]

Tips for Drawing Characters with Facial Differences Annoying Tropes in Art Re:Facial Differences Drawing Blind Characters Drawing Amputees How to Draw (and not draw) Characters with Vitiligo Drawing Cane Users Decorating Wheelchairs

General

[large text: General]

Writing a Newly Disabled Character Writing a Visibly Different Character The Accident Including Disabled Communities Disabled Characters in Historical Fiction Coming up with Fictional Disabilities Tokenism Discussion Disability and Superpowers Curing and "Fixing" Disabled Characters Is It Realistic to Have Multiple Disabled Characters? "Jaws Effect": how media affect the real world Worldbuilding with Accessibility in Mind How to Let Readers Figure Out the Character's Disability Does the Disability Need to Have a "Purpose"? Including Ableism in the Story Casual Representation vs Fetishization (with albinism as an example)

General Tropes

[large text: General Tropes]

"Super-Crip": Magic and Disability Abled Characters Pretending to be Disabled I Did a Trope but It's Too Late - What You Should Do - made with the mask trope in mind, but could be applied more widely Magical Cure - made with blindness in mind Including Healing Magic without Disability Erasure How to Do a Scary Disability Reveal without being Ableist? Disabled Character Recovering, but without Disability Erasure Killing off a Disabled Character without Doing an Ableism Writing a Disabled Villain without Doing an Ableism What is Fetishization of Disability, and what Isn't Not All Sign Language Users are Mute and American

Mobility Aids

[large text: Mobility Aids]

General Overview Overview, but with More Options - not writing advice, educational Magic Mobility Aids Tips on Writing Wheelchair Users Writing a New Cane User "But Mobility Aids Wouldn't Exist in my Fantasy World" Basic Information on Service Animals Should My Non-Modern Wheelchair User use XYZ instead of a Wheelchair? Accessible Wizarding for Wheelchair Users Fidgeting with Wheelchairs

Other

[large text: Other]

Writing Characters with Tourette's Syndrome Introduction to Writing Characters with Speech Disorders Writing Little People (characters with dwarfism) Dwarfism and Fantasy Stories Stereotypes around Characters with Dwarfism Writing and Drawing Burn Survivors: basics and resources Caring for a Burn Scar: the everyday things On Chemical Burns Writing Characters with ASPD Writing a Character with Russel-Silver Syndrome Complex Dissociative Disorders Terminology: A Basic Primer What to Consider when Writing about Pollution-induced Disability

Making Your Content Accessible to Disabled Readers

[large text: Making Your Content Accessible to Disabled Readers]

Why add alt text? Image Descriptions Tutorial Writing Image Descriptions for People Who Can't Write Them "But how do blind people even use alt text" How to Tag Your Posts (Tumblr) ScreenReaders and Color Text (Tumblr) FanFiction Accessibility

Recommended Blogs/Sources

[large text: Recommended Blogs/Sources]

@blindbeta @cy-cyborg @a-little-revolution @mimzy-writing-online @writingdrugs Fantastic website for any historical needs

[whumpinggrounds]

Overused Disability Tropes

Woohoo here we go. I expect this one to be a bit more controversial because I am using specific media as examples. I would really prefer if, when critiquing this post, you avoid defending specific media, and focus instead on what’s actually being said/represented about disabled communities. If you feel I’ve done a really grave injustice, you can come into my askbox/DMs/replies to talk to me about it, but I might not answer.

One more time: I am not interested in getting into a debate about whether something is a good show/movie/book/whatever. I’m not telling you it’s bad, or that you shouldn’t enjoy it! People can like whatever they want; I am only here to critique messaging. Do not yell at me about this.

Newest caveat aside, let’s get into it!

Inspiration Porn

Without a doubt, our biggest category! Term coined in 2012 by badass activist Stella Young, but the trope has been around for literal centuries. There are a few different kinds that I will talk about.

Disabled character/person is automatically noble/good because of their disability. A very early example would be A Christmas Carol’s Tiny Tim, or, arguably, Quasimodo from The Hunchback of Notre Dame. Real life examples include the Jerry Lewis MDA telethon, or children’s hospital ads that exploit sad-eyed kids with visible illness or disability.

Having a disability does not automatically make you a kind/angelic/noble person. This many not seem harmful, and may even seem positive, but in reality, it is condescending, inaccurate, and sets bizarre standards for how disabled people should behave.

This portrayal is often intended to elicit pity from abled audiences, which is also problematic.

In these portrayals, disability is not something to be proud of or identify with, only something to be suffered through.

Disabled character person does something relatively mundane and we all need to celebrate that. This is less common in writing, but happens in the real world when people do things like post pictures of disabled people at the gym captioned “What’s your excuse?”

This is condescending, and implies that anything disabled people are capable of, abled people are automatically capable of.

Makes it seem like it’s an incredible feat for a disabled person to accomplish tasks.

Uses people’s actual lives and actual disabilities as a reminder of “how good abled life is.”

The “Supercrip” stereotype is a specific kind of inspiration porn in which disabled people are shown to be capable of amazing things, “in spite of” their disability.

The Paralympics have been criticized for this, with people saying that advertisements and understandings of the Paralympics frame the athletes as inspiring not because they are talented or accomplished, but because their talents and accomplishments are seen as “so unlikely.”

Other examples include the way we discuss famous figures like Stephen Hawking, Alan Turing, or even Beethoven. Movies like The Theory of Everything and The Imitation Game frame the subjects’ diagnoses, whether actual or posited, as limitations that they had to miraculously break through in order to accomplish what they did. Discussions of Beethoven’s deafness focus on how incredible it was that he was able to overcome it and be a musician despite what is framed as a tragic acquisition of deafness.

The pity/heroism trap is a concise way of defining inspiration porn. If the media you’re creating or consuming inspires these emotions, and only these emotions, around disability, that is a representation that is centered on the feelings and perceptions of abled people. It’s reductive, it’s ableist, and it’s massively overdone.

Disabled Villains

To be clear, disabled people can and should be villains in fiction. The problem comes when disabled people are either objects of pity/saintly heroes, or villains, and there is no complexity to those representations. When there is so little disabled rep out there (less than 3.5% of characters in current media), having a disabled villain contributes to the othering of disability, as well as the idea that disability can make someone evil. There are also a few circumstances in which particular disabilities are used to represent evil, and I’ll talk about how that’s problematic. 

Mentally ill villains are colossally overdone, particularly given that mentally ill people are more likely to be the victims of violence than perpetrators of it.  This is true of all mental illness, including “””scary””” things like personality disorders or disorders on the schizoaffective spectrum. Mental illness is stigmatized enough without media framing mentally ill people as inherently bad or more suspectible to evil. This prejudice is known as sanism.

Explicit fictional examples of this include the Joker, or Kevin Wendell Crumb in Split.

People can also be coded as mentally ill without it being explicitly stated, and that’s also problematic and sanist. In the Marvel movie Doctor Strange and the Multiverse of Madness, Wanda’s appearance and behavior are coded as mentally ill. This is used to make her “creepy.” Horror movies do this a lot - mental illness does not render someone creepy, and should not be used as a tool in this way.

Visible disability or difference to indicate evil is another common, incredibly offensive, and way overdone trope. This is mostly commonly done through facial difference, and the examples are endless. These portrayals equate disability or disfigurement with ugliness, and that ugliness with evil. It renders the disabled villain in question an outcast, undesirable, and uses their disability or difference to dehumanize these characters and separate them from others. This is incredibly prevalent and incredibly painful for people with visible disability or facial difference.

An example of visible disability indicating evil is Darth Vader’s prosthetics and vastly changed physical appearance that happen exactly in time with his switch to the dark side. In contrast, when Luke needs a prosthetic, it is lifelike and does not visually separate him from the rest of humanity/the light.

Dr. Who’s John Lumic is another example of the “Evil Cripple” trope.

Examples of facial difference indicating evil range from just about every James Bond movie, to Scar in the Lion King, Dr. Isabel Maru in Wonder Woman, Taskmaster in Black Widow, Captain Hook in Peter Pan, and even Doofenschmirtz-2 in Phineas and Ferb the Movie. Just because some of the portrayals are silly (looking at you, Phineas and Ferb) doesn’t make the coding of facially scarred villains any less hurtful.  

A slightly different, but related phenomenon I’ll include here is the idea of the disability con. This is when a character fakes a disability for personal gain. This represents disabled people as potential fakers, and advances the idea that disabled people get special privileges that abled people can and should co-opt for their own reasons. 

In The Usual Suspects, criminal mastermind Verbal Clint fakes disability to avoid suspicion and take advantage of others. In Arrested Development, a lawyer fakes blindness in order to gain the sympathy and pity of the jury.

In much more complex examples such as Sharp Objects, a mother with Munchausen by proxy fakes her daughter’s illness in order to receive attention and pity. Portrayals like this make Munchausen or MBP seem more common than it is, and introduce the idea that parents may be lying or coaching their children to lie about necessary medical treatment.

Disability as Morality

Sometimes, the disabled character themselves is a moral lesson, like Auggie in Wonder. Sheerly through existing, Auggie “teaches” his classmates about kindness, the evils of bullying, and not judging a book by its cover. This also fits well under inspiration porn. This is problematic, because the disabled character is defined in terms of how they advance the other characters’ morality and depth.

In the “Disabled for a Day” trope, an otherwise abled character experiences a temporary disability, learns a moral lesson, and is restored to full ability by the end of the episode/book/movie. Once again, disability is used as a plot device, rather than a complex experience, along with more permanent disability being rejected as impossible for heroes or main characters.

Examples include an episode of M*A*S*H where Hawkeye is temporarily blinded, an episode of Law and Order: SVU where Elliott Stabler is temporarily blinded, and an episode of Criminal Minds where Agent Hotchner experiences temporary hearing loss.

Real life examples include sensitivity trainings where participants are asked to wear a blindfold, headphones, or use a wheelchair for a given amount of time. This does not impart the lived experience of disability. It should not be used as a teaching tool. 

Disabled people as inherently pure. This is related to inspiration porn and disabled people as noble, but is different in that it is usually appears in combination with developmental, cognitive, or intellectual disabilities. These characters are framed as sweet, “simple,” and a reminder to other characters to be cheerful, happy, or grateful.

Examples include Forrest Gump, Rain Man, I Am Sam, and What’s Eating Gilbert Grape.

No matter what the stereotypes of a given diagnosis are (yes, I’m thinking of the automatic cheerfulness associated with Down Syndrome), disabled people have personalities. They are capable of being sad, angry, sarcastic, irritable, annoying - any number of things beyond good/sweet/pure. It is reductive to act otherwise.

Disability as Surreal

Less common than some of the others, but still worth thinking about!

Disabled characters are framed as mystical, magical, or other than human, a condition that is either created by or indicated through their disability status. This is especially common with little people.

“Disability superpower” is when a character compensates for, or is uniquely able to have a superpower because of, their disability. Common tropes include the Blind Seer, Blind Weapon Master, Genius Cripple and Super Wheel Chair.

Examples include Pam from Supernatural, Charles Xavier from X-Men, or the grandpa in Spy Kids.

Disability as Undesirable

Last and least favorite category here. Let’s go.

Disabled people as asexual or not sexually desirable. Disabled people can be asexual, obviously. When every portrayal is asexual, that’s a big problem. It frames disabled people as sexually undesirable or implies that it is impossible for people with disabilities to have rewarding, mutually satisfying sexual relationships.

Examples include The Fault in Our Stars or Artie in Glee.

Abandoned due to disability. Hate this trope. Often equates disability with weakness. Don’t want to talk about it. It’s all right there in the title. Don’t do it.

Examples: Quasimodo in Hunchback of Notre Dame, several kittens in the Warrior Cat series, several episodes of Law and Order: SVU, Bojack Horseman, and Vikings.

Discussed in 300 and Wolf of Wall Street.

Ancient cultures and animal nature are often cited as reasoning for this trope/practice. This is not founded in fact. Many ancient civilizations, including Sparta, cared for disabled people. Many animals care for disabled young. These examples should not be used to justify modern human society.

Disabled characters are ostracized for disability. Whether they act “““normal”““ or odd, characters with visible or merely detectable disabilities are treated differently.

Examples include pretty much every piece of media I’ve said so far. This is particularly prevalent for people with visible physical disabilities or neurodivergence. Also particularly prevalent for characters with albinism.

This is not necessarily an inaccurate portrayal - disabled people face a lot of discrimination and ableism. It is, however, very, very common.

Bury your disabled. What it says on the label.

Examples: Animorphs, Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows, American Horror Story, Criminal Minds, Dr. Who, Star Trek, The Wire.

Mercy killing is a subtrope of the above but disgusting enough that it deserves its own aside. I may make a separate post about this at some point because this post is kind of exhausting and depressing me.

Examples: Me Before You, Killing Eve, Star Trek: The Next Generation, Of Mice and Men, and Million Dollar Baby.

Disability-negating superpowers imply that disability is undesirable by solving it supernaturally instead of actually portraying it, and giving their character powers instead.

Examples include (arguably) Toph from Avatar: the Last Airbender, Captain America: The First Avenger, The Legend of Korra, Dr. Strange, and Daredevil.

Overcoming disability portrays disability as a hindrance and something that can be defeated through technology and/or willpower.

Fictional examples include WALL-E, Kill Bill, The Goonies, The Dark Knight Trilogy, Heidi, The Secret Garden, The Inheritance Cycle, Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D, The Big Bang Theory, Dr. Strangelove, Sherlock, The Witcher.

Real life examples include videos of wheelchair users standing from their chair to walk down the aisle at a wedding, or d/Deaf children “hearing” for the first time through cochlear implants.

What Does This Mean for Your Writing?

First of all, congratulations for making it this far!

Now, as I have said again and again, I’m not going to tell you what to write. I’ll ask some questions to hopefully help guide your process.

What tropes might you be playing into when writing disabled characters? Why do you find these tropes compelling, or worth writing about? How prevalent are these tropes? How harmful are they? What messages do they send to actual disabled people?

Just because they are common tropes does not mean they are universally awful. Cool fantasy or futuristic workarounds are not necessarily bad rep. Showing the ugly realities of ableism is not necessarily bad rep. It’s just a very, very common representation of disability, and it’s worth thinking about why it’s so common, and why you’re writing it.

As always, conduct your own research, know your own characters and story, and make your own decisions. If you have questions, concerns, or comments, please hit me up! Add your own information! This is not monolithic whatsoever.

Happy writing!

[blackautmedia]

Sly Cooper: Bentley, Asylums, and Disability Representation in Video Games

Revisiting a Classic old series, we analyze the portrayal of Disability in the #SlyCooper series and how it portrays Bentley who uses a wheelchair as of Sly 3: Honor Among Thieves.

Some Excerpts:

There are two villains I want to discuss people might not think of in the context of disability--The Contessa and Arpeggio.

The Contessa's levels are my personal favorite in Sly 2, so anything I say here is with love but these ideas don't come in a vacuum. Aesthetically it's a mix of a prison level, a haunted ghost setting with mystical elements, and most importantly is an asylum drawing on a number of tropes surrounding the allure of a haunted asylum.

The next villain I want to talk about is Arpeggio. He runs into a common pitfall in that he's the disabled villain. He's an engineering parrot who cannot fly and seeks to reassemble Clockwerk's body to claim it as his own and achieve the immortality that comes with it. The important element is how Arpeggio's villainy is intrinsically linked with his body and his disability.

Oftentimes, able bodied writers will write a villainous disabled character where the concept of being disabled is so burdensome and awful to the eyes of an able-bodied audience that they will do anything and immediately jump to evil in order to not be disabled. You can see this in how a lot of the dialogue about or with Arpeggio reviles in how pathetic he is and how the story frames his inability to fly.

There was a promotional comic that came out as a midquel between the events of Sly 2 and 3.

Throughout all of Sly 2: Band of Thieves, things spiral badly out of control, the Cooper gang's plans fall apart, and they often have to improvise, barely succeeding in several of the levels and flat out failing in others. This game is a ride.

Many articles, discussions, and posts about Bentley as a disabled character often reinforce a harmful and ableist belief that he is a good disabled character because he is a genius able to engineer a solution that doesn't allow his disability to "slow him down." Whether explicitly mentioned or not, the discourse surrounding Bentley repeats this narrative in some way and falls into a line of trying to exceptionalize Bentley's actions.

Sly 3 does reserve its most overt ableism for its villainous characters in Don Octavio, Muggshot and Captain Lefwee. But scenes like this are still reliant on the helpless disabled person trope at Bentley's expense, where he's literally kicked to the ground and stripped of his autonomy to center the agency of an able bodied character.

The game doesn't try to act like Bentley can do better if he just pushes more and tries harder. There are things he can't do and it's frustrating, but they celebrate his strengths in what he does.

It doesn't tokenize his disability and the final villain has a confrontation with him entirely because of his relationship to the Cooper family, a fight that Bentley is initiating, not Dr. M.

If nothing else, I hope this video gave some food for thought regarding how a lot of disabled people are portrayed. I don't claim to be the arbiter of all things disability, but hopefully it'll give more insight into what games and media in general can do to improve in its storytelling.

It's a shame that the Sly movie or a TV series never came to fruition because it'd be a great opportunity to portray a disabled character, actually consult and include disabled people in the creative process and make something really memorable.

[bibiana112]

Kinda weird question- do you have any links to people talking about Mira from ZTD and ableist stereotypes? I mentioned that I was uncomfortable with her portrayal but kinda fumbled it and made some other ND people in chat uncomfortable. I searched for various keyword combinations but most of what I'm finding is like "and not to mention the ableism with Mira" and doesn't elaborate lol.

Not weird at all! And uh, you see, there's a recent post I made where what I complain about is the very fact I've never seen anyone post too in-depth about her at all, I'd love to see posts that do elaborate on that but I do not have any that I know of right now, sorry :/ hopefully someone else who sees this can point to one? Okay!! After some tag searches I have found exactly one post who kind of gets into it I like this take still would love to see. more than just one but hooray

And like though I complain I couldn't elaborate much on it myself I don't think, I believe most of the posts people make about Saito from aitsf would apply since it's a different uchikoshi take on the very same trope of "emotionless characters who cannot function without killing others" I guess he's a worse portrayal though since she's at least not stated to get reward brain chemicals when killing people and I guess her case also has the added layer of "femme fatale" to it? Which either makes it less bad or worse depending on where you approach it from As I said I am not doing a good job of being coherent on this oh and also there's her being "redeemed" and "cured" in the epilogue which in on itself is kinda not great to imply it just goes away like that and honestly I personally don't even buy it I think she'd just be like oh okay Akane over here has like a thousand reasons to hate me after all that oh and what's that she's the leader of a super wealthy underground organization who's organized one of these death traps before yeah no I'm better off going to prison I'll be fine there lmao bye

But I'll say as an autistic person with relatively low empathy I usually see a character who just doesn't understand other people's feelings and wants to feel them too and is just trying to survive despite getting no help and I just kinda go hm. yeah. shout-out to roxas kingdom hearts shout out to mary from ib shout out that's why I started hyperfixating on media art helps me with understanding others a great lot and Mira is just in a story too badly executed for me to care or even begin to wrap my head around tbh like god she's so fucking terribly used as a plot device in every conceivable way that it makes it difficult to see past it and into what she could possibly be if it weren't for the stereotype of equalling low empathy with no compassion what's with her killing off screen in ways that wildly deviate from her stated m.o? why or how was she even in cahoots with Zero why was that a thing? Honestly her dynamic with Sean could have been better fleshed out could have done something interesting about robot child and his aspd big sis but we just kind of don't get any attention brought to the subject of emotions and the authenticity there of except for the "reveal"...

YOU KNOW WHAT that's probably one huge reason it feels so fucked up actually! Like the whole fucking game is written so you could experience it in whatever order you want and therefore Mira being a serial killer at all is something that though not very well hidden it also cannot be a topic of discussion or explored Ever ever because the player may not have seen the fragment where that is revealed yet- problem being the menu design of that game sucks so bad and practically everyone gravitates towards the same few more interesting looking thumbnails first and then the rest is kinda just there, I mean that is part of the reason A Lot of characters feel half-baked I think but also I think it definitely does impact perception of her character specifically probably The Most and then there's just the general not being given nuance not being able to see the minutiae of how that disorder manifests in her character aside from the killings about how she acts aside from being overly flirty trying to lure in Eric but that affects pretty much all of the new cast we don't have last names and in her case we barely have any backstory at all like Saito is a harmful stereotype sure but we get So Much Context for him that people still love talking about him and delving into different aspects of his life since we have that very well telegraphed in the narrative meanwhile for Mira all we can do is fill in the blanks guesswork that only highlights the worst aspects of the surface level portrayal we got and ultimately that people just don't care enough to dissect because there isn't much there character wise once you remove it

[bklynmusicnerd]

I'm currently fighting a battle against going full "Bah Humbug" to this holiday season, but nevertheless we are going to get into these latest GH Petty Politics results!

This is going to be a long roundup because I did more polls than usual because I weirdly felt bad about how boring these last few weeks of GH have been.

Considering the present state of the show is actually pretty dire thanks to a deeply misguided EP, let's start off with what moratorium you all think GH needs more? The results were actually not close at all as 70.8% of you said:

Violet's random ass song aside, the consensus is clear. The majority are sick of 90% of the dialogue revolving around how the only thing that matters in this world is having babies. Imagine that 😒. To quote my mom, "The songs only last a couple of minutes, those babies take forever to disappear!"

29.2% of you, though, do think all the corny singing is becoming a problem. You signed up for a soap, not Glee.

And along those lines, when asked what you find edgier and more exciting during this holiday season, 84.2% of you said Hallmark Christmas movies officially have more buzz than anything happening on GH right now.

I don't watch Hallmark, so I have no way of verifying this. I made it an option cause I was feeling snarky after that terrible Friday ep, but I suspect this is the truth. From what I'm told, the heroines on those Hallmark movies do sometimes get to discuss things other than babies or when they'll have them, so that's something.

Onto the poll that surprisingly got the most buzz: What do you think of Curtis' ableist Christmas miracle paralysis reversal?

43.2% of you agreed that it is a lazy and offensive conclusion to a poorly done disability story, and that's because it is! Curtis' paralysis was played as a cheap ploy to get quick sympathy for him and in the process promoted the idea that all the lives of the disabled amount to is what they can't do.

Anyways, here's an article on why the "miracle cure" trope is offensive as shit and gross to write in 2023:

38.5% of you could give a shit about Curtis or his terrible storyline and just want to know where Trina's real father, Taggert is? A question that likely won't be answered until next year (but keep hope alive 🥲)

19.2% of you are in an optimistic mood and are open to this story at least having the upside of a potential testing fiasco which clears Trina of these Ashford charges once and for all (again...keep hope alive 🥲).

And a total of 0% of you are happy for Curtis to receive his miracle cure, and honestly...I've never felt prouder looking at a result. There's something really beautiful about us all coming together in the name of having no time for Curtis, I'm tearing up as I type this.

Moving onto the latest Kraze (😉) in GH pairings. I really wanted to know what you guys thought of Kristina and Blaze moving forward at the same time as this surrogacy plot that will not die.

50% of you said that you were too devastated by another pairing already being dragged down by the baby agenda, to put yourself in Blaze's shoes. As a Trina fan, believe me, I get it, and my heart goes out to you guys. The wlw delegation deserved better than this smh

29.2% of you said you would absolutely stay romantically interested in Kristina through her surrogacy story if you were Blaze. Which regardless of how realistic, is actually very sweet and probably exactly what GH will have Blaze do because baby agenda always wins out 😒.

20.8% of you said you'd probably have to dip if you were Blaze cause that's way too much way too soon and I have to say I'm inclined to agree with you guys. I can't imagine starting a relationship with someone who's about to carry a baby but I guess we're going to see what that looks like 🤷🏿‍♀️.

Speaking of "fuck them kids", a certain demon spawn was finally shown the door this week and I wanted your thoughts on Trina's status as a potential accidental homewrecker, and whether or not you gave a shit that Spencer's domestic era is over.

On the Trina homewrecking front:

47.8% of you said, yes, our girl technically qualifies as the cutest accidental homewrecker ever and you think she's a hero for demolishing the Jerry Springer household by simply choosing herself.

39.1% of you think Trina's homewrecking status is irrelevant because Laura's home was simply a training ground for the real home Spencer is already planning in his head with Trina.

And 13% of you, like my mom, think I play too much and that Trina is not a homewrecker and there's nothing funny about the suggestion! And to that I say: 😛

As for Spencer's domestic mourning period (🤢), I'm proud to report that the majority of you (57.9%) have no time for the fake sympathy for Spencer. You can be honest and admit that this story was bad, you're happy this form of it is over and you're hopeful that he can burn the diaper bags and return to dark princedom once again.

26.3% of you do feel bad for Spencer but uh, not enough to mourn this baby nonsense with him.

And 15.8% of you are actually going to miss Spencer the Manny. I can't really relate to such an emotion, but I admire the bravery of being open about your bad taste in storylines.

Setting crybaby Spencer to the side, let's talk about the real Cassadine youth doing real Cassadine things, Charlotte!

In true Cassadine form, Charlotte has the people divided. 34.8% of you agree with Valentin and are proud of Charlotte for her mess. But 34.8% of you also aren't sure about anything except that Anna should have slapped Valentin again (I agree). 30.4% of you are not down with Charlotte's shenanigans and think Valentin is nuts for being this passive.

The people are thoroughly split on Miss Charlotte Cassadine, which means she's doing wonderfully 😘.

Bringing crybaby Spencer back to the front again because it's time to discuss our favorite new pill popper on the canvas, Adam!

I really wanted to know if people were as into the Adam and Spencer friendship idea as @anyathefandom and I and I'm pleased to report the results are hilarious:

54.5% of you think we are nuts for trying to play friendship matchmaker with Spencer and a guy who's about to OD on pills and you know what, that's fair! Maybe our priorities seem a little odd as this kid tweaks about test scores! But we all know the powers of nepotism will save him from anything fatal, so I think some of you need to ease up on the judgment!

36.4% of you are here for the Spencer/Adam friendship idea. You're ready for Spencer to move on from Cali Cam and get a friend that's actually in the same town as him. You also recognize that it's either this or a forced Spencer and Dex friendship, and the lesser evil is pretty obvious here.

9.1% of you have no faith in Spencer's socialization skills and think it's a waste of time to hope he'll get a new friend. You think Spencer will never outgrow his "no new friends" phase, and you might just be right. Depressing but right.

And to save the funniest result for last. No, seriously, I saw this result and immediately lost it.

When asked what do you think will happen first, Adam OD'ing or Dex finally getting a real personality besides sex robot, 100% of you said Adam's inevitable OD is coming before Dex's personality. Because the only thing you guys have less faith in than Spencer's socialization skills, is Dex's character development.

I wanted to save that result for last because that's actually our first unanimous GH Petty Politics result and I love that it was as funny as it was disrespectful ❤️.

And so concludes another round of GH Petty Politics. Once again, you guys are hilarious and your participation is always appreciated!

[kecleonplush]

I previously made a post on here reposting something I originally put on Reddit discussing Angel as a queer character and their presence as (mostly) good representation (here if you’d like to read it for context). It generally received good feedback though I did get a little bit of vitriol about it from a couple of people who presumably stumbled across it in the tags. I just saw this post about Hemmer’s representation and treatment specifically (warning: spoilers) and the addition that specifically called out Angel as playing into harmful tropes about trans women - I wanted to expand my thoughts on this a little since this is a criticism I didn’t think of or come across during the lifecycle of my post (I did get called a transmisogynistic concern troll in an anon hate, which was unhelpful and unnecessary, so no thanks to you, rando reading my post, for being counterproductive and hostile). I’d like to expand my thoughts a little bit on both that and the logistical issues that are plaguing ST in general and leading to tokenistic characterization of characters.

I want to say up front that this isn’t meant to be an apologetic defense of the current Star Trek writing staff - they can and should be doing better - but I think it’s also worth considering complicating factors that we as consumers of media should keep in mind as we discuss representation and the barriers to it. This is also mostly for my benefit just to put my thoughts down on paper, so feel free to skip if you don’t care, but I’d welcome reblogs and additions as well.

Firstly, Angel. I fully agree that the choice of a trans villain with an assumed identity was a bad choice - I came close to this realization with my point about making a trans character the leader of a roving band of slavers, but didn’t quite get all the way. This kind of characterization as a trans person as an underhanded, deceptive person who assumes another identity to trick someone is a common trope used to demonize and discredit trans people (and women) in general, and really does speak to the kind of hamfistedness and lack of care used by the writers with queer people in Trek in general. I can understand now with that additional perspective where the anon hater was coming from (though I don’t agree with their methods). I didn’t consider this aspect specifically and I apologize for missing that valid point of criticism in my previous post. In retrospect, it was careless and I should have put a bit more thought into that when writing my post. I wish I had come across it or thought of it sooner because I think it’s much needed context beyond just the sole queer coded villain analysis. That having been said, I don’t think this additional criticism invalidates any of the other aspects of my post regarding how her character post-reveal was integrated into the story and its themes.

Secondly, tokenism. First of all, I don’t think I can really speak to the issues with tokenism any better than the post I linked above - I’m not going to make an attempt to expand on it because I’m not sure there’s much more to say. Characters outside of the main established roster of Pike, Chapel and Spock (and even Una and Uhura to a lesser extent) are getting very little screentime and as such get relegated to one-offs or side stories, and as such, end up at the very best at danger of becoming tokenistic.

Hemmer, I think, is probably more or less just a full on token character - again the post I linked does a better job of explaining than I can - and him and his story specifically has a lot to do with outmoded ableist tropes that are frankly pretty shameful to see used in modern Trek (or any Trek really - we had a blind character who was a main character in TNG for god’s sake). The writers could have found a way to avoid that or at least do better by him.

But, I do want to speak more broadly to the tokenism issue in general and why this shouldn’t be attributed to just a personal failing on part of the writers (I’m not really going to say much about this because it’s not clear to me that it definitively is or isn’t - feel free to draw your own conclusions but I am going to leave that to you to decide). What I want to look at specifically is the way television is structured in the streaming era and why that is actively harmful to attempts to tell diverse and broad reaching stories like Trek wants to do.

I want to get out of the way first that it is entirely possible to tell diverse stories about non-cishet white male able-bodied characters in the current environment. There’s a huge array of these examples so I’m not going to spend much time listing them off. But, Trek specifically has never been a single-character driven show (outside of arguably Discovery but we’ll talk about that in a bit). Trek has always been strongest as an ensemble, showing a wide array of characters of different backgrounds and identities working together to solve big problems. Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations is a core tenant of the Roddenberry legacy and Trek isn’t truly Trek without found families from all over running around the galaxy solving space mysteries.

However, the new normal of streaming television is absolutely antithetical to this kind of television. The corporations that produce these shows have given into the demands of the market and are no longer interested in producing long-running tent poles or shows that have an opportunity to grow, expand and explore. All they’re interested in is short-term gain and snappy, attractive media that can be cut down into impressive trailers to draw in or keep subscribers. They will cycle through ten new projects with different casts and only occasional crossover so they can keep things fresh and interesting and get a new wave of people to see the latest thing.

What this leaves us with for a franchise like Star Trek is a constant rotation of smaller, shorter shows that leave absolutely no room for the characters to expand and grow. We get condensed 10-14 episode seasons where we maybe see development for a small clutch of main characters, and a few side characters occasionally get a story line or two. For a lot of shows, this is fine, but for Trek, it’s awful. Trek as a series thrived in the 90′s era of television, where episodes were weekly and shows were long running. You could have downsteps and “filler” episodes that focused on characters outside of the captain and XO, or even things like Lower Decks (the episode) where the main cast was barely in it at all. Now, because of corporate meddling, consumerism-driven trends and profit motivated media production, we’re lucky to get 14 episodes to tell a complex story that can maybe fit five characters’ arcs if they really push it.

Trek tried to adapt to this format - Discovery was decidedly that attempt. And while I think there’s a lot of unfair criticism leveled at it, the one thing that I’ll agree with most people on is how it focused a lot on Michael at the detriment of just about everyone else except for Tilly and Saru. Now, I like Michael as a character and I think she’s turned out to be one of the most interesting and complex captains we’ve had on the franchise, but her characterization and complexity has left nearly everyone else in the dust. Tilly and Saru are the only characters we know anything about outside of what we see on screen happening as part of the immediate narrative, and even then Tilly’s blanks are only filled in on a Short Treks episode. Despite an otherwise pretty diverse cast, we see barely anything of them when it doesn’t have something to do with what Michael is doing right now in this moment. It’s a huge waste and it’s pretty awful to see diverse characters like Owo, who has a really fascinating backstory and is played by an excellent actor, just kind of fade into the background until she gets plopped down in a random episode that has nothing to do with her.

So SNW was supposed to be a return to form as episodic Trek with characters of the week and an ensemble cast. And in some ways, it’s worked - it’s been a lot of fun to see them solve space problems and work together and do sci-fi stuff. The cast is fun - Chapel, Pike, Una, baby Uhura, Ortegas, Mbenga and Hemmer are all great and very 90s Trek in their personalities and writing, and even if I think she’s sort of a weak character, I do love seeing La’an as a Badass Chick archetype operating inside of the utopian Trek universe (shoutouts to Major Kira, the OG). There’s lots to love and I’m enjoying it immensely.

But on the flip side, now we’re starting to see why Discovery was the way it was and still is - there’s just not enough time to look at all of these characters in a 10 episode run and give them the attention they deserve. So we see them slip into tokenistic territory because of it. I’m sure there are ways the writers could have fixed this and tried to give everyone more even screen time, but Paramount is setting them up for failure either way. The production company wants to squeeze every dollar they can out of the franchise and it’s strangling Trek’s ability to be Trek. I don’t think the writers are coming in and adding disabled, PoC and queer people to their cast to get woke points, they’re doing it because it’s what Trek is and always has been. But then they’re not given the ability to really work with that and show why this is what Trek is and resort to tokenism as a consquence.

Hemmer is pretty emblematic of this. Because they have so little time to build complex characters, they have to resort to condensed, rushed, trope-ified characters to make Trek feel like Trek. They overlook aspects that made other characters good and crunch down other aspects for expedience’s sake. They slap in identifiers and one-off mentions to try and shoehorn in diversity. It gives them an excuse to not do a good job and the characters, show and fans suffer and miss out because of it. It’s bad writing, it’s bad show running and it’s bad representation - and it’s bad Trek. And all of it is, in part, caused by corporations who aren’t interested in any of these things, just the monetary reward at the end of it.

As fans, we should demand more - not just of the writers but of the production company and rights holders. They do listen to us - this is why SNW exists at all - and we need to be vocal about our distaste and offense with both how the characters are portrayed and with the lack of resources and time the franchise is given to portray them. I think we should demand not just more characters, but more resources too. Trek is an important cultural property and has and can be a force for good in media in general. We need to tell Paramount not just what to do but how to do it and do it right. Keep posting, keep talking, keep demanding, and keep celebrating too. Show them what’s good, show them what’s bad, help them to do good and tell them to do better.

[fancyfade]

Omg no way did I say that Jason was a social justice warrior, I’m just stating a fact that has been studied across a lot of different media. You are putting words in my mouth because of what you have seen others say. As for what I’m talking about with racism I’m speaking about the al ghuls and how they were used in Jason’s narrative. I am native and Mexican and come from a lower class so yes Jason is white but the issue at hand is important to me how certain characters get chosen and depicted across media and why that is as you could tell why I also included Stephanie Brown in the conversation. But thank you for talking about my media comprehension I really should have just shut up because what do I know.

Ok I'm re-reading your old messages to make sure I understand. Because the reason I mentioned the critical thinking thing earlier (link) is because as far as I could tell from the arguments you presented, which were not many, the logic was "poor = evil if Jason is a bad guy"

I'll confess it's hard for me to have a conversation (which...I can' tell if you want to or not?) If you just say "Trust me, this thing is there because (x) character" but you don't elaborate on it. you mentioned steph, but didn't say what you found classist about her narrative. Same for Jason. So that is my fault for not asking for clarification on what you were talking about there, and just going ahead and refuting points I have heard way too often in fandom. You say "You can mention sexism and ableism when talking about Babs, but not this when talking about Jason -- " Yes, but I don't just say "it's sexist" or "it's ableist". I say why. When you just say some writing is (word) but you don't clarify why. And if it is just "Jason was poor when he was a kid but is now a bad guy" (which was the closest you came to explaining why you thought it was classist), I disagree with you there that that is inherently classist.

I don't disagree with you that there is racism in the narrative w/ the al ghuls, but that wasn't being discussed.

I can agree that Winick has harmful tropes and themes in his writing in UtRH, but not in the fact that he chose to make Jason a villain. The harmful trope is war on drugs rhetoric, and this may not be you, but many Jason fans I have interacted with are very pro war on drugs rhetoric and death penalty rhetoric, and use that to say why he's a good guy or better than batman, but suddenly will be like 'wait DC was being bigoted towards him' when anyone points out that his actions under this rhetoric would make him a bad person.

So I apologize for jumping to conclusions, but if you want this conversation to go anywhere, you're going to have to elaborate your point more than you did. And maybe come off anon b/c I'm sure my followers are getting a bit sick of this convo.

[tarobytez]

disability in the Six Of Crows Duology; an analysis of Kaz Brekker, Wylan Van Eck, and the fandom’s treatment of them.

****Note: I originally wrote this for a tiktok series, which im still going to do, but i wanted to post here as well bc tumblr is major contributor to what im going to talk about

CW: ableism, filicide, abuse

In the Six of Crows duology, Leigh Bardugo delicately subverts and melds harmful disability tropes into her narrative, unpacking them in a way that I, as a disabled person, found immensely refreshing and…. just brilliant. 

But what did you all do with that? Well, you fucked it up. Instead of critically looking at the characters, y’all just chose to be ableist. 

For the next few videos paragraphs im going to unpack disability theory (largely the stuff surrounding media, for obvious reasons) and how it relates to Six Of Crows and the characterization of Kaz Brekker and Wylan Van Eck, then how, despite their brilliant writing, y’all completely overlooked the actual text and continuously revert them to ableist cariactures.

Disclaimer: 1. Shocker - i am disabled. I have also extensively researched disability theory and am very active in the disabled community. Basically, I know my shit. 2. im going to be mad in these videos this analysis. Because the way y’all have been acting has been going on for a long ass time and im fuckin sick of it. I don’t give a shit about non-disabled feelings, die mad

Firstly, I’m going to discuss Kaz, his play on the stereotypical “mean cripple” trope and how Bardugo subverts it, his cane, and disabled rage. Then, I am going to discuss Wylan, the “inspiration porn” stereotype, caregivers / parents, and the social model of disability. Finally, I will then explain the problems in the fandom from my perspective as a disabled person, largely when it comes to wylan, bc yall cant leave that boy tf alone.

Kaz Brekker

Think of a character who uses a cane (obviously not Kaz). Now, are they evil, dubiously moral, or just an asshole in general? Because nearly example I can think of is: whether it be Lots’O from Toy Story, Lucius Malfoy, or even Scrooge and Mr.Gold from Once Upon A Time all have canes (the last two even having their canes appear less and less as they become better people)

The mean/evil cripple trope is far more common than you would think. Villains with different bodies are confined to the role of “evil”. To quote TV Tropes, who I think did a brilliant job on explaining it “The first is rooted in eugenics-based ideas linking disability or other physical deformities with a "natural" predisposition towards madness, criminality, vice, etc. The Rule of Symbolism is often at work here, since a "crippled" body can be used to represent a "crippled" soul — and indeed, a disabled villain is usually put in contrast to a morally upright and physically "perfect" hero. Whether consciously on the part of the writer or not, this can reinforce cultural ideas of disability making a person inherently inferior or negative, much in the same way the Sissy Villain or Depraved Homosexual trope associate sexual and gender nonconformity with evil. ”

Our introduction to Kaz affirms this notion of him being bad or morally bankrupt, with “Kaz Brekker didn’t need a reason”, etc. This mythologized version of himself, the “bastard of the barrel” actively fed into this misconception. But, as we the audience are privy to his inner thoughts, know that he is just a teenager like every other Crow. He is complex, his disability isn’t this tragic backstory, he just fell off a roof. It’s not his main motivation, nor does he curse revenge for making him a cripple - it is just another part of who he is. 

His cane (though the shows version fills me with rage but-) is an extension of Kaz - he fights with it, but it has a purpose. Another common thing in media is for canes to be simply accessories, but while Kaz’ cane is fashionable, it has purpose.

The quote “There was no part of him that was not broken, that had not healed wrong and there was no part of him that was not stronger for having been broken.” is so fucking powerful. Kaz does not want nor need a cure - its said in Crooked Kingdom that his leg could most likely be healed, but he chooses not to. Abled-bodied people tend to dismiss this thought as Kaz being stubborn but it shows a reality of acceptance of his disability that is just, so refreshing.

In chapter 22 of SOC, we see disabled rage done right - when he is called a cripple by the Fjerdan inmate, Kaz is pissed - the important detail being that he is pissed at the Fjerdan, at society for ableism, not blaming it on being disabled or wishing he could be normal. He takes action, dislocating the asshole’s shoulder and proving to him, and to a lesser extent, himself, that he is just as capable as anyone else, not in spite of, but because he is disabled. And that is the point of Kaz, harking back to the line that “there was no part of him that was not stronger for having been broken”. 

I cried on numerous occasions while reading the SOC duology, but the parts I highlighted in this section especially so. I, as many other disabled people do, have had a long and tumultuous relationship with our disability/es, and for many still struggle. But Kaz Brekker gave me an empowered disabled character who accepts themselves, and that means the world to me. 

Keeping that in mind, I hope you can understand why it hurts so much to disabled people when you either erase Kaz’s disability (whether through cosplay or fanfiction), or portray him as a “broken boy uwu”, especially implying that he would want a cure. That flies in the face of canon and is inherently fucking ableist. (if u think im mad wait until the next section)

Next, we have Wylan.  

Oh fucking boy. 

I love Wylan so fucking much, and y’all just do not seem to understand his character? Like at all? Since this is disability-centric, I’m not going to discuss how the intersection of his queerness also contributes to these issues, but trust me when I say it’s a contributing factor to what i'm going to say.

Wylan, motherfucking Van Eck. If you ableist pricks don’t take ur fucking hands off him right now im going to fight you. I see Wylan as a subversion another, and in my opinion more insidious stereotype pf disabled people - inspiration porn.

Cara Liebowitz in a 2015 article on the blog The Body Is Not An Apology explains in greater detail how inspiration porn is impactful in real life, but media is a major contributing factor to this reality. The technical definition is “the portrayal of people with disabilities as inspirational solely or in part on the basis of their disability” - but that does not cover it fully. 

Inspiration porn does lasting damage on the disabled community as it implies that disability is a negative that you need to “overcome” or “triumph” instead of something one can feel proud of. It exploits disabled people for the development of non-disabled people, and in media often the white male protagonist. Framing disability as inherently negative perpetuates ideals of eugenics and cures - see Autism $peaks’ “I Am Autism” ad. Inspiration porn is also incredibly patronizing as it implies that we cannot take care of ourselves, or do things like non-disabled people do. Because i stg some of you tend to think that we just sit around all day wishing we weren’t disabled. 

Another important theory ideal that is necessary when thinking about Wylan is the experience of feeling like a burden simply for needing help or accommodations. This is especially true when it comes to familial relationships, and internalized ableism.

The rhetoric that Wylan’s father drilled into his head, that he is “defective”, “a mistake”, and “needs to be corrected”, that he (Jan) was “cursed with a moron for a child” is a long held belief that disabled people hear relentlessly. And while many see Van Eck’s attempted murder of Wylan as “preposturous” and overall something that you would never think happens today - filicide (a parent murdering their child) is more common than you would like to believe. Without even mentioning the countless and often unreported deaths of disabled people due to lack of / insufficient / neglectful medical care, in a study on children who died from the result of household abuse, 40 of 42 of them (95%) were diagnosed with disabilities. Van Eck is not some caricature of ableist ideals - he is a real reflection on how many people and family members view disability. 

Circling back to how Wylan unpacks the inspiration porn trope - he is 3 dimensional, he is not only used to develop the other characters, he is just *chefs kiss* Leigh, imo, put so much love and care into the creation of Wylan and his story and character growth that is representative of a larger feeling in the disabled community. 

That being said, what you non-disabled motherfuckers have done to him.

The “haha Wylan can’t read” jokes aren’t and were not funny. Y’all literally boiled down everything Wylan is to him being dyslexic. And it’s like,,,, the only thing you can say about him. You ignore every other part of him other than his disability, and then mock him for it. There’s so much you can say about Wylan - simping for Jesper, being band kid and playing the fuckin flute, literally anything else. But no, you just chose to mock his disability, excellent fucking job!

Next up on “ableds stfu” - infantilization! y’all are so fucking condescending to Wylan, and treat him like a fucking toddler. And while partly it is due to his sexuality i think a larger portion is him being disabled. Its in the same vein of people who think that Wylan and Jesper are romantically one sided, and that Jesper only kind of liked Wylan, despite the canon evidence of him loving Wylan just as much. You all view him as a “smol bean”, who needs protecting, and care, when Wylan is the opposite of that. He is a fucking demolitions expert who suggested waking up sleeping men to kill them - what about that says “uwu”. You are treating Wylan as a burden to Jesper and the other Crows when he is an immensely valuable, fully autonomous disabled person - you all just view him as damaged. 

And before I get a comment saying that “uhhh Wylan isn’t real why do you care” while Wylan may not be real, how you all view him and treat him has real fucking impacts and informs how you treat people like me. If someone called me an “uwu baby boy” they’d get a fist square in the fucking jaw. Fiction informs how we perceive the world and y’all are making it super fucking clear how you see disabled people. 

Finally, I wanted to talk about how the social model of disability is portrayed through Wylan. For those who are unaware, the social model of disability contrasts the medical model, that views the disability itself as the problem, that needs to be cured, whereas the social model essentially boils down to creating an accommodating society, where disability acceptance and pride is the goal. And we see this with Wylan - he is able to manage his father’s estate, with Jesper’s assistance to help him read documents. And this is not out of pity or charity, but an act of love. It is not portrayed as this almighty act for Jesper to play saviour, just a given, which is incredibly important to show, especially for someone who has been abused by family for his disability like Wylan, that he is accepted. 

Yet, I still see people hold up Jesper on a pedestal for “putting up with” Wylan, as if loving a disabled person deserves a fucking pat on the back. It’s genuinely exhausting trying to engage with a work I love so much with a fandom that thinks so little of me and my community. It fucking shows. 

Overall, Leigh Bardugo as a disabled person wrote two incredibly meticulous and empowered disabled characters, and due to either lack of reading comprehension, ableism, or a quirky mix of both, the fandom has ignored canon and the experiences of disabled people for…. shits and giggles i guess. And yes, there are issues with the Grishaverse and disability representation - while I haven’t finished them yet so I do not have an opinion on it, people have been discussing issues in the KOS duology with ableist ideals. This mini series was no way indicative of the entire disabled experience, nor does it represent my entire view on the representation as a whole. These things need to be met critically in our community, and talked about with disabled voices at the forefront. For example, the limited perspective we get of Wylan and Kaz being both white men, does not account for a large portion of the disabled community and the intersection of multiple identities.

All-in-all, Critique media, but do not forget to also critique fandom spaces. Alternatively, just shut the fuck up :)

happy fucking disability pride month, ig

[apple-but-sour]

I came across a post about how c!dream apologist make the character look terrible and there was the point about the infantilzation (? Definitely spelt that wrong) about how it's outright ableism because dream needs to be taken care of being outside of prison (,they're talking about the syndicate au nursing him back to health aka the spoon feeding post) and how it's cutting away his independence and free will

Like OK 👍 sure, dream definitely did not suffer any damage throughout his entire stay at the prison so why would his friends temporarily take care of him? (Have they never took care of someone when they were sick?)

The whole reason the spoonfeeding post and other similar posts exist is because people were exploring the hypothetical of a more realistic prison aftermath. If the Dream SMP story took place in a more realistic setting than MINECRAFT, c!Dream would experience both temporary and permanent disabilities after prison (not just due to torture and other abuse, but also malnourishment and prolonged solitary confinement) and likely require assistance until he can function better on his own if the injuries are truly severe.

I don't see anything wrong with exploring trauma and disability that way! Now sure, it CAN lead you to stumble into ableist portrayals of disability where the disabled person basically has none of their agency. I'd even say some c!Dream apologist fics cross into those portrayals. I can't speak on it in detail though, because I am not disabled myself. Here I'm only sharing what I've learnt from listening to experiences of disabled ppl w/ media.

But there's a difference between like, a long fic where c!Dream is reduced to his trauma and disability, and the story is centered on others taking care of him, and a shitpost about c!Dream overcompensating for his sense of vulnerability in Syndicate AU. There's definitely room for discussion about the former trope, but the latter is just so... minimal.

[not-enough-teeth-and-treasures]

An Autistic’s Perspective on Tears of Themis’ Representation (spoiler alert: it’s bad)

Before you read, I should warn you that there will be spoilers for Chapter Five! Read at your own risk. Also, trigger warning for discussions of ableism and harmful disablility stereotypes. I get pretty heated as well, so if you’re not a fan of swearing and stuff, then it might be best to skip this.

So, I was debating whether or not I wanted to talk about this, mostly because this game doesn’t do anything new in regards to the perception of autism in media. Unfortunately, it ends up leaning into a lot of not great tropes and goes into “what the fuck that’s incredibly offensive territory” waaay to quickly. So here I am.

The most prevelant character with autism (or who we start out thinking has autism. Don’t worry, I’ll get to that) is a small, supergenius child (a boy as well *sigh*) is so overdone at this point that there aren’t many new criticisms I can say. The stereotype of autism presented in media is overwhelmingly extremely intelligent (usually with sciency or math based interests) men with no ability to socialize or be kind to others. This not only paints autism as a disability that effects men primarily (which creates intense stigma around AFAB autistic people and makes it harder for us to get diagnosed or believed), but also creates this expectation of greatness. Autistic people are often held to superhuman standards, which further others and dehumanizes us in the eyes of allistic people. The vast majority of autistic people are not savants, and that it perfectly fine.

But all of this is pretty standard. The red flags started popping up when it was revealed that the autistic kid, Hugh, doesn’t actually have autism and is faking it in order to keep people from asking hard questions about him or trying to pry into his life (which is full of secrets). I’m definitely not a fan of perpetuating the idea that people fake diabilities in order to manipulate people, so this plot twist was not my favorite. However, it wasn’t really enough to inspire me to write a whole ass essay about the representation. And then I got to the fucking text conversation with Vyn.

Here is where I’m gonna put a trigger warning for talk about eugenics, curing autism, ableism, and basically just a fuck ton of awful shit. Fuck, this makes me so mad.

So, I went in and took screenshots of both options just to see, and all of them lead to terrible bullshit. Lets start out pretty light with the MC and Vyn discussing symptoms.

This is a pretty limited and honestly incomplete explanation of autistic behaviors. These can definitely be symptoms, but they’re heavily overcovered and really basic. A lot of autistic people don’t have these symptoms, and it would be really nice if more media branched out and covered more of the spectrum. However, considering they don’t do anything different in any other areas, I’m not surprised.

Also not a fan of Vyn’s use of “abnormal.” It has some very negative connotations and is a bit insulting, honestly. These behaviors are perfectly “normal;” they’re just not as accepted by neurotypical people. Plus, no behaviors can really be labeled as normal because humans are complex and different.

That was the easy shit. Let’s get into the truly awful garbage.

This is treading into ABA territory here. For those of you who are unaware, ABA is pushed as the best autistic therapy, but a large majority of autistic adults consider it to be abusive and unhelpful. This is mainly because it seeks to “correct” many behaviors that are helpful for autistic people. It seeks to surpress stims (which are behaviors that improve the mental health of autistic children), force us to talk (as opposed to letting us use sign language and technology), and more. This harms our mental health and makes us ashamed of who we are. These behaviors do not need to be “corrected.” We don’t need to act “normally.” All this therapy does is make us more palitable for neurotypical people, and it’s bullshit.

It also doesn’t help that ABA was pioneered by Ivar Lovaas, a man who did not believe autistic people were human. He developed ABA as a way to “build a person” using harsh punishments such as withholding affection and ELECTRIC SHOCKS. If you think this is a think of the past, you’d be wrong. Electric shocks are still being used to harm disabled people. Look up the hashtag #StopTheShock to learn more and help push for legislation that bans this practice.

Oh, and did I mention Ivar Lovaas also inspired gay conversion therapy? Because he did! So yeah, fuck ABA and fuck Vyn for performing it (god damn it, Vyn, I liked you a lot).

And now, onto the eugenics. Fuck my life.

FUCK! THIS! BULLSHIT!

I am so tired of autism being treated as this horrific disease that needs a cure. I had a perfectly fine childhood. Yes, it was hard at times, yes I got traumatized, but a large part of that was due to ableism and abuse from teachers and peers. A large reason why autistic people suffer is because the world is not built for us, and we are often denied accommodations that would make our lives better.

It is beyond offensive and disgusting to suggest that we would be better off not existing than “suffering so much” because of autism. Because that is what this game and everyone else who thinks there should be a cure is suggesting. There is no me without autism. it literally affects my brain structure. You are wishing for a completely different person when you tell me that autism should be cured.

Now, I’m not going to get into the horrible consent issues that arise from talks about a cure, including genetic editing, fear mongering to parents so they think abortion is the only option, and straight up Nazi style eugenics. I do not have the spoons to delve into that exhausting discussion. But if you want to know more, then there are so many incredible autistic people who have written blogs, Twitter threads, and more about why a cure is a terrible idea.

Oh, and if you’re going to come at me with the “severely autistic people should be cured” bullshit, don’t bother. There is no such thing as “severe” autism, first of all, and second, non verbal autistic people (which are who people think of when they talk about “severe” autism), largely don’t want a cure. There have been so many surveys of tens of thousands of autistic people, and the result is that the overwhelming majority do not want to be cured. We want support and proper accommodations. Listen to us.

So, in conclusion, fuck this text conversation and it’s ableist and offensive bullshit. I really wish ToT had stayed away from autism, or at the very least did not touch on therapy or a possible cure. For a game that is about genetic experimentation on children and how bad that is, it sure peddles a lot of eugenics.

Fuck, this text conversation actually made me ill and I hate that. I’m so done with constantly trying to prove to the world that I am a human being who deserves to exist. I’m gonna go cuddle my service dog now.

[aro-lesbian-culture-is]

Intro:

Hi! This is a submissions blog specifically for aromantic/aspec lesbians. I was inspired by @ace-culture-is , @aro-culture-is , other “x culture is” blogs of that type. I couldn’t find one specifically for aro lesbians, and here we are!

About me! You can call me Doodle, my pronouns are they/he/she, I’m a genderfluid aro lesbian and though I love aro blogs and lesbian blogs I don’t fit perfectly into either of those spaces and sometimes it’s nice to have a space for your (admittedly specific) label. I am in school and am often pretty busy, but you can dm me with questions or anything else as long as your ok waiting a bit for a response. I will try to post afew times a day, depending on how many submissions I have!

Rules:

-every submissions should start with “aro lesbian culture is-“ or “demiromantic lesbian culture is-“, “enby aro lesbian culture is-“ or something along those lines.

-this blog is meant to be a safe space for all aromantic lesbians, and this includes aroace lesbians, aspec lesbians, nonbinary lesbians, he/him lesbians, m-spec lesbians, and questioning aros/lesbians! Please feel free to send any submissions or messages!

-please generally steer clear of discourse, fandom or otherwise (of course discussing headcanons and tropes in a general sense is fine just generally avoid being negative towards specific media and use your best judgement)

-please try to keep submissions pretty sfw (again, use your best judgement!)

-nothing sexist, homophobic, racist, ableist, period.

And yeah, that’s it! If you read all the way through thank you!! I appreciate it:)

[the-ghost-king]

While not everyone does or will head cannon Nico di Angelo as a character with a variety of disabilities many people do, and it's important when writing any disabled character whether or not this be fanfiction or a published book that disabled characters are written in a non-ableist way free of negative stereotyping.

(I have been informed that I should have been sure to mention that Nico is canonically autistic coded and deals with PTSD as well as acknowledgment to other mental health issues and/or neurodivergencies he's coded as having and it's important to represent those aspects of him accurately as well since they are canonically present)

Here's a compilation on the 101 of writing characters with a disability in any form of media, it's important to do further research into the specific disabilities you're representing but this post hopes to provide a starting point for conducting your own research and common overarching themes when writing characters with a disability.

This post also includes references on writing abuse in hopes that people will recognize how abuse works and how to write and how not to write abuse in order to help people recognize toxic or harmful tropes, themes, or characterization in their work:

Writing disabled characters a 101 : a very simple baseline "how to" on writing disabled characters in any sort of media

Harmful tropes involving disabled characters (including avoiding the helplessness trope) :

"...the key to this is portraying disabled characters as people who are capable of actively responding when bad things happen to them. Not every action they take needs to be successful, but they should always be doing something to deal with the situation.."

A compilation post on writing neurodivergent characters in a non ableist way, ableism in relationships and forgiveness, and writing abusive relationships : includes writing characters with BPD, PTSD, Anxiety, Autistic characters, writing disabled villain characters and abuse apologism, as well as writing abuse.

Fanfiction and assuming you're in the wrong- proactive not reactive :

"I truly believe that if you’re going to write (e.g. write fanfic) about a sensitive topic, you should do some research. Ideally, involving talking to people who’ve experienced the thing you’re writing about. Sometimes that’s impossible, but then you should *at least* read things people have written. Don’t go on what you’ve heard from, say, the medical establishment. Assume the world is ableist (and racist and sexist and classist and…). That it hates different behaviour and wants to regulate it."

Writing an able-bodied savior character and the common issue in media appealing to able-bodied individuals (using "The Greatest Showman" as reference for many common ableist tropes and themes) :

"Maybe the film itself will present Barnum as a flawed figure; it could humanize those with disabilities and remove the stigmas of past features... hardly—if any—disabled directors or screenwriters making major motion pictures. This leaves most films removed from the disabled experience, with the few that do depict the disabled offering an overall message focused on inspiring an able-bodied audience."

As well as a good follow up read involving more discussion around commonly ableist tropes in media

An article about the movie "Wonder" and the ableism presented in it (“The existence of someone should not be considered ‘inspirational,’ just because they’re different.”)

A conversation about ableism from the perspective of someone living with a physical disability :

"What I’m circling around with all of these words layered on words – is this: Our work with “Disability Awareness” and “Disability Rights” can only go so far before we have to address the deep roots of ableism harvested in our culture. The majority of our communities are well-trained in “political correctness,” even as they are steeped in ableist thinking. The result of this confusing combination is a culture that says all the “right” things, while continuing to practice the marginalization of an entire people-group..."

Abuse in relationships with friends // A blog detailing red flags in medical care // A post discussing ND diagnosis, ableism, and gaslighting in the medical community // How to recognize abuse

(Recognizing medical abuse as well as relationship abuse is important because it's not uncommon for people to take ableist themes from canon when shipping Solangelo and interiors them into the fabric of their relationship and this is of course a negative way to represent a disabled character in a relationship)

[himboarcher]

reasons i've seen folks say that grad critics hate grad:

they hate travis (in fairness, i’ve def seen some comments of people shitting on trav for the sake of shitting on trav, but it’s not super common and typically gets downvoted into oblivion on reddit.)

it's not balance / travis isn't griffin (???????)

they hate neurodivergent people (again, in fairness, i have seen a handful of comments that could come across this way! but most of the time when travis being ADHD or his NPD is brought up, it's by defenders saying that criticizing travis is ableist because he's neurodivergent or, in one particular comment, infantilizing him bc of it and literally comparing grad to putting a kid's artwork on the fridge. there were some comments early on that pointed to him being a narcissist as the reason for things people disliked about grad, but everyone seems to have realized that that's a shitty train of thought and left it behind.)

they're just toxic haters (again, there are a small handful of people like this because this is the internet, but the genuine criticism greatly outweighs their bullshit. i 100% think that the people, which is mostly just one dude who is also insufferable on reddit, who have been responding rudely to positive tweets under the episode announcements lately are out of line and need to stop. there's been an influx of that lately, presumably because people are frustrated that after over a year of grad going on, there's been no improvement to most of the major issues. that's still no excuse to be a dick to folks, though.)

vs some of the actual reasons i don't like grad:

the racism / racist tropes, and the way that they’ve straight up ignored this criticism and will likely never acknowledge it. pretty wild considering a core tenet of their brand is their willingness to acknowledge when they’ve messed up and do their best to course correct.

clumsy attempts at inclusion that are shallow and often end up being fairly offensive ("...ask me about my wheelchair," anyone?)

on a related note: i don't think that travis had bad intentions, but as an nonbinary person, it feels othering to me that travis only has enby characters give others their pronouns unprompted. i'm thinking specifically of kai here. having listened to their introduction, i don't think it's as bad or awkward as some people have said, but i can't remember travis ever having another NPC tell the PCs their pronouns, especially not a cis character. it's not a huge deal, but it's something that rubbed me the wrong way. admittedly, i don't think it would bother me so much if travis hadn't dropped the ball so much with performative inclusion in the past.

okay i'm putting the rest under a read more because even without getting into all of the problems i have with it, this got Long.

little to no player agency. player choices are ultimately meaningless and have little to no effect on the world. even when he seems to go along with a plan they come up with, it always ends with them having to go back to travis' pre-written script (see: subpoenaing the xorn, but not really because they had to go with travis' original plan of "send the xorn home through the rift".) the players repeatedly get told things about what they think or feel or what they've been doing to an unnecessary degree. fitzroy is the only one who really gets space to play and decide things for himself, and that's only because travis has decided he's the main character.

the NPCs are all too nice and willing to give the PCs anything they ask for and more, unless the PCs are trying to follow their own plan and then the NPCs are completely useless. but honestly, aside from gray, all of the NPCs are just.... nice. travis refuses to even let his antagonists be mean or cruel or even more than just slightly rude, because that'd be a bummer and we don't want that! the "twist" of gordy the lich king actually being polite and chill is not a twist at all because everyone is like that in this world. the NPCs are also wildly overpowered, but then suddenly absolutely useless when the PCs actually want their help.

too many cliffhangers that are dropped immediately at the beginning of the next episode. i feel bad for travis because so many of these cliffhangers actually set up good momentum and seemed like things were gonna get interesting, but almost every single time he just dropped them at the beginning of the next episode. like when althea showed up to interview the boys and the next episode started with travis being like "actually you went to sleep, she said she'll be back tomorrow!"

that time travis specifically said in his exposition dump that the thundermen left their horses behind because they thought the centaurs might be offended by them riding horses, only to later on rag on them for being surprised that the centaurs had horses they could ride.....

also the centaur arc in general, but i already listed racism above, so.

the way that the toxic positivity and parasocial tendencies in the mcelroy fandoms have made a large portion of the fandom take ANY criticism as a personal attack on travis and/or on themselves for enjoying something others consider bad, either morally or just quality-wise. it’s okay to admit that something you like has problematic elements or just isn’t as good as it once was. you can and should engage critically with the media you consume.

related to above: the way travis has handled genuine criticism, which is to throw public tantrums on his twitter or make weird passive aggressive tweets & ultimately ignore all the genuine criticism and advice he's been offered by claiming it's all subjective, even after he specifically asked for it and set up an email for folks to send in genuine, objective advice for him (after he threw a tantrum on twitter and replied to someone's criticism publicly, which resulted in his followers dogpiling on that person bc how dare they insult their internet best friend). while i was writing this last night, he actually announced that he’s taking a break from Twitter and acknowledged that he’s been using it as an echo chamber where he can easily get validation from folks, and honestly i’m happy for him that he’s recognized this problem and is stepping away for a while! i hope he’ll genuinely use this time to reflect on how he’s been behaving and find a more healthy way to use social media. i’m leaving this point in because i think his Twitter being such a positive echo chamber was encouraging him to do stuff like this, and him somewhat acknowledging his behavior doesn’t mean it can no longer be discussed.

rainer. extremely cool concept in theory and i was very into it until that awkward "does anyone want to ask about my wheelchair?" moment. also when travis had her use her mobility aid to RAM INTO A DOOR instead of just fucking knocking???? also all the times travis has tried to force a romantic relationship between her and fitzroy, despite fitzroy displaying no interest in her in that way. also, just to clarify: as an ace person, i don’t think this is aphobic! (and it’s kind of a stretch to call it that imo, especially since griffin never explicitly said that fitzroy's aromantic!) i just think it’s weird and awkward and a little uncomfortable for me personally, mostly because it reminds me of the times i’ve been in similar situations.

less of a problem than a lot of the other stuff and more just bad writing, but the forced emotional moments. in general, nothing in grad feels earned (why are the boys heading a war? when they have multiple actual heroes with combat experience on their side and a supposedly powerful secret organization? and the thundermen are like 21 years old max and have only had like ~10 fights in the entire campaign?) but there've been a couple times where travis has tried to force unearned emotional moments, presumably because he knows people enjoyed those with the last campaigns. but the difference is that in balance, the big emotional moments happened because they were earned. in grad, it's just travis throwing a baby pegasus at us for a few minutes and then the next time she shows up, it's supposed to be a tearful goodbye.

there are absolutely no stakes. remember when the thundermen got told that if they left, gray would kill 10 students? and then they left and came back and it turns out that what gray actually meant was, "i'll tie ten students who are mostly nameless NPCs to a tree and throw some dogs at them that you can easily stop in time, then throw a tantrum because how dare you but i'll leave before you can really do anything to hurt me lol" travis did have fitzroy's magic get taken away, but like. it didn't really do anything? also all he had to get it back was be coerced into using drugs by an authority figure and trip in the woods?

we're told that the school is weird and the hero system is corrupt, but the world of nua is still presented as more of a liberal utopia than anything? althea getting fired because of a corrupt villain is the only time we've somewhat seen corruption, but even then, she was still allowed to get (what seems to me, anyway, but admittedly i don't know for sure bc nothing about the HOG makes much sense) a fairly important job from the very people who stripped her of her hero license or whatever the fuck heroes need?

travis doesn't actually seem to understand how capitalism or bureaucracy works and just chalks up everything to "red tape." also more on the rest of the boys than him specifically, but the "let's destroy capitalism!" thing turning into just pushing some filing cabinets over................... okay.

and one last piece of extremely subjective criticism: it's just kind of.... boring. i think a lot of people, myself included, would be willing to overlook 90% of the problems with graduation if it didn't feel like such a slog to get through.

also people saying that we can't or shouldn't criticize graduation because it's "free" is absolutely absurd for several reasons. first, something being free does not make it above criticism. second, there ARE people who directly financially support the show with monthly donations. three, there's a difference between something being free and something being not for profit. podcasting is their full time job. they make their living off of money made from TAZ and MBMBAM (and probably their other shows to a lesser extent). this not a fun home game that they are graciously recording and sharing with us. it is a product they are producing that they make money off of, both from ads in the episodes and merch & books based off of these podcasts. they have marketed themselves as professionals, and both griffin and travis have been on panels where they are marketed as professional DMs and appear alongside other professional DMs (which makes it incredibly frustrating when people say that travis is just a newbie DM and we can't criticize him because of that. if he's a newbie, then he should not be taking part of panels as a professional DM where he speaks as an expert). TAZ is free in the same way that an episode of NCIS is free. i may not pay for it directly, but the creators are paid to create it and profit off of me consuming this product. so saying we should be grateful for any mcelnoise that the benevolent good boys share with us and that we're not allowed to criticize it "because it's free" is absolutely wild.

[thevalleyisjolly]

(CW: discussion and mentions of racist, sexist, ableist, and bodyshaming tropes)

Thinking a lot about Ricky Matsui lately and the significance of him getting to be that lovable himbo character, because it’s such a departure from, such a flying middle finger to, the Orientalist history of Asian men being portrayed in Western media.  Not to get all literary criticism on main (absolutely getting all literary criticism on main), the scholar Edward Saïd was the first to write about Orientalism, and although his focus was on the depiction of the Middle East in the West, a lot of scholars and literary critics have since adopted and adapted his core arguments to talk about representation of other Asians in Western media.  It’s a long and heavy discussion that I won’t really get into here, but one of the elements that Saïd observed, and which other critics have since picked up on, is the history and portrayal of “feminized” Asians next to a “masculinized” West. 

Obviously, there’s a lot of gendered elements to this discussion that require a lot more nuance, but for now, let me stick to the basics of how this applies to Asian representation in media.  There is a long history of Western media fetishizing and sexualizing Asian bodies, from the Madame Butterfly trope (submissive Asian woman desiring a white man) to the sensuous and promiscuous Asian woman who knows exotic secrets of how to pleasure a (white) man.  In these kinds of tropes, Asians are depicted as “feminine” and “weaker” compared to the strong, masculine Westerner, and this isn’t just limited to Asian women, but Asian men as well.  Orientalist tropes like to portray Asian men as subservient eunuchs, or physically and “mentally” effeminate (that is, cunning and sly, relying on secret plots and dishonourable tricks because they do not have the physical “strength” to match a Westerner - yeah, there’s a lot of sexist and ableist stuff wrapped up in here, and the field of Orientalist critique itself isn’t free from the issues it brings up).

And the thing is, this isn’t just bad writing from a colonial past.  It’s been internalized in some Asian cultures, and also continues to impact the way that people view Asians today, from media depictions to dating.  Just look the “yellow fever” fetish, or the “rice queen” fetish equivalent in the gay community.  Asian bodies are treated as “effeminate” and “submissive,” and sexually desirable for those reasons and those reasons only.  Asian characters are generally not assertive, imposing, or outspoken (if they are, that’s a pretty good sign they’re going to get killed off or “taught a lesson” by a white character), Asian characters, unless they’re playing comedic characters, are almost universally lithe and sinuous (three boos for body stereotyping and fatshaming!), and Asian characters definitely don’t get to be “dumb” without it being a jab at their race.

(By the way, it’s important to note that I’m speaking about “Asian” characters very generally because a lot of Orientalist stereotypes apply to a wide breadth of Asian experiences, but 1) Asian experiences are not monolithic, and 2) there are different ways that these stereotypes play out with Asians from different cultures - how someone from Iraq experiences Orientalism is different from how someone from Indonesia experiences Orientalism is different from how someone from Korea experiences Orientalism is different from how a first or second generation immigrant in North America experiences Orientalism.  My heritage is East Asian, and most of my commentary here is based on East Asian experiences, since East Asians are relatively more predominant in Western media, which is a whole other bucket of worms).

So Ricky Matsui being a complete himbo means so much because he’s so many things that Asian men don’t usually get to be in a positive way in Western media.  He gets to be a Superman-esque figure, strong and muscular, a sturdy paladin instead of a cunning rogue-ish figure, and he gets to do it all while being 5′8″ and proud.  He gets to be dumb without it being a jab at his heritage.  Yes, he’s hot and sexually desirable to a lot of characters, but it’s never remotely suggested that he’s hot because of his ancestry, he’s hot because he’s fucking built and also a really super sweet guy.  He’s a heroic archetype, a front-line fighter, a kind and caring guy, and to cap it off, he chugs that Respect Women juice all day every day. 

TL;DR - Ricky Matsui being a himbo character defies a long history of Orientalist tropes in popular media about Asian men -specifically East Asian and Japanese men in Ricky’s case- and you absolutely love to see it.